1,720,963 research outputs found
Maritime Boundary Delimitation Regime and China’s Position on the Settlement of maritime Disputes in the Northeast Aisa
No full text1982年海洋法公約的生效讓各國重整制定有關海洋的國內法，同時對在海洋法公約被採取的問題，致使各國針對對象海域開啟了當事國之間糾紛的序幕。甚至，海洋法公約的生效就東北亞而言，其間各國對因外交關係而猶豫又敏感的重疊海域，不得不開始進入公開的爭論和達成折衝的實際施行階段。
海洋對各國的意義已不僅是軍事上的，而是包含著更多的經濟、政治、資源等多方面上的利益，因此海域已經成為不可輕易拋棄的對象。中國、台灣、日本、韓國、朝鮮等東北亞國家討論海域劃界問題時，都按照各海域情況和條件主張不同標準和原則的原因，是因為擴大海洋邊界就等於延伸自國經濟地圖擴張之故。然而，除因海域劃界直接涉及到各國經濟利益，而使各國不肯讓渡該地區的主權之外，使海洋劃界問題更為複雜且不易達成協議的原因，就在於1982年UN海洋法公約本身。雖然從國際法委員會至1982年現今海洋法公約，通過過程中明確有所成果和理論上的累積，不過，海洋法本身沒具備海洋劃界爭議解決機制，海洋劃界問題解決還是依賴於各國和國際司法程序的實踐。
被稱為「海洋憲法」的1982年《UN海洋法公約》，對於海洋劃界問題未予以明確的解答，唯一在第74條和第83條規定，即：劃界是在相關國家之間「以協議劃定」、「是在國際法的基礎上」，以達到「公平解決的目的」。綜言之，關於專屬經濟區和大陸架劃界應適用的原則或規則，《公約》的規定十分籠統，對劃界缺乏實質性的指導作用，這在第三次聯合國海洋法會議上就受到一些國家的批評。因為，協議劃界方式必須在「國際法院規約第38條所指國際法的基礎上」進行，而在此所指的國際法是指：（1）當事國明白承認的國際條約；（2）成為通例並被接受為法律的國際習慣；（3）各國承認的一般法律原則，以及（4）司法判例和國際法權威學者的學說，這實際上就是一般承認的國際法淵源；在公約上還提到國際法院規約，對實踐中的適用沒意義。在公約沒有任何條款規定何種方式佔主導地位，相關國家可以選擇任何方法，談判達成協議和解決劃界爭議。如此，海洋法公約相關規定對專屬經濟區和大陸架劃界問題保持抽象的態度，意味著現今1982年《UN海洋法公約》在海洋劃界問題上不得被提示為確實的劃界原則。於是，在現今海洋法制度之下，海洋劃界糾紛解決問題仍然要待透過各國家間對公約之解釋和累積習慣。
邊界衝突往往是並非單純由領土爭端導致的，它本身受多種因素和條件的影響和制約，具有一定的複雜性和不確定性。預測未來中國和周邊國家發生邊境和海域衝突的可能性，需要更多關注那些隱藏在可能衝突或未發生衝突背後的各種因素在特殊歷史條件下所起的作用。目前，中國與周邊鄰國在海域主權方面存在的爭議和分歧有：（1）在黃海北部，中國與朝鮮分別劃定各自的領海、專屬經濟區和大陸架邊界；（2）在黃海南部，中國與韓國進行專屬經濟區和大陸架劃界；（3）在東中國海，中國與韓國和日本進行專屬經濟區和大陸架劃界；（4）在南中國海，中國分別與菲律賓、汶萊、台灣、馬來西亞和印尼進行專屬經濟區和大陸架劃界。可見，中國所面臨的形勢非常嚴峻，除了需在黃海北部進行領海劃界以外，還需分別與9個國家進行專屬經濟區和大陸架劃界，而且在有些海域，必須同時進行3個國家的劃界；有些海域的大陸架和專屬經濟區可適用同樣的原則和方法一併劃界，有些海域情況較為複雜，專屬經濟區和大陸架劃界原則則需要分別考慮。由此可見，中國與周邊國家的劃界，議題相當複雜。
關於黃海，主要涉及與朝鮮和韓國大陸架問題。在東中國海，主要涉及中日兩國之間的釣魚台主權歸屬和大陸架劃界問題，以及中韓日三國之間海域劃界問題。中國和韓國根據該海域大陸架海底區域特殊的地質地理情況，主張採用自然延伸原則，依此主張冲繩海槽成為中國和日本之間大陸架的自然分界線。
