Ocean and Polar Research

Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology (한국해양과학기술원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Regime of Island and Dokdo on the UNCLOS

해양법상 섬제도와 독도

  • 권문상 (한국해양연구원 연구정책실)
  • Published : 2002.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Article 121 of the UNCLOS stipulates the regime of islands and grants different jurisdictions to islands and rocks. Especially, paragraph 3 gives different definitions and distinguishes the legal status of between islands and rocks. That is, rocks, which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life cannot have their own EEZ, continental shelf or the great-sphere maritime jurisdiction. In this paper various theories and state practicess on islands and rocks are examined with reference to Article 121 of UNCLOS. Also, the status of Dokdo as a rock or an island is examined in accordance with the interpretation of Article 121 of UNCLOS. National legislations, practices, and many scientific opinions are often contradictory and controversial with respect to the interpretation of Article 121 of the UNCLOS. However, it is believed that Article 121 of UNCLOS, particularly paragraph 3 has to be interpreted more strictly. That is because the highly developed modem scientific technology can be meaningless when the criteria of Article 121 of UNCLOS are to be inappropriately applied. Insular figures like ${\ulcorner}rocks{\lrcorner}$ could bring the inequitable effects disadvantageous toward the other party when the maritime delimitation is applied. Claiming and Intentionally extending maritime zone of a coastal states by assigning EEZ for small insular figures like ${\ulcorner}rocks{\lrcorner}$ is over-zealous nationalism which is illegal, and such practices must be recognized as actions bringing great harm to the neighboring nations and demise of the sprit of all mankind.

Keywords

References

  1. Jon M. Van Dyke and Robert A. Brooks, "Uninhabited Islands: Their Impact on the Ownership of the Ocean's Resources", Ocean Development and International Law (이하 ODIL이라 함), 1983, Vol. 12, No. 3-4, p. 266.
  2. R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 1983, p. 36.
  3. Britanica-Webster Dictionary, p. 479.
  4. 임덕형, 정치지리학원리, 1989, pp. 190-192.
  5. C. R. Symmons, The Maritime Zones of Islands in International Law, 1979, p. 3.
  6. 문정식, 국제해양법상 도서의 법적 지위, 해양법자료집(제4집), 해군본부, 1985, p. 39.
  7. C. R. Symmons, p. 1.
  8. E. D. Brown, The Areas Within National Jurisdiction: Continental Shelf Outer Limit, 1992, p.22.
  9. League of Nations Conference for the Codification of International Law, 2 Cases of Discussion 52-53 (League of Nations Doc. No. C. 74M.39.1929.V).
  10. League of Nations Conference for the Codification of International Law, 2 Cases of Discussion 52-53 (League of Nations Doc. No. C. 74M.39.1929.V)
  11. Every island has its own territorial sea. An island is an area of land, surrounded by water, which is permanently above high-water mark.
  12. J. M. Van Dyke and R. A. Brooks, p. 273. Area of land should be read to an appreciable surface above the sea visible in normal weather conditions.
  13. An island is an area of land, surrounded by water, which in normal circumstances is permanently above high-water mark.
  14. UN, ILC Yearbook, 1956, p. 270.
  15. C. R. Symmons, p. 11.
  16. C. R. Symmons, p. 11.
  17. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high-tide.
  18. Jon M. Van Dyke and Robert A. Brooks, p. 278.
  19. Jon M. Van Dyke and Robert A. Brooks, p. 279.
  20. W. Bowett, The Legal Regime of Islands in International Law, 1979, p. 44.
  21. R. D. Hodgson and R. Smith, "The Informal Single Negotiating Text (Committee II): A Geographical Perspective", ODIL, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1976, pp. 230-234.
  22. 21. N. Ely, "Seabed Boundaries between Coastal States: The Effect to be given Islets as Special Circumstances", International Law, Vol. 6, 1972, pp. 232-235.
  23. C. R. Symmons, pp. 12-13.
  24. Regime of Islands : Legislative History of Part VIII(Article 121) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, The Law of the Sea (United Nations, New York, 1988)(이하 UN Office Islands Publ. 라 칭한다), pp.89-108.
  25. 이들 국가는 알제리, 다호메이(Dahomey), 기니, 아이보리코스트, 리베리아, 마다가스카르, 말리, 모리타니아, 모로코, 시에라리온, 수단, 튀니지, Upper Volta, 잠비아 등이다.
