The EEZ Regime in Northeast Asia: Legal Status of the EEZ and Military Activities in the EEZ
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
One of the most controversial issues during the UN Conference on the Law of theSea was to determine the legal status of the EEZ. The first view envisaged thezone as an extension of the territorial sea, where the coastal states would enjoysovereignty with certain exceptions. The second view considered the zone to havethe high seas status with certain modifications. The third view held that the EEZwas a sui generis zone with its own legal status. The first view was presentedby several Latin American states. The second view reflected the concerns ofMaritime Powers. The 1982 UN Convention stipulated broad jurisdiction and sovereign rights ofcoastal states as well as certain freedoms and duties of other states in the EEZ. Considering the general trend in the UN Conference and the relative articles ofthe Convention, it would be reasonable to regard the EEZ as a separate functionalzone of a sui generis character, situated between the territorial sea and the high seas. It remains to be seen whether an agreement on the issue is reached by accumulationof state practice. Korea, China and Japan established the EEZ regime in the late 1990s. But theydid not agree on the final maritime boundary delimitation. Instead, they concludedthree bilateral fisheries agreements establishing several intermediate zones in theoverlapping EEZ. As Korea, China and Japan take different stances on the EEZ,conflicts over military activities or marine scientific research in the EEZ make itmore difficult for them to delimit maritime boundaries. Therefore, many agreements have yet to be reached on maritime boundariesrelating to the EEZ or legal status of the EEZ among the coastal states in theregion. The coastal states should manage and control the EEZ regime under thosecircumstances. This paper examines how the EEZ discourse could evolve in Northeast Asia inthe future. It will begin with an overview of the legal status of the EEZ, followed bycommentary on the EEZ regime in the domestic laws of coastal states concerned,and related issues. It provides interpretations on the relevant articles of the Conventionas well as EEZ-related state practice.
Abstract
One of the most controversial issues during the UN Conference on the Law of theSea was to determine the legal status of the EEZ. The first view envisaged thezone as an extension of the territorial sea, where the coastal states would enjoysovereignty with certain exceptions. The second view considered the zone to havethe high seas status with certain modifications. The third view held that the EEZwas a sui generis zone with its own legal status. The first view was presentedby several Latin American states. The second view reflected the concerns ofMaritime Powers. The 1982 UN Convention stipulated broad jurisdiction and sovereign rights ofcoastal states as well as certain freedoms and duties of other states in the EEZ. Considering the general trend in the UN Conference and the relative articles ofthe Convention, it would be reasonable to regard the EEZ as a separate functionalzone of a sui generis character, situated between the territorial sea and the high seas. It remains to be seen whether an agreement on the issue is reached by accumulationof state practice. Korea, China and Japan established the EEZ regime in the late 1990s. But theydid not agree on the final maritime boundary delimitation. Instead, they concludedthree bilateral fisheries agreements establishing several intermediate zones in theoverlapping EEZ. As Korea, China and Japan take different stances on the EEZ,conflicts over military activities or marine scientific research in the EEZ make itmore difficult for them to delimit maritime boundaries. Therefore, many agreements have yet to be reached on maritime boundariesrelating to the EEZ or legal status of the EEZ among the coastal states in theregion. The coastal states should manage and control the EEZ regime under thosecircumstances. This paper examines how the EEZ discourse could evolve in Northeast Asia inthe future. It will begin with an overview of the legal status of the EEZ, followed bycommentary on the EEZ regime in the domestic laws of coastal states concerned,and related issues. It provides interpretations on the relevant articles of the Conventionas well as EEZ-related state practice.
