국제판결 및 중재판정의 이행강제방법에 관한 고찰

Recently, the rate of submitting international disputes to international courts has increased, and this illustrates an expansion in the use of legal instruments for settling disputes. This tendency has arisen since international courts may be one of the most objective and reasonable instruments for resolving conflicts, and decisions are binding under international law and impose on State Parties the obligation of compliance with international judgments and awards. Although unsuccessful parties are expected to comply with judgments and awards proprio motu, it is difficult to ensure prompt compliance by those unwilling parties. Besides, it seems that the process of compliance after decisions can cause another conflict because parties are required to carry out negotiations in order to put intoeffect judgments and awards. Although a delay in negotiations to comply should not unconditionally be considered as non-compliance, as no-time-limit negotiation can damage the interests of a winning party, instruments to obviate delays in compliance are also needed. Therefore, it is important to identify the definition of a delay in compliance considered to be non-compliance and when it should be enforced. To force unwilling parties to comply, it is necessary to define the fundamental principle under international law. By examining general international law overall, this study enunciates the grounds of such an obligation. As specific methods of enforcing compliance are absent under international law, it seems appropriate to emphasize the security of compliance. Self-help is traditionally used as such a method. It might be effective and directive, but is limited to be taken under international law, so that it cannot be a useful method. Thus it is necessary to seek legally based methods in addition topolitical ones. This study looks into two levels of instruments - internationally and municipally. First, the 2001 ILC Draft can impose the international obligation on State Parties to comply with international judgments and awards so as to violate the obligation ofState responsibility. And by enforcing judgments and awards through national courts, it may be a direct method of putting them into effect. There are few cases where there is no compliance. However, a delay in complying can turn into a potential non-compliance case, and that may result in damage to the authority and effectiveness of international courts. From this perspective, it is necessary to hold an active discussion regarding judicial methods to secure compliance with international decisions.