ITLOS 혼합분쟁 상 ‘부수적 문제’로서의 주권 = Sovereignty as a ‘ancillary issue’ at mixed disputes in ITLOS

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”) provides for the settlement of disputes in Part 15, and Article 280 of Section 1 regulates that the peaceful settlement of disputes chosen by the parties shall be prioritized. This Part regulates exchange of views and conciliation as a means of peaceful resolution of disputes.
In accordance with Part 15, Section 1 of the Convention, where a dispute cannot be resolved peacefully, at the request of either party to the dispute, in accordance with Part 2 and Part 3, it shall be referred to a tribunal having jurisdiction as a compulsory settlement procedure. However, in the compulsory settlement procedure, it is stipulated that the court can be freely selected among the International Court of the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”), the International Court of Justice, the arbitral tribunal according to Annex 7 or Annex 8. However, the jurisdiction of the relevant tribunal is limited to ‘disputes concerning the interpretation or application of of an international agreement related to the purpos of this Convention’, and the courts shall apply the Convention and other rules of international law that do not conflict with the Convention.
But, Section 3 of this Part has certain limitations and exceptions to this compulsory settlement procedure. In particular, Article 298 provides for an optional exception to the application of Section 2. According to Article 298 (1)(a) (i), in the case of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the delimitation of the territorial sea, the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone, the delimitation of the continental shelf, or disputes concerning historical bays and titles, it provides for the option to exclude clauses. In addition, the latter part of the same subparagraph (a)(i) stipulates that ‘any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded’ from such compulsory settlement procedure. In other words, it can be confirmed that the Convention recognizes ‘terra regit mare’ as an exception to the jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, in the 21st century, ‘mixed disputes’, which refers to ‘disputes unsettled concerning sovereignty or other rights over land or island territories that must be considered together’, were recognized as having jurisdiction in international courts, and there is an increasing number of such cases. As a result, there are concerns about the weakening of the principle of the land dominates the sea (‘Terra Regit Mare’ in latin) in ‘mixed disputes’.
The purpose of this article is to examine whether the expansion of the jurisdiction of ITLOS is consistent with the current international law, by examining the ITLOS jurisdiction and so-called ‘mixed disputes’, and reviewing precedent cases related to mixed disputes.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

유엔해양법협약(이하 ‘협약’)은 제15부에서 분쟁의 해결을 규정하고 있으며, 제1절 제280조는 당사자가 선택한 평화적 수단에 의한 분쟁의 평화적 해결을 우선할 것을 규정하고 있다. 동부는 분쟁의 평화적 해결수단으로 의견교환 및 조정을 규정하고 있다.
협약 제15부 제1절에 따라 분쟁이 평화적으로 해결되지 아니하는 경우, 제2부 및 제3부에 따라 분쟁의 일방 당사자의 요청에 따라 강제적 해결절차로서 관할권을 가지는 재판소에 회부되도록 규정하고 있다. 다만 강제적 해결절차에 있어서 재판소를 국제해양법재판소(이하 ‘ITLOS’), 국제사법재판소, 제7부속서에 따른 중재재판소 또는 제8부속서에 따라 자유롭게 선택할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다. 단, 해당 재판부의 관할권은 ‘협약의 해석이나 적용에 관한 분쟁’에 한정되며, 법원으로는 협약 및 협약과 상충되지 아니하는 기타 국제법 규칙이 적용된다.
다만 동부 제3절은 이와 같은 강제적 해결절차에 대하여 일정한 제한과 예외를 두고 있다. 특히 제298조는 제2절의 적용의 선택적 예외를 규정하고 있다. 동조 제1항 제a호 (ⅰ)목에 따르면, 영해의 경계획정, 배타적 경제수역의 경계획정, 대륙붕의 경계획정의 해석이나 적용에 관한 분쟁 또는 역사적 만 및 권원에 관련된 분쟁의 경우 동부 제2절의 배제를 선택할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다. 이에 더하여 동목 후단은 ‘육지영토 또는 도서영토에 대한 주권이나 그 밖의 권리에 관한 미해결분쟁이 반드시 함께 검토되어야 하는 분쟁’은 강제적 해결절차로부터 제외됨을 규정하고 있다. 즉, 유엔해양법협약은 ‘토지가 바다를 지배한다(the land dominates the sea; ‘Terra Regit Mare’)를 관할권의 예외로 인정하고 있음을 확인할 수 있다.
