국제법상 중립법의 실효성과 한반도에서의 적용 - 한국전쟁에서의 실행과 그 시사점을 중심으로 -

‘Neutrality’ describes the particular status, as defined by international law, of a state not party to an armed conflict. Under the traditional law, the rules for when the law of neutrality was applicable and when it was not were quite clear. But the rumors of the law of neutrality’s demise surfaced forcefully after the U.N. Charter was adopted in 1945. Over time, the precise content and salience attributed to the legal institution of neutrality has naturally fluctuated, but its essential core survives today, even in the face of the prohibition in UN Charter Article 2(4) of the use of force by states in their international relations. This paper examined the effectiveness of the law of neutrality and its scope of application base on the international law. Moreover, this paper tried to verify the rights and obligations of belligerents and neutral states through the state practices in the Korean War. First, this paper examined the effectiveness of the law of neutrality, which became controversial due to the adoption of the UN Charter. This paper then attempted to analyze whether the law of neutrality were really applied during the Korean War. In particular, this paper briefly reviewed the general sentiment of the international community in relation to the generally-accepted rights and obligations of the law of neutrality today. It would be hard to conclude that the state practices during the Korean War exactly fit the law of neutrality of today because the international law order was undergoing a drastic change at that time due to the establishment of the UN Charter. Hence, it is important to examine the cases of executing the law of neutrality at that time. Also, it is important to review what are still significant even today and what are no longer significant. In this way, it would be possible to obtain certain implications for similar cases that may take place in future. The stark reality is that the international community has been recognizing North Korea as a formal sovereign state ever since the two Koreas joined the United Nations in September, 1991. As a result, the international community would determine that the ‘law of neutrality’ could be applied under the premise that an ‘international armed conflict’ took place if a military clash occurred between the two Koreas. It is believed that the preliminary analysis on the law of neutrality would provide certain implications for the factors to be considered by South Korean in terms of its relationship with the neighboring countries for emergent situations in the Korean Peninsula. Even if we stop short of assuming an emergent situation in the Korean Peninsula, we would still have to seriously mull over the rights and obligations of law of neutrality, which South Korea is currently enjoying under the national policy stance of utilizing the defense industry as a growth engine of national economy.