Incorporation and Implementation of Treaties in South Korea

Jaemin Lee
{"title":"Incorporation and Implementation of Treaties in South Korea","authors":"Jaemin Lee","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190653330.013.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explains South Korea’s approach to incorporating and implementing treaties within its domestic legal system. The chapter begins by explaining the hierarchy of the legal system in Korea with specific reference to where treaties stand in the system. Treaties duly concluded automatically become part of the domestic law under the monistic approach adopted by the Korean Constitution. More specifically, the prevailing view in Korea is that treaties ratified with the consent of the National Assembly are deemed to have the same legal status as acts or statutes. Simplified treaties without ratification proceedings, hence without legislative consent, are considered to have the status of presidential decrees or enforcement decrees under acts or statutes. Due to the increasing interaction between treaties and municipal law, recent South Korean court cases attempt to clarify other outstanding legal issues, such as the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties, and the scope of individual persons’ claims under treaties. It is expected that more challenges will be raised in the executive branch and the legislature as well as the judiciary as domestic stakeholders are increasingly affected by a myriad of treaties, in particular free trade agreements and international investment agreements. Having realized the direct impact from treaties, domestic interest groups are now keen to provide their observations and views during negotiations and to scrutinize the implementing legislation of the government after the conclusion. Thus, while the constitutional framework of treaty conclusion has remained largely the same since 1948, the domestic legal and political landscapes for treaty negotiation, conclusion, and implementation are undergoing significant changes.","PeriodicalId":237106,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law","volume":"586 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190653330.013.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter explains South Korea’s approach to incorporating and implementing treaties within its domestic legal system. The chapter begins by explaining the hierarchy of the legal system in Korea with specific reference to where treaties stand in the system. Treaties duly concluded automatically become part of the domestic law under the monistic approach adopted by the Korean Constitution. More specifically, the prevailing view in Korea is that treaties ratified with the consent of the National Assembly are deemed to have the same legal status as acts or statutes. Simplified treaties without ratification proceedings, hence without legislative consent, are considered to have the status of presidential decrees or enforcement decrees under acts or statutes. Due to the increasing interaction between treaties and municipal law, recent South Korean court cases attempt to clarify other outstanding legal issues, such as the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties, and the scope of individual persons’ claims under treaties. It is expected that more challenges will be raised in the executive branch and the legislature as well as the judiciary as domestic stakeholders are increasingly affected by a myriad of treaties, in particular free trade agreements and international investment agreements. Having realized the direct impact from treaties, domestic interest groups are now keen to provide their observations and views during negotiations and to scrutinize the implementing legislation of the government after the conclusion. Thus, while the constitutional framework of treaty conclusion has remained largely the same since 1948, the domestic legal and political landscapes for treaty negotiation, conclusion, and implementation are undergoing significant changes.
条约在韩国的合并和执行
本章解释韩国在其国内法律体系中纳入和执行条约的方法。这一章首先解释了韩国法律体系的等级制度,具体提到了条约在该体系中的地位。根据韩国宪法所采用的一元论方法,正式缔结的条约自动成为国内法的一部分。更具体地说,韩国的主流观点是,经国会同意批准的条约被视为与法案或成文法具有同样的法律地位。未经批准程序,因此未经立法同意的简化条约被认为具有法令或成文法下的总统令或执行令的地位。由于条约和国内法之间的相互作用日益增加,韩国法院最近的案件试图澄清其他悬而未决的法律问题,例如自动执行条约和非自动执行条约的区别,以及个人在条约下的索赔范围。由于国内利益攸关方日益受到无数条约,特别是自由贸易协定和国际投资协定的影响,预计行政部门、立法机构以及司法部门将面临更多挑战。在意识到条约的直接影响后,国内利益集团热衷于在谈判过程中提出自己的观察和意见,并在条约缔结后审查政府的实施立法。因此,尽管条约缔结的宪法框架自1948年以来基本保持不变,但条约谈判、缔结和执行的国内法律和政治格局正在发生重大变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信