就海域劃界問題與東北亞各國利益衝突而言，2000年中國與越南之間締結的《中華人民共和國和越南社會主義共和國關於兩國在北部灣領海專屬經濟區和大陸架的劃界協定》，值得作為東北亞海域劃界問題解決的典範。雙方在北部灣劃界中，設立共同漁區而避免白龍尾島這一敏感的中界島問題，而且中國方面以中間線原則取代一直以來主張的劃界原則，越南方面則不堅持晚清時期的108度線，終於得出海域邊界條約。值得注意的是，雙方於該協定第7條中還規定劃界後的共同開發機制。筆者認為，與其他劃界之前締結的共同開發協定（如1974年韓國和日本締結的大陸架共同開發協定）相比，該協定模式可以適用於黃海和東中國海劃界問題。甚至，據研究報告指出，東中國海和黃海中部水域都有可能蘊藏豐富的資源，且不讓對方進行開發之情況之下，這種作法值得參考，如北部灣協定規定「將任何石油、天然氣單一地質構造或其他礦藏跨越協定所規定的分界線，締約雙方應通過友好協商就該構造或礦藏的最有效開發以及公平分享開發收益達成協議」之例。
鑑於上述動機，本論文主要以「從國際海洋劃界原則和實踐論中國EEZ與大陸架劃界問題：以黃海和東中國海劃界問題為中心」為題線索，先瞭解國際法院和各國在海洋劃界之實踐和習慣，再進一步與中國、韓國和日本對海洋劃界堅持的基本原則進行比對，並據此嘗試提出適合東北亞海洋劃界之解決模式和折衷方案。本研究之目的及預期效益略如下：
（一）瞭解海洋劃界爭端之原因和海洋劃界對各國利益上的意義；（二）剖析海洋劃界法律制度的演變和漏洞 ；（三）深究國際法院和各國家海洋劃界實踐，藉此找出現今海洋劃界原則的主導趨勢和其理論上的比較：（四）分析中國、韓國和日本各國對海洋劃界的政策和原則，以及其理論和政策上的矛盾；（五）東北亞三國（中國、韓國和日本）劃界原則和劃界上的考慮因素，與國際法院和國家習慣之比較，進而嘗試評估適用於三國海洋爭議地區之可行性：（六）綜合上述研究，嘗試提出各國堅持的原則和政策適用於相關海域劃界上的不合理和矛盾，並建議解決方法，包括（1）共同開發；（2）對海域界線周圍一定地區之合作開發；（3）為解決海洋劃界，設立三國共同機構之例。嚴格來講，其中共同開發是不屬於海洋劃界，只是相關國家劃定邊界之前的合作方式而已。因此，共同開發問題不能完全替代劃界問題的界限。相反的，對劃界界線周圍的地區進行合作開發則是指劃界之後的行為。例如，中國和越南在北部灣締結的邊界協定，乃是典型的例子。雖該協定條文上未直接提及「合作開發」一句，但筆者分析相關條文之後，認為此協定雙方出於儘早開發爭議區域內自然資源的目的，而建立起來的某種合作機制。Coastal states are adopting maritime boundary delimitation as their primary maritime policy because maritime jurisdiction directly relates to vast economic interest. This becomes specially important and sensitive when complex maritime boundary issues are involved between neighboring coastal states. China has not actively carried out nor declared maritime boundary delimitation until recently with any country except Agreement between China and Viet Nam on the demarcation of the territorial water, the exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf of China and Viet Nam in the Gulf of Tonkin on 25 December 2000 (hereinafter, the Gulf of Tonkin Agreement).
The principles that governs maritime boundary delimitation are to consider primarily an agreement between States concerned, however, if no agreement can be reached, all relevant circumstances are considered to achieve an equity between concerned States.
