So far, we have examined the freedom of expression that the state must guarantee and the freedom of expression that the state may restrict under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and we have seen that efforts to improve human rights are needed in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

If the scope of Article 20(2) of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" is interpreted too broadly, the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" may be infringed, and if it is interpreted too narrowly, doubts may arise about the validity of the provisions prohibiting expression, so there is a concern that confusion will be created in each country's legislative process concerning freedom of expression.

In 2011, in its comment on Article 19, freedom of opinion and expression, the Human Rights Committee of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" stated that Articles 19 and 20 of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" are compatible with and complement each other, that the acts of expression addressed in Article 20 are subject to the restrictions set out in Article 19(3), and that the limits on prohibiting expression set out in Article 20 must satisfy the freedom-of-expression provision of Article 19(3).

The provision of Article 20 of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" can be regarded as having the status of a special law in relation to Article 19. That is, if a law is to be made for the provision of Article 20(2) of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," it must not exceed the limits of the provision restricting freedom of expression in Article 19(3). States parties to the Covenant have a legal obligation to prohibit the specific forms of expression set out in Article 20, and in any case where a state party to the Covenant restricts freedom of expression, it needs to justify the prohibition and provisions in strict conformity with Article 19 of the Covenant.

As to whether provisions of international law can be directly regarded as a standard for judging illegality, we must examine whether international law can be directly applied to legal relations between persons. Article 6(1) of the Constitution of Korea provides: "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." However, the authority to interpret a treaty lies primarily with the parties to the treaty. Article 31 (General rule of interpretation), paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides: "A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose."

International treaties have the effect of domestic law, but case law has not taken a clear position on what exactly "domestic law" means in detail, and scholarly opinions are not unanimous either. Article 6(1) can be interpreted in several ways, and the meaning of such a provision is ultimately left to the judgment of the judiciary within a scope that does not contradict the text of the law.

Case law holds that because international treaties set obligations between states under international law, they do not create specific rights of individuals against the state, such as a right to damages.

For reference, part of the material states that Article 18 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the provision establishing the Human Rights Committee, but Article 18 concerns freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and the establishment of the Human Rights Committee is in Article 28. The Covenant consists of a preamble and 53 articles. Korea acceded in 1990, and when the United States ratified it in 1992 it attached a reservation to Article 20 on the ground that it could conflict with freedom of expression, so it would be even better to organize this together when comparing it with the scope of protection of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.