접속수역 제도의 역사적 전개와 법적 성격

이창위 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2014 서울법학 Vol.22 No.2

Within the contiguous zone the coastal state may exercise the control necessary to prevent and punish infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea. In all other respects the contiguous zone is actually an area subject to high seas freedom of navigation, overflight, and related freedoms, such as the conduct of military exercises. It could be said that the concept of the contiguous zone was developed through the confrontation and compromise between the maritime powers and coastal states. Taking into account these backgrounds, this article deals with history and legal status of the contiguous zone regime as well as its modern significance. Specifically, this article examines relevant state practice of the United Kingdom and the United States. The two countries have been traditional Maritime Powers for centuries and have mainly contributed to the development of the concept of the contiguous zone. This article also examines various discussions about the issue at the learned societies such as the Institute of International Law and the International Law Association. It further deals with the 1930 Hague Conference, the 1958 Geneva Conference, and academic debates on the topic between celebrated jurists. And Korea’s position on the topic is reviewed in the concluding remarks in the context of changing maritime circumstances. 접속수역 내에서 연안국은 영토나 영해에서의 관세, 재정, 출입국 관리, 위생 등에 대한 국내법령의 위반에 대한 관할권을 행사할 수 있다. 그 외의 부분에 대하여 접속수역에서는 항행, 상공비행, 해양과학조사 등 대부분 공해의 자유 내용이 그대로 유지된다. 따라서 이곳은 연안국의 특정한 관할권이 한정된 범위 내에 행사되는 수역인 셈이다. 접속수역은 해양관할권의 확대를 주장하는 연안국과 해양의 자유로운 이용을 강조하는 해양선진국의 대립과 타협의 결과로 정착된 제도이다. 이러한 점을 배경으로 하여, 본 연구에서는 접속수역 제도의 역사와 법적 지위를 현대적 의의와 함께 살펴본다. 특히 접속수역 제도에 대한 국가실행과 관련하여, 영국과 미국의 입장을 중점적으로 살펴본다. 영미 양국은 전통적으로 해양강대국의 입장을 취해왔으며, 지금도 사정은 크게 바뀌지 않고 있다. 그리고 이 제도에 대한 국제법학회와 국제법협회에서의 논의 과정을 살펴보고, 이어서 헤이그 국제법전편찬회의와 제네바 해양법회의에서의 논의 및 저명한 학자들의 입장을 비교ㆍ분석한다. 결론적으로 한국의 입장을 해양환경의 변화라는 맥락에서 살펴본다.

