The Normative Power of the Inter-Korean Agreement

Depending on their status, we can divide inter-Korean agreements into three types. First, inter-Korean agreements in the broadest sense. Second, inter-Korean agreements concluded and promulgated pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Inter-Korean Relations Development Act. Third, inter-Korean agreements as treaties concluded and promulgated under the Constitution. In the broadest sense, the inter-Korean agreement is seen as a kind of public contract from the point of view of public law. Looking at the inter-Korean agreement according to the legal principle of public contract, it is useful to explain what has normative power to agreements or contracts related to the creation or change of legal relations under public law. On the other hand, in order for an inter-Korean agreement to secure normative power as a public contract, there must be an agreement between the two Koreas on arbitration or competent courts to resolve disputes regarding its contents. If there is an agreement between the two Koreas, it should be a basic treaty concluded and promulgated according to the Constitution, not simply an inter-Korean agreement under the Inter-Korean Relations Development Act, as it should have normative power under domestic and international law. Lastly, I believe that the consent of the National Assembly is not enough for the inter-Korean agreement signed and promulgated according to the Act to have binding force even to the people. Even if the inter-Korean agreement has been approved by the National Assembly, its normative power must be secured only through legislative procedures.