케이싱 형상에 따른 쉬라우드형 터빈의 공력성능 변화

이창열(Changyoul Lee),윤용상(Yong-Sang Yoon),정일영(Il-Young Jung),송성진(Seung Jin Song) 대한기계학회 2022 대한기계학회 춘추학술대회 Vol.2022 No.11

유엔해양법협약상 영해에서의 연안국 행위에 대한 재판관할권

이창열(LEE Changyoul) 대한국제법학회 2015 國際法學會論叢 Vol.60 No.4

협약 제297조는 이 협약에 규정된 연안국의 주권적 권리 또는 관할권 행사와 관련하여 이 협약의 해석 또는 적용에 관한 분쟁의 관할권에 대하여 제한을 규정하고 있다. 그러나 협약은 영해에서 연안국의 주권 행사와 관련한 이 협약의 해석 또는 적용과 관련한 분쟁의 관할권에 어떠한 제한도 규정하지 않고 있다. 따라서 경우에 따라 연안국의 영해에서 주권 행사에 관하여 협약 제287조의 법원 또는 재판소가 관할권을 가질 수 있는가 하는 문제가 발생한다. 이는 협약상 법원 또는 재판소가 독도 주변 수역에서 한국의 주권 행사와 관련한 분쟁에 대하여 관할권을 가질 수 있음을 의미하기 때문에 매우 중요한 문제다. 특히, 협약 제297조는 제2항과 제3항은 배타적경제수역 또는 대륙붕에서 해양과학조사와 어업과 관련한 특정한 분쟁의 관할권에 제한하고 있기 때문에 협약상 법원 또는 재판소가 영해에서의 해양과학조사와 어업과 관련한 분쟁에 대하여 관할권을 가질 수 있는가 하는 문제가 있다. 본 연구는 위와 같은 문제의 해결을 위하여 다음 두 가지 사항에 대하여 살펴본다. 첫째, 협약 제297조가 영해에서의 주권 행사와 관련한 분쟁에 대한 관할권도 제한하는 것으로 해석할 수 있는지, 둘째, 협약상 영해에서의 주권 행사와 관련한 분쟁이 발생할 가능성이 있는지 여부다. Article 297 of UNCLOS suggests the limitations on jurisdiction of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention with regard to the exercise by a coastal State of its sovereign right or jurisdiction provided for this Convention. UNCLOS, however, dose not articulate any limitations on jurisdiction of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention with regard to the exercise by a coastal State of its sovereignty in the territorial sea. Therefore, as the case may be, this fact will cause a problem of whether a court or tribunal referred to in article 287 can have jurisdiction over the exercise by a coastal State of its sovereignty in the territorial sea. This is highly crucial issue, since it means that a court or tribunal under the UNCLOS can have jurisdiction over the disputes with regard to the exercise by Korea of its sovereignty in the vicinity of Dokdo. In particular, article 297(2) and (3) imposes limitations on jurisdiction of certain disputes with regard to marine scientific research and fishery in the exclusive economic zone or Continental shelf, not in the territorial sea. Accordingly, it would be a problem of whether a court or tribunal under the UNCLOS can have jurisdiction over disputes with regard to marine scientific research and fishery in the territorial sea. This study examines the two followings in order to solve the issues as above. First of all, it is possible to construe that article 297 of UNCLOS also restricts the jurisdiction over the dispute with regard to the exercise by coastal State of its sovereignty in the territorial sea. Second, it is whether the disputes related to the exercise by coastal State of its sovereignty in the territorial sea can arise.

The Enrica Lexie Incident 판정과 함의

이창열(Changyoul Lee) 국제법평론회 2022 국제법평론 Vol.- No.63

On 21 May 2020, the Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in respect of the Enrica Lexie Incident adopted its Award. It was notified to the Parties on 9 June 2020. On 2 July 2020, the Arbitral Tribunal published the operative part(dispositif) of the Award on the PCA Case Repository. According to Italy, the dispute arises from an incident that occurred on 15 February 2012 approximately 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of India involving the “Enrica Lexie”, an oil tanker flying the Italian flag, and India’s subsequent exercise of criminal jurisdiction over the incident and over two Italian marines from the Italian Navy. According to India, the incident in question concerns the killing of two Indian fishermen on board an Indian vessel named the “St. Antony”, and India’s subsequent exercise of jurisdiction. It is alleged that the two Italian marines aboard the “Enrica Lexie” killed the fishermen. Author would like to explaine that there is a sligltly different noteworthy point on this Case. The point is that the Arbitral Tribunal placed much emphasis on the statements of the individuals involved in the case, when the Arbitral Tribunal deal with the fact findinding and jurisprudence. This paper aims to focus on how the Arbitral Tribunal handles the testimony of the individuals involved in this case in the process of deleberating the case of Enrica Lexie Incident.

