領土ㆍ海洋境界 분쟁과 地圖ㆍ海圖의 證據 地位ㆍ價値 = 독도 관련 地圖ㆍ海圖의 法ㆍ政策ㆍ外交를 중심으로

국문 초록 (Abstract)

도서 영유권 분쟁 또는 국경/해양경계(대륙붕ㆍEEZ 등) 분쟁 관련 국제재판에서 지도ㆍ해도가 증거능력을 인정받기 위해서는 국가의 감독하에 국가의 의사를 반영하여 분쟁당사국이 간행한 공인지도로서 그 객관성ㆍ중립성ㆍ정확성이 입증되어야 한다. 국제판결은 조약ㆍ공식 문서의 본문에 부속ㆍ편입된 認證地圖ㆍ海圖의 경우에는 문서증거와 동등한 1차적 증거로서의 證據能力과 證明力을 인정한다. 例示목적의 지도ㆍ해도 또는 공인/비공인 단독 지도ㆍ해도에는 조약ㆍ문서 증거를 보조하는 2차적 증거로서의 지위를 인정한다. 또 오류 있는 지도라고 하여 그 증거능력 자체가 부정되는 것만은 아니다. 이 경우 국제재판소는 통상 객관성과 정확성이 인정되는 다른 지도들과 비교하여 추론하기 때문이다. 국제판결은 지도ㆍ해도의 증거능력과 증명력의 요건으로 구체적 축척을 규정하지는 않으나, 소축척 지도는 그 정밀성의 한계로 인하여 증거능력이 부인되는 경향이 있다.
영유권 분쟁 또는 국경/해양경계 관련 국제사법쟁송에서 승소가능성은 결국 ‘상대적으로 우월한’ 권원의 증거를 가진 쪽에 있다. 특히 지도ㆍ해도가 문서증거, 정황증거나 국가실행(묵인 등)과 결함하는 경우 시너지효과를 발휘하여 권원을 강화한다. 무엇보다도 지도?해도는 시각적 효과로 인해 국제재판과정에서 재판관들의 심증형성에 중요한 역할과 기능을 행사한다. 지도ㆍ해도는 그 성격상 地理的ㆍ政治的 事實과 情報를 표시하는 圖面일 뿐만 아니라, 權利變動을 가져오는 法律事實을 기재하는 증거로서의 가치를 지닌 資料 (cartographic evidence or material)이다. 이러한 지도ㆍ해도의 증거로서의 자격과 가치에 관한 국제 판결에 비추어, 독도 관련 고지도들의 가치를 평가ㆍ분류할 필요가 있다. 아울러 「측량법」과 「수로업무법」등 관련 국내법에 지도ㆍ해도 간행의 법적 요건ㆍ절차와 책임을 강화함과 동시에, 지도 전문가를 양성하는 지도정책을 수립하여 국익에 반하는 영유권 귀속 주체ㆍ지명을 표시한 제3국 정부ㆍ민간 간행 세계지도에 지속적으로 이의를 제기하여 수정을 요구하는 적극적 ‘지도외교’(국가실행)가 절실하다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In international litigation of territorial, frontier and/or maritime boundary disputes, international courts and arbitral tribunals, confronted always with a sticky situation of conflicting or even diametrically opposed contentions, have relied for primary evidence on treaties binding upon the parties, and/or diplomatic and official records to determine legal title to territory. At the same time, international jurisprudence has gradually mitigated its previous adamant position to pronounce that a map, when satisfying certain conditions such as accuracy, impartiality and cogency, is well qualified as primary and secondary evidence.
This means that a map is no longer simply a drawing or printing of geographical facts, data and information intended to describe on a certain scale geographic and geomorphic features (topography, configuration, contours, etc.) of the lands, frontiers, mountains, rivers, lakes, coasts and islands. Maps are now taken as constituting a separate category of documentary evidence establishing territorial sovereignty, frontier lines or even maritime boundaries. Maps are thus now regarded as representing political and legal(dispositive) facts and embodying the intentions of the contending parties.
Initially, admissibility of cartographic evidence was ruled out, except for certified or authenticated maps annexed to, incorporated into and identified explicitly in the texts of treaties or official documents. This may explain why in its 2002 Decision Regarding Delimitation of the Border, the five-member Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission made an express mention that it would produce a final demarcation map of the whole boundary on a scale of 1: 25,000 after the Decision and that it would be definitive. The final map would thus be accorded the standing of a certified map in any further future boundary disputes.
This express reference immediately reminds one of the 1962 Temple of Preah Vihear case, where the International Court of Justice(ICJ) confirmed that the frontier map at issue had never been formally approved by the first Mixed Commission of Delimitation of the frontiers as such, since it had ceased to function prior to the production of the map. Nevertheless, after having sifted through various documents leading to the publication of the map, the ICJ ruled that although the map had lacked a legally binding character in its inception and at the time of its production, it was thus subsequently invested with an official standing.
The grounds given were that the map had been produced by the French Government officers and printed and published by a French cartographic firm of repute in response to a request from the Siamese authorities(p.21). The Court's interpretation and reasoning appear to have been based on the conclusion that the production and publication of the map had been mandated by the first and second Mixed Commission of Delimitation. It is, however, not clear whether the Court accorded the frontier map the status of a certified map or simply that of an officially produced independent map.
It was not until 1986 that the ICJ in the Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, faced with an embarrassing situation of no firm documentary evidence, went to great lengths to accept as admissible a semi-official, independent map produced by an independent institute of France, a third country, and to declare as decisive its probative value. This group of independently produced maps, whether official or unofficial, had long been consigned to evidential obscurity. The ICJ in this case did not make any distinction between general and sketch maps in terms of their admissibility and probative force(paras.94-95 & 155).
International judgments on territorial and/or boundary disputes have increasingly included in their respective texts a panoply of sketch maps(croquis), normally appending an explanatory statement that “this map is produced for illustrative purposes only“. Such a statement is i

