日韓大陸棚協定の局長級対談が開始されました。
日本と韓国は、九州沖の海域について日韓大陸棚協定を結んでいます。この協定では、九州沖の海域の海底資源開発について、日本と韓国が共同開発するという協定です。そもそも九州西方沖の海域は、韓国とは全く関係ない海域です。それなのに、韓国が関わる協定が結ばれた原因は、かつて海洋開発において「海底資源の開発権を主張できる海域は大陸灘を延長した海域」という大陸棚延長線が採用されていました。しかし、大陸棚延長線は多くの問題がありました。そこで、１９８２年に領海や排他的経済水域などを規定した｢海洋法に関する国際連合条約｣が採択され、１９９４年に発効されました。ただ、この条約が発効されるまで、領海や排他的経済水域等の二国間争議は多々ありました。
例えば、イギリスとフランスはドーバー海峡を挟んで、向かい合った位置にあります。その結果、領海や排他的経済水域について争議が発生し、英仏大陸棚事件に発展しました。１９７７年大陸棚条約に加入した英仏両国は､ 両国間の大陸棚の境界画定に関する交渉を行いました。残念ながら、話し合いは合意に至らず､ １９７４年に問題を仲裁裁判に付託することを決定しました｡ 問題となった海域にはエディストーン・ロック､ チャネル諸島､ シリー諸島など多くの岩礁や小島が含まれていました｡また､ 両国は本土に挟まれた海峡区域では向かい合っていますが､ それより西側の北大西洋の区域では隣接する関係にあります｡英国は大陸棚条約に基づいて､ 特別の事情がない限り全ての区域において等距離中間線によって境界を画定することを主張しました｡ 他方フランスは､ 領土の自然の延長原則と衡平原則という慣習法によって境界画定がなされるべきだと主張し､ 海峡区域では等距離中間線を､ 大西洋区域では領土の自然延長原則を採用すべきだとしました｡
仲裁裁判所は､ 特別の事情がない限り等距離・中間線原則に従って境界画定が行われるという大陸棚条約第６条が英仏間にも原則として適用されるとしました。判決は具体的に３つの区域に分割して境界画定を行いました｡
まず､ 英仏海峡区域については､英仏両国が既に合意していた中間線を境界線としました｡ 特に､ エディストーン・ロックが境界線の基点になることも認めました｡
イギリス領でありながら英仏両国の中間線よりもフランス側にあるチャネル諸島について､ 仲裁裁判所は､ 同諸島の存在は不均衡をつくり出す特別な事情であり､ 両当事国により適切かつ衡平な均衡をもたらす中間的解決が求められていると判示した｡ 具体的には､まず英仏海峡を通る中間線を引き､ その中間線とチャンネル諸島の間に同諸島の海岸から12カ
イリの境界線を制定しました。
太平洋区域について､ 裁判所は大陸棚条約第６条を適用しましたが､ イギリス領シリー諸島が厳格な中間線以外の境界画定を認めうる特別事情であるとみなしました｡ そして､ シリー諸島の存在を考慮せずに引いた等距離線と､ 同諸島を基点として引いた等距離線の中間線を最終的な境界線とした｡ これは島に基点としての｢完全の効果｣ (full effect) を与えずに､ ｢半分の効果を与える方法｣であり､裁判によって半分効果方法が採用されたのは本件が初めての事例でした｡
日韓の局長級会談では、国際条約と国際裁判の事例に沿った結論を期待します。
イギリスとフランスは歴史上、様々な諍いがありました。戦争も何回か経験し、お互いに対する国民感情も複雑です。そのため、二国間協議は成功しませんでした。相手の言い分を認め、譲歩した場合、自国民から非難されることは火を見るよりも明らかでした。今回の日本と韓国の場合、そのまま「協定は延長しない、境界線は国際的な慣例にならう」とすれば、日本は何の問題もありません。現在は、等距離中間線が境界線として採用されています。韓国側は不満かもしれませんが、協定締結時は慣例にならったのですから、今回も現在の国際慣例にならうべきでしょう。しかし、日本は韓国に譲歩するかもしれません。日本の外務省は、いかなる理由があるのか不明ですが、韓国に甘いですからね。ひょっとすると、どこかの政党の議員が口利きしているのかもしれません。
#第七鉱区 #大陸棚延長線 #等距離中間線 #日韓問題
Director-general level talks on the Japan-Korea Continental Shelf Agreement have begun.
