• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2006.06a
• /
• 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.

• International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security
• /
• v.22 no.7
• /
• pp.85-90
• /
• 2022

In modern conditions of the development of public relations, there is a continuous development of technologies. This not only reflects the convenience of service users, and new technology but also contributes to the emergence of new disputes to protect the rights of stakeholders. Therefore, it is urgent to study the distinctions between the jurisdiction of commercial, civil and administrative courts in resolving IT disputes. The work aims to study the peculiarities of delimitation of the jurisdiction of commercial, civil, and administrative courts through the prism of IT measurement. The research methodology consists of such methods as a historical, comparative-legal, formal-logical, empirical, method of analogy, method of synthesis, method of analysis, and systematic method. Examining the specifics of delimiting the jurisdiction of commercial, civil, and administrative courts through the IT dimension, it was concluded that there is a problem in determining the jurisdiction of the court. In addition, the judicial practice on this issue is quite variable, which negatively affects the predictability of technology in resolving potential disputes. In this regard, the criterion models for distinguishing between commercial, administrative, and civil proceedings according to the legal classification of the parties, as well as the nature of the claim are identified. This separation will contribute to a more accurate application of legal norms and methods of application of administrative norms and reduce the number of cases of improper proceedings.

• Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.23-29
• /
• 2012

Korea has maritime jurisdiction over an area 4.5 times larger than the nation's inland area, but negotiations with surrounding nations on the maritime boundary delimitation have still not been completed satisfactorily. In particular, maritime boundary delimitation has become an important issue in terms of maritime security and resource exploration. Considering national interests, the delimitation of the maritime boundary is essential. However, no system to help the decision-makers involved in maritime boundary delimitation has yet been systematically constructed. Therefore, the aim of this study was the development of a system to support such decision-making. In this study, considerations related to maritime boundary delimitation were investigated through expert advice and international precedents. Based on these considerations, data were collected from several organizations, and a spatial database was systematically constructed. Finally, MBDSS (maritime boundary delimitation support system) was developed to support maritime boundary delimitation. This GIS-based system provides visual information about the considerations for the maritime boundary delimitation. Thus, it could help decision-makers to choose appropriate boundaries during the negotiation. Furthermore, this system is expected to be utilized as a scientific tool on the delimitation of maritime boundaries.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.99-109
• /
• 2000

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(hereinafter referred as "the Law") adopted in 1982 was enacted on November 16, 1994. South Korea, China, and Japan signed and ratified the Law, respectively. These three countries announced their domestic laws relating to Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) with reserving their applications. The enactment of the Law and announcement of EEZ inevitably brought new order on the seas. The New Fishery Agreement based on the Law with EEZ was concluded between South Korea and Japan and ratified by each country′s parliament. Another New Fishery Agreement between South Korea and China is also going to be concluded in near future. The New Fishery Agreements, however, do not include regulations relating to the marine scientific research, the protection of the marine environment, and so forth, which are essential for the States to fully implement the Law According to the New Fishery Agreements, it is impossible for the Coastal States to excercise their jurisdiction. Because the agreement of delimitation ocean boundaries among the three countries are not easy to settle, provisional agreements can only be concluded. Thus, many problems including the sovereignty over Dok-do between South Korea and Japan and delimitation of EEZ between South Korea and China can be arose anytime. This paper investigates the problems and possible counter measures in legal excercise on the seas by South Korean Government. The above mentioned problems introduced by the New Fishery Agreements include potential problems in the Middle Sea Zone, Provisional Zone, and so forth. In this paper, only the legal aspect of the Zones will be discussed excluding the law enforcement and the economic aspect of the Zones.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.38
• /
• pp.13-46
• /
• 2015

Dokdo issue reaches beyond economic and security interest to Koreans, as it is regarded as symbol of her independence. Albeit the fact that Japan has merely no legitimate title over Dokdo, Japan has been tenaciously insisting their jurisdiction over Dokdo since the independence of Korea. Under such circumstances, public outrage towards Japan is most certainly understandable. Yet, mere outrage itself, lacking in logic and factual grounds, can contribute little if not any, to the desirable solution of the problem. Precedents reveal that dealing maritime issues amid lack of profound understanding in international law has often led to undesirable results, such as the inclusion of Dokdo in the Joint Management Fisheries Zone in 1999 Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement. In a sense, adroit use of international law is a critical element in preserving Korea's sovereign rights against persistent Japanese plans to rob Dokdo once again. The Dokdo issue is inextricably bound to international law; the legal status of Dokdo as island, the equitable solution of maritime boundary delimitation and effective control, existence of dispute. Yet, the public policies and arguments made by pundits are generally in lack of understanding in international law. It is now the time for Korea to commence on long-term cross-academia / department plans to establish Dokdo strategy as part of the nationwide maritime strategy effectively using international law as its stronghold.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 1993