  26. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.53. 루마니아 초안 제1조 2항, "소도와 유사한 섬은 ...1평방 킬로보다 크지만 (영구적으로) 인간이 거주하지 않거나 거주할 수 없고 혹은 독자적인 경제생활을 할 수 없고 하지 않는 자연적으로 형성된 육지돌출물이다."
  27. UN Doc. A/Conf.62/C.2/L.55 (1974).
  28. Regime of Islands, pp. 35-37.
  29. UN Doc. A/Conf.62/C.2/L.50 (1974).
  30. C. R. Symmons, p. 32.
  31. R. D. Hodgson and R. Smith, p. 148.
  32. C. R. Symmons, 1995, "Some Problems Relating to the Definition of 'Insular Formations' in International Law: Islands and Low-Tide Elevations", Maritime Briefing, Vol. 1, No. 5, 1995. p. 3.
  33. R. D. Hodgeson and R. Smith, p. 148. "(...the island must be land-dirt, rock, organic matter or a combination thereof")
  34. Papadakis, The International Legal Regime of Artificial Islands, 1977, p. 91.
  35. Daily Telegraph, 1989, 3월 9일.
  36. Daily Telegraph, 1979년 6월 27일.
  37. 파푸아뉴기니와 호주의 해양경계획정 조약 규정에 나타나 있다(ILM 1979:291).
  38. Clive Symmons, "When is an 'Island' Not an 'Island' in International Law? The Riddle of Dinkum Sands in the Case of US v. Alaska", Maritime Briefing, Vol. 2, No. 6, 1999. pp. 11-17.
  39. Pharand, The Law of the Sea of the Arctic, 1973, p. 196.
  40. 같은 예로 저조고지의 정의와 관련해서도 어떠한 조위기준면이 제시되어 있지않다.
  41. C. Symmons. p. 12.
  42. R. D. Hodgeson and R. Smith, p. 150.
  43. S. W. Boggs, "Delimitation of Seaward Areas under National Jurisdiction", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1951, p. 240.
  44. C. Symmons, supra note 29, p. 22, footnote 164.
  45. E. D. Brown, The International Law of the Sea, Volume I, Introductory Manual, 1994, p.33.
  46. Alian Khadem, "Protecting Maritime Zones from the Effects of Sea Level Rise", IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1998, p. 76.
  47. B. Kwiatkowska and A. H. A. Soons, "Entitlement to Maritime Areas of Rocks Which Cannot Sustain Human Habitation or Economic Life of Their Own", Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 1990, p. 176
  48. J. M. Van Dyke, J. R. Morgan and J. Gurish, "The Exclusive Economic Zone of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: When Do Uninhabited Islands Generate an EEZ?", San Diego Law Review, 1988, p. 439.
  49. E. D. Brown, "Rockall and the limits of national jurisdiction of the UK", Marine Policy, 1978, p. 207
  50. E. D. Brown, The International Law of the Sea, Vol. I, Introductory Manual, 1994, p. 151.
  51. B. Kwiatkwska and A.H.A. Soons, p. 150
  52. V. Prescott, "The Uncertainties of Middleton and Elizabeth Reefs", IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, 1998, Vol. 6, No. 1. p. 74.
  53. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.30.
  54. Haller Trost, The Contested Maritime and Territorial Boundaries of Malaysia-An International Law Perspective, 1998, pp. 60-62.
  55. Haller Trost, The Contested Maritime and Territorial Boundaries of Malaysia-An International Law Perspective, 1998, pp. 62.
  56. B. Kwiatkwska and A.H.A. Soons, pp. 151-152
  57. L.M. Alexander, "The Identification of Technical Issues of Maritime Boundary Delimitation within the Law of the Sea Convention Context", in E.D Brown and R.R. Churchill, eds., The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Impact and Implementation, Proceedings of Law of the Sea Institute 19th Annual Conference 1985 (1987) pp.272-273.
