한중일의 도서관리 법제 비교 연구

Although the definition of island can be interpreted through the application of the stipulation on the agreement from the point that three countries of Korea, China and Japan are the countries directly concerned with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, three countries are maintaining different positions each other on the ‘island’ in linkage with maritime jurisdiction extension strategy of their own because to the three countries of Korea, China and Japan, island may serve as an element for different legal interpretation and conflict on top of serving as an element for economic and utilization values. This has something in common with the point that complicated political geographical environment which cannot be separated from the issue of maritime conflict in the surrounding waters is inherent in island policies of three countries. Island policies of Korea, China and Japan are evaluated to be properly harmonized with external changes in environments and internal economic demands, but at the same time values given to island and approach to island show significant difference together with considerable similarity. The policies of Korea and Japan on inhibited islands have basically concentrated to promotion policies of designating far less developed islands compared to other areas and maintaining industrial base and living environments. On the contrary in the case of China, bill for an individual law covering inhabited islands was passed the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress of China and came into effect only in December 2009, and the major purpose of the law was evaluated to be basically the protection of ecology system and the control of thoughtless development rather than the development of islands. China has the characteristics that their island policy, which has been implemented with limitation to cover uninhabited islands only in the form of administrative regulations by the ministry concerned named National Maritime Bureau, was upgraded to the form of law comprehensively covering inhabited islands, uninhabited islands and the surrounding waters as well, but the changes in their island policy from the viewpoint of their jurisdiction extension policy of China is not significant in reality. However, as their Island Protection Law which was newly enacted added the “islands for the purpose of national defense” in the category of islands for the special purpose, it cen be interpreted that the values for the island policy and marine spaces of China is being implemented in connection with ‘zone strategy’ in the concept of national security when we consider the weight of values for national defense and security in the waters of China. It is judged to reflect the points that China is connected to the disputes over territorial sovereignty in all waters except for the case of the Yellow Sea and that in fact all waters of China is not free from their regional sea supremacy strategy. On the other hand, Japan which pursued balanced development for national land taking inhabited islands as a center is recently pursuing changes in their policy to implement the management of rocks and islands that can be utilized as a base for the creation of maritime jurisdiction through the improvement of legislation. Concrete direction of the changes in policy has the characteristics that they are paying attention to the ‘value of marine space’ which has the function of creating jurisdiction together with efforts to make geographical features (island and rocks) themselves as a ‘base for maritime activities’. Especially, uninhabited island policy of Japan has the characteristics that it is implemented focusing on the base islands linked with their maritime jurisdiction extension policy rather than an organic policy that consolidates ‘islands’ (particularly uninhabited islands) and ‘waters’. It is worthwhile to note that the island policy of Japan clearly presents the functional value of base island for marine activities and directing point from policy aspect. Differently from China and Japan, island policy of Korea has been administered from the aspects of economic feasibility comparatively focusing on inhabited islands and ecological environmental, and current policy is also being unfolded toward the direction to consider socio-cultural utilization pursuant to the increase in leisure activities of people. This is evaluated to be because Korea is maintaining comparatively mitigated tension structure compared to those of China and Japan from national defense and security aspect. In the case of Korea the difference as compared to China and Japan is that the region for islands utilized from military or defense aspect is limited to five islands in the West Sea. The direction of policies of China and Japan in which the values of islands and marine space are linked gives us significant implication. This is also a demand for the modification of legislation structure and the change in administration policy which requires that island administration policy of our country has to properly reflect external and internal environmental elements. Of course, we do not need to follow the direction of policy of Japan as it is based on the point that the distribution of island of our country is limited to narrow scope compared to Japan. However, legal administration of the most outskirt islands which can carry out functional activities as a base for diversified hazard administration caused by the extension of jurisdiction or external environment or a base for marine activities will have to be implemented. It is because in modern context, the conceptual definition of maritime jurisdiction can no longer be limited to mean the extension of spatial scope and but the definition is thought to include the function as a base for marine activities for the purpose of diversified marine industry and the use of ocean. For this, it is necessary to implement the improvement tasks for the clarification of the definition and standard of island as well as the merge of pertinent legal system. For example, currently there are <The Special Act concerning the preservation of Ecology System in island area including Dokdo>,<Law concerning the preservation and administration of uninhabited islands> and <Law concerning the sustainable use of Dokdo Island> as major legal system related to Dokdo Island. <The Special Act concerning the preservation of Ecology System in island area including Dokdo Island> out of the above acts is about the preservation of landward ecology of designated specific islands (excluding waters), and <Law concerning the preservation and administration of uninhabited islands> aims at the administration for the area including surrounding waters. Sufficient discussion on organic consolidation of the above two acts is possible Besides, we have to give more thoughts on the linkage of policies which warrants the story-telling of marine activities and island policy together with declaratory island administration as a base for the spatial extension of jurisdiction. We can evaluate that island policy of Japan is a part of stable perception assignment work that considers not only the assignment of functional role as a base island to extent jurisdiction but also sentimental, cultural or social solidarity through the linkage of person and island. This will be an issue which we have to actively accommodate for the establishment of the island policy of our country from the point that it is an important work to secure the linkage with maritime jurisdiction of islands or marine space.