쓰카모토 다카시의 「샌프란시스코 평화조약에서 나타난 다케시마에 대한 취급」에 대한 비판적 연구 - 2007년 日本 竹島硏究會 最終報告書에 대한 비판

정갑용 영남대학교 인문과학연구소 2008 人文硏究 Vol.- No.55

This paper studied critically on the “The San Francisco Treaty(1951) and the Relevance of the Sovereignty of Dokdo”(サン · フランシスユ平和條約における竹島の取り扱) by Stukamoto Dakashi(塚本 孝)」 in the 「Final Report of the Research on the the Takeshima Issues(竹島問題に關する調査硏究 最終報告書)」 by The Japanese Takeshima Research Forum(日本 竹島問題硏究會) which relevant to the Dokdo matter. And this paper examined the text and discussed the relevance of the sovereignty of Dokdo. Korea's claim to Dokdo goes back many centuries and is based on contacts during many previous eras. On the other hand, Japan asserts that Dokdo was terra nullius in 1905 and that Japan acted in accordance with international law in claiming Dokdo into Japanese territory at that time. During the final years of the war, including the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which were designed to address the lands acquired by Japan during its aggressive territorial expansion. The Cairo Declaration is clear that territories were acquired through “violence and greed” by Japan would be freed. The Potsdam Proclamation provided the conditions under which the Allied Powers and article 8 of it outlined the main territory that would remain under Japanese sovereignty. Japan accepted the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation when it signed the “Instrument of Surrender” on September 2, 1945. Korea view Japan's incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 as being the result of “violence and greed,” since Japan was engaged in a major imperialistic expansion during that period. Following the surrender, the Allied Powers issued a series of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instructions(SCAPINs), two of which concerned Dokdo. SCAPIN No. 677(1946) issued January 29, 1946, defined the territory over which Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) was one of the islands that was removed from Japanese control. Korean had contended that this Instruction excluding Dokdo from the definition of Japanese territory. SCAPIN No. 1033 (1946) issued this Instruction on June 22, 1946, establishing ‘the MacArthur Line' to delineate authorized areas for Japanese fishing and whaling. The Instruction placed Dokdo outside the authorized area, thus denying Japan not only administrative control of the islets but also the ability to exploit the resources adjacent to them. San Francisco Treaty(1951), signed on September 8, 1951, in Article 2(a), “Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet” but, Dokdo was not mentioned in the Treaty Analysis of the drafting history of the San Francisco Treaty(1951) reveals that the Allied Power changed its mind several times as to whether Dokdo should be viewed as Japanese or Korean territory and was silent on the status of Dokdo. The San Francisco Treaty(1951) did not mention Dokdo in Article 2 (a), its territorial provision. As a conclusion, Korea's position that it is properly exercising sovereignty over Dokdo is thus confirmed by the close examination of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Korea also contends that the San Francisco Treaty (1951) should be interpreted in light of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation which stated that Japan would be required to give up all territories acquired through “violence and greed.” More important would be the actions that have taken Korea's exercises of control over Dokdo and Japan's acquiescence that can be found in its acceptance of the 1965 Normalization Treaty. Korea regained the sovereignty over Dokdo through the events, declarations, decrees, agreements during and after World War II. 본 논문은 위 보고서에서 쓰카모토 다카시(塚本 孝)가 쓴 「샌프란시스코 평화조약에서 나타난 독도에 대한 취급(サン · フランシスユ平和條約における竹島の取り扱い)」을 분석한 것으로, 그 주장의 요점은 1951년에 미국과 체결한 샌프란시스코 조약에서 독도를 한국에 명확하게 반환한다고 규정하고 있지 않으므로 당연히 독도는 일본의 영토에 귀속된다는 종래의 주장을 되풀이 하고 있다. 필자의 견해로는 1951년 샌프란시스코 조약에서 독도문제를 명확하게 규정하지 않고 있는 것은 오히려 독도가 일본에 귀속되지 않는다는 것을 반증하는 것이며, 더 나아가 독도영유권의 귀속은 독도의 영유권과 관련된 역사자료, 고지도, 공문서, 법령, 국제문서 등을 종합적으로 파악하여 판단해야 할 것이다. 독도문제가 국제정세의 변화에 따라 국제재판소에서 해결될 가능성을 염두에 두고, 독도문제가 국제재판소에서 다루어지는 경우에 대한 시나리오를 상정하여 일본의 ‘선점’ 주장에 대한 대응법리 계발, Critical Date에 대한 재검토, 신한일어업협정과 독도문제에 대한 극복논리 및 현실적 대안 등에 대한 철저한 연구가 필요하다. 또한, “국제재판소에 가서도 우리가 이길 수 있도록” 우리의 주장을 객관적으로 확인할 수 있고 일본 주장의 허구성 및 불법성을 밝힐 수 있는 사료, 자료를 확보하고 이를 기초로 한 대응논리를 계발하는 것이 시급히 필요하다고 본다. 무엇보다도, 독도문제는 제2차 세계대전을 일으킨 장본인인 일본에 대한 전쟁책임을 철저히 추급하지 않는데서 기인한다고 보며, 독도문제의 해결은 앞으로 우리나라와 중국 및 관련 국가들이 연대하여 일본국의 전쟁책임, 일본왕의 전쟁책임, 강제징집, 집단학살 및 일본군 위안부 피해자(종군위안부)에 대한 책임을 추급하는 것에서 그 해결방안이 모색되어야 하리라고 본다.

