국제사법재판소와 안전보장이사회의 권한충돌 -두 기관의 관계에 관한 ICJ 판례의비판적 검토를 중심으로-

Even though the UN Security Council is a political body, it simultaneously has a function of resolving international disputes. The Chapter 6 of the United Nations Charter articulates the Security Council's dispute settling function and the Chapter 7 assumes the legal effect of the Security Council resolution. A critical question, therefore, is that whether there is a possibility that the legally binding Security Council resolution would conflict with the ICJ’s judicial decision. Apparently, ICJ decisions recognize the possibility of the concurrent hearing of the identical case with the Security Council. The reasoning behind is that as long as the Security Council is a political institution where as ICJ is a judicial one, each implements its separate yet complementary functions. Furthermore, ICJ decisions do not posit a conflict between the Security Council and the ICJ. Therefore, in a crude sense, ICJ cannot decide against the Security Council resolution. This reasoning initially appeared in the Lockerbie case in regard to provisional measures, and it was confirmed its status as a precedent by the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case. Moreover, arguably, the judicial review of the Security Council resolution by the ICJ is not a possibility. Even though there is no precedent ICJ case regarding this issue, when there is no explicit stipulation in the UN Charter regarding the possibility of the review, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not permitted.