접속수역, 배타적 경제수역 및 공해에서의 형법의 역외적용

김종구(Kim Jong-Goo) 한국법학회 2007 법학연구 Vol.26 No.-

필자는 본 논문에서 접속수역, 배타적 경제수역 및 공해의 법적 성격과 관련하여 우리의 관할권을 역외에 행사하는 문제에 대하여 고찰하였다. 한 국가의 관할권은 영토 및 영해로 제한되는 것이 원칙이다. 그러나 각국은 속지주의에 대한 예외를 규정하여 자국의 관할권을 역외에까지 행사하려 한다. 우리 형법도 소극적 속인주의를 규정하여, 영해 밖에서 외국인에 의해 행하여진 범죄라도 피해자가 한국인인 경우 우리 형법이 적용될 수 있도록 하고 있다. 또한 UN해양법협약은 접속수역, 배타적 경제수역 및 공해에서도 예외적인 경우 연안국의 관할권 행사가 가능하도록 하고 있다. 해상에서의 형사 관계법령의 역외적용 문제는 특히 근래 바다를 통한 밀수ㆍ밀입국ㆍ밀항 등 범죄의 증가 및 해상에서의 범죄가 국제성을 띠고 있다는 점에서도 주목되고 있다. 이들 해상에서의 범죄에 대한 효과적인 단속을 위해서는 국내의 관련 법률의 정비작업이 필요하다. 구체적으로는 밀수ㆍ밀입국 등의 미수 및 예비와 그 국외범 처벌에 관한 규정을 관련 법률에 명시하여, 영해 외의 해역에서 초기 단계에 이들 위법행위를 단속할 수 있는 근거를 마련할 필요가 있다. 또한 개별 해역에서 우리의 관할권이 적절히 행사되기 위해서는, 주변국들의 법제에 대한 이해와 함께 관련 당사국들과의 공조체제 마련에도 유념해야 할 것이다. This study is on the extraterritorial application of criminal law to the contiguous zone, EEZ and high seas. Particularly, this paper argues about extraterritorial application of the coastal state's law to foreigners(on foreign ships) who have violated coastal state's law on the contiguous zone, EEZ and high seas. Under the UNCLOS, a coastal State may excercise its control beyond its territory and territorial sea. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, a costal state may excercise the control necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations. In addition, a coastal state shall have exclusive jurisdiction over artificial islands, installations and structures established on the EEZ. Furthermore, a coastal state has a right to pursue a foreign ship that has committed an offence within its maritime jurisdictional zones. onto the high seas and to arrest it on the high seas. The general rule under international law is that a state can apply its law only to its territory and territorial sea. However, according to the UNCLOS, a coastal state has jurisdiction over contiguous zone, EEZ, and high seas under certain circumstances. There are also some exceptions to the territorial principle under the Criminal Law. One of them is passive nationality principle. The Korean Code of Criminal Law has a provision about passive nationality principle. Thus, such crimes committed by foreigners on the high seas are subject to the jurisdiction of Korea. However, the author of this paper argues that it is necessary to provide expressly some clauses about the extraterritorial application of criminal law in 'the law of high seas and contiguous zone', 'the customs law' and 'the exit and entry control law'. Those provisions are especially inevitable to prevent smuggling or illegal entry in an early stage of its process.

주요 해양국가의 수역별 해양관할권 제도

이석우(Lee, Seok-Woo),신창훈(Shin, Chang-Hoon),박영길(Park, Young-Kil) 백산학회 2010 白山學報 Vol.- No.87

This paper explores the maritime jurisdictional systems of five major maritime countries: the United States, Iceland, Australia, China and Japan, in the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. The reason these five states were chosen for this research, are as follows: (1) The United States, though not having ratified the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), has exerted a large influence on the international maritime legal system through numerous domestic and international practices. (2) Iceland has made every effort to secure and extend its maritime jurisdiction. (3) Australia is one of the states that has taken the lead in managing its maritime jurisdiction efficiently by concluding bilateral agreements with neighboring states. (4) The legal systems and policies of China and Japan may exert a direct influence on Korea’s maritime policy. This research will delve deeply into the jurisdictional systems of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of the five countries. Doing this, it will also examines on the current maritime issues of these states such as the legality of the straight baseline, the usage of marine scientific research and the extension of the outer limit of the continental shelf. This paper will also explain and elaborate on the following policies being pursued that have been derived from the maritime jurisdictional systems of the five countries: (1) the active protest against the straight baseline of neighboring states which is not consistent with the obligations set forth by UNCLOS; (2) the trend towards the legalization of the principle of delimitation on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone; (3) the coexistence of the exclusive economic zone and the fishing zone; (4) the trend of stipulation of title to the continental shelf. Finally, based on the salient issues for Korea and policy implications from this comparative research, this paper makes the following policy proposals for Korea: (1) to protest in various ways straight baselines that are not consistent with UNCLOS; (2) reorganizing the system of the innocent passage; (3) to study the use of the exclusive fishing zone; (3) to analyze the position and the legal basis taken by China regarding the notion of the natural prolongation of the continental shelf.

