한국인 관상동맥성 심질환의 위험요인으로서 혈청지질에 관한 메타분석

김기순,김양옥,박종,박종구,김춘배,지선하,류소연,Kim, Ki-Soon,Kim, Yang-Ok,Park, Jong,Park, Jong-Ku,Kim, Chun-Bae,Jee, Sun-Ha,Ryu, So-Yeon 대한예방의학회 1999 예방의학회지 Vol.32 No.4

Objectives : To determine the relations between seven blood lipids such as total cholesterol(TC), triglyceride(TG), HDL-cholesterol(HDL), LDL-cholesterol(LDL), apolipoprotein A-1(Apo A1), apolipoprotein B(Apo B) and lipoprotein(a)(Lp(A)) and the coronary heart diseases(CHD), the quantitative techniques of meta-analysis were applied to studios of blood lipids and CHD in Koreans. Methods : We searched the Korean and the English literature published from 1980 to August, 1997 by manual search and bibliography review. Information on sample size, study design, participant characteristics(gender, age) and blood lipid levels were abstracted by reviewers using inclusion criteria. Estimates of the effect sizes of blood lipid levels on CHD in Koreans and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effect models. Results : We identified 16 case-control studies to apply meta-analysis. The overall effect sizes for CHD were 20.3(95% CI: 14.23-20.22) in TC, 24.8(95% CI: 12.6-36.86) in TG, 15.16(95% CI: 3.99-26.33) in LDL, -3.48(95% CI: -5.79 - -1.17) in HDL, -9.78(95% CI: -16.98 - -2.58) in Apo-a1, 17.88(95% CI: 9.72-26.05) in Apo B and 18.95(95% CI: 17.88-20.02) in Lp(a). Conclusions : Our results suggested that seven blood lipids were significantly associated with CHD in Koreans. Well-designed and prospective studies between blood lipids and CMD in Koreans should be peformed.

일부 지역 의사들의 흡연실태와 금연지도활동에 대한 조사연구

김기순,강명근,박형철,김진선,류소연,Kim, Ki-Soon,Kang, Myung-Gun,Park, Hyung-Cheol,Kim, Jin Sun,Ryu, So-Yeon 대한예방의학회 2003 예방의학회지 Vol.36 No.3

Objectives : The purposes of this study were to assess the smoking status, knowledge and attitude related to smoking and smoking cessation activity of the physicians in a community, and to identify their predictors of smoking cessation activity. Method : All physicians employed by various health facilities in a community were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Of the physicians surveyed,523 (69.6%) returned completed questionnaires. Results : The smoking rate of physicians was 29.3% (34.2% in males, 3.6% in females) and the knowledge and attitude scores to smoking were $22.5{\pm}2.4\;and\;65.4{\pm}0.9$, respectively. The self-efficacy score was $3.4{\pm}1.0$ and the smoking cessation activity score was $65.4{\pm}6.9$. The smoking cessation activity was statistically significant with working place, specialty, knowledge and attitude to smoking and self-efficacy. In stepwise multiple regression, smoking cessation activity was predicted by doctors' working place, specialty, attitudes related to smoking issues, and self-efficacy of counseling knowledge and stills. Conclusion : Physicians need to participate routinely and actively in smoking cessation activity. For doctors to effectively counsel and intervene in patients regarding smoking cessation, it is essential to integrate education un smoking cessation intervention into curricula in formal education and to offer continuing education including smoking cessation intervention.

관상동맥질환 위험요인 구명을 위한 코호트내 환자-대조군 연구

김기순,박종,박종구,김춘배,천병렬,이태용,이강숙,이덕희,고광욱,지선하,서일,류소연,Kim, Ki-Soon,Park, Jong,Park, Jong-Ku,Kim, Chun-Bae,Chun, Byung-Yeol,Lee, Tae-Yong,Lee, Kang-Sook,Lee, Duk-Hee,Koh, Kwang-Wook,Jee, Sun-Ha,Suh, Il,Ryu, So 대한예방의학회 2001 Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health Vol.34 No.2

