국가관할권이원지역 해양유전자원의 법적 지위에 관한 이해관계자 설문조사 결과와 정책적 함의

Although discussions on marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction are being discussed at the international level, the reality is that there are no research papers on the positions of stakeholders in marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, particularly at the domestic level. In this article, we tried to confirm the position of domestic experts from a statistical point of view through a stakeholders survey on the legal status of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Regarding the legal status of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, a majority of respondents answered that they “support the ‘common heritage of mankind’ or the ‘principle of freedom of pollution,’ depending on the circumstances(add emphasis).” The result of this statistic prove that most of the stakeholders do not recognize the importance of the legal principle of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, it should be considered that legal principle serve as a guideline for the future implementation of the convention as well as the standard stone for interpretation of the entire convention. Considering this point, there is a great need to confirm what legal rule should be applied to marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction through the International Law of the Sea. In this paper, three aspects were reviewed in order to confirm the legal principles applicable to marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Firstly, we reviewed the documents in the UN General Assembly Resolution 69/292, which authorizes international consultations on marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the legal documents authorized accordingly. Secondly, it was reviewed which is the more appropriate principle for marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction between Common Heritage of Mankind and the Principle of Freedom of the High Seas in the UNCLOS. Finally, it was examined whether the review according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is consistent with customary international law. It is uncertain when the adoption of a legal document with legal binding on marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction will be adopted. However, as discussed in the intergovernmental meeting, if developing countries want to build a new legal regime that goes beyond the interpretation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea by using their numerical advantage, we will have to prepare a new exit strategy. As an exit strategy, it is necessary to refer to cases in the history of the UNCLOS, such as the United States' refusal to ratify the UNCLOS or 21 countries that did not participate in the 1994 Implementation Agreement.