UN해양법협약상 해양경계획정시 중첩수역의 국제법적 지위

Abstract

The extension of jurisdiction in maritime areas adjacent to the coastal states provoked the necessity of maritime delimitation between adjacent or opposing states. The consolidation of maritime jurisdiction by the coastal states could be achieved by the active application of sovereign rights which international society endowed to the coastal states under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS), or was sometimes tried to take more maritime areas by the means of arbitrary interpretation and application of the concerned provisions of UNCLOS. In the North-East Asia, South Korea, Japan and China proclaimed respectively EEZ of 200 nautical miles. The necessity of maritime boundary delimitation is appeared, because the breadth of maritime areas between South Korea and Japan, and between South Korea and China is not exceeded 400 nautical miles. But the sovereignty over several islands which are located among these countries is not resolved, maritime delimitations in the several maritime areas of overlapping entitlement are not yet effectuate in the absence of the consensus of maritime delimitation principle and because of different positions of each countries concerning circumstances concerned. In this situation, when the maritime boundary between adjacent or opposing states is necessary to delimit concerning the maritime areas which are not agreed upon between concerned states, international society make reservations to maritime delimitation relating to the maritime areas of overlapping entitlement, and the concerned states often designate jointly managed areas during transitional period. In this paper, firstly, I analyse the maritime delimitation method under the UNCLOS, the conclusion of provisional arrangements in the UNCLOS provisions that impose the obligation to make every efforts on states before the maritime boundary delimitation is decided, and the rights of coastal states in the EEZ. Secondly, I analyse the legal status of maritime areas of overlapping entitlements in the South Korea-Japan Fishery Agreement and the South Korea-China Fishery Agreement. Thirdly, It is analysed international judgments and cases studies of other countries in the maritime areas of overlapping entitlements which is not delimited in the EEZ. For examples, I analysed the awards of arbitral tribunal between Guyana and Suriname, the case between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal and the case between Australia and East Timor. Finally, I suggested the desirable orientation to manage maritime areas of overlapping entitlements. The delimitation of maritime areas is a multi-facet problem which requires a considerable amount of time to reach an agreement and is difficult to clarify. Thus, in the maritime delimitation negotiations, it would appear the areas of overlapping entitlements at the conclusion of agreements. If coastal states exercise unilaterally the jurisdiction in the areas of overlapping entitlements without consent of other state, it will escalate the possibility of disputes. Thus coastal states have to self-control to exercise the jurisdiction and make efforts to conclude provisional arrangements. Through this provisional arrangements, concerned states have to abide by the agreed conditions and execute jointly the jurisdiction in the areas of overlapping entitlements. Though provisional arrangements do not solve the problems of maritime delimitation and maritime disputes, they could be a means of diminishing disputes to a significant extent.