UN BBNJ 협정 해양바이오 연구개발 절차 규정에 대한 법적 검토

The present paper has three objectives. Firstly, it aims to facilitate understanding of the marine bio-research and development provisions under the UN BBNJ Agreement. Secondly, it identifies legal gaps requiring further discussion associated with the provisions at the Conference of the Parties. Thirdly, it proposes future response strategies for the Republic of Korea. In order to achieve this objective, Chapter 1 delineates the rapid growth trend of the marine biotechnology market and elucidates the significant implications of the UN BBNJ Agreement's marine bio-research and development procedures for the Republic of Korea. Chapter 2 introduces the procedures established by the UN BBNJ Agreement concerning marine bio-research and development in areas beyond national jurisdiction, aligning with the current practice of marine bio-research and development procedures: environmental impact assessments, notifications, and benefit-sharing. Chapter 3 examines the existing lacunae within the UN BBNJ provisions, also structured according to environmental impact assessments, notifications, and benefit-sharing. Chapter Four, the final chapter, synthesises the preceding analyses and offers legal and policy recommendations for a ‘New Growth Strategy for the Marine Biotechnology Industry in the UN BBNJ Agreement Era.’ Chapters 2 and 3 provide a legal analysis of the UN BBNJ Agreement's marine bio-research and development procedures, highlighting the residual legal ambiguities and gaps. Firstly, uncertainties in the environmental impact assessment provisions risk impeding coordinated and tuned application and undermining the institutional efficacy of the Agreement. Specifically, the ambiguous terms such as “relevant” and “equivalent” in Article 29(4), concerning environmental impact assessment exceptions, potentially increase the scope for unharmonized interpretations by Parties, thereby compromising the Agreement's effectiveness. Additionally, the absence of clear criteria for “minor or temporary effects” and “substantial pollution or significant and harmful change” in Article 30(1) grants Parties potentially causing confusion in the Agreement's implementation. The notification provisions also present interpretative challenges. The unclear scope of “in situ collection” in Article 12(2) and the criteria for triggering notification obligations can lead to confusion in the notification process. Moreover, the lack of clarity regarding the concept and format of the BBNJ Standardized Batch Identifier in Article 12(3) may severely disrupt the operation of the notification system. Furthermore, discrepancies in the interpretation of the scope of Digital Sequence Information in Article 12(6) and its alignment with current international practices complicate efforts to ensure uniformity in information sharing. Variances in the interpretation of “subject to utilization” in Article 12(8) indicate the need for additional guidance on the timing of its notification obligations. Uncertainties within benefit-sharing provisions also persist. The lack of precise definitions for the scope of “activities” subject to benefit-sharing in Article 14(1) and the concept of “a fair and equitable manner” amplifies the ambiguity of the benefit-sharing regime. Moreover, interpretative difficulties surrounding terms such as “samples and sample collections,” “FAIR scientific data,” and “open and responsible data governance” in Article 14(2), in conjunction with the enabling clause which grants the legislative mandate to the Conference of the Parties impedes the predictability of Agreement implementation. Chapter 4, drawing upon findings of the preceding legal analysis, put foward the following policy recommendations: Firstly, long-term governmental support and promotion for marine bio-research and development activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction are crucial. This is in recognition of the substantial up-front costs associated with marine R&D in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and is intended to promote the marine biotechnology industry by reducing this burden through government support. Secondly, the establishment of a 'UN BBNJ Marine Biotechnology Expert Panel is advocated, comprising experts from academia, industry, and research institutions. This would support policymakers in making decisions aligned with scientific practices while ensuring procedural legitimacy through stakeholder participation. Thirdly, an equivalent level of participation to the UN BBNJ Conference of the Parties, as was given to the Intergovernmental Conference, is essential. The UN BBNJ Conference of the Parties, serving as the legislative body under the UN BBNJ Agreement, would directly impact our stakeholders. Therefore, concerted efforts should be made at the Conference of the Parties to forestall procedural and economic encumbrances arising from discrepancies between research and development practices and the UN BBNJ Agreement framework. Lastly, the establishment of a domestic legal framework, as the fundamental mechanism for successful implementation of the UN BBNJ Agreement, is paramount. The primary consideration in domestic legislation should be a nuanced balance between regulation and promotion of marine bio-research and development activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This necessitates a balanced approach that adheres to stringent environmental protection obligations without hindering the innovative potential of marine bio-research and development. Moreover, the integration of a malleable design of a legal response system with the capacity to accommodate and implement the Conference of the Parties' continuous legislative outputs, into the domestic legislative framework is imperative.