Relevant circumstances are length of coastline, form of coastline, existence and position of island or islands, speciality of geology/topography, and factor of economy and defence. Factors which sinologists are considering in regard to continental shelf delimitation of the Yellow Sea are as follows ; i) geographical factor, ii) geological factor, iii) topographical factor, iv) environment and ecological factor, v) historic interest, and vi) social and economic interest. The ‘Gulf of Tonkin Agreement’ is completed by basically applying the principle of delimitation according to median line which seems that China has adopted the maritime boundary delimitation principle of ‘half and half’ which was the intention of Chinese government. At the same time, China recognized Viet Nam’s dominion and sovereign right over the partial exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Dao Bach Long Vi in Gulf of Tonkin. This case can be considered as an example of mutual concession or compromise in delimiting maritime boundary for states of concerned.第一章 緒 論
第一節 海洋劃界問題之所在---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
壹．國際社會與海洋爭奪--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
貳．國際社會之海洋爭端解決努力--------------------------------------------------------------- 1
參．海洋劃界法制之限制與漏洞------------------------------------------------------------------ 4
中國海洋劃界問題與研究動機--------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
壹．爭端發生因素與中國海域爭議之焦點------------------------------------------------------ 5
一．邊境糾紛發生和緩和的主要因素 ---------------------------------------------------------- 5
二．中國與相關國家之海域爭議與焦點--------------------------------------------------------- 7
貳．研究動機------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
第三節 研究目的與範圍---------------------------------------------------------------------------11
壹．研究目的與研究方法--------------------------------------------------------------------------11
一．研究目的-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
二．研究方法-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
貳．研究範圍與架構--------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
一．研究範圍與限制--------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
二．研究架構-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
第四節 研究名詞界定------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
第二章 1982 年海洋法發展與海洋劃界問題之國際法演變
第一節 前言------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28
第二節 1982 年海洋法公約之前的海洋劃界原則---------------------------------------------30
壹．領海劃界原則和實踐之演變-----------------------------------------------------------------31
一．海洋法與領海劃界-----------------------------------------------------------------------------31
二．領海劃界之實踐---------------------------------------------------------------------------------35
貳．國際法委員會與1958 年公約上大陸架劃界----------------------------------------------38
一．國際法委員會與大陸架劃界------------------------------------------------------------------39
二．1958 年GENEVE 公約與海洋劃界----------------------------------------------------------41
參．1969 年北海大陸架案件對海洋劃界之影響 ----------------------------------------------44
一．案件與當事國主張------------------------------------------------------------------------------44
二．法院對1958 年大陸礁層公約第6 條之立場----------------------------------------------46
三．評論與對海洋劃界的影響---------------------------------------------------------------------48
第三節 第三屆海洋法會議與1982 年海洋法公約之海洋劃界原則------------------------50
壹．第三屆海洋法會議與海洋劃界問題---------------------------------------------------------51
一．專屬經濟區概念的出現與法律性質---------------------------------------------------------52
（一）海底委員會------------------------------------------------------------------------------------52
（二）專屬經濟區概念的出現---------------------------------------------------------------------52
二．專屬經濟區與大陸架法律性質---------------------------------------------------------------54
（一）大陸架和專屬經濟區的法律性質---------------------------------------------------------55
（二）大陸架和專屬經濟區劃界單一界線實踐------------------------------------------------58
貳．第三屆海洋法會議與1982 海洋法公約之劃界法制發展-------------------------------61
一．第三屆海洋法會議與海洋劃界原則---------------------------------------------------------62
（一）第一會期和第二會期------------------------------------------------------------------------62
（二）第三會期至第五會期------------------------------------------------------------------------64
（三）第六會期至第九會期------------------------------------------------------------------------66
（四）第九會期續會至第十會期------------------------------------------------------------------69
（五）1982 年海洋法公約--------------------------------------------------------------------------70
二．劃界爭端之解決與保留 ---------------------------------------------------------------------72
三．1982 年海洋法公約意義-----------------------------------------------------------------------74
第四節 小結：海洋劃界法制之完成與漏洞----------------------------------------------------75
第三章 海洋劃界原則在國際法院和國家實踐之地位和適用
第一節 前言 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------79
第二節 1982 年ＵＮ海洋法以前的主要國際案例----------------------------------------------80
壹．北海大陸架案------------------------------------------------------------------------------------81
一、爭議的背景和概況------------------------------------------------------------------------------81
二、當事國的主張------------------------------------------------------------------------------------82
三、判決書的主要內容和法院的立場------------------------------------------------------------83
(一) 西德的份額分配與大陸架權利--------------------------------------------------------------83
(二) 《大陸礁層公約》第6 條與習慣國際法--------------------------------------------------84
(三）公平原則和自然延伸原則 -----------------------------------------------------------------86
