$\require{mediawiki-texvc}$
  • 검색어에 아래의 연산자를 사용하시면 더 정확한 검색결과를 얻을 수 있습니다.
  • 검색연산자
검색연산자 기능 검색시 예
() 우선순위가 가장 높은 연산자 예1) (나노 (기계 | machine))
공백 두 개의 검색어(식)을 모두 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (나노 기계)
예2) 나노 장영실
| 두 개의 검색어(식) 중 하나 이상 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (줄기세포 | 면역)
예2) 줄기세포 | 장영실
! NOT 이후에 있는 검색어가 포함된 문서는 제외 예1) (황금 !백금)
예2) !image
* 검색어의 *란에 0개 이상의 임의의 문자가 포함된 문서 검색 예) semi*
"" 따옴표 내의 구문과 완전히 일치하는 문서만 검색 예) "Transform and Quantization"
쳇봇 이모티콘
안녕하세요!
ScienceON 챗봇입니다.
궁금한 것은 저에게 물어봐주세요.

논문 상세정보

통일후 조중국경조약의 국가승계문제

State Succession Issues of the Boundary Convention between the North Korea & China after the "Unified Korea" in the Perspective of International Law

백산학보 no.91 , 2011년, pp.243 - 286  
이장희
초록

This study treats State Succession of the Boundary convention between the North Korea & China(1962) after the "Unified Korea" regarding the Gando Convention between Japan-China in 1909. The Gando convention is legally based on the 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty. This treaty(1905) has never been ratified by Korea Emperor Gojong. Furthermore, the Japanese officials used military coercion against Korean cabinet members to forcibly conclude the treaty. This 1905 Japan-Korea protectorate treaty is null and void. So the Gando convention is also null and void. Therefore, China's territorial sovereignty over the Gando has no legal title at all. In the perspective of international law, the Gando territorial dispute still remains unresolved. This study focuses on the relationship between positive international law and the territorial issue of Gando after the "Unified Korea".Despite that the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties has been concluded in 1978 and has become effective since in 1996, only few states remain as the members of the treaty. The 1978 treaty is not a general international law. Furthermore, China, South Korea and North Korea did not sign this treaty. It is said that the 1978 treaty would be a kind of codification of state practice, but there were, in the meantime, many state practices inconsistent with the treaty. In case of state succession issues, the successor state continuously creates new state practices through concluding new conventions with the concerned states. So, state practices are very inconsistent.And analyses of state practices show that the state succession to treaty varies according to two types of changes: the change of the territorial sovereignty and the change in patterns of treaties which directly relate to the state succession.In the case of the border treaties, which are dispositive treaties, successor state tends to prevail regardless of the type of the change in the territorial sovereignty. Article 11 of the 1978 Vienna Convention provides for the principle of continuity for a boundary established by a treaty. However, this principle should not be applied simply to all the boundary conventions. Article 11 of the Boundary Convention on succession of States in Respect of Treaties(1978) should not be applied to the 1962 and 1964 agreements between China and North Korea. Herein, special historical charters regarding the Korean division and the Japanese colonial times should be taken into consideration.Article 12 of German unification treaty does not accept the principle of automatic succession regarding treaties of predecessor state(East Germany).In conclusion, article 11 of the 1978 convention (the principle of continuity) should not be applied automatically to the boundary treaty in 1962 and the boundary protocol in 1964 between North Korea and China. They will be disputed by the Unified Korea regarding state succession in the future. The case of article 12 of German unification treaty would be a good example in resolving this problem. Therefore, regarding the boundary treaties of North Korea and China, intensive consultations between the "Unified Korea" and China shall precede before reaching to a conclusion on this matter.

참고문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문의 참고문헌 없음

이 논문을 인용한 문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문을 인용한 문헌 없음

원문보기

원문 PDF 다운로드

  • 원문 PDF 정보가 존재하지 않습니다.

원문 URL 링크

  • 원문 URL 링크 정보가 존재하지 않습니다.
상세조회 0건 원문조회 0건

DOI 인용 스타일