연구발표논문초록 ( 촉매 / 반응공학 (4) ) : 미세공내 모세관응축에 의해 유발되는 반응속도 이력현상

이창열,김동현 ( Chang Youl Lee,Dong Hyun Kim ) 한국화학공학회 1989 추계학술발표회 Vol.- No.-

국제환경법 관련 법 이론의 발전에 관한 연구 * 1) - 󰡔국제법평론󰡕 제1호부터 제49호까지 논문을 중심으로 -

이창열(Lee, Chang Youl) 국제법평론회 2018 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.51

International Environmental law is a field that has made much progress through a variety of international conventions, resolutions, declarations, guidelines, action plan such as the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and its protocols in 1992, the Stockholm Declarations in 1972, the World Natural Charter in 1982, and the Rio Declarations in 1992. The common awareness of the international community on the importance of the global environment has brought controversy about the protection of the earth environment and state responsibility. In this regard, international society has introduced a number of legal principles and approaches, which have played a crucial role in the development and proliferation of international environmental law in order to solve the problems of international environmental law. At the same time, however, the legal principles and approaches have been criticized for lack of legal binding force and specificity. Research on the international environmental law has been published consistently in the Korea International Law Review. Therefore, it is very meaningful to look at the development aspect of legal theory in the filed of the international environmental law through the Korea International Law Review for the 20th anniversary of the Korea International Law Review. There is a limit to the facts that results of this study can not be generalized since scope of this research is restricted to the Korea International Law Review. However, many great scholars of the international law academic community have published articles on the Korea International Law Review. Thus, it is worthwhile that this paper can partially infer perspective of the international law academic community in korea. This research attempts to classify the articles of the Korea International Law Review concerning the international environmental law by time and a subject so as to understand advance of law theory and research trends over time.

형평의 객관화와 해양경계획정

이창열(Lee Chang Youl) 국제법평론회 2011 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.33

Equity has been recognized as a general principle in the domestic law of most nations. A number of international courts have also used the principle of equity as one of the adjudicatory norms. Traditionally, under public international law, its legal status has been considered as a general principle of law recognized by civilized nations. The international community has been stipulating the equity in forms of various declarations and conventions in relation to the international law of the sea, international environment law, and international economic law. In particular, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the North Sea Continental Self Case, 1969, affirmed that the principle of equity is an important principle with respect to the maritime delimitation. Unfortunately, the principle of equity was not stipulated in the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. However, when the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter the "LOS Convention") was concluded, international courts constantly ruled that maritime boundaries were delimitated by the principle of equity with regard to relevant circumstances. The principle of equity is codified in Articles 74 and 83 of the LOS Convention, providing an ‘equitable solution’. A maritime boundary has to be delimited by the principle of equity regarding relevant circumstances. The method of median line or equidistance line considering special circumstances is included in the principle of equity with regard to relevant circumstances. Here, the relevant circumstances that have to be considered are so diverse that we cannot explain what they exactly are. However, we can, at least to some degree, categorize them by analyzing the precedents. The ICJ examined such circumstances by reviewing all the maritime delimitation cases, considering the coastal configuration, coastline and proportionality, the existence of islands, natural resources, the natural extension, the economic considerations, the national security, state practice, and so forth. The principle of equity has been criticized due to the lack of predictability as a legal rule. Generally, an international court enables us to predict a certain result by suggesting consistent reasoning on relevant circumstances in each case. For instance, it has a tendency not to provide a legal status of an island which is far away from the mainland and also may not consider pure economic factors, i.e. poverty.

