본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색

목차보기

목차

통일 이후 북한이 체결한 기존 해양경계획정협정의 승계문제 / 신창훈 1

I. 서론 1

II. 해양관할권에 관한 북한의 주장과 해양경계획정에 있어서의 함의 3

1. 내수와 역사적 만 3

2. 기선과 영해 3

3. 배타적경제수역 4

4. 대륙붕 6

5. 군사경계선수역(국방수역) 7

III. 해양경계획정의 원칙에 관한 북한의 시각 8

IV. 북한이 주변국과 체결한 해양경계획정 협정과 통일 후 당해 협정의 의의 9

1. 북한과 구소련 간의 영해 경계획정 9

2. 북한과 구소련 간의 배타적경제수역 및 대륙붕 경계획정 11

3. 북한과 구소련 간의 해양경계획정 협정의 의의 12

V. 기존 해양경계선의 승계문제 14

1. 국경선과 해양경계선의 관계에 관한 학설 14

2. 국가관행: 통일독일의 경우를 중심으로 18

3. 판례 경향: uti possidetis 원칙이 해양경계선에도 적용될 수 있는지의 문제를 중심으로 25

VI. 결론 28

〈Abstract〉 32

초록보기

With regard to the issue of State Succession, the majority of international lawyers have considered the treaties that establish frontiers or boundaries to be succeeded automatically, categorizing them as real or dispositive treaties. The 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties concluded as a result of the steady efforts to codify the legal principles on State succession, provided in Articles 11 and 12 for the automatic succession of the treaties which establish boundary regimes and other territorial regimes. North and South Korea have not acceded to the Convention, but Articles 11 and 12 may be regarded as being bound to them, because it is supported by the International Court of Justice that those two Articles have achieved the status of customary international law. However, it is unclear whether the boundary regime or other territorial regimes may include treaties that establish maritime boundaries.

Bearing this in mind, the major objective of this paper is to analyse whether the agreements on maritime delimitation between North Korea and its neighbouring States should be succeeded automatically or not. To this end, this paper begins with the analysis on the North Korean position to its national jurisdiction over its adjacent sea areas and the legal principles on maritime delimitation. This paper reviews the agreements on maritime delimitation concluded by North Korea as well. And then it examines the issue whether they should be succeeded automatically or not after the unification of both Koreas, taking into account state practice and the relevant precedents of the international tribunals.

권호기사

참고문헌 (22건) : 자료제공( 네이버학술정보 )

참고문헌 목록에 대한 테이블로 번호, 참고문헌, 국회도서관 소장유무로 구성되어 있습니다.
번호 참고문헌 국회도서관 소장유무
1 국제법학(법학부용) (평양: 김일성종합대학출판사, 1992), pp.100-102. 미소장
2 국제법사전 (평양: 사회과학출판사, 2002), p.174. 미소장
3 Choon-Ho Park, "The 50-Mile Military Boundary Zone on North Korea", 72 American Journal of International Law 866 (1978), p.866. 미소장
4 현대국제법연구 (평양: 과학백과사전출판사, 1988), p.101. (이하 “현대국제법연구”) 미소장
5 R.R. Churchill & A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea (1999), p.191. 미소장
6 統一後 한러 국경의 획정 소장
7 D. Dzurek, "Deciphering the North Korean-Soviet (Russian) Maritime Boundary Agreements", 23 Ocean Development and International Law (1992), p.39. 미소장
8 J.I. Charney & L.M. Alexander, International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I (1993), p.1137. 미소장
9 Leonard Legault & Blair Hankey, "Method, Oppositeness and Adjacency, and Proportionality in Maritime Boundary Delimitation", in Charney & Alexander, supra note 27, p.207. 미소장
10 http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXIII-2&chapter= 23&lang=en 미소장
11 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, ICJ Reports 554 (1986), para. 24, p.566. "... There is no doubt that the obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of a State succession derives from a general rule of international law, whether or not the rule is expressed in the formula uti possidetis..." 미소장
12 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, 1C.J Reports 7 (1997), p.72. "The Court considers that Article 12 reflects a rule of customary international law; it notes that neither of the Parties disputed this." 미소장
13 Draft articles on Succession of States in respect of Treaties with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1974), Vol. II, Part One, p.202. 미소장
14 Geoffrey Marston, "The Stability of Land and Sea Boundary Delimitations in International Law", in G.H. Blake (ed.), World Boundaries, Vol. 5; Maritime Boundaries 144 (1994), p.159 참조. 미소장
15 David M. Ong, "The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor", 31 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 67 (2000), p.101. 미소장
16 Bin Cheng, "Legal and Commercial Aspects of Data Gathering by Remote Sensing", in Bin Cheng (ed.), Studies in International Space Law (1997), p.575; "the position regarding the continental shelf and the EEZ is more ambiguous, neither of which is, strictly speaking, part of a State's national territory." 미소장
17 Erik Franckx, "The 1998 Estonia-Sweden Maritime Boundary Agreement: Lessons to be Learned in the Area of Continuity and/or Succession of States", 31 Ocean Development & International Law 269 (2000) 미소장
18 J.I. Charney & L.M. Alexander, International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. II (1993), pp.1801-14 참조. 미소장
19 Surya P. Sharma, Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law (1997), p.120. 미소장
20 Case Concerning the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal), 83 International Law Reports 1 (1990) 참조. 미소장
21 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment, ICJ Reports 3 (1978), paras. 85 and 86. 미소장
22 J.I. Charney & L.M. Alexander, International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. III (1998), pp.2443. 미소장