  58. Van Dyke and Brooks, p. 283
  59. C. R. Symmons, p. 41.
  60. B. Kwiatkwska and A.H.A. Soons, supra note 43, p. 153.
  61. 이에 대해 Nelson은 "'cannot sustain'이라는 문구는 현재상황을 다루고 있다는 것을 알아야 한다. 수세기 전에 무슨 일이 일어났건 현재 암석이 지속할 수 없다는 개념과 무관하다. 따라서 지금 일어나고 있는 것, 즉, 현재 암석 같은 형상물이 가지고 있는 능력을 주시해야 한다"고 주장했다. Aves Island 에서도 "핵심은 Aves Island가 과거에 독자적으로 경제생활을 지속할 수 있었는지 여부가 아니라, 현재 그런 가능성이 있는 지이다"라고 지적했다,
  62. J. M. Van Dyke, J. R. Morgan and J. Gurish, p. 439.
  63. B. Kwiatkowska and A. H. A. Soons, p. 162.
  64. Hodgson and Smith, "The Informal Single Negotiating Text (Committee II): A Geographical Perspective", ODIL, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1976, p. 231.
  65. B. Kwiatkowska and A. H. A. Soons, pp. 160-164.
  66. The Law of the Sea: Regime of Islands - Legislative History of Part VIII (Article 121) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 1988, p. 97.
  67. Alex G. Oude Elferink, "Clarifying Article 121(3) of the Law of the Sea Convention: The Limits Set by the Nature of International Legal Processes", IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1998.
  68. Hodgson and Smith, p. 231.
  69. Jonathan I. Charney, 'Rocks that cannot sustain human habitation', AJIL, Vol. 93, No.4, 1999.
  70. Victor Prescott, 'The Uncertainties of Middleton and Elizabeth Reefs', IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1998
  71. R. R. Churchill, "Maritime Delimitation in the Jan Mayen Area", Marine Policy, 1985, Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 19-20.
  72. UN Office Islands Publ., supra note, 57. p. 99.
  73. B. Kwiatkowska and A. H. A. Soons, supra note 43, p. 165.
  74. Gidel, Le droit International Public de la mer, Vol. III (1934), 1923년 제국회의 결의 4조
  75. R. D. Hodgson and W. Smith, supranote 17
  76. UN Office Islands Publ., p. 66.
  77. Biliana Cicin-Sain and Robert W. Knecht, "The Emergence of a Regional Ocean Regime in the South Pacific", Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1989, pp. 171-211.
  78. B. Kwiatkowska and A. H. A. Soons, supra note 43, p. 166.
  79. "Troubles under the Water: Sino-Japanese Conflict of Sovereignty on the Continental Shelf in the East China Sea", ODIL, Vol. 18, No. 5, 1987, pp. 585-598, footnote, 67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908328709545839
  80. UN Office Islands Publ., p. 57.
  81. C. R. Symmons, p. 48.
  82. E. D. Brown, pp. 181-207
  83. Hodgson and Smith, p. 231
  84. V. Prescott, pp. 72-77.
  85. R. R. Churchill, supra note 61, pp. 16-20.
  86. UN Office Islands Publ., p. 99.
  87. 본문 '섬의 입법론적 분석' 부분에서 언급.
  88. D. J. Attard, The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law, 1987, p. 260.
  89. Van Dyke and Brooks, pp.286-288.
  90. Brownlie는 첨부와 자연분리가 영토취득의 법적 형태가 될 수 있는지에 대해 회의적이다.
  91. 이한기 교수 및 한국의 다수 학자들은 간척사업에 의한 첨부도 국가영토취득의 법적형태가 될 수 있다고 주장하고 있다.
  92. B. Kwiatkowska and A. H. A. Soons, p. 173.
  93. D. J. Attard, p. 260.
  94. 이 경우에는 다시 배타적 경제수역을 갖는 섬을 구체적으로 지정하여 선언하는 경우도 있겠으나 주로 경계획적에서 200해리 수역을 갖는 섬들이 분명해지는 경우가 많다. 한국, 일본 및 중국의 배탄적경제수역법에서는 어떤섬이 암석인지 섬인지 명시적 기준이 나타나있지 않다. . 중국 배타적 경제수역 및 대륙붕에 관한 법, 제2조: 배타적 경제수역은 ...영행폭을 측정하는 기선으로부터 200해리까지... . 일본 배타적 경제수역 및 대륙붕에 관한 법, 제1조 2항: 배타적 경제수역은 ...우리나라 기선으로부터 ...200해리... . 한국 배타적 경제수역법, 제2조: 배타적 경제수역은 ... 기선으로부터 외측 200해리.