유엔해양법협약에서 영토분쟁에 대한 관할권 행사 가능성 분석

이창열(LEE Changyoul) 대한국제법학회 2015 國際法學會論叢 Vol.60 No.2

유엔해양법협약은 제15부에 협약의 해석 또는 적용에 대한 분쟁을 강제분쟁해결절차로 해결할 수 있는 규정을 두고 있다. 이와 관련하여 협약의 해석 또는 적용에 대한 원고의 청구를 해결하기 위해서는 협약에서 규정하고 있지 않는 사항에 대한 법적 분쟁의 판단이 먼저 해결되어야 하는 경우, 재판소가 강제적으로 관할권을 행사할 수 있을 것인가 아니면 관할권 행사를 유보해야 하는 것인가 하는 문제가 있다. 혼합분쟁 사건에서 만약 협약의 법원 또는 재판소가 협약 이외의 문제에 대하여도 관할권을 행사할 수 있다고 해석하면 협약의 법원 또는 재판소의 강제관할권의 범위가 매우 넓어질 수 있는 문제가 있다. 협약의 강제분쟁해결절차가 위와 같이 해석된다면 일본과 독도문제를 안고 있는 우리나라에 있어 치명적이다. 본 논문은 위와 같은 문제를 해결하기 위하여 다음 두 가지 사항에 대하여 연구하도록 한다. 먼저 협약상 강제분쟁해결절차는 협약에서 규정하고 있지 않는 사항 특히 영토주권에 관한 분쟁을 다룰 관할권을 가질 수 있는가 여부에 대하여 살펴본다. 다음으로 협약의 해석과 적용의 문제를 해결하기 위해서 협약 이외의 문제가 해결되어야 하는 경우, 협약상 강제분쟁해결절차가 협약 이외의 문제 또는 협약에서 관할권을 유보한 문제를 다룰 수 있는가를 다룬다. United Nations Convention for the law of the sea provides that a court or tribunal referred to in article 287 shall have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which is submitted to them accordance with the part XV, Relating to this, one problem arises in the case of ‘mixed claims’, When a court or tribunal referred to in article 287 must examine issues out of the Convention in order to deal with plaintiff’s claims, whether they could have jurisdiction or shall defer exercising jurisdiction. In such of ‘mixed claims’, when we understand that a court or tribunal referred to in article 287 can have jurisdiction over issues not relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention, a problem is that scope of their jurisdiction may become bigger. If we consider compulsory procedures in the same way as above, it is lethal to our country, since we have an issue with Japan concerning Dokdo. This paper investigates the two followings to solve the problems as above. First of all, it inspects whether a court or tribunal referred to in article 287 generally could have jurisdiction over the issues unrelated the Convention or not. In particular, territorial disputes. And the next things is that, it examines whether they could deal with the disputes unrelated the Convention in the case of ‘mixed claims’.

케이싱 형상에 따른 쉬라우드형 터빈의 공력성능 변화

이창열(Changyoul Lee),윤용상(Yong-Sang Yoon),정일영(Il-Young Jung),송성진(Seung Jin Song) 대한기계학회 2022 대한기계학회 춘추학술대회 Vol.2022 No.11

200해리 바깥의 대륙붕경계획정에 관한 고찰

이창열(LEE Changyoul) 대한국제법학회 2017 國際法學會論叢 Vol.62 No.4

1985년 리비아 몰타 사건 사건에서 국제사법법원은 유엔해양법협약이 200해리 거리를 대륙붕의 범위 기준으로 규정하고 있기 때문에 200해리 이내에서 서로 중첩하는 대륙붕경계획정에서 자연적 연장을 관련상황으로 고려할 수 없다고 판시한 이후 국제법학계에서 이 명제가 확정적인 것으로 굳어져 가고 있다. 그러나 리비아 몰타 사건의 해당 대륙붕은 다른 사건에서 자연적 연장의 단절이 없다고 판단하였던 해구보다 더 작아 실제로 고려할 만한 자연적 연장의 단절이 없었다. 더구나 리비아 몰타 사건 이후 대륙붕경계만을 획정한 판례가 없어 유사 판례의 축적이 없다. 리비아 몰타 사건을 인용하는 판례는 모두 배타적경제수역과 대륙붕을 단일한 경계선으로 획정하는 사건이었다. 배타적경제수역과 대륙붕을 단일한 경계선으로 획정하기로 한 경우 지질학적 또는 지형학적 요소를 관련상황으로 고려하지 않는 것은 이제 확실한 명제가 된 것은 사실이나, 이중 경계선으로 획정하기로 하는 경우에도 자연적 연장 개념이 고려되지 않는 것인가는 분명하지 않다. 유엔해양법협약이 자연적 연장과 거리 두 가지를 함께 규정하면서 우열을 정하고 있지 않다. 따라서 어느 한 기준을 일방적으로 무시하는 대륙붕경계획정방법은 형평한 해결에 부합하는 것으로 보기 어려우며, 두 기준을 적절하게 고려하는 방법으로 경계를 획정해야할 것이다. In 1985, in the case of Libya and Malta, the International Court of Justice ruled that natural prolongation can not be treated as a relevant circumstances in the delimitation of continental shelf overlapping within 200 nautical miles, since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides a distance of 200 nautical mile as another criterion for determining the outer limit of the continental shelf. In the after of this case, this proposition is becoming firmly established in the international law academics. However, the trench of the Libya and Malta case was smaller than the trough, which was considered to have no interruption of natural prolongation in other cases, so there was no cut-off of the natural prolongation that could actually be taken account of. Moreover, there is no similar precedents after the Libya and Malta case. All the cases citing the decisions of the Libya and Malta were events that the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf are delimited as a single boundary. It is now clear that not considering geological or geomorphological factors as relevant circumstances when the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf are to be defined as a single boundary. By the way, it is not certain that the natural prolongation is not taken into consideration even if the boundary is defined as dual boundaries. Since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not set a standard of the superiority and inferiority for both natural prolongation and distance. Therefore, it is hard to say that the continental shelf boundary delimitation method which ignores one criterion meets the equitable solutions, and it should delimit the boundaries in a way that takes both criteria into account.

