排他的 經濟水域의 境界劃定에 관한 考察

Abstract

地球 表面에 約 3分의 2를 차지하는 바다는 그 尨大한 크기만큼이나 資源이 多樣하고 豊富하다. 그러나 사람들은 有史以來 지금까지 줄 곧 3分의 1밖에 되지 않는 좁은 陸地에서 살아왔기 때문에 重要한 資源은 이미 그 限界를 드러내기 시작했다. 從來의 海洋은 漁業과 輸送, 軍事的 利用등 平和的 利用에만 치우쳐 왔으나 앞으로는 鑛物, 에너지, 空間을 포함하여 立體的으로 開發, 利用될 資源의 寶庫로서 그 重要性이 强調되고 있다. 이제 人類는 海洋資源開發의 必要性을 切感하고 長期的인 資源確保와 海洋의 高度利用이라는 觀點에서 조금이라도 더 많은 바다를 차지하려는 國家間의 利害對立이 極에 다다르고 있으며 海洋分割의 國際思潮가 일고 급기야는 經濟水城이라는 理論까지 登場하게 되고 마침내 1982年 第3次 UN海洋法倉議에서 採擇된 「海洋法協約」 에서는 200海里 排他的 經濟水域을 法的 槪念으로 받아들임으로써 制度化하기에 이르렀다. 그리하여 이제와서는 境界劃定없이는 海洋資源의 正確한 割當이 이루어질 수 없게 되었으며 海洋管轄水域의 擴張으로 周邊國과의 距離가 400海里 未滿인 곳에서는 어디에서나 境昇劃定 問題가 發生하게 되었다. 이와 같은 國際的 趨勢에서 3面이 바다인 우리나라는 資源을 獲得하기 위하여는 海洋進出이 切實하며 앞으로 우리나라가 周邊海洋에 대하여 經濟水域을 宣布할 경우에는 周邊國家와의 摩擦은 不可避하게 되었다. 따라서 隣接國家와의 摩擦을 避하고 必要한 資源을 確保하기 위해서는 國際法上 認定되는 境界劃定의 原則과 規則들을 海洋法協約을 中心으로 살펴보고 아울러 國家實行의 傾向과 最近 國際判例의 動向을 살펴본다는 것은 매우 有益하리라 생각된다. 그리하여 本 論文 第Ⅱ章에서는 排他的 經濟水域의 一般的 考察에서 經濟水域制度의 成立背景, 定義 및 法的 體制등을 대략 알아보고 境界劃定에 관한 國際法 原則과 海洋法協約 規定의 內容을 살펴보았다. 第Ⅲ章에서는 從來 大陸棚 境界劃定에 관해서 相當한 論爭이 있어 왔으므로 이것과의 關係는 어떠한가를 간단히 比較·考察하였다. 第Ⅳ章에서는 合意를 통하여 이루어진 境界劃定에 관한 國家實行의 代表的 先例들을 整理해 보았다. 第V章에서는 最近에 決定된 1984年 美國·캐나다간 메인灣事件과 1985年 리비아·말타간 大陸棚事件을 分析해봄으로써 國際判例의 動向을 살폈다. 끝으로 第Ⅵ章에서는 우리나라 各 周邊國의 立場을 알아보고 海洋法協約과 現行 國際法上 傾向을 中心으로 우리나라 經濟水域 設定과 관련하여 앞으로 周邊國과의 關係를 豫見해 보았다. 지금까지 境界劃定基準으로서 衡平의 原則과 中間線原則이 對立되고 있는데 海洋法協約에서는 經濟水域의 境界劃定은 衡平한 解決에 到達하기 위하여 國際法을 基礎로 合意에 의하여야 한다는 극히 模糊한 規定을 하고 있다. 國際實行面에서는 一般的으로 中間線方法이 使用되고 特別한 狀況을 考慮해서 이를 修正하고 있으며 몇몇 경우에는 境界線 대신 共通·共同水域을 設定하고 있다. 國際司法裁判所는 衡平한 解決을 이끌기 위하여 關聯狀況을 考慮해서 衡平의 原則이 우선 適用되어야 한다고 强調하고 있다. 한가지 注目할 것은 종래 論難이 되어온 大陸棚 境界劃定과의 關係에서 海洋法協約은 大陸棚과 經濟水域의 境界劃定에 대하여 同一한 規定을 두고 있으며 國家實行面에서는 토레스海峽條約을 除外하고는 單一의 大陸棚·經濟水城境界의 合意하고 있고 메인灣事件에서도 裁判所는 單一境界線을 그었다. 즉 國際秩序는 單一海洋境界線을 選好하고 있음을 알 수 있고 單一海洋境界劃定이 바로 經濟水域의 境界劃定이라고도 말할 수 있다. 이와 같이 本 論文은 海洋法中 가장 該心的인 問題라고 할 수 있는 境界劃定 問題를 全般的으로 考察해 봄으로써 排他的 經濟水域의 境界劃定에 관한 가장 合理的인 原則은 무엇인가를 探究해 보려는 試圖를 했다.;The purpose of this thesis is to search for reasonable and fair principles applicable to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) through the comprehensive study of maritime boundary, one of the most important issues in the Law of the Sea. (1) The sea, which covers two-thirds of he surface of the earth, contains various resources in abundance. But we have been living on land which covers just one-third of the earth and the principal land-based resources have almost come to the limit. So far, the sea has been exploited for peaceful activities such as fishery, transport and military strategy. From now on, however, it becomes important to us as the major treasure-house of resources which will be developed and used for diversified purposes. The human race now feels strongly the necessity to develop sea resources. International conflicts of interests have become very serious. Because each country competes to gain control of more sea in order to improve their long-term resource supplies, the international trend to devide the sea has given rise to the regime of the EEZ. It has been institutionalized as the 200-mile EEZ of a legal notion in the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was adopted at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, in Jamaica on December 10, 1982. As a result, any allotments of sea resources can not be settled without the boundary, and thus the problem of delimitation has arisen in places where the distance between opposite or adjacent countries is less than 400 miles. In adapting to this international trend, Korea faces several difficult issues as it is bounded on three sides by the sea and all of its neighbors are less than 400 miles away. Therefore when trying to delimit the boundary for the EEZ, it appears necessary to analyze applicable principles and rules of international law of delimitation mainly through the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and study the trends of actual State practices and recent international precedents. It is hoped that such knowledge will enable Korea to secure necessary resources without conflicting with its neighbors. (2) In chapter Ⅱ, the background of establishment, definition