• 한국마린엔지니어링학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국마린엔지니어링학회 2006년도 전기학술대회논문집
• /
• pp.135-136
• /
• 2006

There are several Disputes relating to the delimitation of maritime boundary and the policy of maritime jurisdiction of the states around the Korea Peninsula. These disputes are connected with the place of 'Tokdo' dominated practically by Korea, 'Senkaku islands' dominated practically by Japan, and 'Kurile islands' that is under disputing between Russia and Japan. North Korea has also the problem. The delimitation of Maritime Boundary among these States would be concluded in very near future. Therefore, we need to understand the maritime jurisdiction policy of these states. South Korea also has to set the policy.

• 항공우주시스템공학회지
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.127-132
• /
• 2016

Recently, China & Japan have expanded their responding ADIZ(Air Defence Identification Zone) to implement each Government's maritime policy and to project their Air Power in preparation for maritime provocation & contingency, especially over the piled area where East Asia countries have claimed to have maritime jurisdiction one another. So this is to guide the Development Option for Korea Air Defence Identification Zone to cope with the maritime intentions of the neighboring countries, considering the international law for ADIZ, the maritime policy and the maritime sovereign & jurisdiction area of the Republic of Korea, etc.

• 해양안보
• /
• 제3권1호
• /
• pp.1-44
• /
• 2021

중국의 새로운 해양정책법(Maritime Policy Law: MPL)은 중국해안경비대 등의 중국 해양경찰 기관들의 임무를 규제하고, 중국의 주권, 안보, 권리, 이해관계를 보호한다고 주장한다. [하지만] 중국이 본토 주위 및 남중국해에서 넓은 해역에 대한 권리를 주장하고 있다는 점에서, MPL은 훨씬 광범위하게 적용될 수 있다. 중국이 제기하는 대부분의 해양 주장이 국제법에 부합하지 않는다는 점을 고려하면, 이렇게 해양법 집행 관할권을 광범위하게 적용하는 것은 문제의 소지가 많다. MPL이 분쟁해역 또는 공해에서 외국선적 선박에 대한 관할권을 주장한다면, 이는 국제법 위반이다. 무력 사용에 관한 MPL의 많은 규정 역시, 해양법 집행 관할권의 사용에 관한 국제 규칙 및 기준을 위반한 것이며, 모든 국가의 영토 온전성이나 정치적 독립성에 반하는 위협이나 무력사용을 금하는 유엔헌장에도 위배된다. 중국은 MPL을 남중국해와 동중국해에서 불법적인 영토 및 해양 주장을 제기하기 위한 구실로 사용할 수 있으며, 다른 연안국의 배타적경제수역 내 자원 권리 행사를 방해하기 위한 구실로도 사용할 수 있다.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권40호
• /
• pp.144-161
• /
• 2016

A unanimous Award has been issued on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China. The current security issues in the regional sea shall be carefully reflected to anticipate whether the Award could resolve the existing political conflict or rather will grow military tension in the region. The Award clearly directs the scope of delimiting maritime jurisdiction to coastal States in the Southern China sea, so it seems to help facilitating finding resolutions of regional disputes on maritime boundaries. On the other hand, there are several limitations in reality to implementation of the decisions included in the Award. USA could use the decisions to restrict military activities and exercise of unilateral maritime jurisdiction by China in the region, while China shall encounter guilt to illegitimacy of its activities as well as shaking the legal foundation of its policy in the region. Then the resolution of this dispute through application of international law would rather cause more political confusion. The intension of bringing the case to an international court were to resolve political difficulties. If, however, the political difficulties are not properly reflected in the legal decisions, such decision would possibly raise more political risks.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

