국제사법재판소의 강제관할권 수락선언에 대한 유보의 국가실행과 그 유보의 한계

The aim of this paper is to review State practices concerning reservation to the declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Article 36(2), to analyze the legal nature of the reservation, and to review the possible limits on the reservation to the declaration. It also deals with the similarities and differences between the reservation regime under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the reservation in declaration under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court. By analyzing the legal nature of the reservation in declaration under Article 36(2), it attempts to review the possible limits to be placed on the reservation to the declaration under Article 36(2). For the purpose, this paper firstly shows the historical and statistical information on the declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Then it reviews the State practices that intended to avoid unilateral application for the specific dispute brought before the ICJ by depositing amended reservation or adding new reservation to the declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Moreover, it also analyzes the legal nature of the reservation to the declaration under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court as well as the analogical application of the case law and customary international law on the law of treaties to the reservation made to avoid unilateral application for the specific dispute with other State parties to the Statute of the Court. Finally, it attempts to establish certain limitation on the reservation to declaration under Article 36(2) which is only intended to evade the legal obligation of judicial settlement of disputes under the UN Charter and the Statute of the Court by analogical application of the of the reservation under the law of treaties.