용병론(傭兵論)에 대한 국제법 관점에서의 고찰: - 태국의 라오스파병과 한국의 베트남파병 사례를 중심으로 -

This study examines whether South Korea’s deployment of troops during the Vietnam War can be classified as “mercenarism” under international law. To this end, it analyzes Article 47 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary and the 1989 United Nations International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and conducts a comparative analysis with Thailand’s military deployment to Laos under the Unity Program. The analysis focuses on three core criteria: the motivational and benefit factors, the legal status of the deployed personnel and the level of operational command and state control. The findings indicate that Thailand’s deployment to Laos constituted a covert military intervention largely recruited, organized and controlled by the CIA, characterized by non-regular force structures, direct financial arrangements and the absence of clear national command authority. In this respect, it satisfies several key elements commonly associated with mercenarism in international legal and scholarly assessments. By contrast, South Korea’s deployment to Vietnam was conducted as a regular troop deployment based on intergovernmental agreements and parliamentary approval and was fully integrated into the national military command structure. Although economic benefits accompanied the deployment, it functioned as a secondary outcome rather than the primary motive, which was rooted in broader security, political, economic and ideological considerations at the state level. Furthermore, primary sources such as the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) confirm that the Republic of Korea Armed Forces retained independent operational command, a fact officially acknowledged by the United States government. Accordingly, this study concludes that South Korea’s participation in the Vietnam War does not meet the definitional requirements of “mercenarism” under international law and should instead be understood as a lawful act of military cooperation undertaken by a sovereign state. By situating the Korean case within an international legal and comparative framework, this study contributes to a more nuanced and objective reassessment of the “mercenary” discourse surrounding South Korea’s Vietnam War deployment.