사드배치에 대한 국회 동의권의 적절성 연구

A Study about Adequacy on the National Assembly's Right to Consent with Regard to Deployment of THAAD

북한의 핵･미사일 위협은 점증하고 있는 데 비해 우리의 대응수단은 종말단계 하층방어용인 PAC-3(사거리:15~45km+, 고도: 10~15km) 미사일만 보유하고 있어 그 이전단계인 종말단계의 상층지역에서 적 미사일 요격이 가능한 THAAD(사거리: 200km+, 고도:40-150km) 배치는 군사적 효용성 면에서 필요한 것으로 보인다. 그러나 한반도 환경에서의 명중률과 유지비용, 배치지역 선정, 중국의 반대 등의 영향으로 배치 반대여론이 제기되었으며 이러한 찬반갈등으로 2016년의 대한민국은 상당한 진통을 겪었고 극적인 한미합의로 사드 배치 부지까지 결정된 이 순간에도 이 문제는 진행형이다. 또한 국회에서는 한미간의 사드배치에 관한 협약이 우리나라 국회의 비준을 거쳐야하는 사안인지 아닌지에 대한쟁점이 제기되었다. 즉 ‘한미 간에 맺은 사드배치에 관한 협약은 국가 간에 맺은 조약에 해당함으로 국회의 동의를 요하여야 한다’는 것이 국회의 입장인 반면 정부 내 주무부서인 국방부는 ‘사드배치가 한미상호방위조약에 의한 전력의 전개･배치에 관한 것이기 때문에 이는조약이 아니므로 국회의 동의나 비준을 거칠 필요가 없다’고 주장한다. 그러나 사드배치에 대하여 ‘국회의 동의를 받는 것이 적절한 지, 아닌지’에 대한 논쟁보다는 ‘무엇이 국민들의 생존권을 보장하는 길인가?’에 대한 답을 찾는 것이 우선이며 이런 관점에서 논란의 대상이 되고 있는 사드배치에 관하여 구체적이고 명백한 군사적 효용성을 제시하여 국민들의 인식을 향상시키는 것이 중요한 것으로 보인다.

Korea and U.S. had decided to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (hereinafter referred to as “THAAD”) system of the U.S. in the ROK territory on 8th of Jul in 2016. It is necessary to deploy it in order to shoot down the enemy's missiles even in the terminal phase on high Altitude Area in light of military effectiveness. But opposite opinion was raised with hitting ratio on the target, maintenance expense, deployment area, objection of China. So, in the furious summer heat of 2016, Korea was burnt with the issue about deploying it. And along with the debate on deployment of THAAD, another issue has arisen about whether or not the agreement on deployment of THAAD concluded between Korea and the U.S. Regarding the issue of the agreement between Korea and the U.S. on THAAD deployment, there were both pros and cons, i.e., there were assertions on the one hand that THAAD would be of help to the security of the ROK, and on the other hand, it would not help at all. And as to the agreement on THAAD deployment, too, a sharp confrontation has occurred between the stance of the National Assembly asserting that the relevant agreement should be construed as a treaty, and thus, requires consent from the National Assembly, and the stance of the Government asserting that such consent needs not be obtained because it is merely an agreement on the implementation of the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which were already concluded as treaties. Although we admit the fact that THAAD is important means for Korea's security, it is not easy to dispel worries that the electromagnetic waves generated by THAAD would affect people nearby. It's mandatory for government to explain the necessity about deployment of THAAD and not causing damage to people. But It is obvious that the establishment ,deployment and withdrawal of US troop in ROK are carried out based on mutual defense treaty between ROK & US. So the deployment of THAAD seem to be the same case. So, the assertion of government is persuasive. Also the right to live of people and nation should be guaranteed in the first place. The debate about National Assembly's consent to the deployment of THAAD seem to be attritional waste. In conclusion, It's necessary to suggest the clear criteria by law on which does not need National Assembly's consent to the deployment of THAAD.