유엔해양법협약 및 관련 규칙의 해석을 통해 본 대륙붕한계위원회의 역할과 한계

이창열(LEE, Chang Youl) 대한국제법학회 2012 國際法學會論叢 Vol.57 No.4

1982년 유엔해양법협약은 대륙붕의 정의에 관한 조항을 새롭게 도입하면서 대륙붕한계위원회를 설립하였다. 협약에 따르면 연안국이 대륙붕한계위원회의 권고에 기초하여 대륙붕 한계를 설정할 경우 대륙붕 한계는 최종적이며 구속력을 가진다. 그러나 대륙붕한계위원회의 행위는 마주하거나 인접한 국가 간 해양경계획정 문제에 영향을 미쳐서는 안 된다. 또한 해결되지 않은 육지 또는 해양 분쟁이 존재하는 경우 대륙붕한계위원회는 분쟁당사국 모두의 동의가 없는 한 신청을 고려해서는 안 된다. 이러한 제한들은 대륙붕한계위원회가 사법적 관할권을 가진 기관이 아니라 자연과학적 자료를 분석하여 대륙붕의 한계를 권고하는 과학적 및 기술적 기관이라는 점에서 비롯된다. 대륙붕한계위원회의 구성원에 법률 전문가가 포함되어 있지 않다는 사실은 대륙붕한계위원회가 법률 해석에 관한 권한을 부여받지 않았다는 것을 보여준다. 따라서 대륙붕한계위원회는 법률해석과 관련된 신청에 대하여는 권한을 넘는 행위를 하지 않도록 해야 한다. 예를 들면 오끼노도리와 같이 당해 섬이 대륙붕을 가질 수 있는 지형인가에 대한 법률 해석이 문제되는 경우 대륙붕한계위원회는 결정을 보류해야 할 것이다. 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea made the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf while introduced the renewed provisions of the continental shelf’s definition. According to the UNCLOS, The Limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of the Commission’s recommendations shall be final and binding. The action of the Commission, however, shall not prejudice matters related to the delimitation of the boundaries between States with opposite or adjacent coasts. The Commission also shall not consider the submission of States without the prior consent given by all the States in case there is unsolved disputes of land or maritime exist. These limitations result from the following facts that Commission is not a judicial body having judical jurisdiction but a scientific and technical body recommending the limits of the shelf. Additionally, the fact that there are not legal experts in the member of the Commission shows that the Commission is not qualified for interpreting the law. Thus, the Commission shall not exceed his authority concerning the submission in related to the law interpretation. Commission shall detain a decision in case the legal interpretation becomes a issue about whether the maritime feature such as Japan‘s Okinotori has the continental shelf.

200해리 이내의 배타적경제수역 및 대륙붕 경계획정 판결에 관한 동향과 함의

이창열(LEE Chang Youl) 대한국제법학회 2012 國際法學會論叢 Vol.57 No.2

본 연구는 해양경계획정에 관한 기존 국제판결과 방글라데시와 미얀마의 벵골 만 해양경계획정에 관한 국제해양법재판소의 최근 판결을 비교하여 해양경계획정에 관한 국제법원의 동향을 분석한다. 또한 이번 판결이 우리나라와 중국 및 일본과의 해양경계획정에 어떠한 함의를 갖는지를 설멍하고, 해양경계획정에 관한 우리나라의 정책방향을 제시한다. 이를 위하여 우선 재판소가 취하고 있는 해양경계획정에 관한 판결 논리가 해당경계획정에 관한 기존 국제판결의 판결 논리와 어떠한 차이점과 유사점이 있는가를 분석한다. 이를 통하여 해양경계획정에 관한 기존에 형성된 국제법원의 논리를 그대로 인정해도 될 것인지 아니면, 일정한 변화가 있는 것인지 알아본다. 둘째 200해리 이내의 배타적경제수역 및 대륙붕 경계획정에 있어, 재판소가 고려한 관련상황들에 대한 검토한다. 또한 각 장에서는 이러한 검토를 바탕으로 판결에 대한 의의와 우리나라에 주는 함의에 대하여 설명한다. 이번 국제해양법재판소의 판결은 보통 ‘형평의 원칙/관련상황’으로 사용되던 용어를 사용하지 않고 ‘등거리/관련상황’이라는 용어를 사용하였다. 이는 등거리 방법이 형평한 해결을 위한 여러 방법 중 하나라는 사실을 보여준다. 또한 국제해양법재판소는 배타적경제수역과 대륙붕의 단일경계획정에 있어 지형적·지질학적 요인은 관련상황으로 고려되지 않음을 분명히 하였다. 국제해양법재판소는 전체적으로 기존의 해양경계획정에 관한 국제사법법원과 국제중재재판소의 판결을 거의 그대로 답습하였다. 첫째 잠정적 해양경계선을 긋는 것으로 출발하는 단계적 방법을 사용하였다. 둘째 잠정적 해양경계로서 여러 가지 방법이 사용될 수 있음을 확인하였다. 셋째 특별한 지리적 특징이 존재하지 않으면 대체로 등거리 방법이 잠정적 경계로 적당함을 확인하였다. 넷째 등거리 방법에 의한 오목한 해안의 형평하지 못한 결과와 섬의 존재에 의한 해양경계의 왜곡을 관련상황으로 반영하였다. The purposes of this paper are to investigates the trend of the international courts on the maritime delimitation through the comparisons between existed international rules and the judgement of ITLOS concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the bay of Bengal. It also attempts to explain the implications in this judgement of ITLOS and to propose the policies of Korea about the maritime delimitation with China or Japan. Firstly, this study strives to analyse the similarities and differences between the existed international rules on the maritime delimitation and this judgement of ITLOS. Secondly, it is reviewed the relevant circumstances ITLOS examined in the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf within 200 nautical miles. Besides. it explains the significance of this judgement and the implications for Korea. This judgement of ITLOS used the three stage approach. Furthermore, it explained that it can draw the provisional line by a number of ways and it confirmed that the provisional equidistance line is mainly accepted without any special geographical features.

