개인의 주체성을 인정하지 않던 전통 국제법에서 재외국민의 보호는 국가의 권리로 여겨졌다. 그래서 타국의 불법행위로 개인이 피해를 입어도 그 피해는 개인이 아니라 국적국이 입는 것으로 의제되었고 그 피해에 대한 구제 또한 국가를 통해서만 가능하였다. 그러나 전통 국제법 시대의 재외국민 보호 규범도 실질적으로는 재외국민 개인의 권리를 보호하는 제도였다는 점은 의심의 여지가 없다. 영사제도는 해외에 나온 상인들이 자신들의 권익을 보호할 대변자를 선출한 것에서 시작하여 국가 관리로 대체된 후에도 자국민의 안전과 권리 보장이 주요 임무였다. 개인이 입은 피해를 국가가 입은 것으로 보는 Vattel의 의제도 Calvo 조항 등을 통하여 외국인의 권리가 침해되는 것을 막아 실제로는 개인의 권리 보호에 기여하였다고 할 수 있다. 2차 대전 이후 국제인권규범이 정립되면서 재외국민이 누리는 실체적 권리 또한 크게 강화되었으며, 권리침해시 절차적 구제수단인 외교적 보호 행사를 국가의 권리가 아니라 개인의 권리이자 국가의 의무로 보는 시각이 대두되고 있다. 모든 사람은 보편적 인권을 누리지만 권리침해에 대한 구제수단은 제한되어 있기 때문에 개인 구제를 위한 절차적 수단으로서 외교적 보호는 여전히 중요하다. 과거 국제법에서 큰 논쟁거리는 외국인이 주장할 수 있는 실체적 권리의 기준이었다. 미국과 유럽은 외국인들에 적용되는 국제최소기준(international minimum standard)이 있다고 주장한 반면에 중남미 국가들과 2차 대전 이후의 신생독립국들은 외국인들도 자국인들이 누리는 수준의 권리 이상을 요구할 수 없다는 내국인 대우(national treatment)를 주장하였다. 이 당시 외교적 보호의 행사는 “포함 외교”의 가능성을 내포하고 있었기 때문에 중남미 국가들은 완강하였다. 국제인권규범의 출현은 이 문제에 새로운 해답을 제시하였다. 1950년대 국제법위원회(ILC)의 국가책임 연구 특별보고관이었던 Garcia-Amador는 종래의 국제최소기준을 더 많은 권리를 구체적으로 보장하고 내외국인 구분 없이 적용되는 국제인권규범으로 대체하려 하였다. 그의 초안은 내국인 대우를 주장하던 나라들의 반대로 채택되지 못 하였으나 중요한 방향을 제시하였다. 1985년 유엔 총회가 결의로 채택한 외국인 보호에 관한 선언은 세계인권선언, 주요 인권조약에서 보장하는 권리를 외국인들도 누린다고 하였으며, 이미 대다수 나라들이 가입한 국제인권조약들은 참정권을 제외하고는 그 적용에 있어서 국적을 불문하고 있었다. 이외에도, 최근 국제재판소의 판례는 영사관계에 관한 비엔나협약 제36조의 영사통지권을 재외국민의 권리로 해석하고 있으며, 지역 인권규범의 역외적용에 있어서 상대국의 주권을 심대하게 침해하지 않는 범위에서 허용되는 사례가 있다. 국제인권규범의 발전과 보편화는 재외국민의 보호 자체를 개인의 권리로 보려는 시각에 힘을 실어주고 있다. 물론 이에 대해서는 재외국민 보호가 국가가 전권을 행사할 수 없는 국제관계 영역에서 이루어지고, 다른 국제의무나 중대한 국익과의 관계를 고려해야 하기 때문에 개인의 권리로 인정될 수 없다는 주장도 있다. 2006년 ILC가 채택한 외교적 보호에 관한 초안 규정들은 전통 국제법의 시각을 받아들여 외교적 보호의 행사가 국가의 권리라 규정하면서도 국가가 이를 행사하는 데 있어서 당사자 개인의 의사를 존중하고, 국내에 정주하는 무국적자, 난민에 대해서도 외교적 보호를 행사할 수 있다고 하는 규정이 삽입되었다. 한편 독일, 영국, 남아공의 법원들은 각각 헌법, 행정법, 인권존중으로부터 재외국민 보호 행사가 사법적 판단의 대상이 될 수 있고, 국가가 의무로 지는 최소한의 재외국민 보호 관련 조치가 있으며, 구체적인 의무 위반 여부는 개별 사건별로 살펴봐야 한다고 판결하였다. 우리나라에서는 2000년 재일교포들이 1965년 경제협력 협정에 대하여 한국과 일본이 다른 해석을 내리고 있는 문제를 해결하기 위하여 일본에 국제중재를 요구해야 한다고 재외국민보호의무를 근거로 헌법소원을 하였으나 헌법 재판소는 헌법에 명시 규정이 없는 경우 국가에 작위 의무가 발생할 수 없다는 이유로 청구를 각하하였다. 헌재 판결은 재외국민보호의무 조항 도입의 취지에 맞지 않고, 이를 선언적 권리에 그치게 할 우려가 있으며, 자신들의 조약 해석을 근거로 한 일본의 계속되는 2차 대전 피해자 배상의 부인이 외교적 보호의 전제조건인 국제위법행위를 구성하는지에 대한 판단이 없다는 점에서 아쉬움을 남긴다. 재외국민 보호를 개인의 권리, 국가의 의무로 규정하려 하여도 개인과 국가의 이해관계가 완전히 일치하지 않는 이상 한계가 있을 수밖에 없다. 따라서 장기적으로는 권리를 침해받은 개인이 타국 정부를 상대로 직접 구제를 청구할 수 있는 방안을 확충해야 한다. 이를 위하여 정부는 유럽인권재판소, 미주인권재판소처럼 회원국 정부를 상대로 개인 진정 및 소송이 허용되는 아시아 지역인권기구의 설립을 적극적으로 지원하고, 이미 70여 개국과 체결한 투자보호협정도 투자자 보호 규정을 강화시키고 체결국 수를 늘려 비경제적 요인으로 피해를 입은 투자자가 ICSID 투자중재 등을 통해 구제받는 것을 용이하게 해야 한다. 다른 한편으로는 우리의 재외국민 보호 행사가 보편적 인권보호에 근거한다는 것을 보이기 위하여 우리나라에 있는 100만 명이 넘는 외국인의 인권보호에도 관심을 가져야 한다. 외국 정부가 외교적 보호를 행사할 경우 우리 정부는 이를 성실하게 고려해야 하고, 본국 정부가 보호할 여력이 없는 경우에도 외국인의 인권이 침해되지 않도록 노력을 기울일 필요가 있다. 오늘날 우리나라에 사는 100만 명이 넘는 외국인들도 국적은 다르지만 재외국민이다.

Under the rubric of traditional international law which only recognized sovereign states as proper subjects, the diplomatic protection for nationals abroad was considered the right of their state. Injuries to aliens inflicted by actions of the host state contravening international law was considered an injury upon the state of his nationality, and only the latter could seek remedies for the injury by diplomatic means. However, there is little doubt that such a state-centric and, seemingly, anachronistic construct was in reality devised to protect the rights of individual aliens. The consular post has its origins from the medieval Italian merchants' practice of electing their representatives in the overseas settlements to protect their interests, and even after their replacement by state officials continued to serve as the defender of rights and privileges. Emmerich de Vattel's legal fiction in fact contributed to the protection of the rights of aliens by effectively countering the Calvo clause. The codification and development of universal human rights norms after the Second World War greatly strengthened the substantive rights of aliens, and there have been arguments for making the exercise of diplomatic protection the obligation of the state and the right of the individual. Given the current state of human rights norms which in legal terms is universally applicable but in practice have limited means of securing remedies for violations, the institution of diplomatic protection provides a powerful procedural supplement. The past controversies regarding diplomatic protection revolved around the standard of protection accorded to aliens. Europe and the