四．國際法院的判決和本案之評論 ------------------------------------------------------------87
(一）國際法院之判決與執行----------------------------------------------------------------------87
(二）評論和本案之意義 -------------------------------------------------------------------------88
貳．英國與法國大陸架仲裁案 -----------------------------------------------------------------89
一、主要事實和背景 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------89
二、當事國的主張和法院判決書 ---------------------------------------------------------------90
（一）1958 年《大陸礁層公約》第6 條之保留與法院的判決 -------------------------90
（二）兩國對海峽群島區域劃界之立場與法院判決 --------------------------------------92
（三）海峽西口和大西洋區域的大陸架劃界問題與法院判決-----------------------------95
1. 當事國主張----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------95
2. 法院的判決----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------96
三．劃界原則及其評論-----------------------------------------------------------------------------98
參．突尼西亞和利比亞大陸架劃界案--------------------------------------------------------- 100
一、事實與背景------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100
二、當事國雙方的主張和法院的判決--------------------------------------------------------- 101
（一）自然延伸在劃界上的地位 ------------------------------------------------------------- 101
（二）公平原則和有關情況 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 102
（三）法院在本案件考慮的有關情況 ------------------------------------------------------- 104
（四）判決執行和反對意見 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 107
三．評論 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108
第三節 1982 年聯合國海洋法之後的國際判決案件 -------------------------------------- 109
壹． 美國和加拿大之間緬因灣海域劃界案件 ---------------------------------------------- 110
一、爭議事實與背景 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110
二、當事國主張與劃界原則 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 111
三、法院判決和主要理論 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 113
（一）確定劃界區域 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113
（二）劃界應適用的國際法原則 ------------------------------------------------------------- 114
（三）公平標準和具體劃界方法 ------------------------------------------------------------- 115
（四）單一的海洋劃界和有關情況 ---------------------------------------------------------- 115
四．評論和本案件的意義 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 117
貳． 利比亞和馬耳他之間大陸架劃界案 ---------------------------------------------------- 118
一、爭議與背景 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 118
二、當事國主張和觀點 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 119
三、法院判決與主要內容 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 120
（一）自然延伸原則與劃界上的意義 ------------------------------------------------------ 120
（二）大陸架劃界的公平原則 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 122
四．劃界實用方法與評論 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 123
參． 幾內亞和幾內亞比紹海域劃界仲裁案 ------------------------------------------------- 125
一、爭議事實與背景 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 125
二、當事國主張與爭議焦點 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 127
（一）1886 年條約及其附件的解釋 -------------------------------------------------------- 127
（二）確定兩國海洋界限的方法 ------------------------------------------------------------ 128
三、仲裁裁決及其主要論點 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 129
（一）公平原則與應考慮因素 --------------------------------------------------------------- 129
（二）劃界方法和執行 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 131
四．評論 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 132
肆．丹麥格陵蘭與挪威揚馬延海域劃界案 ------------------------------------------------ 132
一、爭議事實與背景 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 133
二、當事國主張和依據 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134
三、國際法院判決與主要劃界原則 --------------------------------------------------------- 135
（一）1965 年條約和當事國實踐 ----------------------------------------------------------- 135
（二）大陸架和漁區劃界的關係與本案件適用的法律原則 ---------------------------- 136
（三）有關情況和特殊情況之關係與本案應考慮的有關情況 ------------------------- 137
四．對本案件之評論 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 139
伍．卡塔爾和巴林之間的海域劃界和領土問題案件 ------------------------------------ 140
一．事實和背景 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 140
二．當事國主張與法院判決 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 140
三．判決和適用原則 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 147
陸．喀麥隆和尼日利亞陸地和海洋劃界案件 ---------------------------------------------- 148
一．事實與當事國主張 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 148
二．法院判決 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 150
三．判決和適用原則評論 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 156
第四節 主要原則在海洋劃界判例上的地位和發展 ------------------------------------- 157
壹．等距離原則 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 159
一．等距離的含義與形成 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 160
（一）等距離的涵義 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 160
（二）等距離方法的形成 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 160
二．國際和國家實踐和法律確信 ------------------------------------------------------------ 162
（一）等距離/特殊情況在國際實踐中的地位 --------------------------------------------- 162
（二）等距離/特殊情況在國家實踐中的地位 -------------------------------------------- 164
三．等距離原則和公平結果的關係 --------------------------------------------------------- 167
（一）等距離原則和特殊情況的關係 ------------------------------------------------------ 167
（二）等距離原則和公平結果的關係 ------------------------------------------------------ 168
四．等距離/特殊情況原則在海洋劃界實踐中的發展和趨勢 -------------------------- 169
貳．公平原則 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 171
一．公平原則的概念------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 171
二．公平原則的基本規範和適用模式 ------------------------------------------------------- 172
（一）基本規範 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 172