그러함에도 불구하고, 강학상 ‘육지영토 또는 도서영토에 대한 주권이나 그 밖의 권리에 관한 미해결분쟁이 반드시 함께 검토되어야 하는 분쟁’을 칭하는 ‘혼합분쟁(mixed disputes)’이 21세기 들어서 그 관할권이 인정되는 사례들이 증가하고 있으며, 이로 인하여 ‘혼합분쟁’에 있어서 ‘Terra Regit Mare’의 약화가 우려되고 있다.
본 글에서는 ITLOS 관할권과 소위 ’혼합분쟁‘에 대하여 살펴본 후, 혼합분쟁 관련 판례들을 검토함으로써, ITLOS의 관할권 확대가 현행 국제법과 합치하는 것인지를 살펴보고자 한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이창열, "유엔해양법협약상 영해에서의 연안국 행위에 대한 재판관할권" 대한국제법학회 60 (60): 179-197, 2015
• 2 김원희, "국제법상 혼합분쟁의 개념 규명과 국제재판소 관할권의 범위 및 한계" 대한국제법학회 66 (66): 101-136, 2021
• 3 김대순, "국제법론" 삼영사 2017
• 4 김정균, "국제법" 박영사 2006
• 5 Myron H. Nordquist, "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A Commentary, Vol. V" Martinus Nijhoff 2002
• 6 Irini Papanicolopulu, "The land dominates the sea(dominates the land dominates the sea)" 47 : 2018
• 7 Bernard H. Oxman, "The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Ninth Session" 75 : 1981
• 8 Bernard H. Oxman, "The Territorial Temptation : A Siren Song At Sea" 100 (100): 2006
• 9 Andreas Zimmermann, "The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary" Oxford University Press 2019
• 10 Sienho Yee, "The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China):Potential Jurisdictional Obstacles or Objections" 13 : 2014
• 11 Chris Whomersley, "The South China Sea : The Award of the Tribunal in the Case Brought by Philippines against China–A Critique" 15 : 2016
• 12 Bing Bing Jia, "The Principle of the Domination of the Land over the Sea : A Historical Perspective on the Adaptability of the Law of the Sea to New Challenges" 57 : 2014
• 13 Philippe Gautier, "The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:Activities in 2005" 5 : 2006
• 14 Gudmundur Eriksson, "The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea" Brill 2000
• 15 Erick Franckx, "The IMLI Manual on International Maritime Law, Vol. I:The Law of the Sea" Oxford University Press 99-, 2014
• 16 "Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras), Merits, ICJ Report 659"
• 17 "Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), ICJ Reports" 2012
• 18 Anna Stilz, "Territorial Sovereignty : A Philosophical Exploration" Oxford University Press 2019
• 19 "Statement by H.E. JUDGE RÜDIGER WOLFRUM" 2006
• 20 "South China Sea (Philippines v. China), Judgment of 2016.07.12"
• 21 "North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v Denmark and the Netherlands), ICJ Report 3"
• 22 "Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway), Merits, ICJ Report 38"
• 23 "Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway), Merits, ICJ Report 38"
• 24 "Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain), Merits, ICJ Report. 97" 2001
• 25 "Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain), ICJ Report" 2001
• 26 Chandrasekhara Rao, "Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes" Martinus Nijhoff 2007
• 27 "Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), ICJ Reports" 2002
• 28 Malcom N. Shaw, "International Law" 2014
• 29 "Delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2021.01.28, ITLOS Reports" 2021
• 30 "Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana v. Cote d’Ivoire), Judgment of 2017.09.23"
• 31 "Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Judgment of 2015.05.18"
• 32 "Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey), Jurisdiction of the Court, ICJ Reporpt 3"