미국 사법체계의 특징 중 하나라 할 수 있는 해사법정관할은 미국 연방법원의 전속관할에 속한다. 미국 연방헌법과 하위 법률이 해사사건에 관한 관할권이 주 법원이 아닌 연방법원에 있음을 명확히 밝히고 있기 때문이다. 하지만 어떠한 사건들이 해사관할에서 다루어질 것인지에 대해서는 법률상 명확한 근거를 두지 않았기 때문에, 해사관할 사건의 범위는 오랜 세월동안 법원의 판례를 통하여 형성되어 왔다. 초기의 법원은 해사관할사건의 인정요소로서 장소적 요건에만 주목하였다. 사고 발생지가 바다, 강, 하천, 호수 등 해상활동에 사용될 수 있는 수역 즉, 가항수역인 경우 해사관할 사건으로 취급하였던 것이다. 하지만 장소적 요건만 중시하게 되면, 우연히 가항수역에서 발생하였을 뿐 해상활동과 아무런 관련성도 없는 사건에 대해서까지 해사관할을 인정해야 한다는 맹점이 있었다. 즉 통일적인 해상규범의 형성이라는 해사관할의 인정취지에 부합하지 않는 사건에 대해서도 해사관할을 인정해야 하는 모순이 있었던 것이다. 이러한 비판에 대하여 장소적 요건에 추가하여 전통적인 해상활동 관련성이라는 기능적 요건이해사사건을 판단하는 기준으로 등장하게 되었다. 그런데 흥미롭게도 해상활동 관련성이라는 요건은 선박사고가 아닌 항공사고를 다루는 판례에서 연유되었다. 미연방 대법원이 판결한 Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland 사건에서 오대호 중 하나인 이리호수에 추락한 항공기 사고와 관련된 손해배상 청구소송에서 원고는 해사관할을 주장하였지만, 법원은 해당 항공운송이 국내운송이었던 점에서 전통적으로 선박이 담당하였던 해상활동과의 관련성이 없다는 이유로 해사관할을 인정하지 않았다. 하지만 이 판례는 그 반대해석으로 국제운송에서 승객이나 화물을 수송하는 역할을 담당하는 항공기가 가항수역에 추락한 경우에는 해사관할이 인정될 수도 있다는 결론으로 이어지게 되었고, 이후 많은 하급심 판례가 항공사고에 대해 해사관할을 긍정하는 방향으로 선회하게 된 계기가 되었다. 이 글은 미국 법원에서의 항공사고에 관한 해사관할 인정여부를 다룬 판례의 경향을 연구할 목적으로 기술되었다. 특히 지난 2013년 미국 샌프란시스코 공항에서 발생한 우리나라 국제선 여객기의 활주로 추락사고와 관련한 미국 연방 항소법원의 판결내용을 중점적으로 분석하였다. 이 사건은 항공기 탑승객이었던 원고들이 사고 항공기의 제작사를 상대로 기체결함을 주장하며 손해배상을 청구한 사건이었는데, 피고 제작사는 해당 사건이 해사관할에 해당하므로 일리노이 주 지방법원이 아닌 연방법원에서 재판이 진행되어야 한다고 주장하였다. 결국 법원은 이러한 피고의 주장을 받아들여 해사관할을 긍정하였다. 해당 항공기는 국제선 여객운송 과정에서 사고가 발생한 것이고, 이는 전통적인 해상활동과의 관련성이 인정될 수 있다는 것이 법원의 판단이었다. 현재까지 미연방 대법원이 가항수역에서 발생한 국제선 항공기의 추락사고에 관하여 해사관할을 인정할 것인지 여부에 대해 명확한 판결을 내린 바가 없는 점을 고려할 때, 이번 항소법원의 판례는 항공사고에 대한 해사관할 인정에 있어서 중요한 의의를 가진다고 할 수 있다.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.769-788
• /
• 2014