（二）有關情況 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 173
（三）比例方法 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 173
三．公平原則在國際法院上的地位 --------------------------------------------------------- 178
參．有關情況和特殊情況在海洋劃界之異同 --------------------------------------------- 180
一．特殊情況和有關情況概念的形成與解釋 --------------------------------------------- 180
二．特殊情況和有關情況之相關性 --------------------------------------------------------- 181
三．在劃界上的特殊情況和有關情況 ------------------------------------------------------ 182
肆．自然延伸原則 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 184
一．定義 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 184
二．自然延伸在海洋劃界實踐中的適用與地位的變遷 --------------------------------- 184
第五節 小結 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 186
第四章 中國與周邊國家海洋管轄政策與劃界原則
第一節 前言 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 192
第二節 中國和周邊國家之海洋管轄政策與衝突 ---------------------------------------- 194
壹．中國在第三屆海洋法會議上的立場和海洋管轄立法 ------------------------------ 196
一．中國與第三屆海洋法會議 --------------------------------------------------------------- 197
（一）領海寬度與劃界 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 197
（二）專屬經濟區 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 199
（三）大陸架 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 200
（四）大陸架和專屬經濟區劃界 ------------------------------------------------------------ 201
二．中國海洋管轄立法與海洋劃界原則 --------------------------------------------------- 202
貳．韓國海域管轄立法 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 203
一．韓國的領海制度 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 204
二．韓國的專屬經濟區制度 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 204
三．韓國的大陸架制度 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 205
參．日本海洋管轄立法 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 206
一．日本的領海制度 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 207
二．日本的專屬經濟區制度 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 209
三．日本的大陸架制度 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 212
肆．朝鮮海洋管轄立法 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 213
一．領海制度與寬度 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 213
二．大陸架和專屬經濟區主張 --------------------------------------------------------------- 214
三．軍事警戒區 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 215
第三節 東北亞各國之間雙邊條約 ---------------------------------------------------------- 216
壹．韓國和日本大陸架共同開發協定 ------------------------------------------------------ 216
一．大陸架共同開發協定締結的背景 ------------------------------------------------------ 216
二．大陸架協定內容 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 219
三．協定的法的性質 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 220
四．與漁業協定之關係和大陸架協定評價 ------------------------------------------------ 221
貳．中韓日漁業協助體制與爭議 ------------------------------------------------------------ 222
一．各國漁業協定的背景和現狀 ------------------------------------------------------------ 222
二．三國漁業協定之內容和特徵 ------------------------------------------------------------ 224
（一）韓國和日本漁業協定架構和特徵 --------------------------------------------------- 224
1. 1965 年韓日漁業協定和界限 -------------------------------------------------------------- 224
2. 1998 年韓日漁業協定架構和內容 -------------------------------------------------------- 226
3. 中間水域之設定和法的性格 -------------------------------------------------------------- 227
（二）韓國和中國漁業協定架構和特徵 --------------------------------------------------- 231
（三）中國和日本漁業協定架構和特徵 --------------------------------------------------- 234
三．三國漁業協定之法的性格和比較 ------------------------------------------------------ 237
（一）漁業協定的法的性格 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 237
（二）三國漁業協定比較 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 238
四．漁業協定之界限與管理協助 ------------------------------------------------------------ 240
第四節 中國、韓國、日本的直線基線爭議 ------------------------------------------------ 242
壹．海洋法公約與基線制度 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 243
一．1982 年海洋法公約與基線制度 -------------------------------------------------------- 243
二．直線基線與適用條件 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 244
（一）例外性制度 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 244
（二）設定條件和方法 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 245
（三）直線基線的長度 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 248
貳．各國直線基線實踐與國際案例 --------------------------------------------------------- 248
一．國際法院與1951 年漁業權案 ---------------------------------------------------------- 248
二．國家實踐和直線基線濫用之例 --------------------------------------------------------- 250
（一）違反複雜海岸線之條件 ------------------------------------------------------------- 250
（二）違反島嶼之接近條件 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 251
（三）違反海灣條件 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 252
三．United States v. Alaska 一案判決與其意涵 ------------------------------------------- 253
（一）事實和爭議 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 253
（二）最高法院判決和分析 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 255
1. 直線基線政策 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 255
2. 沙洲是否島嶼 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 257
（三）本案對直線基線劃法之涵義 --------------------------------------------------------- 258
中國、韓國、日本直線基線與爭議 --------------------------------------------------------- 259
一．中國的直線基線 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 259
（一）中國直線基線宣布歷程 --------
환황해 해양경제협력과 자원개발
No full text반폐쇄해인 황해를 둘러싼 한국과 중국, 그리고 북한은 지역해 환경보전과 자원관리라는 강한 생존적 협력 수요에 직면해 있다. 그러나 동북아를 둘러싼 정치 및 군사안보, 지역패권 확보 등의 구조적 갈등 요소는 황해지역을 기반으로 하는 국가 간 협력을 어렵게 하는 요인으로 작용하고 있다. 물론 황해를 둘러싼 정치 구조적 장애요인도 있다. 한국과 북한의 장기적 갈등과 지역해 패권확보를 위한 강대국 간의 대립 역시 환황해의 안정적 협력 체계의 정착을 어렵게 한다.