한국방공식별구역(KADIZ) 발전방안

김동수,홍성표,정맹석,Kim, Dongsoo,Hong, Sungpyo,Chong, Mangseok 항공우주시스템공학회 2016 항공우주시스템공학회지 Vol.10 No.1

Recently, China & Japan have expanded their responding ADIZ(Air Defence Identification Zone) to implement each Government's maritime policy and to project their Air Power in preparation for maritime provocation & contingency, especially over the piled area where East Asia countries have claimed to have maritime jurisdiction one another. So this is to guide the Development Option for Korea Air Defence Identification Zone to cope with the maritime intentions of the neighboring countries, considering the international law for ADIZ, the maritime policy and the maritime sovereign & jurisdiction area of the Republic of Korea, etc.

니카라과-콜롬비아 간 카리브해에서의 주권적 권리 및 해역 침해 주장 사건 평석

김민철(Minchul Kim) 국제법평론회 2022 국제법평론 Vol.- No.63

This article examines the judgment of the Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), which was rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in April 2022. In addition, it provides some comments in law of the sea perspective and also draws implications in Korean perspective. In this judgment, the ICJ dealt with the following issues: the rights and duties-particularly with respect to the fisheries and marine environmental protection -of Nicaragua and Colombia in Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the compatibility of Colombia’s contiguous zone with customary international law, Nicaragua’s alleged infringement of the traditional fishing rights of the Colombian nationals, and the compatibility of Nicaragua’s straight baselines with customary international law. In this regard, this article points out several noteworthy features in the judgment: first, the ICJ recognized the spatial limit of the contiguous zone and the contents on the control of the coastal State in this zone in accordance with article 33, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as customary international law; second, the ICJ found it possible for the EEZ and contiguous zone to be overlapped between States, because the two regimes regulate different rights and duties; and third, the ICJ determined whether the straight baselines system established by the coastal State was in effect legal or not. Lastly, in the broader context of the law of the sea, this article also takes note that the ICJ declared or reaffirmed that not a few articles of UNCLOS reflected customary international law in this judgement. This suggests that UNCLOS is constantly contributing to the materialization of the customary law of the sea and broadening its universality in the law of the sea field, as the so-called Magna Carta of the ocean.

교통안전특정해역에 관한 법리적 고찰

박장호,윤귀호 한국해사법학회 2023 해사법연구 Vol.35 No.3

교통안전특정해역은 해사안전법에 따라 설정되어 대형 해양사고를 막고 수역 안전 및 항행 안전을 확보하는 목적을 지니고 있다. 하지만, 설정 범위에 있어 국제법과 행정상의 원칙에 저촉되는 사안이 있다. 먼저, 바다의 헌법이라 불리는 해양법에 관한 국제연합협약(유엔해양법협약)에 따른 접속수역에 교통안전특정해역이 설정되어 있으며 접속수역이 갖는 관할권을 기준으로 본다면 교통안전특정해역과 관련된 모든 법령이 저촉되는 것은 아니지만, 대부분 법령이 저촉된다는 점을 알 수 있다. 특히 접속수역에서 보장되는 항행의 자유에 대한 침해가 주요한 문제라고 볼 수 있다. 이에 대한 해결방안으로 설정 수역 범위를 영해 내로 축소하거나 수역 안전 확보라는 공익적 목적을 근거로 주변국의 인정을 받는 방법을 제시하였다. 또한, 행정기본법에 따른 비례의 원칙에 따라 울산구역과 포항구역을 살펴보면 입법목적에 부합하지 않고 필요 이상으로 범위를 설정하여 공익 달성 없이 사익이 침해받는 구역이 있다. 이에 대한 해결방안으로 울산구역의 경우 거대선 및 위험화물 운반선의 통항이 없는 저수심 구역의 제외를 제시하고, 포항구역의 경우 실제 통항량이 존재하는 영일만 내로 범위를 한정하거나 혹은 유조선통항금지구역 내로 범위를 한정하는 것을 제시하였다. Specific Sea Areas for Traffic Safety are established in accordance with the Maritime Safety Act to prevent a massive accident and to secure safety in Sea Areas and navigation However, there are some issues that violate international law and administrative principles in the scope of specific sea areas for traffic safety. First, traffic Specific Sea Areas for Traffic Safety are established in the Contiguous Zone under the United Nations Convention on Marine Law(UNCLOS), called the Constitution of the Sea, and based on the jurisdiction of the Contiguous Zone, not all laws related to Specific Sea Areas for Traffic Safety violate, but most of them violate. In particular, the infringement of freedom of navigation guaranteed in the Contiguous Zone can be seen as a major problem. As a solution to this, It is proposed that a method of reducing the scope of the Specific Sea Areas for Traffic Safety to within the territorial sea or obtaining recognition from neighboring countries based on the public interest purpose of securing safety in Sea Area Second, if you look at the ‘Ulsan and Pohang districts’ according to the principle of proportionality under the General Act on Public Administration, there are areas where private interests are violated without achieving public interest by setting the scope beyond the legislative purpose. As a solution to this, It is proposed that ‘the Ulsan area’ proposed the exclusion of swallow water areas without passage of large vessels and hazardous cargo carriers, and ‘the Pohang area’ proposed limiting the scope to Yeong-il Bay, where actual passage volume exists, or limiting the scope to the traffic-prohibited sea area for oil tankers.