  95. Law No. 30/76 relating to the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Maldives of December 1976.
  96. Democratic Yemen (Act of 1977 concerning the Territorial Sea, Exclusive Economic Zone, Continental Shelf and other Marine Areas Act No. 45, 1977, Arts 2 and 18). $\S$18. Each of the islands of the Republic shall have a territorial zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of its own, and all provisions of this Act shall be applicable to it.
  97. Maritime Zones Act Law No. 22 of 1 September 1976, Art. 2 para. 2 and Art 6 (1) (b). ... any island and rock, or group of islands and rocks, or group of islands or group of rocks, constituting part of the territory of Sri Lanka.
  98. Act establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone along the coasts of the Mainland and Islands of 26 July 1978. $\S$1. ...all along the coasts of the mainland and islands of the Republic of Venezuela,...
  99. Act No. 205 of December 1979 relating to the Continental Shelf and the Adjacent Sea. $\S$. The Sovereignty and national jurisdiction exercised over the continental shelf and the adjacent sea shall extend to the airspace and all the islands, cays, banks, reefs and other geographical features ....
  100. Federal Law on the Continental Shelf of the Russian Federation 25 on October 1995. $\S$1. The definition of the continental shelf also applies to all the islands of the Russian federation.
  101. The Maritime Zone Act No. 23 of 1981, Art. 5(2), The Law of the Sea: Current Developments in State Practice (United nations, New York, 1987, pp. 126-127). $\S$5(2) The baseline from which the territorial sea is measured shall be the archipelagic baseline and the low water line of the coast of Mattew Island and Hunter Island.
  102. Royal Decree concerning the territorial sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, 10 February 1981. Art.2. (b), The Law of the Sea: Current Development in State Practice (United Nations, New York, 1987, p. 78). $\S$2 (b) ... the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low water line along the coast of the mainland or of islands and rocks.
  103. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone Act, 1989 $\S$5. The baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea of the United Republic is measured shall be the low-water line along the coast of the United Republic including the coast of all islands.
  104. Law No. 8,617, January 4, 1993, Art.1. Current Legal Developments, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1993, p. 419. $\S$1. ...measured from the low water line of the continental and insular coast of Brazil... https://doi.org/10.1163/157180893X00143
  105. Declaration on Easter Island and Sala y Gomes Island: Extension of Undersea Sovereignty, 15, September 1985, The Law of the Sea: Current Developments in State Practice (United Nations, New York, 1987). $\S$5(1) That the government of Chile, holder of sovereignty over Easter Island and Sala y Gomes Island in the Pacific Ocean, declares and communicates to the international community that its sovereignty over their respective shelves extends up to a distance of 350 nautical miles, measured from the baselines from which their respective territorial seas are measured.
  106. Act N. 411 of 22 May 1996 on Exclusive Economic Zone, p. 32, Law of the Sea, Bulletin No. 33, United Nations, New York, 1997.
  107. Alex G. Oude Elferink, p. 66, footnote 17.
  108. 'Law Concerning Maritime Zones' enacted in 1985 $\S$51 : Islands have exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, but rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own do not. (The Law of the Sea: National Legislation on the Exclusive Economic Zone(United Nations, New York, 1993), p. 223)
  109. (The Law of the Sea: Current Developments in State Practice (United Nations, New York, 1987) p.66).
  110. 芹田健太郎, 鳥の領有と經濟水域の境界劃定, 有信堂, 1999, pp. 240-241
  111. 芹田健太郎, 鳥の領有と經濟水域の境界劃定, 有信堂, 1999, Victor Prescott, p.74.
  112. Hiroyuki Nakahara, Recent Issues on Coastal Management in Japan, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997, pp. 165-166.
  113. B. Kwiatkowska & H. A. Sonns, p. 168.
  114. UK Hydrographic Office, Pacific Islands Pilot, Vol. I(9th Ed.), 1970.
  115. 1999년 9월, 해양수산부 발표자료, p. 13.
  116. Victor Prescott, p. 74.
  117. Natalia S. Mirovitskaya and J. Christopher Haney, "Fisheries exploitation as a threat to environmental security", Marine Policy, July 1992, Vol. 16, No 4. pp. 248-251.