참고문헌 (55)
- Kim Charn-kiu, "Dispute over Ocean Currents Survey: Japan Is Deluded", Segye Ilbo, ~ (2006)
- Kim Charn-kiu, "Solution for Developing East China Sea Resources", Segye Ilbo, ~ (2008)
- Jerome A. Cohen, "Limits of Tolerance", South China Morning Post, ~ (2010)
- China's Position on Uninhabited Islands: Responses According to Domestic Law and International Position, In Study on China's Maritime Policy and Law, "Gong Ying-Chun", Ocean Policy Research Foundation, 69~70 (2006)
- ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "ROK-China 1st official talks for delimitation of maritime boundaries held", press release, ~ (2015)
- Lee Chang-Wee, "Study of Key Coastal States' Laws for Integrated Management of EEZs", ~ (2007)
- The Economist, "An American Warship Sails through Disputed Waters in the South China Sea", ~ (2015)
- R. R. Churchill, "The Law of the Sea", pp.160~161 (1999), Juris
- John F. Murphy, "The United States and the Rule of Law in International Affairs", pp.229~234 (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Kuribayashi Tadao, "Development of the Law of the Sea and Japan 3, One Hundred Years of Japan and International Law", 10~11 (2001)
- "UNCLOS, Article 55", ~
- R. R. Churchill, "Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention", pp.91~96 (2005), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
- David Joseph Attard, "The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law", pp.61~62 (1987), Oxford University Press
- Barbara Kwiatkowska, "The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea" (1989), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
- Satya N. Nandan C. B. E., "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 A Commentary, 3 vols", pp.59~71 (1995), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
- "UNCLOS, Articles 56 (2) and 58 (3)", ~
- Mizukami Chiyuki, "New Order of the Law of the Sea", pp.138~139 (1993), Toshinto
- Mizukami Chiyuki, "Exclusive Economic Zone", pp.58~59 (2005), Yushinto-Kobubsha
- Nakamura Ko, "Basic Issues of International Law (Jurisprudence Class)", pp.137~ (1986)
- René Jean Dupuy, "Traité du Nouveau Droit de la MER", pp.255~ (1985), Economica
- Yamamoto Soji, "200-Nautical Mile Economic Zone", Jurist, (647), pp.37~38 (1977)
- Tommy T. B. Koh, "Law of the Sea", pp.31~33 (2001), Dartmouth Publishing Co
- 이창위, "배타적경제수역의 법적 지위와 국내적 수용 -한중일의 관련 국내법에 대한 비교를 중심으로-", 해사법연구, 21(2), pp.251~283 (2009), 한국해사법학회
- Oda Shigeru, "Commentary on the International Law of the Sea 1", pp.188~192 (1985), Yuhikaku
- Satya N. Nandan, "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, 2 vols", pp.491~510 (1993), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
- Ji Cheol-keun, "Peace Line" (1979), Beomusa
- Oda Shigeru, "Searching for the Origin of the Law of the Sea" (1989), Yushinto
- Choi Jong-hwa, "Modern International Law of the Sea", pp.334~335 (2000), Sejong Publishing House
- Choi Jong-hwa, "International Law of the Sea Lecture", pp.107~108 (1998), Taehwa Publishing House
- Kim Young-koo, "The ROK and International Law of the Sea", pp.406~408 (1999), Hyosung Publishing House
- Lee Chang-Wee, "Extension of State Jurisdiction by Korea and Japan", Korean Journal of International Law, 41(2), pp.163~176 (1996)
- Report on EEZ Bill Review, "National Assembly Unification and Foreign Affairs Committee", ~ (1996)
- "Notice no. 13382 in the ROK official gazette", 4~5 (1996)
- "Report on EEZ Bill Review" and "Report on EEZ Bill Evaluation", "National Assembly Unification and Foreign Affairs Committee", ~ (1996)
- Law of the Sea Forum, "Commentary on UNCLOS II", pp.403~ (2010), Jiinbooks
- Key New Institutions of Marine Environment Management Act: Evaluation and Tasks for Legislation, "Park Su-jin", Korea Maritime Institute, 8~17 (2009)
- Jeanette Greenfield, "China's Practice in the Law of the Sea" (1992), Clarendon Press
- Sec. 2, Working Paper on Sea Area within the Limits of National Jurisdiction, , ~ (1973)
- 이창위, "중국의 해양관할권 확대 정책에 대한 소고 - 대륙붕 및 배타적경제수역 제도와 관련 문제를 중심으로 -", 해사법연구, 20(3), pp.83~110 (2008), 한국해사법학회
- "EEZ and Continental Shelf Act, Articles 2, 3, 4, 6-11", ~
- Yann-Huei Song, "Maritime Legislation of Mainland China and Taiwan: Developments, Comparison, Implications, and Potential Challenges for the United States", Ocean Development and International Law, 31(4), pp.318~ (2000)
- Zou Keyuan, "China's Marine Legal System and the Law of the Sea", pp.289~311 (2005), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
- Nakamura Ko, "UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and Basic Maritime Law", Jurist, pp.34~35 (1996)
- Kuribayashi Tadao, "Modern International Law", pp.291~292 (1999), Keio University Press
- Study of Relationship between the Exclusive Economic Zones and the Continental Shelf in relation to Boundaries, "ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade", 40~41 (2000)
- Law of the Sea Forum, "Study of Key Coastal States' Laws for Integrated Management of the EEZ", pp.14~17 (2007), Ad Power
- Kanehara Atsuko, "Marine Scientific Research in the Waters Where Claims of the Exclusive Economic Zone Overlap between Japan and the Republic of Korea-Incidents between theTwo States in 2006", The Japanese Annual of International Law, 49, pp.104~105 (2006)
- Myres S. McDougal, "The Public Order of the Oceans: A Contemporary International Law of the Sea", pp.693~724 (1987), New Haven Press and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
- "UNCLOS, Article 60 (3) (7)", ~
- "UNCLOS, Articles 217 and 218", ~
- Gao Zhi-guo, ""Ieodo and Okinotorishima," Development of the International Law of the Sea", 1~9 (2007)
- "UNCLOS, Article 58 (2)", ~
- "UNCLOS, Article 141", ~
- "UNCLOS, Article 240 (a)", ~
- The Economist, "Who Rules the Waves?: China No Longer Accepts that America Should Be Asia-Pacific's Dominant Naval Power", ~ (2015)