연안국 권리 사건을 통해 본 분쟁수역에서의 유엔해양법협약 제297조 및 제298조 제1항(b) 적용가능성 검토: 독도 및 한반도 주변수역을 중심으로

This article examines the exclusion issue of compulsory jurisdiction on the disputes arising from unilateral activities undertaken in disputed waters with regard to marine scientific research, fisheries, and relevant law enforcement activities, pursuant to articles 297 and 298(1)(b) of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In addition, an effort is made to draw policy implications for Korea. To that end, it explores the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction award in the Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights (Ukraine v. Russia) case, which rendered in February 2020. In its award, the Tribunal concluded that articles 297 and 298(1)(b) were not applicable to Russian unilateral activities which had taken place in the waters adjacent to the disputed Crimean Peninsula. The parties’ arguments in this case and the jurisprudence opined in the award imply that it would be debatable whether articles 297 and 298(1)(b) are applied to the marine activities in undelimited waters where the EEZ entitlements between States overlap, including territorial seas. Based on the theoretical examination, this article argues that articles 297 and 298(1)(b) do not exclude the compulsory jurisdiction on the relevant disputes arising from the activities undertaken unilaterally in the waters adjacent to the Korean Peninsula, including Dokdo. It also emphasizes the Korean government’s efforts to manage conflicts arising from unilateral activities in this waters and minimize the controversy over a violation of the international norms.