로마법상 무주지(terra nullius) 개념과 실효적 지배를 통한 국가영역획득
Terra Nullius in Roman Law and Effective Control in Terms of Acquisition of Sovereign Rights to Territory
1
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The most general and definite way of territorial acquisition is the physical occupation to terra nullius based on the discovery. It is known as effective control. The doctrine of effective control, however, is still dispositive of many contemporary disputes over territory. Although the importance of acquiring title through actual physical possession, as opposed to symbolic acts or discovery, has long been recognized, if the term is interpreted as underscoring that the "occupation" must be real and physical possession of the territory in question, not hypothetical possession based on symbolic acts and animus occupandi, it could not play a role as legal criteria to solve territorial disputes because parties of the most territorial dispute cases argue their claim on ancient imprecise documents. Doctrinally, the single most important factor of legal title to land is a "consistent," "actual," "peaceful," and "physical" exercise of power over it. To the extent that simple de facto possession of a particular area is a good in itself, absence of legal title is of diminished importance. In contrast, to the extent that one wishes to gain legal interests in the area one occupies, it is important to have de jure rights as well as physical possession. This article emphasizes that different levels of state activities are appropriate for different types of territory: minimal levels of government activity may be enough to demonstrate sovereignty over the areas which is uninhabited and departed long distance from main land. And when it comes to international legal arena, international tribunals will compare the degree of effective occupation as a sovereign authority demonstrated by each claimant to reach a result. This Kind of balancing test seems to be preferred method of international tribunals and will probably carry the day against contrary arguments based on confusing historical ancient documents.
Abstract
The most general and definite way of territorial acquisition is the physical occupation to terra nullius based on the discovery. It is known as effective control. The doctrine of effective control, however, is still dispositive of many contemporary disputes over territory. Although the importance of acquiring title through actual physical possession, as opposed to symbolic acts or discovery, has long been recognized, if the term is interpreted as underscoring that the "occupation" must be real and physical possession of the territory in question, not hypothetical possession based on symbolic acts and animus occupandi, it could not play a role as legal criteria to solve territorial disputes because parties of the most territorial dispute cases argue their claim on ancient imprecise documents. Doctrinally, the single most important factor of legal title to land is a "consistent," "actual," "peaceful," and "physical" exercise of power over it. To the extent that simple de facto possession of a particular area is a good in itself, absence of legal title is of diminished importance. In contrast, to the extent that one wishes to gain legal interests in the area one occupies, it is important to have de jure rights as well as physical possession. This article emphasizes that different levels of state activities are appropriate for different types of territory: minimal levels of government activity may be enough to demonstrate sovereignty over the areas which is uninhabited and departed long distance from main land. And when it comes to international legal arena, international tribunals will compare the degree of effective occupation as a sovereign authority demonstrated by each claimant to reach a result. This Kind of balancing test seems to be preferred method of international tribunals and will probably carry the day against contrary arguments based on confusing historical ancient documents.
참고문헌 (70)
- Lea Brilmayer, "Land and Sea: Two Sovereign Regimes in Search of a Common Denominator", New York University Journal of International Law & Politics, 33(Spring) (2001)
- 김정균, "국제법", pp.405~ (2006)
- "Article 10, The League of Nations Covenant", ~
- "Article 2(4), The Charter of United Nations", ~
- "UN 헌장 제2조", ~
- Anthony D'Amato, "International Law: Process and Prospect", 73~ (1986)
- D.P. O'Connell, "International Law" (1965)
- Peter Malanczuk, "Akehurst's Modern International Law" (1997)
- Malcolm N. Shaw, "International Law" (1997)
- 송휘영, "일본학자가 보는 독도의 역사학적 연원", pp.7~ (2013), 도서출판 지성인
- Harry Post, "Reflections on Principles and Practice of International Law" (2000)
