‘국제적 영토관리’와 국제점령법의 적용

The actual reconstruction of a state was largely the responsibility of international organizations, not individual countries by promoting liberal democracy and pursuing legal and institutional reforms to end disputes and prevent recurrence in the international society. In particular, with the end of the Cold War in 1991, as the United Nations emerged as the subject of direct dispute management, international organizations such as the United Nations also came to exercise direct authority to manage post‐war territories. In this way, the term 'International Territorial Administration' (ITA) is generally used to refer to a situation in which the international organization directly exercises the administrative powers for a certain period by exercising effective control in a specific territory for post-conflict reconstruction and peace-building. There is a clear distinction between 'occupation' by individual countries in its cause, its legal basis, its scenarios for the termination, the mandates for governance, and its structures for oversight. On the other hand, however, the International Territorial Administration, like traditional belligerent occupation, also is similar to occupation in that it exercises virtually all government functions by establishing a temporary regime without asserting full sovereignty over the territory. For this reason, it is true that there are contradictory opinions among scholars which are still acutely controversial as to whether international law of occupation can be applied even in the context of international territorial administration. Therefore, in this paper, I examined the extent to which the international law of occupation provides a useful normative framework in terms of international territorial administration through state practices.