Japan and Korea have concluded the Japan-Korea Continental Shelf Agreement for the waters off Kyushu. This agreement stipulates that Japan and Korea will jointly develop the seabed resources in the waters off Kyushu. In the first place, the waters off the west coast of Kyushu are completely unrelated to Korea. The reason why an agreement involving Korea was concluded was that the continental shelf extension line was adopted in the past for marine development, which stated that "the waters in which the right to develop seabed resources can be claimed are the waters that extend the continental seas." However, there were many problems with the continental shelf extension line. Therefore, in 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which stipulates territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, was adopted and came into force in 1994. However, before this treaty came into force, there were many bilateral disputes over territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, etc.
For example, the UK and France are located opposite each other across the Straits of Dover. As a result, disputes arose over territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, which developed into the British-French Continental Shelf Incident. In 1977, the British and French nations, which had signed the Continental Shelf Convention, conducted negotiations on the delimitation of the continental shelf between the two countries. Unfortunately, the talks did not result in an agreement, and in 1974 it was decided to refer the matter to arbitration. The area in question included many reefs and islets, including Eddystone Rock, the Channel Islands, and the Scilly Isles. The two countries face each other in the straits area between their mainland, but are adjacent in the North Atlantic area to the west. Based on the Continental Shelf Convention, the UK insisted that the boundary should be delimited by an equidistant median line in all areas, unless there are special circumstances. On the other hand, France insisted that the boundary should be determined according to the customary law principles of natural prolongation of territory and equitable principles, and that an equidistant median line should be used in the straits area, and the principle of natural prolongation of territory should be adopted in the Atlantic area. The arbitral tribunal ruled that Article 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention, which provides that the boundary should be determined in accordance with the equidistant median line principles, unless there are special circumstances, also applies in principle to the UK and France. The ruling divided the border into three areas.
First, for the English Channel area, the median line already agreed upon by the UK and France was set as the border. In particular, it was recognized that Eddystone Rock would be the base point of the border.
As for the Channel Islands, which are British territory but lie on the French side of the median line between the UK and France, the arbitral tribunal ruled that the existence of the islands was a special circumstance that created an imbalance, and that an intermediate solution that would bring about an appropriate and equitable balance was required by both parties. Specifically, a median line was first drawn through the English Channel, and a border was established between the median line and the Channel Islands, 12 nautical miles from the coast of the islands.
Regarding the Pacific Ocean area, the court applied Article 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention, but considered that the British Isles of Scilly were special circumstances that allowed for a boundary demarcation other than a strict median line. The court then determined the final boundary line to be an equidistant line drawn without taking into account the existence of the Scilly Isles, and an equidistant line drawn with the Isles as the base point. This is a method of giving half effect to the islands without giving them full effect as the base point, and this was the first case in which a half effect method was adopted by a court.
I hope that the Japan-Korea director-level talks will reach a conclusion that is in line with international treaties and international court precedents.
The UK and France have had many quarrels in history. They have also experienced several wars, and their national feelings toward each other are complicated. For this reason, bilateral talks were unsuccessful. It was obvious that if they had accepted the other party's claims and made concessions, they would have been criticized by their own people. In the case of Japan and Korea, if they had simply said, "The agreement will not be extended, and the boundary line will follow international practice," Japan would have no problem. Currently, the equidistant median line is used as the boundary line. The Korean side may not be happy about this, but since it was customary when the agreement was concluded, it should be followed this time as well. However, Japan may make concessions to Korea. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs is lenient toward Korea, for some reason unknown. Perhaps a member of a certain political party is putting in a good word for them.
#SeventhMiningArea #ContinentalShelfExtensionLine #EquidistantMedianLine #JapanKoreaIssues