Objective : To elucidate risk factors for coronary heart diseases among Korean males. Methods : A nested case control study was conducted among a Korea Medical Insurance Cooperation(KMIC) cohort composed of 108,802 males. The eases included 246 male patients who were admitted to hospital due to coronary heart diseases from 1993 to 1997 (120-25 by ICD) and whose diagnosis was confirmed by the protocol by WHO MONICA Project(1994). The control group was composed of 483 patients selected by frequency matching considering age and resident area from an inpatient care group without coronary heart disease during the same period. For study cases and the controls, the results of a health check-up in 1990 and a questionnaire on life style in 1992 were received through the KMIC. Some additional information was collected by telephone interviews during October 1999. Results : Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the odds ratio(OR) of coronary heart diseases among past smokers and current smokers as compared to non-smokers were 1.94(95% CI : 1.14-3.31) and 2.20(55% CI : 1.35-3.59), respectively. The OR among persons who drank 4 cups or more of caffeinated beverages such as coffee or tea daily as compared to persons who drank one cup for 2-3 days was 2.50(95% CI : 1.07-6.12). The OR among persons with high normal BP and stage 3 hypertension against normotension were 2.51 (95% CI : 1.44-4.37) and 5.08(95% CI : 2.38-10.84). The OR among persons whose blood cholesterol were 240 mg/dL or mere against lower than 200mg/dL was 2.24(95% CI : 1.43-3.49). Conclusion : Smoking, drinking of excessive caffeinated beverages, hypertension and high blood cholesterol were proven to be significant risk factors for coronary heart diseases among Korean males.

Gabcikove-Nagymaros Project 사건에 대한 국제환경법적 고찰

김기순(Ki Sun Kim) 중앙법학회 2007 中央法學 Vol.9 No.4

MOX Plant Case에 적용된 국제환경법 원칙의 분석

김기순 ( Ki Sun Kim ) 안암법학회 2008 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.26

남극 환경보호의정서의 책임부속서에 관한 연구

김기순 ( Ki Sun Kim ) 안암법학회 2008 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.27

In 1991, the international community adopted the Protocol on Environ-mental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, instead of the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities(CRAMRA). This Protocol is a comprehensive and broad environmental protocol, and complements the existing Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) which lacks the provision for the protection of Antarctic environment. It designates the Antarctic as "a natural reserve, devoted to science and peace", and regulates all human activities in Antarctica in accordance with a single standard in order to protect the Antarctic environment and the ecosystems that rely on it. In 2005, "the Annex VI on the liability arising from environmental emergencies"(the Liability Annex) was adopted to embody the liability scheme in accordance with the Article 16 of the Environmental Protection Protocol. This paper aims to examine and analyse the liability regime related to environmental emergencies in Antarctica, and to indicate the points at issue and their remedy. Annex VI is applied to the environmental emergencies which relate to scientific research programmes, tourism and all other governmental and nongovernmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area, including relevant logistic support activities. Annex VI does not include the liability for damage, and does not cover state responsibility or civil liability. Instead, it gives priority to preventative measures, contingency plans, and response action to prevent environmental emergencies and to reduce their effect. The most important fact here is the question of who will be held liable for the cost of clean-up activities after environmental emergency. Annex VI imposes the liability to pay the clean-up costs on the operator, and if the operator fails to take prompt and effective action, he has to pay the Party who takes the actual response action for the clean-up costs. The liability of the operators is strict. The liability of the operator, however, is financially restricted, and he is required to maintain adequate insurance or other financial security to cover his liability. Annex VI has a significant meaning in that it minimizes the impact of environmental emergencies to Antarctic environment and its ecosystems by preventing the environmental emergencies and establishing response action. This Annex, however, is only the first step to implement Article 16 of the Environmental Protocol, and needs much improvement. Firstly, Article 6(5) allows sovereign immunity under international law for warships, naval auxiliaries, or other ships or aircraft owned or operated by States on government non-commercial service. Although this Article stipulates that the State is responsible for taking response action to environmental emergencies that it caused, sovereignty immunity frees such ships or aircraft from the regulation of this Annex and Article. In light of the fact that most of ships or aircraft in Antarctica are owned or operated by States, this Article reduces the scope of application and weakens the effectiveness of this Annex. This Article should therefore be revised towards not allowing sovereign immunity. Secondly, Annex VI rules out the liability for the reparation or restoration of the environmental damage caused by environmental emergencies. The reason behind this is that in reality it is difficult to include all liability caused by environmental emergencies in Antarctica in this Annex. As a result, a half liability regime has been made that does not impose the liability of compensation for the fatal damages of the Antarctic environment done by the activities of a third party, but imposes the liability for the response action and its costs to environmental emergencies. This problem has to be resolved by complementing the Annex in additional steps. Thirdly, there is no enforcement mechanism to operate the liability regime. This applies to the ATS in general. More importantly in the liability regime, the lack of an e

