“해양의 헌법”이라 일컬어지는 1982년 유엔해양법협약은 구속력이 있는 결정을 수반하는 강제절차를 포함하는 획기적인 분쟁해결절차를 도입하였다. 그러나 강제절차의 선택에 있어서 국가들은 상당한 재량을 갖게 되었으니, 해양법협약 당사국들은 국제해양법재판소, 국제사법재판소, 중재재판소, 특별중재재판소 중에서 하나 이상을 선택할 수 있다. 해양법재판소의 구성과 관련해서는 전원재판부는 물론 심해저분쟁재판부와 특별재판부에서 제기되었던 문제들을 살펴보았으며, 특히 임시재판관 선정에 관한 복잡한 규칙들을 자세히 살펴보았다. 해양법재판소의 관할권은 해양법협약이라는 하나의 문서에 연결되어 있으나, 협약의 관할권 규정에는 재판소가 사건을 맡게 되는 여러 가지 방법과 수많은 제한 및 예외가 들어 있다. 그간 해양법재판소에 제기되어진 쟁점으로는 의견교환의무, 잠정조치, 신속한 석방, 해양환경보호를 살펴보았다. 종종 해양법재판소의 관할권을 부인하는 근거로 원용되어 온 의견교환의무에 대하여 검토하였으며, 잠정조치와 관련해서는 중재재판소의 일응 관할권과 긴급성 등 그 전제조건에 대한 재판소의 입장을 분석하였다. 신속한 석방과 관련해서는 보석금과 보증의 적절성 및 선박의 국적에 대한 재판소의 입장을 살펴보았으며, 해양오염방지 및 해양생물자원보호에 관한 재판소의 입장도 분석하였다.

The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea established a comprehensive dispute settlement system incorporating compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions. Although states parties to the convention enjoy a discretion in choosing one or more means from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(ITLOS), International Court of Justice, Arbitration in accordance with Annex Ⅶ, and Special Arbitration in accordance with Annex Ⅷ, ITLOS is given special attention in this article. As for the organization of the ITLOS, this article observed the questions raised in constituting the Tribunal itself and special chambers. Especially the complex procedures for choosing judges ad hoc was investigated. The work of the Tribunal is linked to a single document, the Convention, so the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is expected to be simple. However, the jurisdictional provisions of the Convention are exceedingly complicated, with a number of ways the Tribunal can be seized of a dispute but subject to various exceptions and limitations.Considering decisions of the Tribunal, this article also examined outstanding issues such as the obligation to exchange views, provisional measure, prompt release of the vessel and its crew, and marine environmental protection. Given the provision on obligation to exchange views had been used to challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, this article considered its position. As for the provisional measure, the Tribunal's decisions on prima facie jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and emergency were looked into. The reasonableness of the bond and other securities and nationality of ships were among the Tribunal's special concerns in hearing a case about prompt release of ships and its crew, so this article observed the Tribunal's attitude on these issues. The Tribunal's view on marine environmental protection was also analyzed.

The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea established a comprehensive dispute settlement system incorporating compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions. Although states parties to the convention enjoy a discretion in choosing one or more means from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(ITLOS), International Court of Justice, Arbitration in accordance with Annex Ⅶ, and Special Arbitration in accordance with Annex Ⅷ, ITLOS is given special attention in this article. As for the organization of the ITLOS, this article observed the questions raised in constituting the Tribunal itself and special chambers. Especially the complex procedures for choosing judges ad hoc was investigated. The work of the Tribunal is linked to a single document, the Convention, so the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is expected to be simple. However, the jurisdictional provisions of the Convention are exceedingly complicated, with a number of ways the Tribunal can be seized of a dispute but subject to various exceptions and limitations.Considering decisions of the Tribunal, this article also examined outstanding issues such as the obligation to exchange views, provisional measure, prompt release of the vessel and its crew, and marine environmental protection. Given the provision on obligation to exchange views had been used to challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, this article considered its position. As for the provisional measure, the Tribunal's decisions on prima facie jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and emergency were looked into. The reasonableness of the bond and other securities and nationality of ships were among the Tribunal's special concerns in hearing a case about prompt release of ships and its crew, so this article observed the Tribunal's attitude on these issues. The Tribunal's view on marine environmental protection was also analyzed.

, , , , , , ,

ITLOS, Compulsory Procedure, Special Chambers, Obligation to Exchange Views, Provisional Measure, Prompt Release, Nationality of Ship, Marine Environmental Protection