궤도 하부구조의 특성을 고려한 아스팔트콘크리트 궤도의 정·동적 궤도 강성 특성

이창열(Chang-Youl Lee),박용걸(Yong-Gul Park),이성혁(Seong-Hyeok Lee) 한국철도학회 2018 한국철도학회논문집 Vol.21 No.10

나고야 의정서 이행과 관련한 법적 쟁점

이창열(Lee, Chang Youl) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2017 성균관법학 Vol.29 No.1

1992년에 채택된 생물다양성협약은 유전자원의 이용으로부터 발생하는 이익의 공정하고 형평한 공유를 규정하였다. 그런데 이익의 공유에 관한 협약의 규정이 구체적이지 않아, 협약의 이행을 위한 새로운 협정의 필요성이 요청되었다. 이에 따라 2010년 제10차 당사국총회에서 유전자원에 대한 접근 및 그 이용으로부터 발생하는 이익의 공정하고 형평한 공유에 관한 나고야 의정서가 채택되었다. 나고야 의정서는 사전통고승인과 상호합의조건의 구성요소를 구체화하였고, 금전적 이익과 비금전적 이익의 유형을 제시하여 협약보다 한 단계 발전한 모습을 보여 주었다. 그러나 나고야 의정서는 일부 중요한 쟁점에 대하여 완전한 합의를 하지 못하여 여전히 모호한 규정을 두고 있다. 첫 번째로 나고야 의정서는 정의 조항에 파생물에 대한 정의를 포함하고 있지만, 파생물의 이용이 이익공유의 범위에 포함 되는지에 대한 명확한 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 또한 파생물과 유전물질을 구분하는 유전의 기능적 단위가 무엇인지에 대하여도 언급이 없다. 두 번째로 나고야 의정서는 적용시점에 대한 규정을 두고 있지 않아 나고야 의정서가 채택되기 이전에 접근한 유전자원의 이용으로부터 발생하는 이익이 나고야 의정서의 적용을 받는 것인지 유무에도 혼란이 있다. 마지막으로 나고야 의정서는 전통지식을 이익 공유의 대상으로 규정하고 있지만, 전통지식의 주체에 관하여 해석의 여지를 남겨두고 있다. 이 논문은 위와 같은 법적 쟁점에 관하여 나고야 의정서의 조항과 관련국의 입장을 중심으로 분석하고자 한다. The Convention on Biological Diversity adopted in 1992 includes the articles on the fair and equitable sharing of the benefit arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. By the way, a new arrangement was needed to implement the regulations of the Convention on the benefit sharing since its provisions on the benefit sharing was not clear. Thus, The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Generic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted by the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010. Nagoya Protocol gave body to the element of the prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and showed the one step forward by exemplifying the type of the monetary and non-monetary benefits. Nagoya Protocol, however, has still some vague provisions on the critical issues because the Parties to the Convention could not completely agree with them. First of all, Nagoya Protocol includes the definition of the derivatives, but it fails to clear whether the utilization of derivatives are in the scope of the benefit sharing. Besides, it does not have a definite provision on what functional units of heredity are. Second, Nagoya Protocol does not provide on a temporal scope. It has some questionable issue that occurring the sharing benefits from the utilization of the genetic resources before adapting Nagoya Protocol is applied by Nagoya Protocol or not. Finally, Nagoya Protocol regulates the sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. It, however, leaves a room for interpretation on the subject of the traditional knowledge. This paper will analyze the above legal issues based on the articles of the Nagoya Protocol and relevant States’ positions.

