국제사법재판소(ICJ)에서의 국가 대표성에 관한 소고: 주요 사례를 중심으로

Since the Taliban’s seizure of Kabul in 2021 and their subsequent establishment of effective control over Afghanistan, the human rights situation of women and girls has significantly deteriorated. In response, several States have called upon the Taliban de facto authorities to cease such violations and have emphasized that they remain responsible for upholding and fulfilling Afghanistan’s international obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. These States are also considering measures under Article 29 of the Convention, which provides that, if a dispute is not resolved through negotiation and the parties fail to agree on the organization of arbitration within six months, it may be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the initiation of contentious proceedings before the ICJ would raise not only substantive issues concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention, but also questions regarding the international representation of Afghanistan and the authority of the Taliban to conduct proceedings on its behalf. This article examines the relevant provisions on parties and agents in contentious cases before the ICJ and analyzes key precedents to explore how the Court may address issues of international representation. Specifically, it examines the 1993 Bosnia and Herzegovina case, in which the lack of domestic legal authority to initiate proceedings was challenged; the 2009 Honduras case involving a claim brought by a de facto government; and the ongoing proceedings since 2021, in which the Myanmar junta, following a coup, acted as agent on behalf of Myanmar. By analyzing these cases, the article seeks to assess the possibility of the Taliban participating as Afghanistan’s representative in ICJ proceedings and to consider the broader implications for international representation.