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서언
• Ⅱ. 인증ㆍ예시 지도, 해도와 약도
• Ⅲ. 지도ㆍ해도의 법적 지위ㆍ가치
• Ⅳ. 지도ㆍ해도의 객관성ㆍ정밀성ㆍ정확성과 오류
• Ⅴ. 지도와 시제법
• Ⅵ. 地圖ㆍ海圖의 過去ㆍ現在와 未來
• Ⅶ. 결어
• 국문초록
• ABSTRACT

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 백충현, "영토분쟁의 해결방식과 증거" 23 (23): 17-18, 1982

2 신각수, "영토분쟁에 있어서 지도의 증거력--국제판례를 중심으로" 26 (26): 109-110, 1981

3 박현진, "세계화, 법학전문대학원과 법학연구·교육의 방향·방법론: 국제 '보통법'으로서의 영미법과 법률영어의 체계적 심층탐구를 옹호·제창하며" 법조협회 56 (56): 277-316, 2007

4 "사이버 독도"

5 이은성, "백년전에 온 사람" 92-100, 1984

6 "매일신문"

7 김병렬, "독도：독도자료총람" 서울：다다미디어 530-531, 1998

8 한국아이닷컴, "독도주변 해저지명 10곳 국제기구 등재"

9 신용하, "독도의 민족영토사 연구" 서울：지식산업사 42-317, 1996

10 신각수, "국경분쟁의 국제법적 해결에 관한 연구" 서울대 1991

11 송병기, "고쳐 쓴 울릉도와 독도" 서울：단국대 출판부 82-83, 2005

12 吉川弘文館 編輯部(編), "近代史必携" 동경：吉川弘文館 100 -160, 2007

13 나이토 세이츄(內藤正中), "竹島渡海免許를 둘러싼 문제" I : 91-98, 2005

14 박현진, "獨島 領有權과 地圖海圖의 證據能力證明力" 대한국제법학회 52 (52): 89-128, 2007

15 "US National Committee for the International Cartographic Association"

16 "US Geological Survey,Department of the Interior"

17 "US Coast & Geodetic Survey,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,US Department of Commerce"

18 "UN cartographer to plot disputed Shaba Farms' border boundaries"

19 "U.S.National Mapping and Imagery Agency"

20 U.S. Department of State, "U.S. Responses to Excessive National Maritime Claims" (112) :

21 B. Sibbett, "Tokdo or Takeshima? The Territorial Dispute between Japan and the Republic of Korea" 21 : -1606, 1998

22 R.D. Hodgson, "The Technical Delimitation of a Modern Equidistant Boundary" 3 : 361-377, 1976

23 L.A. Brown, "The Story of Maps" N.Y.：Dover Publications 180 -239, 1977

24 P.C. Jessup, "The Palmas Island Arbitration" 22 : -735, 1928

25 S. Akweenda, "The Legal Significance of Maps in Boundary Questions：A Reappraisal with Particular Emphasis on Namibia" 60 : 205-252, 1989

26 B. Kwiatkowska, "The Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration：Landmark Progress in the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty and Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation" 32 : 2001

27 "The Cartography Office,Department of Geography and Program in Planning"

28 I. Brownlie, "Principles of Public International Law" Oxford University Press 4-23, 2003

29 "National Geographic Society"

30 "National Cartography and Geospatial Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture"

31 "National Aeronautical Charting Office：NACO,Federal Aviation Administration"

32 G. Weissberg, "Maps as Evidence in International Boundary Disputes：A Reappraisal" 57 : 781-787, 1963

33 C.C. Hyde, "Maps as Evidence in International Boundary Disputes" 27 : -311, 1933

34 F. Münch, "Maps" 3 : -287, 1997

35 J.I. Charney, "Internatinal Maritime Boundaries" Dordrecht：Marinus Nijhoff 1747-1752, 1993

36 "DoD News Briefing：Agreement to Commercialize Government Funded Technology"

37 "."

38 "."

39 "."

40 "."

41 "."

42 "."

43 "."

44 "."

45 "."

46 "."

47 "."

48 "."

49 "."

50 "."

51 "."