유엔해양법협약 제15부 발전과 재판관 소수의견의 역할 = Contributions of Individual Opinions to the Development of UNCLOS Part XV

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Appending individual opinions has been a well-established practice of international adjudication. Individual opinions may carry many functions such as securing freedom of expression or safeguarding judicial impartiality. Above all, many authors have emphasised that they can contribute to the development of international law. From this point, this article argues that individual opinions may develop the dispute settlement system under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’).
Part XV of UNCLOS contains procedural law which regulates international judicial actions as well as the means by which states can enforce their rights in the courts and tribunals. When it comes to the judicial development of substantive rules of international law, international courts must persuade other actors of international law to have a substantial impact on their normative expectations. In contrast, the courts and tribunals may enjoy an authoritative status over the developmental process of procedural law where there will be little option for other subjects of international law but to follow what the court has decided. However, this should not be construed that only judgments or awards can develop the Part XV system. Even to a degree that differs from majority opinions, individual opinions also entail normative authority over certain international law issues. For this reason, disputing parties before international courts frequently refer to individual opinions to strengthen their claims. As such, individual opinions may develop the dispute settlement system under UNCLOS through their reasons, doctrines and criticisms.
Accordingly, this paper examines how individual opinions can develop the procedural law under UNCLOS by dividing them into two categories. The first is the case where the legal determinations delivered by individual opinions were accepted as the majority opinion of the later cases. Under this category, the article suggests that individual opinions may develop the Part XV system by delivering a more persuasive approach to the interpretation or application of procedural provisions than majority opinions. Moreover, this paper highlights their role in providing supplementary reasons to support the ruling of the court. The second category concerns the cases where the determinations of the judges delivered by individual opinions have not yet been taken by subsequent proceedings. Here, it is contended that they may raise criticisms over the majority opinion which a later decision may possibly correct. Moreover, Individual opinion can provide points that influence and direct the future development of this system. Lastly, this article highlights that judges may express their own ‘new international law’ resisting old ideas by appending individual opinions to the judgments.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

국제재판소 판결에 소수의견을 첨부하는 것은 현대 국제법상 존재하는 다양한 사법적 분쟁해결절차의 널리 확립된 관행에 해당한다. 재판관 소수의견이 수행하는 여러 기능에 더하여 학자들은 이들이 국제법의 발전에 기여할 수 있다는 점을 강조하기도 하고, 혹자는 소수의견이 특정 법의 생명과 진화의 증거라 언급하기도 한다. 본 고는 바로 이 부분에 주목, 유엔해양법협약상 분쟁해결제도 발전에 소수의견이 담당할 수 있는 역할과 구체적인 공헌을 분석하고 제시하는 것을 목적으로 하여 논의를 전개한다.
유엔해양법협약 제15부는 사법적 기능의 작동 기제를 규율하는 동시에, 재판소를 통한 당사국의 권리 이행 방법을 규정하는 절차법에 해당한다. 실체법의 경우와 다르게 절차법의 발전에는 재판소의 판단이 큰 중요성을 가진다. 하지만 절차법 발전에 국제재판소가 중요한 역할을 담당한다는 점이, 오로지 재판관 다수의견만 그 발전 과정에 영향을 줄 수 있다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다. 재판소 판결과 같은 정도는 아니라 할지라도 소수의견 또한 일정한 권위와 영향력을 수반하기 때문이다. 여기에는 재판관의 지위에서 비롯된 권위와 더불어 소수의견이 특정 법적 문제에 대한 심도 있는 논의를 전달할 수 있다는 점이 작용한다. 결국 재판관 소수의견 또한 국제법주체들 간 법적 담론의 화제를 구성하게 되며 이들의 법적 기대에 영향을 미치게 될 수 있는 것이다.
본 논문은 이 협약상 분쟁해결제도 발전에 대한 재판관 소수의견의 구체적인 기여를 다음의 두 부류로 구분하여 살펴본다. 이에 먼저, 재판관 소수의견을 통해 밝힌 견해가 후속 판례에서 받아들여져 제15부 재판소의 일관된 법리로 발전한 경우들을 검토한다. 여기에는 특정 절차규범에 대하여 다수의견보다 설득력 있는 해석과 적용의 방법을 소수의견이 전달한 사례와 상세한 판결 이유를 제시하며 다수의견 판단을 보충해 준 사례가 포함된다. 이어서는 아직 후속 판례에서 다수의견으로 수용되지는 않았지만, 유엔해양법협약 제15부의 발전상 연구에 중요한 시사점을 주는 사례들을 분석한다. 여기에서는 현재 판결의 결점을 비판하고, 앞으로 해결되어야 할 과제를 제시하며, 나아가 위 분쟁해결제도에 대해 과감하고 새로운 견해를 제시해주는 소수의견의 사례들을 다룬다. 이상의 연구를 통해 절차법의 발전에 있어 재판관 소수의견의 구체적인 공헌을 조명한다는 의의를 발견해 볼 수 있을 것이다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이기범, "혼합분쟁 개념의 필요성 감소와 ‘부수적 문제’에 대한 관할권 인정 경향에 대한 소고" 대한국제법학회 67 (67): 117-152, 2022
• 2 이근관, "탈식민주의적 관점에서의 국제영토법리의 비판 ― 카메룬-나이지리아 간 영토분쟁사건(2002)을 중심으로 ―" 서울국제법연구원 17 (17): 1-27, 2010
• 3 조훈, "유엔해양법협약상 강제관할권 확장 담론에 대한 반론 ‒협약 제293조 및 부수적 관할권 관련 판례를 중심으로‒" 국제법평론회 (61) : 1-36, 2022
• 4 정인섭, "신국제법강의" 박영사 2022
• 5 김원희, "모리셔스와 몰디브 간 해양경계획정 분쟁 사건의 선결적 항변 판결에 대한 국제법적 검토" 대한국제법학회 66 (66): 29-60, 2021
• 6 박기갑, "국제법상 Lex ferenda" 대한국제법학회 63 (63): 117-156, 2018
• 7 "“Enrica Lexie” Incident Arbitration between Italy and India, Award, 21 May 2020"
• 8 Bogdandy, Armin von, "Whose name?: A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication" Oxford University Press 2014
• 9 Hudson, Manley O., "The Twenty-Eighth Year of the World Court" 44 (44): 1950
• 10 Hofmann, Rainer, "The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary" Oxford University Press 2019
