지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2025.3
- 수록면
- 309 - 349 (41page)
- DOI
- 10.69596/JLL.2025.03.93.309
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
On 20 April 2021, the Republic of Korea (hereafter, ‘Korea’) ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). The Constitution of Korea provides that treaties duly concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic of Korea (Article 6 Paragraph 1). Accordingly, the ratified Conventions have the same effect as the domestic laws, and all public authorities shall respect and promote the international labour law concerning freedom of association.
Even in Korean public authorities, however, practices of non-compliance with international labour law are widespread. Moreover, public authorities including domestic courts have quite often interpreted the content of international labour law arbitrarily without reference to the work of international supervisory bodies.
This article analyses the principles and practices concerning the domestic use of ILO Conventions on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. On one hand, it explores the domestic legal status of the relevant International labour standards (ILS) in the light of the Constitutional principle of respect for international law. On the other hand, it explains the rules of interpretation of ILO Conventions, by providing the relevant decisions and comments of the ILO supervisory bodies and UN human rights treaty bodies.
For this purpose, this article examines issues relating to the Korean legislation and court decisions in the light of ILS. It mainly focuses on cases which international supervisory bodies have set out comments and decisions, but also assesses whether and to what extent Korean administrative authorities and courts have dealt with such issues in line with the ILS. Thereafter, it shows that the Government and courts maintain its previous position which has not been in conformity with the principles on freedom of association, arguing that interpretation and recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies are not ‘legally’ binding. So, in sum, it is hard to say that there has been a meaningful improvement in the commitment to respecting, promoting and realising, in laws and practices, the principles on freedom of association after ratifying the ILO Conventions concerning freedom of association, in Korea.
Even in Korean public authorities, however, practices of non-compliance with international labour law are widespread. Moreover, public authorities including domestic courts have quite often interpreted the content of international labour law arbitrarily without reference to the work of international supervisory bodies.
This article analyses the principles and practices concerning the domestic use of ILO Conventions on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. On one hand, it explores the domestic legal status of the relevant International labour standards (ILS) in the light of the Constitutional principle of respect for international law. On the other hand, it explains the rules of interpretation of ILO Conventions, by providing the relevant decisions and comments of the ILO supervisory bodies and UN human rights treaty bodies.
For this purpose, this article examines issues relating to the Korean legislation and court decisions in the light of ILS. It mainly focuses on cases which international supervisory bodies have set out comments and decisions, but also assesses whether and to what extent Korean administrative authorities and courts have dealt with such issues in line with the ILS. Thereafter, it shows that the Government and courts maintain its previous position which has not been in conformity with the principles on freedom of association, arguing that interpretation and recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies are not ‘legally’ binding. So, in sum, it is hard to say that there has been a meaningful improvement in the commitment to respecting, promoting and realising, in laws and practices, the principles on freedom of association after ratifying the ILO Conventions concerning freedom of association, in Korea.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 협약 비준과 ILO의 감독 메커니즘
Ⅲ. 협약 비준 이후 판결･결정
Ⅳ. 협약 이행을 둘러싼 쟁점
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
ILO 결사의 자유 원칙의 국내법적 수용 과제 : 결사의 자유 위원회 권고 이행을 중심으로
노동법학
2017 .12
-
ILO 강제노동 협약 이행에 관한 유럽국가 사례 연구
유럽연구
2023 .05
-
결사의 자유에 관한 ILO 기본협약 비준과 노사관계법의 과제
노동법연구
2023 .03
-
ILO 핵심협약의 이행감독과 절차적 대응에 관한 고찰
법학논총
2022 .06
-
ILO 기본협약 비준을 위한 2020년 정부 노조법 개정안 분석과 평가
노동법학
2020 .12
-
결사의 자유에 관한 ILO 기본협약 발효와 FTA 노동분쟁의 전망: ILO와 FTA의 이행 메커니즘 간의 연계적 효과를 중심으로
국제법학회논총
2022 .06
-
ILO 기본협약의 의의와 비준 방향
노동법학
2019 .09
-
ILO의 강제노동 관련 협약 비준과 이행의 해외사례 연구
노동연구
2018 .12
-
ILO기본협약 제87호와 제98호의 해석원칙 - 결사의 자유위원회 사례 분석: 한국, 일본, 독일, 영국 -
노동법학
2021 .06
-
국제노동기준과 국내 쟁의행위 제도에 대한 비교연구
노동법포럼
2019 .02
-
공공기관 노동조합의 노동기본권 보장과 ILO 핵심협약의 사법적 이행 방안
노동연구
2023 .06
-
ILO 산업안전보건 분야의 노동기본권 보장을 둘러싼 법적 논의와 쟁점
노동법연구
2021 .03
-
「더 나은 미래를 위한 일: ILO 일의 미래 보고서」(ILO 일의 미래 글로벌 위원회 著)
사회보장법연구
2019 .12
-
『고용과 사회전망 보고서 – 변화하는 일자리』(ILO, 2015)
사회보장법연구
2016 .12
-
ILO 기본협약 비준과 노동법의 개정
인권과 정의
2019 .01
-
공무원노조법상 단체교섭권 제한의 해석적 한계 - 국제노동기준과 헌법의 조화적 해석을 위한 시론 -
노동법학
2024 .06
-
‘ILO 핵심협약 비준’ 관련 정부 입장에 관한 노동법률단체 논평
민주법학
2019 .01
-
한-EU FTA 노동조항 관련 분쟁의 법적 쟁점
노동법포럼
2021 .07
-
ILO 핵심협약 비준을 위한 노동법 개정 방안의 모색
법학논집
2019 .01
-
해묵은 과제의 청산을 위한 노조법의 과제
노동법학
2023 .03
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0