The purpose of this paper is to search for reasonable and fair principles applicable to the delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone(which is called the EEZ, hereinafter) around the Korean Peninsula th-rought the comprehensive study of maritime boundary, which is one of the most important issues in the law of the Sea. So far, the sea has been exploited for activities such as fishery, transport and military stratedy, and en-vironmental policy and so on. From this time on, however, it becomes important to us as the major trea-sure-house of various resources which will be developed and used for diversified purposes. For these rea-sons, nowadays, more and more countries of the world are competing to secure waters as much as possible within their jurisdiction. And the regime of the EEZ was created as a result of this international trend. At last, 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. In adapting to this EEZ institution, Korea is faced with several complicated problems as it is bounded on three sides by the sea and all of its neighboring countries such as the PRC, the DPRK, Japan, Russia etc are less than 400 miles away between opposite countries. Therefore, when trying to delimit the boun-dary for the EEZ, it appears necessary to analyze applicable principles and rules of international law for delimitation mainly through the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and studies the trends of actual State practices and recent international precedents. It is hoped that such knowledge will enable Korea to secure sufficient resources and other sovereign rights without conflicting with the neighboring countries concer-ned. For the achievement of the above mentioned object. I analyzed the necessities of the establishment of the EEZ in Korea, the difficulties and practices of Korea's neighbors, and the changes and forthcoming trends in Korea's relations with its neighbors concerned on the basis of the general explanation of the EEZ regime. In conclusion, it is my opinion that for the establishment of the EEZ delimitation which neighbors around the Korean Peninsula should be applied reasonable and equitable principles considering the rele-vant circumstances which characterize the area definitely as well as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.501-524
• /
• 2002

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.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.427-437
• /
• 2010

The Korean Government is trying to construct an ocean research station in Dokdo's water. The station would be the third ocean research station following the Ieodo station and the Gageocho station. Although the new station would served as a scientific research base for peaceful and academic purposes, the construction of the station will almost certainly lead to a diplomatic dispute between Japan and Korea in the near future due to the disputed ownership of the island. In light of the diplomatic protests against the construction of the Ieodo station by the Chinese Government, various domestic and international legal issues which could be raised regarding the construction of the Dokdo station need to be reviewed. Therefore, this article reviews the international legal status of the station and the rights and duties pertaining to its construction, investigates the domestic legal grounds relating to the construction and operation of the marine scientific installation, evaluates the international legal impacts of the construction on the expansion of maritime jurisdiction, the effective control on Dokdo and the negotiations on maritime boundary delimitation, and finally draws conclusions on the future activities of the Korean Government for the construction and operation of the Dokdo Ocean Research Station.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.30
• /
• pp.177-199
• /
• 2012

As is generally known, the sovereignty dispute over the Senkaku Islands between China/Taiwan and Japan was triggered by a report commissioned by the UN in 1968, which reported the possibility of a substantial amount of petroleum and natural gas buried in the South China Sea. When the administrative authority over the Ryukyu Islands was transferred from the US to Japan in 1972, jurisdiction over the Senkaku Islands was also transferred. A dispute ensued between China (Taiwan) and Japan over the Senkaku Islands except during the period in which formal relations were established between the two states. This paper will take a look particularly at the events that occurred in the 2000's and discuss their recent trends and aspects of the dispute. Though China and Japan agreed to joint resource development in 2008, the agreed zone was a very small area adjacent to the Korea-Japan Joint Continental Shelf Development Zone, and the points of agreement have not been implemented. China has been developing four oil fields including Chunxiao in its waters adjacent to the median line asserted by Japan. However, China also has been excluding the participation of Japan, while Japan has been strongly objecting to the unilateral development of oil fields by China. If indeed the oil fields on China's side are connected past the median line asserted by Japan, then China's unilateral development will infringe upon the potential sovereign rights of Japan, thereby violating international law.