필리핀과 중국의 남중국해 국제중재판정의 주요 쟁점

정갑용 영남대학교 독도연구소 2017 독도연구 Vol.- No.22

The dispute between the Philippines and China began for the huge amounts of oil and natural gas were found buried in the South China Sea, especially Reed Bank and its adjacent waters. The Philippines filed a lawsuit against China in 2013 with the International Permanent Court of Arbitration on the basis of the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and its Annex VII, and a final award was reached on July 12 2016. The meaning of the issues in question are as follows; First, the Court found that the Convention on the Law of the Sea was superior to any claim of rights. As a matter of court jurisdiction, China insisted that it should be decided to exclude it from the jurisdiction and denied the jurisdiction of the dispute and did not attend the arbitration trial. In China's view, this dispute with the Philippines is on the issue of national sovereignty over the South China Sea and is not a "dispute on the application and interpretation of the Convention" set by the Convention on the Law of the Sea, However, the Court pointed out that the dispute is not a matter of the claim of the sovereignty of the South China Sea on the basis of the claims of the Philippines, and that ​​the claims of China and other countries are duplicated and overlapped. In this reason, the Court decided that this dispute is a matter of interpretation and application of the legal status of the islands, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, which are prescribed by the Convention on the Law of the Sea, so that the jurisdiction on this dispute is recognized in the claims of the Philippines. Second, China insists on the historic titles on the South China Sea as a basis for the claim that the dispute is related to national sovereignty and claims that the area within the so called "9 line" is China's historic waters and have 'indisputable right'. The Court found that China had no strong evidence to determine the issue of sovereignty over its claim to the historical rights on the South China Sea. Third, As regards the legal status of the maritime features of the South China Sea. The Court said that the maritime features of the disputed waters, as provided for by the Convention on the Law of the Sea, falls under the sea(low tide elevation), could not have its own exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Fourth, With regards the construction and reclamation of artificial islands in the South China Sea, the Court concludes that, according to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Law, the construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea is acceptable but should not cause harm to neighboring countries and should not pose a serious threat to marine ecosystems. This award of PCA, especially in relation to the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction, historic titles or rights, the legal status of the marine features, the construction of the artificial island, there are a great deal of legal and policy implications on the problem of Dokdo Issues in Korea. 남중국해에 막대한 양의 석유 및 천연가스가 매장되어 있는 것으로 알려지면서 남중국해의 연안국들 간의 분쟁이 본격적으로 시작되었는데, 필리핀과 중국 간에 분쟁이 본격화된 것은 석유가 천연가스가 많이 매장되어 있다고 밝혀진 리드 뱅크(Reed Bank)에서의 충돌사건 때문이었다. 필리핀은 2013년 중국을 상대로 해양법협약이 규정 및 동 부속서 Ⅶ에 근거하여 동 사건을 국제상설중재재판소에 제소하였고 2016년 7월 12일에 최종적으로 판정이 내려졌다. 동 판정이 가지는 쟁점별 의미는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 재판관할권과 관련된 문제로 중국은 필리핀과의 분쟁이 해양에 관한 국가주권과 관련된 문제이고 해양법협약이 정하는 ‘협약의 적용 및 해석에 관한 분쟁’이 아니며 중국이 ‘배제선언’을 통하여 해양분쟁을 강제적 관할권에서 제외하기로 하였다는 점에서 동 분쟁에 대한 재판관할권을 부정하고 중재재판에 참석하지도 않았다. 그러나 재판소는 필리핀의 청구내용을 중심으로 동 분쟁이 남중국해의 해양지형에 대한 영유권의 귀속에 관한 문제가 아니며 중국이 자국의 권리가 미친다는 해역은 다른 국가들의 주장이 중복되고 해양경계가 아직 해결되지 않는 해역이라고 전제하였다. 이에 따라, 동 분쟁은 해양법협약이 규정하는 섬의 법적 지위, 배타적 경제수역 및 대륙붕 등에 관한 해석 및 적용에 관한 문제이어서 필리핀의 청구내용에서 일부에 대한 재판관할권이 인정된다고 판단하였다. 둘째, 중국은 동 분쟁이 국가주권과 관련된다는 주장에 대한 근거로 남중국해에 대한 역사적 권원을 주장하며, 소위 ‘9단선’ 이내의 해역은 중국의 역사적 수역이며 ‘다툴 수 없는 중국의 권원’이 있다고 주장하였다. 재판소는 중국이 남중국해에 대한 역사적 권리를 주장하는 것에 대하여 주권문제를 결정할 수 있을 정도로 강력한 증거력이 없다고 판단하였다. 셋째, 남중국해의 해양지형들의 법적 지위에 관한 것으로, 해양법협약이 규정하는 바에 의하여 분쟁해역의 해양지형들은 그 자체의 배타적 경제수역이나 대륙붕을 가질 수 없는 ‘저조고지’에 해당된다고 하였다. 넷째, 중국이 남중국해에 인공섬을 건설하는 것에 대하여, 재판소는 해양법협약이나 국제법 원칙에 의하면 해양에 인공섬을 건설하는 것은 인정되지만 인근 국가들에 피해를 주지 않아야 하고 해양생태계에 중대한 위협을 주지 않아야 한다고 판단하였다. 이와 같은 재판소의 판정은 특히 재판관할권, 영유권에 관한 역사적 권원, 해양지형의 법적 지위, 인공섬의 건설 등과 관련하여 우리나라의 독도문제에 보여주는 법적, 정책적 시사점이 크다고 하겠다.

