글로벌 안보에 관한 국제법적 접근 - 국가실패의 함의를 중심으로 -

State failure presents significant and multifaceted challenges to global security. In a state-centric international system, its consequences extend beyond the borders of the failed state, often causing severe negative impacts on the international community as a whole. It also raises critical questions in international law about the concepts of security, particularly concerning who referent objects are and who provides that security. This leads to a fundamental inquiry: must security always be provided by the state, or are other actors capable of fulfilling this role? Traditionally, international law approaches toward state failure by focusing on its negative consequences and emphasizing the restoration of statehood. This focus is rooted in the Montevideo criteria, which outline the fundamental elements required for statehood. When a state fails to meet these criteria, it ceases to be recognized as a subject of rights and obligations under international law. The loss of a functioning state is seen as a disruption to the international system, leading international law to prioritize the restoration of statehood as a means of maintaining global order. This binary framework—viewing actors strictly as either states or non-state entities—limits the ability of international law to address the realities of state failure. Entities that fall between these categories are often excluded from legal discussion, and the diversity of state failure is reduced to overly simplistic, generalized models. As a result, legal responses to state failure are often superficial and fail to address its deeper complexities. From a global security perspective, such oversimplification is particularly problematic. Global security cannot be achieved solely through the stabilization or security of individual states. A more comprehensive approach is required—one that addresses state failure in its various forms and develops tailored responses for each scenario. Furthermore, the focus should shift from protecting the state to ensuring the security of individuals, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of security. Addressing state failure also requires rethinking traditional assumptions about who provides security. The conventional view of the state as the sole security provider neglects the potential roles of non-state actors, especially in contexts where the state is unable or unwilling. This exclusion limits the ability of international law to respond effectively to state failure and its consequences. To overcome these limitations, this article advocates for incorporating the concept of human security into international legal approaches to state failure. By prioritizing the protection of individuals and ensuring at least a minimum level of security in failed states, international law can adopt a more inclusive and effective framework. This shift allows for a broader range of security providers and a deeper understanding of how to address state failure in the context of global security.