고온 초전도 한류기가 설치된 전력 시스템의 안정도 해석

이승제(Suengje Lee),이찬주(Chanjoo Lee),이창열(Changyoul Lee),고태국(Taekuk Ko) 대한전기학회 1998 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.1998 No.7

공해자유원칙과 인류공동유산원칙의 관계에 대한 연구 : BBNJ 협상상 쟁점을 중심으로

모영동(Moh, Youngdawng),이창열(Lee, Changyoul) 국제법평론회 2020 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.57

The international community is currently negotiating to elaborate the text of legally binding international instruments on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological resources in the areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, the BBNJ Intergovernmental Conference is facing a wide divergence of opinion on the relationship between two main principles of the UNCLOS, namely the principle of the freedom of high seas and the principles of common heritage of mankind. A group of states argue that the relationship between them is not mutually exclusive. The argument implies that the principles of common heritage of mankind can be extended to marine genetic resources in the Area and water column of high seas. However, the other group maintains that the relationship is mutually exclusive, which means the principle of high seas governs the marine genetic resources in ABNJ. This article attempts to identify the relationship between the two principles by reviewing conceptual backgrounds, history and proceedings. As a result, the principles of the freedom of high seas and the principles of common heritage of mankind under UNCLOS was established for different geographical and material scopes. As a result, this study arrives at the conclusion that the two principles are separate principles that cannot be argued for compatibility or possible conflict from the outset.

UN BBNJ 해양유전자원 주요 법적 쟁점 연구

모영동(Youngdawng Moh),이창열(Changyoul Lee) 국제법평론회 2023 국제법평론 Vol.- No.64

The 5-1 UN BBNJ Intergovernmental Conference (‘IGC’) was adjourned against international community’s huge expectation for reaching consensus on the BBNJ agreement in 2022. However, the 5-1 IGC has been considered the IGC which substantially narrowed down the divergence between Parties. Against this backdrop, there are high hopes for adopting UN BBNJ in the coming IGC 5-2 . However, there are still the unsolved issues which require significant amount of discussions. Out of many issues, there are two major legal issues which the IGC 5-2 should resolve in the area of Marine Genetic Resources(‘MGR’). Since the beginning of the BBNJ agreement negotiation, the legal status of MGR has divided the delegations into two groups. One is those who are proponents for common heritage of mankind. This group believes the principle of common heritage of mankind applies to MGR. The other is those who are against this. There have been no consensus at all so far. Without any creative ideas to resolve the divergence between two, there would be a very small window to see the adoption of the UN BBNJ agreement. Even if the IGC 5-2 succeeds in the legal status of MGR, we still have the digital sequence information issue. At issue is whether digital sequence information falls under the definition of MGR. Considering the same discussions in Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of Parties(‘CBD COP’), there is very slim chance to arrive in consensus on this issue, too. The best scenario would be the case where all the legal issues are cleared and Parties reach consensus. However, this scenario seems very unlikely to be realized at the IGC 5-2. Considering the difficulties ahead, the IGC 5 should carefully look into the approach taken at the CBD COP 15 for successful adoption of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity. The lessons learned the IGC 5-2 should take are the effective conference management and targeted consensus strategy. The CBD COP 15 managed conference effectively by forming Plenary-Working Group-Contact Group-Friends of the Chair structures. With this structure, the CBD COP could filer out the agenda and focus its time and resources on hard issues. In addition, the CBD COP15 draw consensus only where it is likely to reach. This targeted approach produced the result that the CBD COP 15 left many issues unsolved till the COP 16. However, the CBD COP 15 achieved what the CBD COP 15 had to on time. Applying the lessons learned at CBD COP 15, the IGC 5-2 should enhance the small group which was introduce for the first time at the IGC 5-1 for consensus between Parties who have opposing views on one issue. There has been not enough time for narrowing divergent views between Parties during the whole IGCs. What the IGC 5-2 might try next is to explicitly agree not to agree. By creating provisions which state Parties do not agree in the issues such as the legal status of MGR and the digital sequence information, Parties could clean the brackets and produce a clean text. When debates seem endless, we should move toward a new direction instead of circling around.