우리나라에 있어서 국제적 해상범죄에 대한 관할권 행사원칙

정갑용 경희대학교 법학연구소 2009 경희법학 Vol.44 No.3

Because South Korea is a maritime country surrounded with seas, there has been taken many international maritime crimes through marine routes. Moreover, with the regime of EEZ and the development of information technology of the 21st century and marine traffic, international maritime crimes are expanding worldwide with more intelligence, and via marine routes. Recently, international maritime crimes((marine-based drug trafficking, piracy, slavery transportation, and etc.) has been considered anti-humanitarian; recently violation against fishery agreements and smuggling are newly emerging. Marine crimes have three features : they are made in the expansive waters, their means are ships, and once they are made, their consequences are serious. If we take a look into aspects of these marine crimes, we can numerate internationally organized gangs’ piracy, Koreans’ smuggling into Japan, Korean Chinese smuggling into Japan and South Korea, North Koreans’ marine escape due to their nation’s structural changes, Russians’ smuggling camouflaged with fishery trade and employment. Though international crime agencies are corresponding to them, physical limitations such as its vastness of the ocean and weather changes and lack of information sharing between nations are making investigation difficult. Marine crimes also have a tendency to respond to neighbouring countries’ political situations sensitively. Futhermore, as far as South Korea concerned, with ideological conflicts of China, Japan, and Russia, escaping Northern Koreans to avoid starvation, airports linked to organized crimes, marine routes being adopted to overcome the limitations of the earth, such organized crimes are newly emerging as passport fabrication, illegal immigration, gun smuggling, piracy, and terror, etc. As marine crimes get organized and intellectual, present investigation system reveal its limitations. Here I suggest corresponding measure to six problems that our investigation agencies have. First, T/F team for organized marine crimes is necessary. Considering characters of international crime investigation, international cooperation needs to be upgraded to access information from abroad, and competitive investigation agencies equipped with professionals and equipment are required to be established. Second is strengthening cooperation in investigation. It is desirable that investigation agencies that grapple with Korean fugitives abroad, foreign fugitives in Korea and hardened criminals cooperate each other. Third is adopting scientific investigation methods, and fostering qualified policeman. To correspond to newly emerging crimes and international crimes, investigation methods need to get scientific, state-of-art equipment that suits features of crimes should be accessible, and trustworthy policemen who are intellectual about foreign affairs are necessary. Fourth is strengthening functions of KCG. The agency is performing many missions as much as we can say that it is taking full charge of prevention of marine crimes and law enforcement against them. For better exchanges with other countries’ marine law enforcement agencies, international affairs division of KCG should be promoted to foreign affairs bureau Fifth is strengthening international anti-terrorism and business xecurity protecting activities. In the midst of development of civilization and industrialization, and conflicts of region, race and ideology, international terrors have often happened not only on land but also in the ocean to retaliate against each other. Therefore, to prevent marine terrors, surveillance of industrial products on passenger ships and cargo ships should be upgrade. Sixth is strengthening international coalition in criminal law. International crimes are made on the ocean linked with organized criminals. To prevent this, each country is required to correspond, making a bilateral of multilateral treaties. And for fast information exchange, coalition making... Because South Korea is a maritime country surrounded with seas, there has been taken many international maritime crimes through marine routes. Moreover, with the regime of EEZ and the development of information technology of the 21st century and marine traffic, international maritime crimes are expanding worldwide with more intelligence, and via marine routes. Recently, international maritime crimes((marine-based drug trafficking, piracy, slavery transportation, and etc.) has been considered anti-humanitarian; recently violation against fishery agreements and smuggling are newly emerging. Marine crimes have three features : they are made in the expansive waters, their means are ships, and once they are made, their consequences are serious. If we take a look into aspects of these marine crimes, we can numerate internationally organized gangs’ piracy, Koreans’ smuggling into Japan, Korean Chinese smuggling into Japan and South Korea, North Koreans’ marine escape due to their nation’s structural changes, Russians’ smuggling camouflaged with fishery trade and employment. Though international crime agencies are corresponding to them, physical limitations such as its vastness of the ocean and weather changes and lack of information sharing between nations are making investigation difficult. Marine crimes also have a tendency to respond to neighbouring countries’ political situations sensitively. Futhermore, as far as South Korea concerned, with ideological conflicts of China, Japan, and Russia, escaping Northern Koreans to avoid starvation, airports linked to organized crimes, marine routes being adopted to overcome the limitations of the earth, such organized crimes are newly emerging as passport fabrication, illegal immigration, gun smuggling, piracy, and terror, etc. As marine crimes get organized and intellectual, present investigation system reveal its limitations. Here I suggest corresponding measure to six problems that our investigation agencies have. First, T/F team for organized marine crimes is necessary. Considering characters of international crime investigation, international cooperation needs to be upgraded to access information from abroad, and competitive investigation agencies equipped with professionals and equipment are required to be established. Second is strengthening cooperation in investigation. It is desirable that investigation agencies that grapple with Korean fugitives abroad, foreign fugitives in Korea and hardened criminals cooperate each other. Third is adopting scientific investigation methods, and fostering qualified policeman. To correspond to newly emerging crimes and international crimes, investigation methods need to get scientific, state-of-art equipment that suits features of crimes should be accessible, and trustworthy policemen who are intellectual about foreign affairs are necessary. Fourth is strengthening functions of KCG. The agency is performing many missions as much as we can say that it is taking full charge of prevention of marine crimes and law enforcement against them. For better exchanges with other countries’ marine law enforcement agencies, international affairs division of KCG should be promoted to foreign affairs bureau Fifth is strengthening international anti-terrorism and business xecurity protecting activities. In the midst of development of civilization and industrialization, and conflicts of region, race and ideology, international terrors have often happened not only on land but also in the ocean to retaliate against each other. Therefore, to prevent marine terrors, surveillance of industrial products on passenger ships and cargo ships should be upgrade. Sixth is strengthening international coalition in criminal law. International crimes are made on the ocean linked with organized criminals. To prevent this, each country is required to correspond, making a bilateral of multilateral treaties. And for fast information exchange, coalition making the best...