국제유류오염책임배상제도와 Hebei Spirit호 사고의 손해배상에 관한 연구

김기순 ( Ki Sun Kim ) 법조협회 2009 法曹 Vol.58 No.2

국제유류오염책임배상제도는 유조선의 유류오염사고에 대한 책임 및 배상을 다루는 국제민사제도로서, 1992 CLC, 1992 FC와 추가기금의정서로 구성되어 있다. 1992 CLC는 유류오염피해에 대한 선주의 무과실책임을 인정하는 대신 유한책임을 허용함으로써 선주가 부담하는 손해배상을 제한하고 있다. 선주의 배상액으로 충분한 손해배상을 할 수 없는 경우에는 1992 FC에 따라 화주가 부담하는 기금으로 추가배상을 하도록 되어 있다. 1992 FC의 기금으로도 손해배상액에 미치지 못하는 경우에는 추가기금의정서에 따라 추가기금을 지급한다. 이와 같이 유류오염책임배상제도는 선주와 화주의 공유부담을 바탕으로 하는 1992 CLC-1992 FC-추가기금의정서의 3단계 손해배상체제를 이루고 있으며, 이를 통해 선주와 피해자의 보호를 꾀하고 있다. 이 제도가 확립된 이후에 발생한 대부분의 사고에 대한 손해배상청구는 소송에 의하지 않고 협약상 절차에 따라 우호적으로 해결되었다. 그러나 이 제도는 1960년대와 1970년대에 채택된 구제도에 바탕을 두고 있기 때문에 시간적인 차이를 극복하고 새로운 변화에 적응해야 한다는 지적을 받아왔으며, 제도 자체의 한계와 문제점도 제기되고 있다. 여러 차례에 걸쳐 협약체제가 개정되었고 협약의 적용 범위 확대와 최고 배상한도액의 증가 등 많은 진전이 있었지만, 배상액의 제한으로 인한 불충분한 손해배상, 배상금 지불의 지연, 순수한 생태적 피해에 대한 손해배상 배제, 유류오염사고에 대한 예방적 효과 제한 등 근본적인 문제점은 해결되지 않고 있다. Hebei Spirit호 사고의 손해배상문제에서도 이러한 제도적 한계가 그대로 나타나고 있으며, 피해주민들이 부족한 배상액과 배상절차의 지연으로 경제적인 어려움을 겪고 있다. 아울러 국내법원의 민, 형사 재판이 종료될 때까지는 오랜 시일이 걸릴 것으로 보이며 이에 따라 피해주민들의 고통도 가중될 것이다. 따라서 국내 및 국제적 배상절차를 가능한 한 빠른 시일 내에 매듭짓고, 신속하고 적절하고 형평에 맞는 배상을 해야 할 것이다.

