- 海洋紛爭의 平和的 解決에 관한 硏究
- Alternative Title
- A Study on the peaceful settlement of maritime disputes
- Issued Date
- The outbreak of international disputes is inevitable as long as nations exist. The elimination of international disputes is, to all intents and purposes, impossible. International disputes have lead to war or the use of armed force, however in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, a peaceful means should be found to resolve disputes peacefully. Guided by Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter. The peaceful resolution of international disputes is divided into political solutions and judicial solutions. Political solutions include, but are not limited to, directed negotiations, negotiations through international conference, mediations, international inquiries, and international conciliation. Judicial solutions include arbitration, special arbitration, court's decisions and so forth.
Many countries have difficulty resolving maritime disputes. Many standard methods have been used in attempts to resolve international maritime disputes, but there are also distinctive procedures for maritime disputes. The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS-III), implemented in 1994, provides for the settlement of disputes. Nothing in the Part impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice. UNCLOS-III provides for the resolution of international maritime disputes through peaceful means that include peaceful settlement, courts and tribunals. Courts and tribunals can be one or more following means: (a)The
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI, (b)the International Court of Justice, (c)an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII, (d)a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein. The decision of the court or tribunal having
jurisdiction entails binding decisions.
However, a coastal State shall not be obliged to accept the submission to such settlement of any dispute arising out of the exercise by the coastal State of a right or discretion. Additionally, a state may declare, in writing, that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes: (a)disputes relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, (b)disputes concerning military activities and law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction, (c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising its assigned functions. While, UNCLOS-III is provides means for maritime dispute settlement through peaceful means, it contains extensive limitations and exceptions.
Thus, the current system of maritime conflict resolutions is ambiguous and, at times, self-defeating by allowing too many alternate methods and exceptions to the resolution process. A more concise mechanism for conflict resolution should be instituted. It is suggested that such a mechanism would be similar in form and function to the International Court of Justice.
Appears in Collections:
- 해사법학과 > Thesis
- Files in This Item:
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.