ICJ의 선택선언에 대한 유보의 유형 분석

정갑용 전남대학교 법학연구소 2007 법학논총 Vol.27 No.2

It is an elementary principle of international law that a State is entitled to protest its subjects,. when injured by acts contrary to international law committed by another State. Contemporary international law enjoins the subjects of international law to settle their disputes by peaceful means. The peaceful means of settling international disputes fall into two broad categories: diplomatic and adjudicatory. The parties may seek to do this either directly between themselves or with the aid of a third person. The States parties to the Statute of the Court may “at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court”(Art 36, para. 2 of the Statute). Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the Court by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court. The declarations, deposited by a total of 65 States, are decisions to accept compulsory jurisdiction under the Optional Clause governing the International Court of Justice occurred with similar to the procedure for the approval of a treaty. Parties can declare that it’s recognise as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to the Secretary-General of the United Nations withdrawing this declaration. But, these declarations does not apply to, (a) any dispute in regard to which the parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement; (b) any dispute concerning or relating to the delimitation of maritime zones, including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, or arising out of, concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its delimitation; (c) any dispute in respect of which any other party to the dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court only in relation to or for the purpose of the dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of any other party to the dispute; (d) disputes with regard to questions which by international law fall Eaaentially (exclusively) within the jurisdiction of Parties; (e) disputes arising out of or concerning jurisdiction or rights claimed or exercised by Parties in respect of the conservation, management or exploitation of the living resources of the Sea, or in respect of the prevention or control of pollution or contamination of the marine environment in marine areas adjacent to the coast of Parties; (f) These declarations are made subject to ratification. It shall take effect on the day of deposit of the instrument of ratification for some periods or not Upon the expiry of that period, it shall continue to have effect until notice of its termination is given; (g) disputes with the government of any other country which is a member of the Commonwealth, all of which disputes shall be settled in such manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree; (h) disputes relating to facts or situations originating in armed conflicts or acts of a similar nature which may affect the territory of Parties which it may find itself involved directly or indirectly. The wider acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction is an essential element in the rule of international law, but there has been a tendency for an increasing number of States accepting the optional clause to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Court matters of domestic jurisdiction as determined by themselves. However, internatio...