해양오염규제에 관한 국가관할권의 고찰

김기순(Ki-Sun Kim) 한국해사법학회 2008 해사법연구 Vol.20 No.1

  해양오염 규제에 관한 국가관할권 행사를 둘러싸고 기국과 연안국은 오랫동안 이해의 대립을 보여 왔다. 전통적인 국제법 원칙에서는 선박의 국적국가인 기국에 해양오염을 규제하는 우선적 관할권 행사가 인정되는 반면, 해양오염으로 인해 실제 피해를 입는 연안국에 대해서는 상대적으로 제한된 관할권만이 인정이 되었다. 이러한 기존의 관할권 체제는 다수의 IMO 협약 (IMO conventions)과 전 지구적 포괄적 환경협약인 1982년 UNCLOS(United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982)에 의해 재정비되어 왔다. 이들 협약은 연안국의 이익과 해양국가의 이익을 조정하기 위해, 기국의 배타적 관할권을 제한하는 한편 연안국과 항구국의 관할권을 확대, 강화하고 있다. 그러나 새로운 체제 하에서도 기국은 여전히 자국 선박에 대해 우선적인 관할권을 행사하게 되며, 연안국과 항구국의 권한은 그 범위가 제한되어 있다.<BR>  UNCLOS와 IMO 협약은 각각 항해 안전성 및 해양오염방지를 위한 국가 관할권 체제를 확립하고 있으나, 이들의 이중적인 조약법구조가 충돌하는 경우 법적 불확실성을 초래할 수 있으므로 이에 대한 면밀한 검토가 필요하다. 이 논문에서는 선박기인오염과 해양투기 등의 해양오염원을 규제하기 위한 국가관할권체제가 UNCLOS와 MARPOL 73/78, 1972년 런던협약과 1996년 개정의정서 등의 IMO 협약 사이에 어떻게 구축되어 있고, 이들 협약의 국가관할권 이행에 관한 규정이 어떠한 상관관계를 갖는가를 중점적으로 분석하고자 한다. 이를 위해 UNCLOS와 IMO 협약의 상호관계(II), 선박기인오염에 관한 국가관할권(III), 해양투기에 관한 국가관할권(IV)으로 나누어 고찰해보기로 한다.<BR>  UNCLOS와 IMO 협약 체제의 가장 큰 문제점은 협약 비준수의 문제라고 할 수 있다. 기국 우선주의의 관할권 구조는 기국이 자국 선박에 대해 통제권을 행사하지 못하는 경우 이를 보완할 수 있는 장치를 제공하지 못한다. 따라서 협약 준수를 확보하기 어려워 해양오염을 실효적으로 규제하지 못하는 결과를 초래하고 있다. 더욱이 해운업계의 관행으로 되어있는 FOC 선박으로 인한 기국과 선박 사이의 genuine link 결여의 문제는 이러한 상황을 더욱 악화시키고 있다. UNCLOS와 IMO 협약 체제가 지니고 있는 또 다른 문제점은 대다수의 국제환경협약과는 달리 협약 위반에 대한 규제가 당사국에게 맡겨져 있고, 당사국의 협약 이행을 이행하고 준수하도록 감시하는 감독기관이 마련되어 있지 않다는 점이다. 이 역시 효율적인 협약의 이행을 저해하고 있는 요인이 되고 있다.<BR>  IMO는 기국의 국제법규 및 기준의 준수를 확보하기 위해 여러 가지 제도적인 노력을 하고 있다. 항구국의 통제조치 강화, 선박 안전 및 오염방지를 위한 다수의 협약 채택, 기국의 역할 및 책임을 반영하는 IMO Code 개발, 자발적인 IMO 회원국 감사체제(IMO Member State Audit Scheme) 채택, MARPOL 73/78 등 IMO 협약의 개정작업을 통해 효율적 이행조치를 마련하고 있다. 그러나 이러한 노력 못지않게 중요한 것은 국제법규를 준수하고자하는 국제사회의 책임의식이다. 제도적 보장과 아울러 각국 정부뿐만 아니라 선박소유주, 운영자, 선원 등이 국제법규를 준수하려는 진정한 의지가 뒷받침되어야 빈번한 사고와 선박운영상의 배출, 해양투기로 인한 오염로부터 해양환경과 해양생태계를 보호할 수 있을 것이다. 그것이 각종 해양오염사고와 그로 인한 막대한 피해가 우리에게 남겨주는 교훈이라고 할 것이다.   There has, for a long time, been a great deal of conflict of interests between the flag states and the coastal states over the exercise of national jurisdiction to control marine pollution. According to the traditional principles of international law, the flag states enjoyed exclusive primary jurisdiction while the coastal states that were directly affected by marine pollution only exercised limited jurisdiction. This traditional structure of jurisdiction has been reset by numerous IMO conventions and UNCLOS(1982), the most comprehensive global international convention. To reconcile the interests of the coastal and flag states, these conventions have limited the exclusive jurisdiction previously granted to the flag states and have expanded and strengthened that of the coastal and port states. Even within the new jurisdictional structure, however, the flag states have exercised primary jurisdiction on their ships, while the rights of the coastal and port states have remained relatively limited.<BR>  UNCLOS and the IMO conventions each have their own jurisdictional system regarding navigation safety and the prevention of marine pollution, on the basis of compatibility. Such a duplicate structure, however, may give rise to legal uncertainties if the two systems collide; therefore their provisions must be closely examined.<BR>  This paper aims to analyse how the jurisdictional structure, particularly regulating vessel pollution and dumping at sea, is constructed based on UNCLOS and IMO Conventions, and to understand the correlation of their provisions on the enforcement of the jurisdiction. Part Ⅱ deals with the interrelationship between UNCLOS and IMO conventions. Part Ⅲ analyses the provisions of UNCLOS and MARPOL 73/78 on the jurisdiction to regulate vessel pollution, and Part Ⅳ analyses the provisions of UNCLOS, the 1972 London convention, and the LC Protocol(1996) on the jurisdiction to regulate pollution from dumping.<BR>  The main problem of UNCLOS and IMO conventions is the issue of non-compliance. The jurisdictional structure that is oriented around the flag states cannot effectively provide the complementary apparatus when the flag states themselves fail to fully exercise their jurisdiction when their ships violate regulations. In such cases, it becomes difficult to ensure the states" compliance to conventions, which in turn leads to the failure of effective control of marine pollution. Moreover, the common practice of FOC (Flag of Convenience) of the shipping industries gives rise to the issue of lack of the "genuine link" between the flag states and their ships, making the situation worse. Another problem, different from most other modern international environmental conventions, is that the control of violation of conventions relies solely on the parties to the convention, and that there is no supervisory body to monitor the implementation of and compliance to conventions. This also impedes the effective implementation of conventions.<BR>  IMO has tried to establish various systems to guarantee that the flag states comply to the international regulations and the standards included in conventions. These systems include the strengthening of the inspection system of the port states, the adoption of several conventions on navigation safety and the prevention of marine pollution, the development of the IMO Code to strengthen the role and the responsibility of the flag states, the adoption of IMO Member State Audit Scheme, and the continuous amendment of IMO conventions, such as MARPOL 73/78. However, just as important as the aforementioned efforts of the IMO is the sense of responsibility on the part of the international community. It will be possible to protect the maritime environment and ecology from frequent accidents, operational pollution, and dumping at sea only when the systemic guarantee is accompanied by the strong will of the Governments, ship

