해양경계획정에 있어 분쟁당사국간 행위의 법적 효과

• 영문명: Legal Effect of Activities between Dispute Parties in the Maritime Boundary-Focused on Maritime Dispute between Peru and Chile
• 발행기관: 국제법평론회
• 저자명: 이창열(Lee Chang Youl)
• 간행물 정보: 『국제법평론』제39호, 135~165쪽, 전체 31쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2014.04.30

영문 초록

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.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 페루와 칠레 간 해양경계획정 분쟁의 개요

Ⅲ. 해양경계분쟁에 있어 당사국 행위에 관한 판례이론 검토

Ⅳ. 당사국 행위에 관한 판결의 타당성 검토

Ⅴ. 우리나라에 대한 시사점

Ⅵ. 결론

키워드

묵시적 합의 페루와 칠레 평화선 북방한계선 해양경계획정 Tacit Agreement Peru and Chile the Peace Line Northern Limit Line Maritime Boundaries Delimitation