최근 방공식별구역 운영 개념과 현황 분석

김동수,홍성표,정맹석,Kim, Dongsoo,Hong, Sungpyo,Chong, Mangseok 항공우주시스템공학회 2014 항공우주시스템공학회지 Vol.8 No.4

This thesis analyzes the latest operating concept and status for Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) researching overseas ADIZ CONOPS, international legal basis for ADIZ, the intention & background of proclamation for China Air Defense Identification Zone(CADIZ). Firstly, ADIZ is lawful concerning international connivance for ADIZ where around 20 countries have operated, Article 56 "Rights, jurisdiction & duties of the coastal State" and Article 301 "Peaceful uses of the seas" on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLS). Secondly, ADIZ has been regarded as a support means for national interest & policy as well as military air defense one. Thirdly, Based on legal re-interpretation for UNCLS relating to ADIZ, China proclaimed CADIZ where can ensure national maritime policy and strategy including A2/AD(Anti-Access & Area Defence), inroad into the ocean, claim for Senkaku Islands possession, etc..

외국선박의 영해내 해저조사가 무해통항에 해당하는지 여부 -대법원 2021. 5. 7. 선고 2017도9982 판결-

권창영 한국해법학회 2023 韓國海法學會誌 Vol.45 No.1

Article 5 (1) of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Act(hereinafter ‘TSCZA’) declares that foreign ships may enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea of the Republic of Korea so long as it is not prejudicial to peace, public order, or security of the Republic of Korea. In this case, a foreign ship searched the seabed using a fish detector to locate the sunken ship for the purpose of salvaging and selling ships and cargo in the territorial sea of Korea (the sea of Maenggol Waterways (or Channel) in Jindo-gun, Southern Jeolla Province). The prosecutor prosecuted the chief executive of the owner of a foreign ship with violating the TSCZA. The accused claimed that it did not constitute a passage because he reported entry and exit by the Act on the Arrival and Departure of Ships. He also argued that searching and salvaging the location of the sunken ship left on the sea floor does not undermine the peace, public order, or security of the Republic of Korea, thus it does not constitute a research prohibited by the TSCZA. For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled on the purpose of innocent passage under TSCZA, the concept of passage, and the concept of research