해양경계획정에 있어 분쟁당사국간 행위의 법적 효과 : 페루와 칠레 사건을 중심으로

이창열(Lee Chang Youl) 국제법평론회 2014 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.39

International Court of Justice(ICJ) determined that the course of the single maritime boundary between Peru and Chile on 27 January 2014. The controversial issue was whether there is an agreed maritime boundary between the Parties in this Case. The Court examined the following facts. First, does the 1947 Proclamations of Chile and Peru establish an international maritime boundary. Second, does the 1952 Santiago declaration was signed by Chile, Ecuador and Peru provide a maritime boundary between the Parties. Third, do the 1954 Agreements reflect a tacit agreement which the Parties had reached earlier. Fourth, do the 1968-1969 lighthouse arrangements include the factor concerning a maritime boundary. The Court concluded that the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement cements the tacit agreement which that the maritime boundary along a parallel already existed between the Parties. The 1954 Agreement, however, gives no indication of the nature and extent of the maritime boundary. The Court ruled that the agreed maritime boundary between the Parties extended to a distance of 80 nautical miles along the parallel from its starting-point. I have some questions about the reasoning and judgment of the Court. This paper will analyze legal validity of the judgment, going through separate and dissenting opinions, and other Cases relating to maritime delimitation.

실체적 규정의 해석에 의한 UN해양법협약 강제적 관할권 배제의 문제해결

이창열 ( Chang Youl Lee ),성재호 ( Jae Ho Sung ) 영남대학교 법학연구소 2010 영남법학 Vol.0 No.31

국제법상 형평의 규범적 기능과 한계

이창열(Lee, Chang Youl),성재호(Sung, Jae Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.2

Manley Hudson, in the case of the Diversion of Water from the River Meuse(1937), pointed out that 'the Court has some freedom to consider principles of equity as part of international law which it must apply' and in the North Sea Continental Shelf Case(1969), the Court said that 'delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles, and taking account of all the relevant circumstances.' Like this, the term of equity has been referred as a fundamental criterion in the individual cases of international court. However, there are various opinions about what equity means. Therefore, it is very important to explicate objective meaning and limitation of equity through expansive reviews. The most of states prefer to make general and a little ambiguous rules. Because those are very convenient to avoid its applications. Therefore, many international rules have a tendency to be general and ambiguous. In consequence of this, judge has got more discretion to solve the disputes. Namely, the more the rules of international law are abstract, the more a role of equity might be large in the international community. Equity has been long recognized form Aristotle and many international courts has used it. but, there were short of explanations of what it means. This paper would try to objectify equity on the ground of several documents rather than explain general definition of it. From this, I would say that principle of equity is not one form. And further, this paper would explain questions which are as follows. What is different between "equity" and "ex aequo et bono"? Is equity the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations? What is distinct between equity in common law and in international law? For the purpose of doing, I would try the conceptional access of equity form Greek to present. Next explaining the legal character of equity and its contents. Subsequently, showing how it is applied in international law, especially focused on the maritime boundary delimitation cases. Finally, form this study, I would suggest the normative function and limitation of equity in International Law.