본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

무주지 선점론에 대한 비판적 고찰

이용수 284

영문명
A Critical Take on Occupation: Focusing on the Late 19th-Century and Early 20th-Century International Law
발행기관
국제법평론회
저자명
오시진(Oh, Si Jin)
간행물 정보
『국제법평론』제45호, 45~69쪽, 전체 25쪽
주제분류
법학 > 법학
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2016.09.30
5,800

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

영문 초록

The legal concept of occupation may need to be reconsidered if it is seen from a critical-historical approach. Previous studies of occupation seemed to have assumed the legality of occupation in the late 19th century. However, there are critical question that seems to be dealt with if the historicity of occupation is considered. When was occupation established as a legal rule? What about the standard of terra nullius? How was the concept of terra nullius accepted by the 19th-century international lawyers? What if the legal rule of occupation was influenced and contaminated by the civilization discourse? Unlike general presumption, the non-inhabitancy condition may not be a criterion for terra nullius for the 19th-century international lawyers. These issues compel us to consider the legal rule of the occupation itself critically. This paper does not attempt to settle the issue in concern with the final answer. Rather, it attempts to provide further research questions to delve into by considering the contextual complexity of the then international society and classical international law. This paper argues that it is difficult to uncritically accept the classical international legal rule of occupation. The paper demonstrated that the legal rule of occupation seems to have been somewhat established in the late imperial 19th century, even when it was introduced earlier by scholars. Moreover, it was pointed out that the concept of terra nullius presented by scholars such as Oppenheim, Lawrence, Hall, and Westlake is problematic: the legal status of the owner of the territory seemed to have mattered more without considering the inhabitancy of the territory. For Lawrence and Westlake, the question of civilization was the standard which permitted occupation. In other words, uncivilized nations were at risk in facing the possibility of being the object of occupation. However, it has been pointed out that such legal rule of occupation cannot be accepted without critical considerations. First, it is questionable whether or not the legal scholars agreed on the content of the rule of occupation especially in relation to the civilization in the late 19th century. It is difficult to argue that there was established rules of law to guide actions. Second, as noted by ICJ in Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, the territorial acquisition was implemented by treaties rather than occupation when there were inhabitants in the particular territory. According to ICJ, the term occupation was used more as rhetoric. This paper demonstrates that there are critical questions that need to answered before accepting the classical international rule of occupation.

목차

Ⅰ. 서 론
Ⅱ. 무주지 선점 법리 확립시기의 문제
Ⅲ. 선점의 대상: 무주지의 개념 문제
Ⅳ. 선점론의 법리적⋅관행적 문제
Ⅴ. 결 론

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

참고문헌

교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!

신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.

바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

오시진(Oh, Si Jin). (2016).무주지 선점론에 대한 비판적 고찰. 국제법평론, (45), 45-69

MLA

오시진(Oh, Si Jin). "무주지 선점론에 대한 비판적 고찰." 국제법평론, .45(2016): 45-69

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제