prohibited by the TSCZA. This essay analyzes the above Supreme Court ruling, and summarizes the discussion as follows. The principle of innocent passage stipulated in Article 5 of TSCZA is a norm to enable coastal countries to exercise their sovereignty in territorial waters and foreign ships’ right to pass on the sea in harmony. The principle of innocent passage also applies when a foreign ship navigates for the purpose of advancing toward the domestic demand of a coastal country or for the purpose of calling port facilities of a coastal country. The right of innocent passage of foreign ships in territorial waters means restrictions on the sovereignty of coastal countries, including resource development rights, environmental protection rights, and scientific research rights. Therefore, ‘innocence’ as a requirement for innocent passage includes the meaning of not infringing on the above sovereign authority. It is based on the premise that research (or search) activities in territorial waters without explicit consent from coastal countries are not allowed regardless of whether they actually prejudicial to peace, public order, or security guarantees. Therefore, search of the seabed using a fish detector installed on a foreign ship to find the location of a sunken ship in the sea of Maenggol Waterways constitutes the case which a foreign ship conducted an research while passing through. 「영해 및 접속수역법」(이하 ‘영해법’) 제5조 제1항에 의하면, 외국선박은 대한민국의 평화․공공질서 또는 안전보장을 해치지 아니하는 범위에서 대한민국의 영해를 무해통항(無害通航, innocent passage)할 수 있다. 대상사안에서 외국선박은 대한민국 영해(전라남도 진도 맹골수도 해역)에서 선박과 화물을 인양하여 고철로 판매할 목적으로 침몰된 선박의 위치를 찾기 위해 어군탐지기 등을 이용하여 해저를 조사하였다. 검사는 외국선박의 선장을 영해법 위반 혐의로 기소하였다. 피고인은 입출항 신고를 하였기 때문에 통항에 해당하지 않는다고 주장하였다. 또한 해저에 방치되어 있는 침몰선의 위치를 조사하여 이를 인양하는 것은 대한민국의 평화ㆍ공공질서․안전보장을 해치는 것이 아니므로, 영해법에서 금지하는 조사에 해당하지 아니한다고 주장하였다. 대법원은 최초로 영해법상 무해통항의 취지, 통항의 개념, 영해법에서 금지하는 조사의 개념 등에 관하여 판시하였다. 이 글은 위와 같은 대법원 판결을 분석한 것으로, 논의를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 영해법 제5조가 규정하는 무해통항의 원칙은 연안국이 영해에서 갖는 주권과 외국선박의 해양에 대한 통행권을 조화롭게 행사할 수 있도록 하기 위한 것이다. 무해통항의 원칙은 외국선박이 연안국의 내수를 향하여 항진하거나 연안국의 항구시설에 기항할 목적으로 항행하는 경우에도 적용된다. 무해통항의 요건으로서 ‘무해성’에는 연안국의 주권적 권한을 침해하지 않는다는 의미가 포함되어 있다. 연안국의 명시적 동의를 받지 않은 영해에서의 조사활동은 실질적으로 평화ㆍ공공질서․안전보장을 해치는지 여부에 관계없이 허용되지 않는다. 따라서 피고인이 맹골수도 해역에서 침몰된 선박의 위치를 찾기 위해 외국선박에 설치된 어군탐지기 등을 이용하여 해저를 조사한 것은 영해법 제5조 제2항 제11호의 ‘외국선박이 통항하면서 조사행위를 한 경우’에 해당한다.

