Did Mr. Lee, Keun An or Mr. Chang, Se Dong Commit the Crime against Humanity?

Mr. Lee, Keun An was a veteran officer in the police's antiespionage unit and was notorious for torture master. He tortured many dissidents and suspects during interrogation. He had suddenly disappeared in December 1988 and turned himself to law-enforcement authorities after 11 year hiding. However, prosecutors could not indict most of his torture crimes, as his statutory limitations had already run out. The so-called Suzy Kim murder case in 1987 was recently found to have been fabricated as a North Korean espionage conspiracy under the initiative of Mr. Chang, Se Dong, the chief of the state intelligence agency at that time. Suzy Kim was killed by her husband, Mr. Yoon, Tae Shik in Hong Kong while arguing over money matters. Later Mr. Yoon insisted that his wife, Suzy Kim, was a North Korean female spy who had tried to kidnap him to north Korea with her North Korean colleagues. Even though the intelligence agency obtained Mr. Yoon's confession to the murder, Mr. Chang ordered that the homicide be labeled as a public security case involving a North Korean spy in consideration of political motives. Thereafter, Suzy Kims family suffered bitter and unbearable insults and agony in Korean society. Even though Mr. Chang's conspiracy was revealed, he could escape the punishment, as the statutory limitations on the charges against him have already expired. Some lawyers insisted that Mr. Lee, Kuen An and Mr. Chang, Se Dong committed the crimes against humanity in international law, and any statutory limitations in Korean domestic law should not be applied to their conducts. This article examined whether the conducts of Mr. Lee or Mr. Chang could..

Legislative Conditions of Its Consent to Treaties

In most of States the executive has authority to negotiate, sign, ratify or other adhere to treaties, but the legislative may also have some voice in treaty-making process. In the Republic of Korea, too, article 60, paragragh 1 of the Constitution says The National Assembly shall have the right to consent to the conclusion and ratification of treaties pertaining to mutual assistance or mutual security; treaties concerning important international organizations; treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation; treaties pertaining to any restriction in sovereignty; peace treaties; treaties which will burden the State or people with an important financial obligation; or treaties related to legislative matters. Main theme of this paper is whether the Korean National Assembly may decide yes or no only regarding the treaty transmitted by the Executive or add/ change some conditions for the treaty ratification. In this paper author categorized legislative conditions into amendments, reservations, interpretative declarations and provisos, and analysed each conditions legality and its legal effect. Conclusion can be summarized like following. The National Assemblys decision to ask amendment of the treaty itself should be regarded as the rejection of its approval. It may add, delete or change the reservations for multilateral treaty suggested by the Executive. After legislative approval with some reservations, the Executive can not change them without legislative additional approval. The National Assembly may add, delete or change the interpretative declarations suggested by the Executive. The National Assembly may add some provisos for the treaty ratification. All legislative conditions are binding upon the Executive.이 글을 서울대학교 법학발전재단 출연 법학연구소 기금의 2008학년도 학술연구비의 보조를 받았음

Kyung-Duk Kim, "Identity of Koreans in Japan and their Legal Status"

이 글은 서울대학교 법학발전재단 출연 법학연구소 기금의 2007학년도 연구지원비의 보조를 받았음

Legislative Approval for the Conclusion of Treaties in Korea -mainly regarding treaties requiring substantial financial burden-

The approval of the National Assembly is required to conclude treaties requiring substantial financial burden according to the Article 60, paragrah 1 of the Korean Constitution. Until early 1973 the most typical category of treaties requiring financial burden was loan agreements to borrow money from foreign governments or international financial institutions. Since then loan agreements were treated not treaties, but contracts. The reason for this change of the position of Korean Government was that the contents of loan agreements were only of private character. However, Author's conclusion is that loan agreements should have been treated as treaties, because they were a kind of binding agreements governed by international law between subjects of international law

Article 4 Territorial Clause of the 1948 Constitution of Korea: Its Legislative Background and Meaning

