해저 케이블의 보호와 국제해양법 ‒연안국의 배타적 경제수역에서 외국 선박에 대한 ‘집행’관할권 행사 가능성을 중심으로‒

The protection of submarine cables is an important issue for both the ‘economy’ and ‘security’ of any coastal State. However, it seems that the international law of the sea does not completely regulate the matter. As can be seen from the Eagle S incident which occurred on 25 December 2024, whether a coastal State can have and exercise enforcement jurisdiction over a foreign vessel in its ‘exclusive economic zone’, if the foreign vessel is involved in the breaking or injury of submarine cables laid by the coastal State, is the biggest issue currently facing the international law of the sea. Under the 1884 Paris Convention, the 1958 High Seas Convention and the 1982 UNCLOS, a just ‘legislative’ ‘obligation’ to define the breaking or injury of submarine cables as a ‘punishable offence’ has only been imposed on States Parties. Furthermore, the scope of applying such legislation is limited to a ship flying the flag of the coastal State or to a person subject to jurisdiction of the State. With this legal background, various ideas are being proposed for the coastal State in order to have and exercise enforcement jurisdiction. For example, (i) the logic of considering the breaking or injury of submarine cables as ‘piracy’, (ii) the logic of utilizing Article 60, Paragraph 4 of the UNCLOS, and (iii) State practice comprehensively utilizing Articles 56, 58 and 60 of the UNCLOS. Among the three proposals, the logic utilizing Article 60, Paragraph 4 of the UNCLOS is particularly notable. It is basically an attempt to establish a ‘safety zone’ for the protection of submarine cables, and then to exercise enforcement jurisdiction in combination with the concept of the ‘right of hot pursuit’ if a foreign vessel is involved in the breaking or injury of submarine cables within the safety zone. This attempt may raise the question of whether submarine cables can be included in the ‘installations’ or ‘structures’ mentioned in Article 60, Paragraph 4 of the UNCLOS. With respect to the question, it seems possible to give a positive answer as long as the submarine cables in question have ‘economic purposes’. Under the current regime of the UNCLOS, the logic of utilizing Article 60, Paragraph 4 of the UNCLOS may be the most logical position to increase the possibility that a coastal State can have and exercise enforcement jurisdiction over a foreign vessel in its exclusive economic zone for the protection of submarine cables.