국제인권규범의 국내법적 효력 - 국제인권규범의 수용과 효력을 중심으로 -

Since compliance with international human rights norms can provide a better space for humanity, individual countries must respect international human rights norms. Today, the scope of member countries of international human rights treaties is expanding because human rights are not a problem of a specific region, but a problem to be shared by all mankind. Our Constitution also recognized international human rights norms and joined major international human rights treaties. International human rights treaties are bound by the terms of the treaties by accession and ratification. The binding force of a treaty can require each country to faithfully fulfill its obligations under the treaty, but it leaves it up to each country to choose how to implement it domestically. Although individual states are required to submit periodic reports on their efforts to implement the terms of international human rights treaties, there is no mechanism for implementing the treaty through sanctions or retaliatory measures for violations of the terms of the treaty. Nonetheless, most countries domestically ratify treaties designed to protect or promote human rights, and observe and implement human rights norms. Regarding the normative nature of trial, the international human rights treaties accepted in Korea are directly recognized as the norms of trial by themselves or indirectly by domestic implementing laws. However, there is some controversy about the normative nature of constitutional adjudication of international human rights treaties. According to the decision of the Constitutional Court, which recognizes the superiority of the constitution over treaties, international human rights treaties cannot be regarded as equivalent to the constitution, and therefore cannot be direct constitutional adjudication norms in principle. In the end, the Constitutional Court cannot directly apply international human rights treaties as constitutional adjudication norms, and international human rights treaties serve as reference or supplementary interpretations or evidence for constitutional interpretation, or indirectly interpret the constitution through the constitutional spirit of respect for international law. It can act as an indirect trial rule as a basis for constitutional review or as a measure of constitutionality review.