북극해의 분쟁과 해양경계획정에 관한 연구

김기순(Ki-sun Kim) 대한국제법학회 2009 國際法學會論叢 Vol.54 No.3

최근 북극의 급속한 기후변화는 북극권의 독특한 자연환경과 생태계를 위협하는 반면, 막대한 자연자원의 개발과 작은 섬의 발견, 북극항로의 개척 등 새로운 변화를 가져다주고 있다. 특히 북극해의 두꺼운 얼음 밑에 매장되어있는 석유, 천연가스 기타 광물자원은 얼음 감소와 과학기술의 발달로 개발가능성이 매우 높은 것으로 알려지고 있다. 이 글에서는 북극권의 변화와 관련한 북극권국가들 사이의 영유권 및 해양관할권 분쟁과 해양경계획정에 대해 논의하고자 한다. 북극권국가의 영유권 주장은 탐사 및 발견, 완화된 실효적 점유이론, 선형이론, 할양 등에 근거하고 있으며, 이 가운데 선형이론은 국제법상 기초와 법적 정당성이 없는 이론으로 비난받고 있다. 북극의 육지영토에 대해서는 분쟁의 여지가 별로 없지만, 북극해의 섬과 해양수역에 대해서는 영유권과 해양관할권을 둘러싸고 다수의 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 대부분의 분쟁은 해양경계획정에 관한 것으로, 이는 북극해와 Barents 해, 노르웨이 해, Beaufort 해 등에서 배타적 경제수역과 200해리 이원의 대륙붕수역이 중복되는 데 기인한다. 이중 북극점 해저를 통과하는 Lomonosov 해역을 둘러싼 러시아-캐나다-덴마크 사이의 경쟁은 북극해의 주도권을 차지하기 위한 쟁탈전으로 확대되고있다. 러시아와 노르웨이, 덴마크는 해양법협약 제 76조 8항 규정에 따라 대륙붕한계위원회에 200해리 이원의 대륙붕 한계설정 문서를 제출하였다. 대륙붕한계위원회는 러시아에 대해 노르웨이 및 미국과 분쟁이 있는 Barents 해와 Bering 해에서 해양경계획정협정을 체결한 후 경계선의 해도 및 좌표를 제출하도록 권고하고, Lomonosov 해령이 위치한 중앙 북극해에 대해서는 증거부족을 이유로 수정된 제출을 하도록 권고하였다. 노르웨이에 대해서는 Western Nansen 해분, Loop Hole, Southern Banana Hole에 관한 대륙붕한계설정의 정보가 모두 200해리 이원의 대륙붕 조건을 충족시킨다고 보고, 인접국과의 양자협정을 통해 명확한 대륙붕의 범위를 획정하도록 권고하였다. 덴마크가 제출한 문서는 현재 심의 중에 있다. 대륙붕한계위원회는 사법권이나 분쟁해결권한을 지닌 기구가 아니기 때문에 북극권의 해양관할권 분쟁을 궁극적으로 해결하기는 어렵다. 또한 해양법협약 제 15부에 규정된 강제적인 분쟁해결절차는 노르웨이를 제외한 북극권국가들의 선택적 예외 선언에 따라 배제되고 있다. 따라서 200해리 이원의 대륙붕에 관한 북극권국가 사이의 분쟁은 국가 간 합의에 따라 해결되어야 것이다. 200해리 이원의 대륙붕 수역을 설정한 후 남는 북극해 수역은 “심해저”로서 인류의 공동유산수역이며 인류 전체에 속한다. 그러나 그 범위는 극히 일부분으로, 사실상 북극해는 북극권국가간의 해양경계획정에 의해 분할된다고 볼 수 있다. 결국 북극해는 “해양의 영토화”를 추구하는 연안국의 해양관할권 확대 경향에 의해 분할되어 가는 과정을 보여주고 있으며, 이는 곧 자원개발로 이어지고 환경오염과 생태계훼손을 초래하는 현실로 나타나게 될 것으로 예상된다. 북극이 직면한 위기는 지구 전체에 영향을 미치기 때문에 국제사회는 북극문제의 해결에 많은 관심을 갖고 있으며, 남극조약을 모델로 한 해법을 찾고 있다. 북극의 법적 상황은 남극과 다르기 때문에 북극에 남극조약체제를 적용하는 것은 현실적으로 가능하지 않다. 다만 남극조약체제가 기초로하고 있는 환경과 과학, 안보, 경제 분야의 국제협력과 환경보호 이념은 북극의 환경을 보호하고 북극권의 문제를 해결하는 지침이 될 수 있을 것으로본다. The fast climate change in recent years is threatening the unique natural environment and the ecosystem in the Arctic. It, however, gives rise to new changes to the Arctic, which include the development of natural resources, discovery of tiny islands and opening of the Northwest passage. Particularly, there is a strong possibility of exploiting oil, natural gas and other mineral resources deposited under the heavy ice in the Arctic Ocean due to ice melting and new technologies for oil extraction. This paper reviews the conflicting territorial and jurisdictional claims and the maritime boundary delimitation concerning these changes in the Arctic. The territorial claims of the Arctic nations are dependent on discovery, effective occupation, sector theory and cession, and inter alia the sector theory has been criticized for its lack of a basis of international law and legal rationality. There have recently emerged many disputes over the claims to territory and maritime jurisdiction over the islands and maritime areas in the Arctic Ocean. Most