國際테러리즘의 法的 規制

LEGAL CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

The increasing complexity and interdependence among nations require, indeed, international solutions to problems which once could be dealt with at the national level. International terrorism as a strategy of violent coercion, certainly, provides a good example of this nature. In fact, international legal efforts to repress terrorism began forty years ago, when the League of Nations attempted to conclude the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism. Nevertheless the efficacy of legal restraints on these violent acts remains to be pursued further. Korea has experienced several hijacking and assassination incidents in the past decade. In the light of the ideological confrontation and guerrilla strategy, the problem of terrorism in Korea is by no means an isolated one. It should be considered rather in the global context. The first step to the cooperative action for the prevention and punishment of terrorism should necessarily involve promotion of consensus on the definitional framework of international terrorism. Thus, this paper attempts to identify the problems inherent in defining the international terrorism. It is to he pointed out that some assert any attempts to define it would be counter-productive. However, establishing a definitional framework, by and large, would be most useful and eliminate much of the rhetorical confusion created thereby. The U.N. Secretary-General’s report on international terrorism seems to be in the right direction, since it suggests an approach whereby terrorism could be articulated by certain basic components. By way of adjusting the absolutely prohibited acts and permissible violent acts, basis for universally acceptable definitional frame-work could be established. With respect to the efficacy of norms proscribing international terrorism, recent trends indicate that the terroristic strategy forms no exception to human rights protections and norms of the law of war. In keeping with these trends, the 1949 Geneva Conventions were drafted to contain a specific peremptory prohibition of all measures of terrorism. Similarly, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one shall be subjected to tortute or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the light of these expectations for normative control during the terroristic process, some implementary mechanisms should be established. As far as the international cooperation for anti-terrorism is concerned, those measures available to U.N. coordinative function include collection and exchange of data, investigation and prosecution of terrorists, and sanctions by international organizations. There are, of course, other measures and institutions for prevention and punishment of internation terrorism in aid of legal solutions. In view of the functional limit to the capacity of the U.N., consensus within the system would hardly support a new effective convention of international terrorism. A regional preventive measure appears to be rather more viable solution thereto. Thus, efficacy of legal control of the international terrorism might be better enhanced by further utilization of the existing nor ms governing armed conflicts and human rights, and of the implementary mechanisms in the form of regional conventions.