and the legal structure of the EEZ regime is examined. The principles of international law pertaining to boundary delimitation and the contents of the Convention Rules on the Law of the Sea are also examined. In chapter Ⅲ, the relationship between the delimitation of the EEZ and that of the continental shelf, which has been considerably argued, is examined, in the belief that this would help to solve the problems concerned with the maritime boundary around the Korean peninsula. In chapter Ⅳ, precedents of State practices on delimitation through negotiated agreements are examined. In chapter Ⅴ, two international cases are examined : the United States of America vs. Canada gulf of Maine Case of 1984 and the Libya vs. Malta Continental Shelf Case of 1985 as decided by the International Court of Justice. Finally, in chapter Ⅵ, the attitudes of Korea's neighbors are studied against the background of international law as currently practiced and the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Then the changes in Korea's relations with its neighbors concerned with the establishment of its EEZ is also analyzed. (3) The EEZ is a new juridical regime which may extend up to 200 miles from the baselines from the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In this zone, the coastal State enjoys sovereign rights over sea resources such as fish, oil, gas and other economic activities, as well as exclusive jurisdiction over enviornmental control, scientific research and any other uses of the sea. Accordingly the delimitation of the EEZ has to be done in a fair and equitable manner taking into account the special circumstances regarding the extent of a coastal State's jurisdiction in it. First of all, boundaries have to settled by agreement between States. In case of difficults or a dispute, the parties may have to resort to some third-party settlement procedure. One thing is certain that there is no single principle universally applicable to delimitation of boundaries. Up to now, the main controversy in maritime delimitation has been whether to apply "the equitable principle" or "The principle of median line or equidistance line." The relevant provision of the Convention on the Law of the Sea emphasizes the need for agreement, which is based on applicable international law and which leads to an equitable solution. State practice in agreements has generally been to apply the equidistance method, modified depending on the special circumstance and established joint or common zones without settling the boundary in a few cases. The International Court of Justice has emphasized the need to apply equitable principle in order to achive an equitable solution. Relating to the continental shelf, in the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the rules which apply to the delimitation of the continental shelf are identical to those that apply to the EEZ. In State practice, single EEZ/continental shelf boundaries have been agreed except in the Torres Strait Treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea. In the Gulf of Maine Case, the Court decided to delimit a single maritime boundary. Considerations of international public order appear to favor one line for its convenience. One can say that the single maritime boundary is indeed simply the boundary of the EEZ. Geographical adjacency measured by the distant criterion has been the sole basis of title of the EEZ and a sufficent basis of title of the continental shelf within 200 miles of the coast. The rules applicable to two regimes are almost alike, apart from geological or geomorphological factors. When a separate maritime boundary is neither desirable nor feasible, but the special circumstance vary, it may be useful to consider the establishment of joint development zone either after, or without establishing a single maritime boundary. After all, it is important to specify the equitable considerations in the boundary area and then balance up all the relevant factors to reach the appropriate line, in order to achive an equitable solution.