초록 close

조약체결권은 대통령의 권한이지만, 헌법 제60조는 입법사항에 관한 조약 등 중요한 조약에 관해서는 국회의 동의를 거치도록 하고 있다. 또한 국민의 기본권제한을 초래할 수 있는 조약은 법률유보와 의회유보의 원칙에 따라서 그것이 법적 구속력 있는 조약이든 비구속적 합의에 지나지 않든 국회의 동의를 거쳐야 한다. 그리고 조약은 국민의 기본권을 침해하지 말아야 할 뿐만 아니라, 명확성의 원칙 등 법치국가원리에서 요청되는 제반 원칙들을 준수하지 않으면 안 된다. 이번 한일외교장관회담은 형식적 측면에서 문서에 의한 합의가 아니어서 정식조약이라고 볼 수 없고 단지 비구속적인 정치적 선언에 불과하다. 또한 절차적으로 볼 때, 이는 국회의 동의를 요하는 정식 조약으로 체결했어야 할 문제임에도 그러한 절차를 거치지 않았다는 점에서 이번 합의는 국회의 동의권을 침해한 것이다. 다음으로 위안부 피해자들은 회담의 진행상황이나 합의안에 대하여 알 권리가 있음에도 불구하고 그들에게 사전에 알려주지도 않은 채, 정부가 일방적으로 합의한 후 최종적․불가역적 해결을 선언하였다는 점에서 피해자들의 알권리를 침해하였다. 내용적으로 볼 때, 이번 합의는 위안부 문제에 대한 1995년 ‘여성을 위한 아시아 평화 국민기금’ 설립 당시의 일본정부의 입장과 크게 달라지지 않았음에도 불구하고 최종적이고도 불가역적인 해결을 선언한 정부는 2011년 8월 30일 헌법재판소의 위헌결정의 기속력에 반할 뿐 아니라, 또한 위안부 피해자들의 인간존엄권, 인격권, 보호청구권, 재산권을 침해하는 위헌적 행위를 한 것이다. 따라서 이번 합의에 대하여 일본군 위안부 피해자들은 헌법소원심판을 청구하고, 위안부재단설립행위의 중지를 요구하는 가처분신청을 할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라, 국회는 조약에 대한 동의권 침해를 이유로 박근혜 정부에 대하여 권한쟁의심판을 청구할 수 있다. 그리고 이번 한일외교장관회담을 통해서 국회의 동의권을 침해하고 위안부 피해자 할머니들의 기본권을 침해하는 위헌적 행위를 한 대통령과 외교부장관에 대해서는 위헌행위를 이유로 탄핵소추를 할 수 있을 것이라고 생각된다.


Even though the power to conclude treaties belongs to the president, the National Assembly has the right to consent by conclusion and ratification of important treaties including those pertaining to mutual assistance or defense; treaties concerning important international organizations; treaties of friendship, trade and navigation; treaties pertaining to any restrictions in sovereignty; peace treaties; treaties which burden the State or the people with significant financial obligations; or treaties related to legislative matters (Art. 60 Constitution of the Republic of Korea). I argue that every governmental agreement, whether binding (treaties) or non-binding (agreements), need the consent of the Parliament. The constitutional principle of statutory or parliamentary reservation applies when the treaty restrict the basic rights of citizens, or when they have important and essential meaning for the life of the state or the people. The treaties should respect not only the basic rights of citizens, but also fundamental tenets of the rule of law (“Rechtsstaatprinzip” in German), including the principle of “vague and void” or “overbreadth” First, this agreement of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and Japan cannot be reckoned as a formal treaty, because there was no written consent or agreement between the two countries; instead, it is better understood as a non-binding political announcement. From a procedural angle, this agreement must be concluded as a formal treaty which needs the consent of the National Assembly. Having failed to go through this process, this agreement infringes on the congressional power to consent to treaties. Moreover, the survivors of Japanese military sexual slavery (‘Comfort Women’) had the right to know about the progress of the talks and the details of the agreement; this right was violated when the Korean government unilaterally concluded the agreement without any notice to the survivors, and then declared the “comfort women issue […] finally and irreversibly resolved.” Thus, the government infringed upon the victims’ ‘right to know.’ Furthermore, the Japanese position on the issues related to ‘Comfort Women’ shows little change from the previous stance represented by the letter from the Japanese Prime Minister in 1995 when the Asian Women’s Fund (AWF) was founded. This ‘apology’ letter was rejected by most survivors and the Korean government at the time, on the grounds that the Japanese government had neither accepted legal responsibility for crimes against humanity, nor agreed to pay state reparations for the victims. Even though Japan’s position in the current agreement does not depart from this previous stance, the Korean government agreed to ‘settle’ the matter in exchange for Japan’s promise to pay $1 billion yen to build a ‘Comfort Women Foundation.’ The Korean government’s conclusion of this agreement is unconstitutional. It conflicts with the binding force of the Constitutional Court’s latest decision on August 30, 2011, in which the Court declared the failure of the government to resolve the ‘Comfort Women’ issue in light of Article 3 of the 1965 Korea-Japan Agreement as a violation of the Constitution, human dignity, personality right, the right to request state protection, and property rights. Therefore, I propose that the ‘Comfort Women’ survivors file a constitutional complaint against this agreement, as well as a motion for preliminary injunction to prohibit the government from building the $1 billion-yen ‘Comfort Women Foundation.’ In addition, the National Assembly should bring against President Park Geun-Hye a competence dispute suit before the Constitutional Court, alleging intrusion of the consenting authority of the National Assembly in concluding treaties. Finally, I suggest that the National Assembly request an impeachment adjudication against the Minister of Korea and President Park Geun-Hye by alleging violation of the consenting authority of the National Assembly and fundamental rights of ‘Comfort Women’ survivors.