영해에서의 외국선박 통항제도에 대한 한·일 비교 고찰

노호래 한국해양경찰학회 2020 한국해양경찰학회보 Vol.10 No.3

영해는 국가의 영토에 접속하고 있는 일정 범위의 수역으로서 연안국의 주권이 미치는 국가영역의 일부이고, 외국선박은 무해통항권을 향유한다. 영해 부근에는 국 가의 안전보장 또는 공공의 이익을 위해 특별히 보호가 필요한 국가 중요시설이 다 수 있으므로 영해 경비는 매우 중요한 해양경찰의 중요 기능이다. 본 논문은 선박의 국제법상 지위 및 선행연구의 검토, 일본 해상보안청의 「영해에 서 외국선박의 항행에 관한 법률」, 영해에서의 외국선박 통항제도에 대한 한국과 일 본의 비교를 통하여 시사점과 개선방안을 제시하였다. 우리나라 법제의 문제점으로 는 「영해및접속수역법」의 구체성 부족, 「해양경비법」의 한계을 제시하였다. 개선방안 으로 「영해에서 외국선박의 통항에 관한 법률」의 제정을 제안하고, 동법에서 외국선 박이 정류, 묘박, 계류, 배회를 할 경우에는 해양경찰청에 통보할 의무를 부과하고, 이를 위반할 경우 해상검문검색을 할 수 있다고 규정할 필요가 있다. 권고, 지도, 퇴 거명령에 대해서도 구체적으로 규정할 필요성이 있다. On December 31, 1977, Korea enacted the territorial waters Act and declared the scope of territorial waters at 12 nautical miles. The territorial sea refers to a part of the national territory of a coastal country, which is part of the territory of a coastal country, which has the right to set the width of the territorial waters from steamers determined under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles. Twelve nautical miles are the principle from territorial vessels, and foreign ships enjoy the right of free passage. The security of the territorial waters is an important function of the maritime police, which is very important, as there are national key industrial facilities near the territorial waters, such as the building of public institutions, airfields, airports, ports and port facilities, and other power plants, shipyards, steel mills and oil reservoirs, and there are many important national facilities that require special protection for the national security or public interest. Researches of this paper is a Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, a review of the Act on the navigation of foreign ships in territorial waters in territorial waters. Comparison of Korea and Japan for the navigation system, implications and discuss how to improve. Among the problems of the Korean legislation were the lack of specificity in the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Act, and the limitations of the Coast Cuard Affairs Act. As an improvement measure, it is necessary to propose the enactment of the Act on the Passage of Foreign Ships in the territorial waters, which imposes an obligation to notify the maritime police when foreign ships stop, anchor, moor, or wander. and makes regulation to conduct maritime inspection if they violate the law. It is also necessary to specify recommendations, guidance and eviction orders.

The Meaning of the Right of Innocent Passage in Korean Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Act: Korean Supreme Court Decision 2017Do9982, Decided on May 7, 2021

이정원 한국법제연구원 2023 KLRI journal of law and legislation Vol.13 No.2

Although the Republic of Korea (hereunder, Korea) is a member of the UNCLOS, it has enacted and implemented the Territorial Sea Act to clarify the breadth of Korea’s territorial waters and guarantee the right of innocent passage of foreign ships within it. However, the UNCLOS has the status of Korean statute according to Article 6 of the Constitution of Korea, so foreign vessels passing through the territorial waters of Korea must faithfully comply with the Territorial Sea Act and all regulations stipulated by the UNCLOS. In addition, Korea can exercise its jurisdiction with various legislative regulations related to the passage of foreign vessels through its territorial waters in order to protect its national interests. In principle, Article 5(1) of the Territorial Sea Act permits innocent passage of foreign vessels through the territorial waters of Korea, on the condition that the peace, public order, or security of Korea is not harmed. However, it is not clear what peace, public order, or security of Korea is, which is stipulated in the above provisions as a requirement for innocent passage. Accordingly, Article 5(2) of the Territorial Sea Act stipulates that if a foreign vessel conducts certain activities such as fishing, researching, or surveying when navigating the territorial waters of Korea, it is considered harming the peace, public order, or security of Korea. However, it is another matter of interpretation whether a specific activity of a foreign vessel can be regarded as non-innocent passage as prescribed in Article 5(2) of the Territorial Sea Act. According to the Supreme Court, if the owner of a foreign vessel investigates the seabed using a fish detector installed on a foreign ship to find the location of sunken ships in Korean territorial waters, this act is regarded as the passage of a foreign vessel under Article 5 of the Territorial Act. Additionally, in relation to the “researching” under Article 5(2)⑪ of the Territorial Sea Act, the Supreme Court ruled that researching by a foreign vessel is not limited to cases where it actually harms the peace, public order, or security of Korea. If the act of a foreign vessel infringes on the sovereign authority of Korea, the Supreme Court ruled that it would not be permitted regardless of whether the specific activity in itself harms the peace, public order, or security of Korea.