유엔 안전보장이사회의 자산동결에 관한 제재결의 이행

Implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions on Asset Freeze

The United Nations (UN) began to use asset freeze as a form of targeted sanction in the late 1990’s. The UN Security Council used asset freeze to prevent the sanctioned individuals or entities from engaging in harmful behaviors. Today, most of the UN’s sanctions regimes utilize asset freeze. Over the years, many advancements have been achieved in the implementation of the UN Security Council’s resolutions on asset freeze. However, there are many issues that still persist with regard to the implementation. This study examines and assesses the current status of the UN’s asset freeze system and Korea’s implementation of the sanction. To that end, this study compares the sanctions of the UN and the World Bank, along with a comparative analysis of the laws regulating the implementation of asset freeze. It also analyzes cases involving asset freeze such as the Bank Mellat case. Issues with the UN’s asset freeze system can be summarized as follows. Firstly, the effective implementation of the UN’s asset freeze sanctions is undermined by various factors. The obscure language of sanctions on asset freeze makes it difficult to articulate the targets and objects of asset freeze. In addition, the UN has failed to prevent individuals and entities subject to asset freeze from evading asset freeze through various means. Secondly, the UN’s asset freeze system lacks transparency. The public is only provided with summaries of why certain individuals and entities have been subjected to asset freeze. The UN does not publicly disclose the reasons for decisions on delisting requests. Furthermore, the UN due process is not guaranteed with regard to asset freeze. The UN does not directly notify asset freeze to those subject to the sanction, and the outcomes of delisting requests are restricted by the intentions of the relevant countries. The UN does not have its own review mechanism for delisting requests. The UN should address these issues with the asset freeze system. First, the UN should work toward effective implementation by adopting standardized definitions of terms related to asset freeze, and analyzing and addressing asset freeze evasions. Next, in order to promote transparency, the UN should provide sufficient information regarding the reasons for listing, and disclose the texts of decisions on delisting requests. Futhermore, the UN should guarantee due process by directly notifying asset freeze to those subject to the sanctions, and create a review mechanism for delisting requests. Issues with Korea’s implementation of asset freeze measures include the following. First, in Korea, the effectiveness of implementation is undermined by legislative gaps for certain transactions and sanctions regimes, and evasions of asset freeze using won-denominated accounts. In addition, Korea does not properly guarantee due process in its implementation of asset freeze. Korean laws lack provisions on delisting, and do not provide adequate procedural rights regarding asset freeze. Moreover, regulation of asset freeze implementation in Korea is divided between two regimes: the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act regime, and the Act on Prohibition Against the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction regime. Such division undermines alignment with the UN’s resolutions on asset freeze, and causes confusion regarding the relevant terms and procedures. Korea should address these issues with asset freeze implementation by working toward effective implementation of the sanctions, guaranteeing due process, and solving the issues caused by the division between two regimes. To achieve these improvement goals, this study proposes the enactment of the “Act on the Implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Asset Freeze.”