내적 자결권의 정치적 성격 - 국제법의 관점에서 -

Self-determination has gone through diverse stages of historical development under international law. The origin of self-determination may be traced back to American Independence and the French Revolution in the 18th century. However, self-determination entered a more advanced stage of development during the League of Nations period after World War I. Self-determination, however, was understood mainly as a political or moral, rather than legal, principle at that time. Moreover, the nature of self-determination during this period moved in two dramatically different directions, which subsequently entailed normative implications that are still relevant today. One was the emphasis of the internal aspect of self-determination in the sense that self-determination should be a political or moral foundation upon which all peoples are entitled to the pursuit of the ideal of democracy. And the other was the external aspect of self-determination which was focused more on the liberation of subjugated peoples from imperialist rule for the purpose of creating and consolidating socialist solidarity. This form of self-determination was strongly apparent in Vladimir Lenin’s socialist ideology. All of these examples indicate that self-determination has over time been subject to constant evolution and reinterpretation with respect to its substantive meaning. This article is concerned with the examination of the nature of the ‘internal’ aspect of self-determination with special reference to its political nature. Even if the relationship between self-determination and the right to political participation has been widely recognized, what is really meant by ‘internal’ has remained very vague and ambiguous in terms of its precise legal contents and effects. This article makes the point that the internal aspect of self-determination has essentially focused on political aspects of the exercise of the right of self-determination, yet a review of the UN and states’ practices shows that the internal aspect of self-determination does not essentially require the establishment and operation of Westernized multi-party political and electoral systems. Although there is no doubt that international law, particularly international human rights law, does basically require states to guarantee the basic human right of political participation at the national level, this does not mean that international law requires states to establish and operate Westernized multi-party political and electoral systems as an international legal obligation. Such an interpretation, with its emphasis on the universality of the Westernized political system, seems to conflict with the principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Rather, it may be more correct to argue that contemporary international law of self-determination, under which it has been regarded as a human right as well as a peremptory norm of international law, has focused more on the prohibition of racial discrimination and the guarantee of racial equality for ethnic, religious or linguistic minority groups rather than demand for the establishment and operation of a Westernized political system.