헌법상 영토조항과 해양영토주권의 현대적 수용

This study examines whether the territorial clause of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea can function as a substantive and binding norm governing maritime territory. By analyzing the legislative form of the territorial provision, this research explores the constitutional possibility of explicitly defining maritime territories and constitutionally safeguarding maritime sovereignty through both historical and comparative constitutional approaches. With the advent of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the growing global emphasis on maritime space, states have increasingly sought to secure their maritime territories, leading to intensified disputes. Accordingly, this study conducts a comparative constitutional analysis of how various nations define their territorial clauses and, based on the theory of territorial constitutionalism, investigates whether such provisions can serve a practical function beyond mere declaratory statements in preserving national territory. The current territorial clause in the Korean Constitution inadequately reflects contemporary constitutional realities and changing perceptions of territory. From both theoretical and diplomatic perspectives, it requires normative advancement. Therefore, this study argues that maritime sovereignty demands clearer constitutional protection and proposes both passive and active legislative approaches to such codification. Ultimately, the Constitution should serve as the foundation and guiding framework for a nation’s foreign and security strategy. The issue of maritime territory is not merely a matter of boundary disputes but a core component of national strategy intertwined with the Constitution’s substantive function. This study offers theoretical and practical implications as a starting point for future interdisciplinary research across constitutional law, international maritime law, and security policy.