- E. Rainbow Willard, "How to Get Less Than You Bargain For: Adjudicating the Guatemala-Belize Territorial at the I.C.J Dispute", Emory International Law Review, pp.758~ (2009)
- "Eritrea v. Yemen", I.L.M, 40, pp.900~ (1998), P.C.A
- John Dugard, "International Law: A South African Perspective", pp.132~ (2006)
- Ian Brownlie, "Principles of Public International Law" (2003)
- 김채형, "국제사법재판소에 의한 실효적 지배관련 주요판례와 시사점", 독도의 실효적 지배강화방안 전문가간담회 자료집, pp.23~26 (2012), 국회입법조사처․경상북도
- Peter Malanczuk, "Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law", pp.162~ (1997)
- ICJ Reports, , 566~ (1986)
- 서철원, "니카라구아와 온두라스간의 해양경계사건 분석", 국제법학회논총, 53(2), pp.237~261 (2008), 대한국제법학회
- Richard J. Kilroy, "Maritime and Territorial Boundary Disputes in Latin America: Regional Implications of the 2012 ICJ Ruling on Nicaragua v. Colombia", The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 1(Winter, pp.Spring) (2014), 93~
- 박기갑, "도서 영유권 분쟁관련 국제판례에서 나타난 實效的 支配 내지 占有개념과 독도영유권문제", 국제법학회논총, 45(2), pp.99~115 (2000), 대한국제법학회
- Lauren Benton, "Acquiring Empire by Law: From Roman Doctrine to Early Modern European Practice", Law and History Review (2010)
- Andrew Borkowski, "Textbook on Roman Law", ~ (2005)
- 정인섭, "신국제법강의" (2012)
- Hall, "International Law", pp.126~
- "Palmas Island Case", R.I.A.A., 2, pp.829~
- D. J. Harris, "Cases and Materials on International Law" (1998)
- "Clipperton Island Case, France v. Mexico(1931)", A.J.I.L., 26, pp.390~ (1932)
- H. Waldock, "Brierly The Law of Nations", pp.152~ (1963)
- 김대순, "국제법론", pp.706~ (2007)
- 정인섭, "신국제법강의" (2013)
- 김정건, "신국제법강의", pp.278~
- Antonio Cassese, "International Law" (2005)
- Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, "International Law's Unhelpful Role in the Senkaku Islands", University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, pp.914~ (2008)
- Phil Haas, "Status and Sovereignty of the Liancourt Rocks: The Dispute between Japan and Korea", Gonzaga Journal of International Law, 15, pp.4~ (2011)
- "Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(Den v. Nor.)", P.C.I.J. Ser. A, 1933, pp.(43), 50~51
- "Advisory Opinion on the Status of Western Sahara", ICJ, 12, pp.43~ (1975)
- Elizabeth Varner, "The Art of Armed Conflicts: An Analysis of the United States' Legal Requirements Towards Cultural Property under the 1954 Hague Convention", Creighton Law Review, pp.1220~1221 (2011)
- "Island of Palmas Case (or Miangas), (United States v. Netherlands)", R.I.A.A., 2, pp.687~ (1928)
- ICJ Reports, , 130~ (1951)
- PCIJ, "The Eastern Greenland Case(1933)", ~ (1933)
- ICJ, "Minquiers and Ecrehos Case(1953)", ~ (1953)
- 제성호, "“독도의 실효적 지배와 신 한․일어업협정,” 한국의 독도점유는 완성된 실효적 지배인가?", 독도본부 제14회 학술토론회 (2006)
- "PCA의 인터넷홈페이지"[URL]
- PCIJ, "Series A", B, No. 53
- "Island of Palmas Case (or Miangas), (United States v. Netherlands)", R.I.A.A., 2, pp.839~ (1928)
- 박현진, "독도 영토주권과 격지 무인도에 대한 상징적 병합·가상적 실효지배", 국제법학회논총, 58(4), pp.103~132 (2013), 대한국제법학회
- Chae-Han Kim, "The Resurgence of Territorial and Maritime Issues in the Post-Modern Era", The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 1(1), pp.5~6 (2013)
- Benjamin K. Sibbett, "Note, Tokdo or Takeshima? The Territorial Dispute between Japan and Republic of Korea", Fordham International Law Journal, 21, pp.1630~ (1998)
- C.H.M. Waldock, "Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Island Dependencies", BYIL, 25, pp.334~337 (1948)
- 독도특수연구, "엄정일", ~ (2011)
- Schwarzenberger, "Title to Territory", A.J.I.L., 51, pp.3~ (1957)
- 김명기, "국제법상 ‘대한제국 칙령 제41호’에 의한 역사적 권원의 대체", 독도연구저널, (9), pp.59~ (2010)
- "Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the First Stage", ~ (1998)
- "Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan(Indonesia v. Malaysia)", ICJ, 684 (2002)
- Hersch Lauterpacht, "Oppenheim's International Law", pp.575~ (1955)
- A. G. Guest, "Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence", pp.137~ (1968)
- "Rule A of Article 4, 1897 Treaty between the United Kingdom and Venezuela for the Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Arbitration", ~
- "50 Hague Recueil(1934, IV)", 220~ (1934)
- "Clipperton Island Case, (France v. Mexico)", R.I.A.A, 2(1105) (1931)
- Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975, "Western Sahara", ICJ, 36~, pp.ICJ Report 12
- 이한기, "한국의 영토", pp.247~248 (1969)
- 이영준, "독도문제에 관한 소고: 역사적 고증을 중심으로", 국제문제, pp.127~134 (1980)
- "Clipperton Island Arbitration", A.J.I.L., 26, pp.390~ (1932)
- "Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration Case", ~ (1998)
- Territorial and Maritime Disputes in the Caribbean Sea(Nicaragua v. Honduras), "Judgement", ICJ, ~, pp.papas 174 and 208 (2007)
- "The Island of Palmas Arbitration", ~ (1928)
- United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards, , 869~ (1949)
- "1900년 10월 25일 대한제국 칙령 제41호"[URL]