남중국해 중국의 인공섬 건설에 관한 법적 고찰 - 남사군도의 7개 인공섬들을 중심으로 -

정갑용 한양대학교 법학연구소 2017 법학논총 Vol.34 No.4

남중국해의 해양분쟁은 해양자원에 관한 국가들의 이해관계에서 비롯되었는데, 특히 중국은 남사군도의 7개 해양지형들에 인공섬을 건설하고 군사시설을 구축하고 있다. 이와 같이 중국이 인공섬을 건설하는 것에 대한 문제점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 중국이 인공섬을 건설하는 것은 일반국제법원칙이나 해양법협악에 의하면 일응 합법적이라고 할 수 있다. 둘째, 그럼에도 불구하고 해양법협약에 의하면 인공섬이 기초한 남중국해의 해양지형들은 섬이나 바위섬이 아니므로 영해나 해양관할권을 갖지 못하는데, 이는 2016년 필리핀과 중국의 국제중재판정에서도 인정하고 있다. 셋째, 남중국해의 해양지형들에 대하여 다른 연안국들과 영유권분쟁이 존재하고 있으므로 어느 국가가 해당 해양지형을 일방적으로 점거하고 인공섬을 건설하는 것은 부당하다고 본다. 넷째, 남중국해에 있는 대부분의 해양지형들은 산호초로 구성되어 있으므로 인공섬을 건설하는 것은 해양생태계를 돌이킬 수 없을 정도의 환경파괴를 야기할 우려가 있다. 다섯째, 중국이 남중국해 해양지형들에 인공섬을 건설하고 군사기지를 설치하는 것은 다른 국가들의 ‘항해의 자유’에 대한 위협이다. 여섯째, 중국이 처음에는 인공섬을 건설하는 이유가 해양과학조사라고 하였으나 대부분의 인공섬에 군사기지를 건설하는 것은 자국의 해양영토확장이라는 국가이익을 극단적으로 주장하고 있는데, 이는 국제사회에 대한 ‘신의성실의 원칙’에 위배되는 것이다. 중국의 인공섬 건설과 그 문제점과 관련하여 남중국해의 해양분쟁을 평화적으로 해결할 수 있는 방안은, 남중국해 해양지형들에 대한 영유권 분쟁을 평화적으로 해결하기 위하여 기존의 ASIAN이나 지역협력체를 설립하여 해결하는 것이 필요하며, 중국이 인공섬의 인근 해역에 영해, 배타적 경제수역 및 대륙붕을 주장하고 있는 것에 대하여 국제사회가 중국이 ‘법에 의한 지배’로 정책을 전환할 수 있도록 지속적인 압박을 가하는 것이 필요하다. 중국은 새로운 해양전략에 의하여 군사적 목적의 인공섬을 건설하는 것으로 입장을 변화하였는데, 중국의 해양확장정책을 중단기적인 측면에서 저지할 수 있는 전략이 필요하며, 미국 뿐만 아니라 일본, 호주, 인도 등이 공동으로 ‘항해자유작전’에 참여하여 중국으로 하여금 ‘협력에 의한 공존’으로 나오도록 유도할 필요가 있으며 남중국해의 연안국들과 미국을 비롯한 남중국해 비연안국들과의 협력을 강화해야 한다. 이상과 같은 점을 볼 때에 우리나라에 대한 정책적 시사점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 우리가 독도에 해양과학기지를 건설하고자 하는 것은 합법적인 주권행사이므로 그 법적 근거에 대한 심층적인 연구를 준비해야 할 것이다. 둘째, 일본이 ‘오끼노 도리시마’라는 조그만 바위에 인공방벽을 건설하고 그 인근 해역에 영해나 해양관할권을 주장하는 것은 명백히 불법한 행위이다. 앞으로 일본의 주장이 부당하고 불법이라는 것을 반박하고 국제사회의 여론을 환기해야 할 것이다. 셋째, 우리의 ‘이어도 해양과학기지’는 그 동안 인접국가와 인근을 항해하는 선박들에 대하여 유용한 기상자료를 제공하여 왔으므로, 우리가 건설하여 운영하고 있는 ‘이어도 해양과학기지’는 그 법적 근거가 정당하고 합법적일 뿐만 아니라 해양에 관한 국제협력의 중요한 사례라는 점을 국제사회에 적극적 ... The disputes in the South China Sea arise from the interests of nations on marine resources, especially China, which is constructing artificial islands and building military facilities on seven maritime features of the Splatly Islands. The problem of China’s construction of artificial islands is as follows;First, it is legal to construct artificial islands according to the principle of general international law or the 1982 UNCLOS. Second, according to the 1982 UNCLOS, several maritime features of the South China Sea based on artificial islands are not islands or rocks, and thus do not have territorial or maritime jurisdictions, which are also recognized by the 2016 PCA Award between Philippines and China. Third, it is unfair for any country to unilaterally occupy the maritime feature and to construct artificial