  118. Alex G. Oude Elferink, "Fisheries in the Sea of Okhotsk High Seas Enclave-The Russian Federation's Attempts at Coastal Control", The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1995, pp. 1-18 https://doi.org/10.1163/157180895X00349
  119. 日本離島センタ―, 日本の鳥事典, 二交社, 平成 7年(1995년), p. 51.
  120. SHIMADAS '94 (Shima (Islands) data annual series 1994), 日本離島センタ―, p. 100
  121. 芹田健太郎, 島の領有と經濟水域の境界劃定, 有信堂, 1999, pp. 240-241
  122. Jon M. Van Dyke, Joseph R. Morgan & Jonathan Gurish, p. 246.
  123. http://www.emulateme.com/people/mipeo.htm
  124. 프랑스와 멕시코간의 Clipperton에 대한 영토분쟁은 1931년 중재재판에 의해 해결되었다. 일반적으로 영토에 대한 주권을 얻기 우해서 국가는 (1) 영토를 발견하고 (2) 상징적 행위로서 주권을 명백히 하고 (3) 그 지역에 대한 실제적 통제를 가함으로써 영토를 실효적으로 점유해야 한다. 그러나 중재재판을 맡은 Victor Emmanuel 판사는 Clipperton은 무인도로서 일반적으로 적용되는 엄격한 요건을 충족시킬 필요는 없다고 주장하고 단지 '점유국이 최초로 등장한 그때로부터 영토는 그 국가의 절대적이고 분쟁의 소지가 없는 재량권이 있다'고 판결했다. 즉, 무인도에 대한 주권은 일단 발견되어 주장된 후 발견국에 의한 더 이상의 조치가 없어도 그대로 원용된다는 것이다. 1858년 이후 멕시코가 1897년 소유권을 주장할 때까지 39년 동안 그 섬에 존재하지 않았지만 이는 프랑스가 그 섬을 유기한 것이 아니다. 왜냐하면 국제법에 의하면 단지 사용하지 않는다고 해서 유기로 추정될 수 없고 자발적인 것에 의해 유기가 인정되기 때문이다.
  125. Decree No. 77-130 of 11 February 1977 on the establishment, pursuant to the law of July 16, 1976, of an Economic Zone off the Coasts of the territory of the Republic bordering the North Sea, the English Channel and the Atlantic, from the Franco-Belgian border to the Franco-Spain border, The Law of the Sea: National Legislation on the Exclusive Economic Zone (United Nations, New York, 1993), p. 97.
  126. Jon M Van Dyke & Robert A Brooks, p. 290, n. 16.
  127. Kaldone G. Nweihed, "EZ (Easy) Delimitation in the Semi-enclosed Caribbean Sea: Recent Agreement Between Venezuela and Her Neighbors", ODIL, Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 21.
  128. Willy \phi{strong}, "Delimitation arrangements in Arctic seas", Marine Policy, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1986, pp. 137-139
  129. Willy \phi{strong}, "Delimitation arrangements in Arctic seas", Marine Policy, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1986, R. R. Churchill, pp. 16-20.
  130. 영.불 대륙붕 경계획정에서 중재 재판소는 Channel 제도의 소도인 Manquiers 및 Ecrehos와 프랑스의 Chausey 섬의 무시되어야 하고 영국의 모든 섬은 기점으로 이용되어야 한다고 판결하였다.
  131. UN Office Islands, 터어키는 경계획적 될 직역에 존재하는 섬은 형평한 해결을 위해 고려되어야 할 관련 사항이라고 한다. p. 111. 튀니지-리비아 사건에서 리비아의 자연적 연장에 따른 경계획정은 거부당했고 튀니지의 한 개의 섬은 완전히 무시되었고 다른 섬 kerkenna는 반감 효과를 인정받았다. 또한 미국과 캐나다간의 메인만 사건에서 미국은 메인주 어업의 죠지스 뱅크(Georges Bank)에 대한 의존도를 지적했다.
  132. 1958년 영해협약 제12조 4항.
  133. C. R. Symmons, p. 153.
  134. C. R. Symmons, p. 106-111.
  135. C. R. Symmons, p. 112.
  136. 日本 海上保安廳, 九州|沿岸水路誌, 書誌第105號, 平成7年 3月 刊行, pp. 188-190.
  137. 日本 海上保安廳, 九州|沿岸水路誌, 書誌第105號, 平成7年 3月 刊行, pp. 191.
  138. B. Kwiatkowska and A. H. A. Soons, p. 181.