韩国宪法法院2016宪Ma253决定及启示  

Korea Constitutional Court's 2016 Constitutional Ma253 Decision and Its Enlightenment

作　　者：马光[1] MA Guang(School of Guanghua Law,Zhejiang University,Hangzhou Zhejiang 310008,China)

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院,浙江杭州310008

出　　处：《杭州电子科技大学学报（社会科学版）》2021年第2期72-78,共7页Journal of Hangzhou Dianzi University：Social Sciences

基　　金：浙江大学人工智能与法学专项课题(18ZDFX010)。

摘　　要：区分条约和政治合意是非常重要的国际法问题。2019年12月27日,韩国宪法法院全体法官一致认定《韩国外交部长官和日本外务大臣于2015年12月28日共同发表的日军慰安妇受害者问题相关合意》不属于条约,而是两国政府的政治合意。该《合意》涉及韩日两国长期存在重大分歧的慰安妇问题,形式上通过两国外长举办共同记者会的方式公布于众;在缔结程序上未经两国正式批准;且没有明确约定双方的具体权利义务,体现了条约和政治合意之间的区别。启示我国在处理慰安妇问题时应多与受害者进行沟通,在与日方达成协议时要慎重。The distinction between treaty and political agreement is a very important issue of international law.On December 27,2019,all judges of the Korean Constitutional Court unanimously determined that the“Consensus on the Issue of Japanese Military Comfort Women Victims jointly issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Korea and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan on December 28,2015”is not a treaty,but a political agreement of the two governments.The“Consensus”is related to the issue of comfort women,which has long-standing major differences between Korea and Japan.In terms of form,it has the characteristics of being announced to the public by the foreign ministers of the two countries through a joint press conference;it has not been formally approved by the two countries in the conclusion procedure characteristics;it does not clearly stipulate the specific rights and obligations of both parties.That is,the“Consensus”reflects the difference between a treaty and a consensus.It is enlightened that our country should communicate more with the victims when dealing with the issue of comfort women and be cautious when reaching an agreement(or agreement)with Japan.

关 键 词：慰安妇问题 宪法法院 外交保护 政治合意 条约 

分 类 号：D997.3[政治法律—国际法学]