제헌헌법 제4조는 대한민국의 영토는 한반도와 그 부속도서로 한다라고 규정하고 있다. 이 조항은 번호만 제3조로 바뀌었을 뿐, 현재도 동일한 내용으로 유지되고 있다. 이 글은 제헌헌법에 영토조항을 설치한 이유와 작성 당시 제기된 쟁점은 무엇이었고, 한반도와 부속도서는 구체적으로 어느 지역을 의미했는가를 규명하기 위한 목적에서 작성되었다. 영토조항을 설치한 가장 큰 이유는 남북분단에도 불구하고 대한민국 헌법의 적용범위가 기존 조선 고유의 영토 전체에 미친다는 의미를 표시하기 위한 의도였다. 영토조항은 오늘날까지도 대한민국이 규범적으로 남북한 전 지역을 대표하는 국가임을 표시하는 근거조항의 역할을 하고 있다. 반도라는 표현에 대해서는 일제가 우리를 비하적으로 표현할 때 사용한 용어이며 우리의 영역을 제한하는 역할을 하므로 삭제하자는 주장이 제기되었으나 수락되지 않았다. 제헌헌법은 부속도서를 예시하거나 이를 판단할 기준을 제시하고 있지 않으나, 당시 국제관계 속에서 다음과 같은 도서들이 한반도의 부속도서 여부로 주목을 받았다. ① 울릉도: 일본은 이 섬을 자국령으로 확보하려고 노력했으나, 미국이 울릉도의 한국 귀속을 지지했고, 대일평화조약도 울릉도가 한국령임을 확인했다. ② 독도: 일본은 이 섬을 자국령으로 확보하려고 노력했고, 미국은 대일평화조약에 독도의 한국령 명기를 거부했다. 일본은 독도가 자국령이라는 주장을 아직도 포기하지 않고 있다. ③ 파랑도: 한국은 대일평화조약에 파랑도를 자신의 부속도서로 명기해 줄 것을 미국에 요청했었다. 존재하지 않는 섬에 대한 영유권 주장은 한국 외교의 실수였다. ④ 대마도: 광복 후 한국은 대마도를 반환하라는 요구를 수년간 제기했으나, 미국은 대마도가 일본령이라는 입장을 확고히 갖고 있었다. 한국의 대마도 반환론은 실패했다. Article 4 of the R.O.K.s First Constitution of 1948 said The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean peninsula and its adjacent islands. The purpose of this paper is to analyse its legislative background and detailed meaning. Though many other States did not have the territorial clause in their constitutions, the National Assembly members decided to insert this clause to make sure that Korean Constitution should apply to all Korea in spite of national division of North and South. As the Constitution did not name any adjacent islands or suggest any criteria for determining them, Ulreung Island, Dokdo, Parangdo and Tsushima drew political attention at this point during early years of Korean Government. Japan wanted to retain Ulreung Island as her territory, but Allied Powers, including the U.S., had firm position that it should belong to Korea. Korea asked Japan return Tsushima back, but the U.S. paid no heed to Korean claim. Korean Government tried to specify Parangdo as Korean territory in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but it was not real island at all. Though Dokdo has been under control of Korean Government, Japan continued to insist her territorial claim over Dokdo

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Human Rights of Military Personnels of Korea

In Korea, for a long time military service has been called sacred duty and military has been a kind of untouchable. It is true that many Koreans thought human rights of military persons might be disregarded for building strong army. However, democratization of Korean society during last two decades has brought new change for general attitude toward human rights in military. Violation of human rights of military persons is not accepted any more. Military can not draw peoples support without respect for human rights of military persons. In this article human rights situation in Korean military is reviewed by the standard of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which the Republic of Korea already ratified. Military judicial system, military disciplinary punishment, conscious objection, right to association, right to petition, etc are mainly analyzed. General conclusion is that more improvements of human rights situation in military are required to satisfy the international standard.이 논문은 서울대학교 법학발전재단 출연 법학연구소 기금의 2007학년도 학술연구비 의 보조를 받았음

The Application of the Generally Recognized Rules of International Law of Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution in Korean Courts

헌법 제6조 1항은 일반적으로 승인된 국제법규는 국내법과 같은 효력을 가진다고 규정하여, 관습국제법의 국내수용을 표시하고 있다. 그간 한국 사법부에서 이 조항의 적용 실행을 분석하는 것이 본 논문의 목적이다. 관련 판례의 분석 결과는 다음 몇 가지로 요약된다. 첫째, 관습국제법은 이를 국내법화 하는 별도의 입법조치 없이 직접 국내적으로 적용될 수 있으며, 실제 판결의 근거로 적용된 사례도 적지 않다. 단 헌법재판소에서는 아직까지 관습국제법으로 인정된 사례가 없었다. 둘째, 사법부가 관습국제법의 국내적 위계를 직접적으로 설시한 판례는 없으나, 대체로 국내 법률과 같은 효력으로 본다고 해석된다. 셋째, 일반적으로 승인된 국제법규에 해당하기 위해 한국의 적극적 승인은 필요 없다고 추정된다. Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea says Treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea. The purpose of this article is to analyse cases of the application of the generally recognized rules of international law by Korean courts. The result of this analysis may be summarized like followings: ⓵ Customary international law may be directly applied as part of domestic law in Korean courts. So far there is no case, in which customary international law has been applied by the Constitutional Court. However, other judicial courts, including the Supreme Court, delivered many cases by applying customary international law. ⓶ The status of customary international law is considered same as the act established by the National Assembly, though Korean judicial branch has not declared this point clearly so far. ⓷ It is considered that positive recognition by Korean Government is not required to be the generally recognized rules of international law.N