UN해양법협약상 해양경계획정시 중첩수역의 국제법적 지위 (Legal Status on International Law of Maritime Areas of Overlapping Entitlement in the Maritime Delimitation)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 국민대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학논총 / 30권 / 3호 / 153 ~ 194페이지
· 저자명 : 김채형

초록

본고에서는 해양경계획정시 관련국가들간에 권한이 중첩되는 수역의 법적 지위를 파악하기 위하여, 우선적으로 해양법협약에 의한 해양경계획정방식과 해양경계획정이 이루어지기 이전에 관련국가간의 잠정약정의 체결에 대해 살펴보고, 배타적 경제수역에서 연안국이 갖는 권리를 살펴본다. 이후 한일어업협정과 한중어업협정에 규정된 중첩수역의 법적 지위를 분석한다. 그리고 배타적 경제수역의 경계획정이 되지 않은 국가들간 권한이 중첩되는 수역에 대한 국제판례와 외국의 실제 운영사례를 분석하였는데, 주요한 사건으로 가이아나와 수리남간의 중재판정, 기니비소와 세네갈간의 분쟁사건, 호주와 동티모르간의 분쟁사건을 분석하였다. 마지막으로 중첩수역 운영의 바람직한 방향을 제시하였는데, 중첩수역이 발생할 경우, 관련된 연안국들이 일방적으로 관할권을 행사하면 분쟁이 발생할 가능성이 많으므로 해양관할권행사를 자제하고, 관련국가들이 합의를 하여 잠정약정을 체결하도록 노력해야 한다. 이러한 잠정약정을 통하여 합의된 사항을 준수하여 중첩수역에서 관련국가간에 공동으로 관할권을 행사하는 것이 국제분쟁의 발생을 줄이는 방법이 될 것이다.

영어초록

The extension of jurisdiction in maritime areas adjacent to the coastal states provoked the necessity of maritime delimitation between adjacent or opposing states. The consolidation of maritime jurisdiction by the coastal states could be achieved by the active application of sovereign rights which international society endowed to the coastal states under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS), or was sometimes tried to take more maritime areas by the means of arbitrary interpretation and application of the concerned provisions of UNCLOS. In the North-East Asia, South Korea, Japan and China proclaimed respectively EEZ of 200 nautical miles. The necessity of maritime boundary delimitation is appeared, because the breadth of maritime areas between South Korea and Japan, and between South Korea and China is not exceeded 400 nautical miles. But the sovereignty over several islands which are located among these countries is not resolved, maritime delimitations in the several maritime areas of overlapping entitlement are not yet effectuate in the absence of the consensus of maritime delimitation principle and because of different positions of each countries concerning circumstances concerned. In this situation, when the maritime boundary between adjacent or opposing states is necessary to delimit concerning the maritime areas which are not agreed upon between concerned states, international society make reservations to maritime delimitation relating to the maritime areas of overlapping entitlement, and the concerned states often designate jointly managed areas during transitional period.
In this paper, firstly, I analyse the maritime delimitation method under the UNCLOS, the conclusion of provisional arrangements in the UNCLOS provisions that impose the obligation to make every efforts on states before the maritime boundary delimitation is decided, and the rights of coastal states in the EEZ. Secondly, I analyse the legal status of maritime areas of overlapping entitlements in the South Korea-Japan Fishery Agreement and the South Korea-China Fishery Agreement. Thirdly, It is analysed international judgments and cases studies of other countries in the maritime areas of overlapping entitlements which is not delimited in the EEZ. For examples, I analysed the awards of arbitral tribunal between Guyana and Suriname, the case between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal and the case between Australia and East Timor. Finally, I suggested the desirable orientation to manage maritime areas of overlapping entitlements. The delimitation of maritime areas is a multi-facet problem which requires a considerable amount of time to reach an agreement and is difficult to clarify. Thus, in the maritime delimitation negotiations, it would appear the areas of overlapping entitlements at the conclusion of agreements. If coastal states exercise unilaterally the jurisdiction in the areas of overlapping entitlements without consent of other state, it will escalate the possibility of disputes. Thus coastal states have to self-control to exercise the jurisdiction and make efforts to conclude provisional arrangements. Through this provisional arrangements, concerned states have to abide by the agreed conditions and execute jointly the jurisdiction in the areas of overlapping entitlements. Though provisional arrangements do not solve the problems of maritime delimitation and maritime disputes, they could be a means of diminishing disputes to a significant extent.

참고자료

· 없음