• 11 Boyle, Alan E., "The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration" 50 : 2001
• 12 Jennings, Robert Y., "The Role of the International Court of Justice" 68 (68): 1998
• 13 Anand, R. P., "The Role of Individual and Dissenting Opinions in International Adjudication" 14 (14): 790-792, 1965
• 14 Gao, Jianjun, "The Obligation to Negotiate in the Philippines v. China Case: A Critique of the Award on Jurisdiction" 47 : 2016
• 15 Fitzmaurice, Sir Gerald, "The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: General Principles and Substantive Law" 27 : 1950
• 16 Terris, Daniel, "The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World’s Cases" Oxford University Press 2007
• 17 Hernández, Gleider I., "The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function" Oxford University Press 2014
• 18 Thirlway, Hugh, "The International Court of Justice" Oxford University Press 2016
• 19 Berman, Franklin, "The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice" Oxford University Press 2014
• 20 Tams, Christian J., "The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice" Oxford University Press 2014
• 21 Lauterpacht, Sir Hersch, "The Development of International Law by the International Court" Stevens 1958
• 22 "Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia/New Zealand v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2000"
• 23 "South China Sea Arbitration between Philippines and China, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 29 October 2015"
• 24 Anderson, David, "Separate Opinion: International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(ITLOS)" 2020
• 25 Hofmann, Rainer, "Separate Opinion: International Court of Justice(ICJ)" 2018
• 26 Kovler, Anatoly, "Separate Opinion: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)" 2021
• 27 Colson, David A., "Satisfying the Procedural Prerequisites to the Compulsory Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Did the Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal Get It Right?" 59 : 2003
• 28 Gill, Terry D., "Rosenne’s The World Court: What It Is and How It Works" Martinus NijhoffPublishers 2003
• 29 Shaw, Malcolm N., "Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-2015, Vol. III. Procedure" Brill Nijhoff 2015
• 30 Hernández, Gleider I., "Research Handbook on the Theory and Practice of International Lawmaking" Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2016
• 31 Shahabuddeen, Mohamed, "Precedent in the World Court" Cambridge University Press 1996
• 32 Rosenne, Shabtai., "Practice and Methods of International Law" Oceana Publications 1984
• 33 Deyi Ma, "Obligation to Exchange Views under Article 283 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: An Empirical Approach for Improvement" (사) 이준국제법연구원 12 (12): 305-320, 2019
• 34 "MOX Plant Case, Order No. 3, Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction and Merits, and Request for Further Provisional Measures, 24 June 2003"
• 35 "MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001" ITLOS 95-,
• 36 "M/V “Norstar” (Panama v. Italy), Preliminary Objections, Judgment" ITLOS 44-, 2016
• 37 "M/V “Louisa” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 December 2010"
• 38 "Land Reclamation in and around the Strait of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 October 2003" ITLOS 10-, 2003
• 39 Zobel, Katharina, "Judge Alejandro Álvarez at the International Court of Justice (1946-1955): His Theory of a ‘New International Law’ and Judicial Lawmaking" 19 (19): 2006
• 40 Titi, Catharine, "Investment Arbitration and the Controverted Right of the Arbitrator to Issue a Separate or Dissenting Opinion" 17 : 2018
• 41 Ioannidis, Michael, "International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance" Springer 2012
• 42 Venzke, Ingo, "International Dispute Settlement: Room for Innovations?" Springer 2012
• 43 Oellers-Frahm, Karin, "International Courts and Tribunals, Judges and Arbitrators" 2019
• 44 Song, Ke, "Individual Opinions as an Agent of International Legal Development?" 13 (13): 2022
• 45 정동은, "ICJ의 영토분쟁사건 판례에 나타난 국제법상 시제법의 확장적용 가능성 연구" 대한국제법학회 66 (66): 273-303, 2021
• 46 ICJ, "Handbook" 2019
• 47 Scovazzi, Tullio, "Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil des cours, Vol. 286" Brill 2001
• 48 Hussain, Ijaz, "Dissenting and Separate Opinions at the World Court" Martinus NijhoffPub lishers 1984
• 49 Hambro, Eduardo, "Dissenting and Individual Opinions in the International Court of Justice" 7 : 1956
• 50 Rees, Peter J., "Dissenting Opinions: Can They Fulfill a Beneficial Role?" 25 (25): 2009
• 51 Dumbauld, Edward, "Dissenting Opinions in International Adjudication" 90 (90): 1942
• 52 Klein, Natalie, "Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea" Cambridge University Press 33-, 2005
• 53 Karaman, Igor V., "Dispute Resolution in the Law of the Sea" Martinus NijhoffPublishers 2012
• 54 "Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait, Award Concerning the Preliminary Objections of Russia, 21 February 2020"
• 55 "Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment" ITLOS 4-, 2012
• 56 "Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration between Mauritius and the UK, Award, 18 March 2015"