Today, all the countries of the world newly recognize importance of sea on 70% area of the earth, which are focused on efforts for security of marine territory and fishes resources. On the security concerns of the ocean & fishes resources, Sea are very important on the ground of the importance of the ocean, thus international community has been trying to combat a maritime security threat and illegal fisheries. Coastal states need to have proper state's jurisdiction and exercise it's jurisdiction to response effectively to a maritime security threat and illegal fisheries. Here, many of the coastal states strengthened the rights in Exclusive Economic Zone(;EEZ) naturally, there are made cooperation activities and keen competition in the sea because deepening of complex understanding of the relationship between the surrounding countries with marine surveys & continental shelf development, island territorial sovereignty & marine jurisdiction in overlap of sea area on EEZ. In these circumstances, foreign fishing boats invaded to our territorial waters and EEZ many times. in addition, Chinese fishing boats are going to illegal fisheries naturally. On this point, a powerful crackdown of maritime enforcement organization had no effect on them. Also more and more their resistance gathered strength and tendency of a illegal activities became systematization, group action and atrocity little by little. So this thesis includes a study on the regal regulation, the system and formalities on the control of illegal fishing. And the author analyzed the details of the activities of illegal fishing and boats controlled by Korea Coast Guard(KCG), fishing patrol vessels of Ministry of Maritime Affaires and Fisheries(MOMAF) and Navy etc. from in adjacent sea area of Korea. In relation to this, the policy and activity plan were devised to crackdown to illegal fisheries of foreign fishing boats and then it was enforced every year. According to this, analyze the present conditions of illegal fisheries of a foreign fishing boats on this study, also analyze the present conditions of maritime enforcement organization & found out problems to compared it. protect the territorial waters, at the same time protection of marine mineral resources & fishes resources of EEZ including continental shelf, which has want to study for the role & response of maritime enforcement organization for the protection of fisheries resources and a proper, a realistic confrontation plan of maritime enforcement organization against illegal fisheries of foreign fishing boats.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권43호
• /
• pp.175-199
• /
• 2018

Recent marine territorial disputes in the East China Sea and the South China Sea have come to us as a great threat. China, which has recently established the China Coast Guard and has rapidly developed maritime security forces, is trying to overcome the various conflict countries with its power. Japan is also strengthening intensively its maritime security forces. Since Korea, China, and Japan are geographically neighboring and sharing maritime space in Northeast Asia, there is no conflict between maritime jurisdiction and territorial rights among the countries. The struggle for initiative in the ocean is fierce among the three coastal nations in Northeast Asia. therefore, Korea needs more thorough preparation and response to protect the marine sovereignty. As the superpowers of China and Japan are confronted and the United States is involved in the balance of power in strategic purposes, the East Asian sea area is a place where tension and conflict environment exist. China's illegal fishing boats are constantly invading our waters, and they even threaten the lives of our police officers. The issue of delimiting maritime boundaries between Korea and China has yet to be solved, and is underway in both countries, and there is a possibility that the exploration activities of the continental shelf resources may collide as the agreement on the continental shelf will expire between Korea and Japan. On the other hand, conflicts in the maritime jurisdictions of the three countries in Korea, China and Japan are leading to the enhancement of maritime security forces to secure deterrence rather than military confrontation. In the situation where the unresolved sovereignty and jurisdiction conflicts of Korea, China and Japan continue, and the competition for the strengthening of the maritime powers of China and Japan becomes fierce, there is a urgent need for stabilization and enhancement of the maritime forces in our country. It is necessary to establish a new long-term strategy for enhancing the maritime security force and to carry out it. It is expected that the Korean Coast Guard, which once said that it was a model for the establishment of China's Coast Guard as a powerful force for the enforcement of the maritime law, firmly establishes itself as a key force to protect our oceans with the Navy and keeps our maritime sovereignty firmly.

• 항공우주시스템공학회지
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.35-42
• /
• 2017

본 연구에서는 중국의 해양정책과 전략을 구현하고 특히, 동아시아 국가들이 주장하는 해양 주권과 관할권이 중첩된 해역에서 주변국과의 해양 갈등.분쟁 시 자국의 항공력을 투사하기 위하여 중국방공식별구역(CADIZ)을 설정하고 운영하고 있는 중국의 의도를 분석한다. 또한 이러한 중국의 의도에 선제적으로 대응하고 한국방공식별구역(KADIZ)을 실효적으로 관리하기 위해 군사력 증강, 제주 항공기지 건설, 현(現) KADIZ 확장 등 다양한 측면에서 우리의 대응방안을 제시하고자 한다.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.669-678
• /
• 2004

