New resolution for rocks disputes needed > 언론 속 이어도

• 목록
• 답변

\r\n

New resolution for rocks disputes needed

\r\n

\r\n

By Choi Yearn-hong

\r\n

\r\n

There is no consensus on the sea boundary line between China and Korea in the East China Sea. China claims the Yellow and East China Seas as its own waters, from the point of continental extension or natural prolongation.

\r\n

\r\n

It recognizes Korea’s coastal sea as just 12 nautical miles.

\r\n

\r\n

China’s territorial ambition is not only on land, but also at sea. It has taken Tibet and Mongolia on land. Now, it claims that its sea is virtually on the Yellow and East China Seas. China uses and excuses the continental shelf theory and one International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision to expand its sea territory on the natural prolongation from its land.

\r\n

\r\n

China protested the construction of ocean research tower on Ieodo in 1995. After its construction in 2003, it has been quiet. Of course, Korea has every right to construct and operate the ocean research tower on Ieodo. Ieodo is within Korea’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and closer to Marado than to any Chinese islet. Ieodo is of the same volcanic rock as Cheju Island. Please consult the Law of the Sea Article 56 (1).

\r\n

\r\n

Article 56

\r\n

\r\n

Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone

\r\n

1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:

\r\n

a. sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the sea-bed and of the sea-bed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;

\r\n

b. jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:

\r\n

i. the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;

\r\n

ii. marine scientific research;

\r\n

iii. the protection and preservation of the marine environment;

\r\n

c. other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.

\r\n

\r\n

2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention.

\r\n

\r\n

3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the sea-bed and subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.

\r\n

\r\n

The continental shelf is and has been abused by some nations for their territorial ambition and greed. No scientist nor any group of scientists have studied and analyzed the complete history of the Earth and its seas over several million years. However, some nations use and abuse the continental shelf for their territorial expansion.

\r\n

\r\n

The purpose of the continental shelf is not and should not be for any nation’s imperialistic ambition, but only for the protection and conservation of sea resources. If the continental shelf contradicts the EEZ, then the EEZ should prevail. If and when the sea between two nations opposing each other is big and broad beyond 400 nautical miles, then a median line may not be necessary. But if and when the sea between the two nations is small and less than 400 nautical miles, then the median line should be drawn.

\r\n

\r\n

This has been a customary international law and the spirit of the law of the sea. The East China Sea is only 360 nautical miles across at its widest point. So China and Korea should draw its border at the midpoint. This should be the most simple and powerful rule for drawing the sea boundary.

\r\n

\r\n

The EEZ and continental shelf are two regimes from the Law of Sea Convention, but these two regimes can contradict and in turn, create problems in the management of the territory and would be politically messy and impracticable as well as a constant source of irritation and provocation as bilateral relations wax and wane.

\r\n

\r\n

Complexities of coastlines and of human history surrounding the rocks and islands make the disputes irresolvable in the international community. Unfortunately, the Law of the Sea Conventions and conferences are not helpful toward peaceful resolutions. Median lines or equidistance concepts emerged in order to resolve the overlapping EEZs and continental shelves.

\r\n

\r\n

But it is not consented to by all nations. The United Nations has not helped much in resolving the territorial disputes. It has only rhetorically persuaded the peaceful consensus between conflicting nations.

\r\n

\r\n

Article 74 (on the EEZ) and Article 83 (on the continental shelf) of the Law of the Sea Convention both state that boundary delimitations are to be “effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ in order to achieve an equitable solution.” This reference to “an equitable solution mirrors the original statement promulgated by the United States when it claimed sovereignty over its continental shelf in 1945 and stated that: “In cases where continental shelf extends to the shore of another state, or is shared with an adjacent state, the boundary shall be determined by the United States and the State concerned in accordance with equitable principles,” (The Truman Proclamation No. 2667). The equidistance or median line approach can be used as an aid to analysis. But it is not be used as a binding or mandatory principle. All in all, an equitable solution is hard to come by. Therefore, my proposal is solidifying the equidistance as the most superior rule over sea territorial disputes.

\r\n

\r\n

Here is my proposal to amend the existing Law of the Sea: the Law of the Sea Article 121 (3) should be changed into the following:

\r\n

\r\n

Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own must belong to the land or island of human settlement, not an artificial or manipulative human settlement.

\r\n

\r\n

The future will be dictated by changing science and technology. Rocks which have been worthless may be worthwhile in the future through advanced science and technology. Then the Law of the Sea Article 121 (3) is going to be antiquated and outdated.

\r\n

\r\n

Ieodo will herald a new meaning of rocks in the sea for humankind, and will offer a valuable lesson for turning worthless rocks into worthwhile ones in the future.

\r\n

\r\n

Choi earn-hong is a poet and writier. He is als a senior research scholar at the Society of Ieodo Research.

\r\n