islands because there is a territorial dispute with the other coastal countries regarding the maritime features of the South China Sea. Fourth, since most of the maritime features in the South China Sea are composed of coral reefs, building artificial islands is likely to cause irreversible environmental destruction of marine ecosystems. Fifth, China’s construction of artificial islands and the establishment of military bases on the maritime feature in the South China Sea is a threat to ’the freedom of navigation’ in other countries. Sixth, first time China insisted that the reason of constructing an artificial island was for the marine scientific research, but these days China constructed military bases on artificial islands for the national interest of expanding its maritime territory, It is against the principle of ‘good faith’. It is necessary to establish and resolve existing ASIAN or regional partnership in order to peacefully settle the sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea and it needs for the international community to continue to press China to change its policy to ‘rule by law’ as China insists on territorial waters, exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf near the artificial islands. China has changed its position by building military bases on the artificial islands by a new maritime strategy. It needs a strategy to stop China’s marine expansion policy from a short-term point of view. It is necessary to jointly participate in the ‘Navigation Freedom Operation’ to induce China to coexist by cooperation and strengthen cooperation with the coastal states of the South China Sea and the non-coastal countries of the South China Sea including the United States. The policy implications for Korea are as follows. First, Since we would like to build a maritime science base on Dokdo is a legitimate exercise of sovereignty, we should prepare an in-depth study of its legal basis. Second, it is obviously illegal for Japan to construct artificial barriers on a small rock called ‘Okina-tori-shima’ and to claim maritime or maritime jurisdiction over the nearby sea. It needs to stop the Japan’s illegal insist and call for public opinion in the international community. Third, our ‘Ieodo Marine Science Base’ which we had constructed and operated, has provided usable weather data for vessels navigating neighboring countries and neighboring areas. It is necessary to actively promote the international community that it is an important example of international cooperation on maritime as well as legitimate and legal.