Coastal states are adopting maritime boundary delimitation as their primary maritime policy because maritime jurisdiction directly relates to vast economic interest. This becomes specially important and sensitive when complex maritime boundary issues are involved between neighboring coastal states. China has not actively carried out nor declared maritime boundary delimitation until recently with any country except Agreement between China and Viet Nam on the demarcation of the territorial water, the exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf of China and Vet Nam in the Gulf of Tonkin on 25 December 2000 (hereinafter, the Gulf of Tonkin Agreement). The principles that governs maritime boundary delimitation are to consider primarily an agreement between States concerned, however, if no agreement can be reached, all relevant circumstances are considered to achieve an equity between concerned States. Relevant circumstances are length of coastline, form of coastline, existence and position of island or islands, speciality of geology/topography, and factor of economy and deffnce. Factors which sinologists are considering in regard to continental shelf delimitation of the Yellow Sea are as follows; i) geographical factor, ii) geological factor, iii) topographical factor, iv) environment and ecological (factor, v) historic interest, and vi) social and economic interest. The 'Gulf of Tonkin Agreement' is completed by basically applying the principle of delimitation according to median line which seems that China has adopted the maritime boundary delimitation principle of 'half and half' which was the intention of chinese government. At the same time, China recognized Viet Nam's dominion and sovereign right over the partial exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Dao Bach Long Vi in Gulf of Tonkin. This case can be considered as an example of mutual concession or compromise in delimiting maritime boundary for states of concerned.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.31-50
• /
• 2009

The demarcation of Maritime Boundary is directly related to the expansion of jurisdiction and the securing of resources. Resource diplomacies of the three countries Korea, China and Japan represent a major task for the national administrations : to secure resources as well as to stablize and sustain resources for future national economies. At the sea area around Korea as well, countries are fiercely competing to secure resources and to expand jurisdiction. This is evidenced by the fact that various principles and logics which are beneficial to each own country are presented through international precedents, agreement between countries and the theories of the international law scholars. They say that the conclusion of demarcation of maritime boundary for the Yellow Sea would be easy from the point that there is no dispute related to island dominion in the waters of the Korean Peninsula especially the Yellow Sea, but still we need to have a strategic approach to this issue from the point that the factors used for claiming maritime boundaries may expand the waters of a country over much. For example, the continental shelf boundary in consideration of the distribution of sedimentary deposits in the Yellow Sea which is being raised by China began from the hypothesis that the inflow of sedimentary deposits to the Yellow Sea through the rivers of China represents absolute majority, but the results of the latest studies raised questions on the hypothesis. Especially, the studies done by Martin and Yang revealed that the inflow of sedimentary deposits to the Yellow Sea from the Yellow River is approximately less than 1% of total sedimentary deposits in the Yellow Sea, and also the result of analysis on the causes and counter policy measures on the environment of Bohai, China supports the reliability of the results of such studies. From a legal aspect, the sedimentary deposits of rivers which are claimed by China represent extremely weak ground for the claim for the title of the continental shelf. The siltline claimed by China seems to be based on the Article 76-4-(a)(i) of UNCLOS. This is, however, not the definition on the title of the continental shelf but it is only a technical formula to utilize in a case where a country desires to expand the continental shelf to over 200 nautical miles. Scientific and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf also confirm this point through the Article 2.1.2 of the Guideline. The only case in which sedimentary deposits of rivers were referred to as concrete demarcation of maritime boundary was in the which was concluded in 1986 between India and Myanmar at the Andaman Sea. In the said case, India acknowledged the boundary up to the isobath of 200m which Myanmar claimed based on the sedimentary deposits of the Irrawaddy River. It has limits as a case for acknowledging the sedimentary deposits, however, because in fact India's acknowledgment was made in exchange for the condition that Myanmar gave up the dominion of two islands which they had been claiming from India up until that time.