이른바 大量殺傷武器擴散防止構想(PSI)에 대한 法的 小考

It has been said that the Post-Cold War Era has begun with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but with the frequent incidents of terrorism thereafter as well as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we can never affirm with ease that the international community is safer than in the past. Furthermore, entering upon the post-Cold War era with the inadequacy of the special controls by the international community for the non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction(hereinafter “WMD”) such as biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, so-called “rogue states” or terrorists which are against United States and the West are, in fact, eager to obtain these WMD that are very useful means for achieving their strategical goals. Today being fully aware of the threat to global security brought about by the proliferation of WMD, Western powers led by the United States reinforce the cooperation in order to prevent the proliferation. In particular, the U.S. has changed its strategy to be aggressive, and having realized the limitation of existing international law since what is called the So San incident, President Bush put forth the so-called PSI on May 31, 2003 to further strengthen the international society’s mutual assistance. PSI is a sort of multinational cooperation regime based on the participants’ voluntary performances within the international and participants’ domestic law framework. Thus the success of PSI depends on how faithfully the participants will carry out “Interdiction Principles”, and how positive they will be in taking part of the other PSI activities such as information exchange, interdiction training, etc. Ninety five countries including Korea so far have declared to fully participate in PSI, the fact which is regarded as the notable achievement made within a short period of about six years. In the mean time, in order to secure the lawful ground of PSI, the U.S. has tried to obtain the United Nations Security Counsel resolutions, recently succeeding in Resolution 1874 being adopted by the Security Counsel. Moreover, the U.S. keeps providing legality for PSI through the additional ways that, for instances, are the bilateral agreement with flag of convenience states and amendment of so-called ‘SUA’ Convention, etc. With respect to PSI, what we should not overlook is that general rules of international law cannot be applied as it is to the issues from North-South relationship. If Seoul disregards the inter-Korean agreements such as ‘Armistice Agreement’ and ‘Maritime Transportation Accord’ in dealing with the “rogue” government-Pyongyang, the spark of armed conflicts is likely to be ignited in Korean Peninsula. Korea as a dutiful member of global society, therefore, is desired to be active in undertaking the mission of PSI as well as to take a much wiser stance than before to north Korea.