of them are about the maritime boundary delimitations with the Arctic nations, and they are due to the overlapping of the EEZ and the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean. Particularly, conflicting claims over the Lomonosov Ridge to traverse the seabed of the North Pole among Russia-Canada-Denmark have led to the scramble to take the initiative in the Arctic Ocean. Russia, Norway and Denmark submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf(CLCS), pursuant to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the UNCLOS, the data and informations on extended continental shelves. In regard to the Barents and Bering Seas to which Russia is in competition with Norway and U.S., the CLCS recommended Russia to transmit the charts and coordinates of the delimitation lines to the CLCS after entry into force of the maritime boundary delimitation agreements with them. Regarding the Central Arctic Ocean, the CLCS recommended Russia to make a revised submission relating to the proposed outer limits of extended continental shelf. In the case of the Loop Hole in the Barents Sea, CLCS confirmed that the informations contained in Norway's submission completely satisfied the requirements of extended continental shelf, and that Norwegian continental shelf extended beyond 200 nautical miles. The CLCS recommended Norway to delimitate the outer limits of the continental shelf by agreement with Russia. The information Denmark and Faroe Islands submitted in May 2009 is now under consideration. The CLCS can not ultimately resolve the maritime disputes in the Arctic Waters because it is not a judicial body or a dispute settlement body. Furthermore the compulsory dispute settlement provided in Part XV of UNCLOS would not be applied in the Arctic, in accordance with the declaration of optional exceptions by the Arctic nations except Norway. Accordingly, the disputes over the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean should be settled by the agreements among the Arctic nations. The seabed outside the extended continental shelf of the coastal states is "the Area" in Art 1, paragraph 1 of UNCLOS, which is the common heritage of mankind and belongs to mankind as a whole. Its extent is very small, and the Arctic Ocean would be actually divided by maritime boundary delimitation among the Arctic nations. Eventually it shows the recent trends of extension of maritime jurisdiction by the coastal states which pursue so-called "territorialization of the sea". It is likely to lead to development of the natural resources, environmental pollution, and the destruction of ecosystem in the Arctic. The crisis that the Arctic faces today will affect the earth as a whole, so the international community is trying to look for future international system considering the 1959 Antarctic treaty. It might be inappropriate to apply the Antarctic Treaty System to the Arctic, becau