United States argued for the existence of international minimum standard for aliens whereas the Latin American countries and the newly independent states only recognized the national treatment principle. The diplomatic protection of the time included “gunboat diplomacy”, which unsurprisingly turned many nations against the very concept of international standards. The rise of international human rights norms suggested a solution to this impasses. In the 1950s, Garcia-Amador, the ILC's special rapporteur on state responsibility, suggested replacing the international minimum standard universal human rights standards, which made no distinction based upon nationality. His proposal was rejected by the developing states that argued for national treatment, but provided an important perspective. The 1985 declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly stipulated that aliens enjoy the human rights guaranteed under the key international treaties and declarations. The major human rights treaties signed by most countries are not conditional upon nationality. Furthermore, the international courts have interpreted article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations as granting the foreigners under the custody of the host state rights to be informed of the availability of consular assistance, and extra-territorial application of norms limited to a certain jurisdiction have been permitted in so far as it does not unduly violate the territorial sovereignty of the host nation. The development of international human rights has added weight to the view that the institution of diplomatic immunity itself should be considered the individuals' right. However, the opposing view holds that such a claim is impractical given the limited power and authority of the state beyond its borders and dubious as it may conflict with other international obligations or crucial national interests. The ILC's draft articles on diplomatic protection adopted in 2006 largely follow the traditional Vatelian fiction but include provisions that state the need to respect the will of the individuals and extend the coverage to include resident stateless persons and refugees. The courts of Germany, Britain and South Africa have affirmed the individuals' claims for judicial review of the state's exercise of diplomatic protection on the grounds of constitutional duty, administrative law doctrine, duty to uphold human rights respectively. They also required the minimum actions by government, and found that compliance must be rendered on a case-by-case basis. In a suit brought by resident Koreans in Japan against the Korean government asking for a ruling forcing the latter to bring the dispute over the interpretation of a disputed clause in the 1965 Korea-Japan agreement to international arbitration, Korea's constitutional court dismissed the case on the ground that the constitution does not create such positive duties. The decision seems to contradict the intention behind the creation of the relevant constitutional provision, reducing it into a declaratory statement. The court's failure to address the international law implication of Japan's continued refusal to make proper reparations to the victims of its atrocities during World War II is also lamentable. The fundamental weakness of diplomatic protection remains that it requires the state's interest in espousing the claims of its nationals. Granting the individuals a method of directly seeking remedies from the offending state would help to resolve this shortcoming. In the long run, the establishment of an Asian equivalent of the European Court of Human Rights or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which allows individuals to bring claims directly against the member countries is desirable. Korea should also expand bilateral investment protection treaties, which it has already signed with over 70 countries, so as to allow our investors and investments to resort to ICSID arbitration to seek redress from the host nations. More fundamentally, however, we ought not lose sight of the human rights of over a million foreigners residing in our country. The Korean government should address in good faith the valid claims brought on behalf of individuals by the state of nationality, and strive to protect the fundamental rights of those whose government is unable or unwilling to extend diplomatic. The universality of human rights demands nothing less.