"죽도 영유권 분쟁의 초점 - 국제법의 견지에서(塚本孝) -" 비판

정갑용 영남대학교 독도연구소 2012 독도연구 Vol.- No.12

쓰카모토 다카시(塚本 孝)가 일본의 ‘竹島問題硏究會’가 2007년에 간행한 「竹島問題に關すゐ調査硏究新告書」에서 주장하는 바는, 근대에 들어서 독도를 일본영토로서 취급하여 다른 나라가 이를 다투지 않았으므로 일본의 영유권이 인정된다는 것이며, 일본이 독도 인근해역에서 어업을 실시하고 지도를 작성되는 등 독도에 대해 역사적 권원을 가지고 있다고 주장한다. SCAPIN No.677와 SCAPIN No.1033 영유권의 최종적 귀속을 결정하는 것이 아니므로 독도영유권에 관하여 효력이 없고 1951년 샌프란시스코조약에서 독도를 대한민국에 반환한다는 규정이 없으므로 독도가 일본영토라 남게 되었다고 주장한다. 이와 같은 쓰카모토 다카시(塚本 孝)가 주장에 대한 비판은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 일본이 주장하는 독도에 대한 역사적 권원은 근거가 없으며 오히려 일본의 자료나 사료가 독도영유권이 대한민국에 있음을 보여주고 있다. 둘째, 일본이 독도를 자국의 영토로서의 인식하고 취급한 것이 확실하지 않고 장래 이 역사적 권원이 근대 국제법상의 권원에 의해 보강되어야 한다고 주장하는데, 이는 근대 이전에 일본이 독도를 자국의 영토로 인식하지 않았다는 점을 인정하는 매우 솔직한 견해라고 본다. 셋째, SCAPIN No.677이나 SCAPIN No.1033은 독도를 일본의 행정권에서 제외하고 있는데, 이들 문서는 독도영유권이 대한민국에 속한다는 객관적인 정황증거가 될 수 있을 것이다. 마지막으로, 1951년 샌프란시스코조약에서 일본이 독도를 자국영토라는 규정을 명백하게 규정하지 못하였을 뿐만 아니라 그 이후에 1965년 한일기본협약에서도 독도가 일본의 영토라는 점을 인정받지 못하였으므로 결과적으로 독도가 대한민국의 영토라는 점을 승인한 셈이 된다. 결론적으로, 쓰카모토 다카시(塚本 孝)의 주장은 객관성, 합리성 및 과학성이 결여하고 있다고 본다.

국제조약체결에 있어서 국회동의제도에 관한 고찰

정갑용 경희대학교 법학연구소 2009 경희법학 Vol.44 No.1

This article studied on the Article 60 paragraph 1 of Constitution, the approval system of the National Assembly that is requires to conclude treaties requiring to the Korean Constitution. According to the Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, “Treaties concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic Korea.” In the Article 60, paragraph 1, there are 7 categories need to the approval of the National Assembly, treaties related to the national security, main international organizations, peace treaties, financial burden and legislative treaties. But, the approval system of the National Assembly of the Article 60, paragraph 1 of the Constitution is not clear, there are some troubles between the National Assembly and the Administrative. For the Author’s opinion, to enhance and achive the effective approval system of the National Assembly, it needs to discuss of points of the approval system between the National Assembly and the Administrative in course of reviewing of the related treaties which needs to the legislative approval and to improve the system of the legislative approval for the conclusion of treaties. This article studied on the Article 60 paragraph 1 of Constitution, the approval system of the National Assembly that is requires to conclude treaties requiring to the Korean Constitution. According to the Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, “Treaties concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and the generally recognized rules of international law shall have the same effect as the domestic laws of the Republic Korea.” In the Article 60, paragraph 1, there are 7 categories need to the approval of the National Assembly, treaties related to the national security, main international organizations, peace treaties, financial burden and legislative treaties. But, the approval system of the National Assembly of the Article 60, paragraph 1 of the Constitution is not clear, there are some troubles between the National Assembly and the Administrative. For the Author’s opinion, to enhance and achive the effective approval system of the National Assembly, it needs to discuss of points of the approval system between the National Assembly and the Administrative in course of reviewing of the related treaties which needs to the legislative approval and to improve the system of the legislative approval for the conclusion of treaties.

