ScholarWorks@숙명여자대학교

초록

International agreements might not be supported by legality only but also be respected and complied by other factors. Among them, there is legitimacy which can be conceptualized as a property of being accepted socially and normatively. With taking note of legitimacy discourses, this article will generally clarify the concept, function and contents of it and particularly examine legitimacy on some international agreements challenged domestically by means of related indicators. It has appeared there are two trends in the creation of international norm. One is denationalization: the actual competences of international law-making shift from national governments to international authorities. The other is deparliamentarisation: the role and contribution of the executive body is more extensive to the parliament in national spheres. The stronger these trends, the weaker the chain of legitimacy conveyed by national legislature. It is important to enhance the influential contribution of national legislatures in the process of international norm-making. Useful tools for examining the legitimacy of international law can be provided by Thomas Franck. When his indicators of legitimacy which is proposed as determinacy, symbolic validation, coherence and adherence are applied to some bilateral international agreements where Korea is a party, it is found that the strength of international agreement’s legitimacy depends on the forms of international agreement. According to the case studies, non-binding agreements were hardly seen as being legitimate, while legal-binding agreements had relatively stronger normative legitimacy. It seems that the outcomes result from the indeterminacy of procedural rules and the limit of parliamentarian control in making international agreements. Social legitimacy was found to be correlative to normative legitimacy. Last, this article reviewed the Korean parliament’s draft bills of treaty-concluding procedures The bills for democratic control of international agreements seek for the parliament’s domestic involvement through the entire process of policy-making, negotiation, ratification, and implementation of treaties. The bills may contribute to enhanced domestic legitimacy of international agreements including treaties. However, it is difficult to conclude that the overall domestic legitimacy of international agreements will be ensured by simply legislating procedural laws.