Under the rubric of traditional international law which only recognized sovereign states as proper subjects, the diplomatic protection for nationals abroad was considered the right of their state. Injuries to aliens inflicted by actions of the host state contravening international law was considered an injury upon the state of his nationality, and only the latter could seek remedies for the injury by diplomatic means. However, there is little doubt that such a state-centric and, seemingly, anachronistic construct was in reality devised to protect the rights of individual aliens. The consular post has its origins from the medieval Italian merchants' practice of electing their representatives in the overseas settlements to protect their interests, and even after their replacement by state officials continued to serve as the defender of rights and privileges. Emmerich de Vattel's legal fiction in fact contributed to the protection of the rights of aliens by effectively countering the Calvo clause. The codification and development of universal human rights norms after the Second World War greatly strengthened the substantive rights of aliens, and there have been arguments for making the exercise of diplomatic protection the obligation of the state and the right of the individual. Given the current state of human rights norms which in legal terms is universally applicable but in practice have limited means of securing remedies for violations, the institution of diplomatic protection provides a powerful procedural supplement. The past controversies regarding diplomatic protection revolved around the standard of protection accorded to aliens. Europe and the United States argued for the existence of international minimum standard for aliens whereas the Latin American countries and the newly independent states only recognized the national treatment principle. The diplomatic protection of the time included “gunboat diplomacy”, which unsurprisingly turned many nations against the very concept of international standards. The rise of international human rights norms suggested a solution to this impasses. In the 1950s, Garcia-Amador, the ILC's special rapporteur on state responsibility, suggested replacing the international minimum standard universal human rights standards, which made no distinction based upon nationality. His proposal was rejected by the developing states that argued for national treatment, but provided an important perspective. The 1985 declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly stipulated that aliens enjoy the human rights guaranteed under the key international treaties and declarations. The major human rights treaties signed by most countries are not conditional upon nationality. Furthermore, the international courts have interpreted article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations as granting the foreigners under the custody of the host state rights to be informed of the availability of consular assistance, and extra-territorial application of norms limited to a certain jurisdiction have been permitted in so far as it does not unduly violate the territorial sovereignty of the host nation. The development of international human rights has added weight to the view that the institution of diplomatic immunity itself should be considered the individuals' right. However, the opposing view holds that such a claim is impractical given the limited power and authority of the state beyond its borders and dubious as it may conflict with other international obligations or crucial national interests. The ILC's draft articles on diplomatic protection adopted in 2006 largely follow the traditional Vatelian fiction but include provisions that state the need to respect the will of the individuals and extend the coverage to include resident stateless persons and refugees. The courts of Germany, Britain and South Africa have affirmed the individuals' claims for judicial review of the state's exercise of diplomatic protection on the grounds of constitutional duty, administrative law doctrine, duty to uphold human rights respectively. They also required the minimum actions by government, and found that compliance must be rendered on a case-by-case basis. In a suit brought by resident Koreans in Japan against the Korean government asking for a ruling forcing the latter to bring the dispute over the interpretation of a disputed clause in the 1965 Korea-Japan agreement to international arbitration, Korea's constitutional court dismissed the case on the ground that the constitution does not create such positive duties. The decision seems to contradict the intention behind the creation of the relevant constitutional provision, reducing it into a declaratory statement. The court's failure to address the international law implication of Japan's continued refusal to make proper reparations to the victims of its atrocities during World War II is also lamentable. The fundamental weakness of diplomatic protection remains that it requires the state's interest in espousing the claims of its nationals. Granting the individuals a method of directly seeking remedies from the offending state would help to resolve this shortcoming. In the long run, the establishment of an Asian equivalent of the European Court of Human Rights or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which allows individuals to bring claims directly against the member countries is desirable. Korea should also expand bilateral investment protection treaties, which it has already signed with over 70 countries, so as to allow our investors and investments to resort to ICSID arbitration to seek redress from the host nations. More fundamentally, however, we ought not lose sight of the human rights of over a million foreigners residing in our country. The Korean government should address in good faith the valid claims brought on behalf of individuals by the state of nationality, and strive to protect the fundamental rights of those whose government is unable or unwilling to extend diplomatic. The universality of human rights demands nothing less.

Diplomatic Protection, Consular Protection, Vattelian Fiction, Calvo Clause, Diplomatic Protection as a Human Right, Justiciability of Diplomatic Protection