해외 납치에 의한 집행관할권 행사의 국제법적 고찰: ‘Ker-Frisbie 원칙’에 대한 국제법적 평가

Recently, many States seek to justify the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction by transboundary abduction, and U.S. is located in the core among them. The sphere which the abduction is applied is very broad from felony criminality to atrocious terrorists. Many States except U.S., however, are criticizing the State practices of U.S. related to the transboundary abduction. This explains that international agreement on the enforcement jurisdiction by transboundary abduction has not been accomplished yet, and that it has not been justified in the level of international law. The justification for exercise of enforcement jurisdiction by transboundary abduction for which some State including U.S. seek is not compatible with rules of international law on the various points. The most negative effect which such act makes on international law is a serious impair on the territorial sovereignty. Such an impair on the territorial sovereignty can lead the disregard of international law. In order to protect the territorial sovereignty which has a fundamental value in domestic and international legal system, and to lead the respect for international law, every State should act within the frame work of law, and faithfully implement treaties that it made signature. Kidnapping a criminal suspect from foreign State promotes lawlessness. Such actions also demonstrate that government may act outside international law and without respecting the sovereingty of other States. The interests of protecting the sovereignty of States and of upholding treaty obligations should prevail over the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction based on anachronism.