남중국해 해양분쟁의 중재판정과 궐석재판의 법적 문제

정갑용 영남대학교 독도연구소 2019 독도연구 Vol.- No.26

In the International Trial, the term "non-participation" refers to cases where the applicant does not attend or is not present in the court. The default court presumes that the court has jurisdiction over the case of the dispute. the declaration of acceptance, reservation, choice or exclusion of compulsory jurisdiction has its own legal effect, but if it is essentially a "dispute on the interpretation and application of the Convention", the compulsory settlement of the dispute procedure is applied as it is. The judgment(or decision) in the default case should be based on facts and laws, trial procedures should be fair and cost-effective. The main legal issues and their implications for Dokdo can be summarized as follows. First, the default of international jurisdiction is based on the premise of jurisdiction, and if the jurisdiction is not recognized, the criteria of the trial of the jurisdiction and the fairness of the trial process will not be worth mentioning. Second, in the event that Japan succumbs to the issue of the sovereignty of the Dokdo territory unilaterally to the International Court of Justice, the jurisdiction over the case will not be recognized in any case where Korea does not comply with such a complaint. Third, even if Japan claims unilaterally a claim of ownership, the jurisdiction of jurisdiction will not be established by the legal effect of declaration of acceptance or exclusion of compulsory jurisdiction. Nevertheless, considering the recent international movements, the implications of the international arbitration tribunal on maritime disputes in the South China Sea, we need to review the establishment and implementation of Dokdo policy in Korea. 국제재판에서의 ‘궐석재판(闕席裁判)’이란 ‘재판소에 출석하지 않거나 출석하지 않은 경우를 말하는데, 국제재판소의 궐석재판제도 및 궐석재판의 국제사례에서 나타난 주요한 특징은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 궐석재판은 동 분쟁사건에 대하여 재판소가 ‘재판관할권’이 있음을 전제로 한다. * 본 논문은 영산대학교의 2017년 교내연구비 지원에 의하여 수행되었음. ** 영산대학교 법학과 교수, 법학박사(국제법, 국제해양법) / jky5941@ysu.ac.kr 둘째, 강제관할권 수락선언이나 유보, 선택선언이나 배제선언은 그 자체가 지니는 법적 효력을 가지만, 그것이 본질적으로 ‘협약의 해석 및 적용에 관한 분쟁’에 해당되는 경우에는 동 협약에 의한 분쟁의 강제적 해결절차가 그대로 적용된다. 셋째, 궐석재판에서의 판결(결정 혹은 판정)은 ‘사실과 법’에 근거하여 내려져야 한다. 넷째, 궐석재판의 경우에도 재판절차는 공정성을 확보하며 비용효율적으로 재판을 진행하여야 한다. 이와 같은 국제재판의 궐석제도 및 국제판례가 지니는 주요한 법적 함의 및 독도와 관련하여 가지는 시사점은 다음과 같이 정리할 수 있다. 첫째, 국제재판의 궐석재판은 재판관할권이 성립되는 것을 전제로 하는 것이며, 재판관할권이 인정되지 않는 경우에는 궐석재판의 재판기준 및 재판절차의 공정성 등은 이를 거론할 가치가 없을 것이다. 둘째, 독도영유권의 귀속에 관한 문제를 일본이 일방적으로 국제재판소에 제소하는 경우에도 우리나라가 그러한 제소에 응하지 않는 경우에는 어떠한 경우에도 동 제소에 관한 재판관할권이 인정되지 않을 것이다. 셋째, 일본이 일방적으로 영유권귀속의 문제를 청구하는 경우에도 강제적 관할권의 수락선언이나 배제선언의 법적 효력에 의하여 재판관할권이 성립되지 않을 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 최근 국제사회의 움직임, 남국중해 해양분쟁에 관한 국제중재재판이 주는 시사점을 고려하여 우리나라 독도정책의 수립 및 시행을 전면적으로 새로이 검토해야 한다고 본다.

대립유전자-특이적 중합효소연쇄반응을 이용한 구강 편평세포암종에서의 p53, TNF-α및 IL-1β다형성의 검색

정갑용,고재영,조남표 대한구강악안면병리학회 2001 대한구강악안면병리학회지 Vol.25 No.4

MERS 발생 후 손 위생 및 개인보호장구에 대한 응급실 근무자들의 효과성 인식 및 수행률 조사

정갑용,심민섭,이태림,황승연,차원철,신태건,조익준,송근정,이중의,정연권 대한응급의학회 2016 대한응급의학회지 Vol.27 No.4

Purpose: Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) outbreaks occurred in Korea during the year 2015, with the involvement of 186 patients in a relatively short period of time. The epidemiological pattern in South Korea was hospital-associated. Infection control plans for all hospitals were implemented to stop the spread of and to protect the healthcare workers from MERS infection. Such enhanced guidelines for infection control measures might affect healthcare workers. The purpose of this study was to determine the changes of tertiary emergency department healthcare workers’ perception and compliance to hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) before and after the MERS outbreak. Methods: A written questionnaire was administered to members in the emergency department at Samsung Medical Center. Participants were asked to rate the combined overall effectiveness of hand hygiene and PPE and to report their compliance on a 5-point scale. This survey was conducted between 11th and 26th of September 2015. Results: The total number of participants was 123. Perception of effectiveness before and after the MERS outbreak was improved on hand hygiene, N-95 masks, gowns, eye protection, and gloves, except surgical masks (3.65 vs. 3.68, p=0.714). Respondents showed a statistically higher compliance with hand washing and PPE. Compliance with hand hygiene and PPE showed a dependency on their patients’ symptoms; symptoms of fever or fever with upper respiratory symptoms were reported with statistically increased compliance, with the exception of surgical masks. Conclusion: Infection control measures except surgical masks were perceived to be more effective post the MERS outbreaks. The emergency department’s workers reported increased compliance on hand hygiene and PPE, except surgical masks.