International Treaty Enforcement between Constitutional Text and Institutional Practice: A Defense of Functional Pluralism in the Korean Model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35246/7vmret80Keywords:
Treaty Incorporation, Constitutional Monism, Functional Pluralism, South Korean Constitution, Domestic Application of International Law, Judicial Discretion, Legislative Implementation, International Legal Obligations, Comparative, Constitutional Law, Self-Executing TreatiesAbstract
This research examines South Korea's treaty incorporation methods by showing that its monist constitutional framework under Article 6(1) grants treaty laws domestic effect yet functional pluralism exists in practice. The courts use treaties at different levels of directness based on the nature of the subject matter and the clarity of the norms and the level of legislative backing. The Korean National Assembly maintains minimal involvement in treaty matters after the ratification process while the lack of a defined self-execution doctrine leads to inconsistent legal application and unclear interpretations. It should be noted that this research positions Korea within global constitutional pluralism through comparative analysis with Japan and four European nations (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) to show how treaty incorporation depends on judicial discretion and legislative involvement and institutional coordination.
This research proposes specific reforms to clarify judicial enforceability standards and boost legislative involvement to achieve better doctrinal consistency and institutional alignment. Hence, this research presents Korea's treaty integration system as a practical pluralist model which follows modern global constitutional developments.
Downloads
References
I. Besson, Samantha. “Theorizing the Sources of International Law.” In The Philosophy of International Law, edited by Samantha Besson and John Tasioulas, 163–185. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
II. Chung, Myung-Hyun. “Korea’s Judicial Interpretation and Application of International Law.” KLRI Journal of Law and Legislation 10, no. 1 (2020): 79–102. https://repository.klri.re.kr/bitstream/2017.oak/9803/1/18055k.pdf
III. Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
Constitution of Japan.
IV. Constitution of the French Republic.
V. Constitution of the Republic of Korea.
VI. Constitutional Court of Korea [Const. Ct.]. Decision 2002HunGa1, August 26, 2004.
VII. Crawford, James. Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
VIII. Denza, Eileen. “The Relationship between International and National Law.” In International Law, 5th ed., edited by Malcolm Evans, 383–414. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Law Trove.
IX. Hasel, Florian, Christian Strohal, and Stefan Kieber. “Philip Leach: Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights, 4th Edition.” In European Yearbook on Human Rights 2018, edited by Wolfgang Benedek, Philip Czech, Lisa Heschl, Karin Lukas, and Manfred Nowak, 615–18. Cambridge: Intersentia, 2018.
X. Iwasawa, Yuji. “The Status of International Law in Japan.” In International Law, Human Rights, and Japanese Law: The Impact of International Law on Japanese Law, 29–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Online edition, Oxford Academic, March 22, 2012.
XI. Jayangakula, Kitti. “Human Rights versus Historical Injustice: The Comfort Women Cases before the Korean Courts.” The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law 12, no. 2 (December 2024): 201–206.
XII. Kim, Seonwha. “Ambivalent Identity: Incorporated but Unequal – A Postcolonial Review of the ‘Japanese Comfort Women’ Problem with the Korean Court Judgments Regarding State Immunity.” Asian Journal of Law and Society 12, no. 1 (2025): 12–21.
XIII. Klabbers, Jan. International Law. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
XIV. Lee, Jaemin. “Incorporation and Implementation of Treaties in South Korea.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law, edited by Curtis A. Bradley, 221–238. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Online edition, Oxford Academic, June 13, 2019.
XV. Lee, Whiejin. “The Enforcement of Human Rights Treaties in Korean Courts.” In Asian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 23 (2017), edited by Seokwoo Lee and Hee Eun Lee, 95–136. Leiden: Brill, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004415829_009.
XVI. Lee, Whiejin. “The Enforcement of Human Rights Treaties in Korean Courts.” In Asian Yearbook of International Law, vol. 23 (2017), edited by Seokwoo Lee and Hee Eun Lee, 95–136. Leiden: Brill, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004415829_009.
XVII. National Assembly Act of the Republic of Korea.
XVIII. R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, [2017] UKSC 5.
XIX. Shaw, Malcolm N. International Law. 9th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
XX. Sloss, David. “Treaty Enforcement in Domestic Courts: A Comparative Analysis.” In The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study, edited by David Sloss, 1–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
XXI. Supreme Court of Japan, 1997 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 163, Judgment of March 3, 2000.
XXII. Supreme Court of Korea. Decision 1993DaHap19069, February 10, 1995.
XXIII. Supreme Court of Korea. Decision 2004Do2965, July 15, 2004.
XXIV. Supreme Court of Korea. Decision No. 2006Da20290, May 28, 2009.
XXV. Venzke, Ingo, and Steven Wheatley. “The Democratic Legitimacy of International Law.” European Journal of International Law 22, no. 1 (February 2011): 277–279.
XXVI. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
XXVII. Webb, Philippa. “International Law and Restraints on the Exercise of Jurisdiction by National Courts of States.” In International Law, 5th ed., edited by Malcolm Evans, 305–332. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Law Trove.
XXVIII. Won, Yoomin. “The Role of International Human Rights Law in South Korean Constitutional Court Practice: An Empirical Study of Decisions from 1988 to 2015.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 16, no. 2 (April 2018): 596–624. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy026.
XXIX. 권, 미셸. “한국의 법학교육 개혁 - 더 다양한 법조계가 되었는가?.” Inha Law Review: The Institute of Legal Studies, Inha University 24, no. 4 (2021): 349–387. https://doi.org/10.22789/IHLR.2021.12.24.4.12.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing:
For all articles published in Journal of Legal Sciences, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work.
Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers: It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyrightholder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyrightholder).
Permission is required for: Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
Substantial extracts from anyones' works or a series of works.
Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.
Permission is not required for: Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.
Obtaining Permission
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Journal of Legal Sciences cannot publish material from other publications without permission.
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