동북아 해양환경 협력방안에 관한 연구 -NOPAP을 중심으로-

김기순 ( Ki Sun Kim ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구소 2010 과학기술법연구 Vol.16 No.2

The Northwest Pacific region has been afflicted with the serious pollution of the sea and the destruction of marine ecosystem because of its geographic proximity, the high density of population with rapid economic growth, and the concentration of industrial complexes and large cities on the coastline. The situation in this region is worsening. The industrial and domestic wastewater from industries and large cities have been flowing into the sea. Moreover, pollution from land-based sources, pollution by dumping, and oil spill by vessel accidents have caused serious marine pollution. The Northwest Pacific Ocean, a semi-enclosed sea, has geographic characteristics vulnerable to pollution. It is not easy for one nation to cope with marine pollution issues, so it needs the cooperation between countries within the Northwest Pacific region. NOWPAP(Northwest Pacific Action Plan) started as an intergovernmental organization to cooperate in the field of the marine environment of the Northwest Pacific region. The overall goal of NOWPAP is to use, develop and manage the marine and coastal environment wisely while protecting the region`s sustainability for future generation. In order to achieve this goal, NOWPAP has focused on the regulation of the land-based sources connected with GPA(the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities). Recently, it has stepped forward to the integrated management of the coastal and marine environment and its resources. NOWPAP has implemented numerous activities focused on the priority programme activities after its establishment, and has set up the institutional and financial arrangements to effectively implement them. Four Regional Activity Centers (RACs) have carried out the establishment of a comprehensive database system and monitoring programme on the marine pollution, development of the regional Oil Spill & HNS Contingency Plan, and marine litter activities. These activities have been successfully implemented by the active participation and cooperation of the NOWPAP members. However, NOWPAP does not adopt the international convention, so it has no legally binding force, and has many tasks to be resolved in the future. This paper aims to analyze the outcome of the activities that NOWPAP has carried out, and to review the tasks necessary for the conservation of the marine environment and the ecological approach and integral management of marine and coastal environment and its resources in the Northwest Pacific region.