중국의 해양경계선과 그 획정방법에 관한 국제법적 검토

A comprehensive set of laws dealing with the seas known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) entered into force on November 16, 1994. After the entry of force of UNCLOS, some issues on maritime delimitation(i.e., the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and the outer limit of Continental Shelf became a focal point for many countries. This also raises the issue of how to delimit overlapping zones and how to define the lines that will be the maritime boundary for the States concerned. People’s Republic of China (hereafter China) asserts that “it is unrealistic for countries to apply only one method of delimitation” when they seek to determine their maritime boundaries. Thus, the focal point of this study is the emphasis that it is very crucial for China how to applicate the maritime delimitation methods to its maritime space. In that respect, this study tries to scrutinize China’s laws and practice regarding its maritime boundary delimitation, especially focusing on the Chinese (broken) U-shaped line, natural prolongation of land territory, and equidistance approach (isometric latitude or equitable latitude). The (broken) U-shaped line as the traditional Chinese maritime boundary in the South China Sea and the method of straight baseline to all the coasts of China are controversial in international law so that they may be queried whether China’s practice conforms with the relevant provisions of UNCLOS. Further, regionally China has to negotiate with its neighboring countries on the maritime boundary delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. In staking out their respective unilateral claims, China applied the principle of natural prolongation of land territory where its maritime boundaries should reflect the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer limit. In the course of negotiations, the States concerned may apply any one or a combination of delimitation methods appropriate for arriving at an equitable solution between adjacent or opposite countries. In conclusion, while this study addresses international legal aspects of maritime delimitation method of China, it seeks together to assess what it takes to be ‘equitable solution’ to China on maritime boundary delimitation. It is especially so that the application in the East Asian region will be both a testing ground and a show case of China’s vision of “shelving disputes to engage in joint development with regard to contentious territories”.