그러나 황해는 전통적으로 국가 간 협력보다 지역민의 교류와 생활공간으로 먼저 활용되었다. 국가경제와 정치적 이해가 협력과 갈등을 결정하는 우선적 조건으로 작용하는 긴장구도에도 불구하고, 여전히 황해는‘지역해 거주민의 생존권’을 중심으로 결정되어야 하는 이유이다. 따라서 역내의 높은 경제적 의존에도 불구하고 군사적 경쟁과 상호 위협은 높아가는 이른바“Asia Paradox”라는 환경적 한계의 극복을 위해서도 새로운 조정력 혹은 협력체계의 정착이 필요한 때다.
환황해 해양발전논단은 국가 간 협력의 즉각적 이행을 의도하지 않는다. 연구영역에서의 학술적 교류와 이해를 바탕으로 황해지역의 점진적 협력확대와 지속가능한 이용을 도모하는데 있다. 협력이 가능한 영역과 불가한 영역을 제한하지도 않을 것이다. 지역해 거주민의 생존권이 경성적 이슈(hard issue)와 연성적 이슈(soft issue)를 구분하며 다가오지는 않기 때문이다. 우리는 황해로 쏟아지는 행위가 주권(主權)의 모습이건, 혹은 국가별 핵심이익(核心利益)의 모습이건 모두 거주민의 생존권에 관한 문제라는 것과 국가 간 갈등의 모든 요소에는 반드시 학술적 영역을 매개로 하는 문제해결 방식이 분명히 존재한다는 것을 믿는다. 황해를 매개로 하는 모든 국가 정책 역시 타당하고 정당한 이유에 기반 한다는 것 역시 이해한다.
환황해 해양발전논단은 한국해양과학기술원 해양정책연구소(소장: 양희철)가 주최/주관하여 2016년 12월 12일 중국 청도에서 처음 개최되었다. 환황해 해양발전논단에서 참여자들은 연구성과의 우수성을 서로 공유하고, 국가간 갈등 요소에 대하여는 바람직한 해결방향과 정책적 제언을 모색할 것이다. 해양환경, 해양자원(수산, 광물), 해양공간계획, 신재생에너지, 기후변화, 해양재난, 원자력안전, 해양질병 등 모든 영역에서 정보교류와 연구협력 기반을 구축할 것이며, 황해에서 전개되는 모든 국가정책과 인간활동에 대한 이해를 제고하려고 노력할 것이다. 국가별 해양수산 정책의 소개와 최근 영역별 연구현황 및 문제점, 국가 간 우위에 있는 연구동향과 접근방법, 한계 등에 대한 자발적 협력은 환황해 해양발전논단을 더욱 지혜로운 플랫폼으로 확대하는 기반이 될 것이다. 환황해 해양발전논단에서는 특히 북한의 참여를 지속적으로 유도할 것이며, 해양수산 영역에서 북한의 제도적 관리체계 구축과 발전, 지역해 연구 정보와 기술적 성과 확산을 위해서도 노력할 것이다.
환황해 해양발전논단의 참석자들의 모습 또한 이러한 취지와 기대에서 벗어나지 않았다. 더할 수 없는 참석자들의 적극성과 의지에 감사의 마음을 전한다.
환황해 해양발전논단에 참여하신 모든 전문가를 대표하여 양희철1. 북한의 경제변화 및 전망............................................................1
2. 중국 두만강경제구와 북한 경제협력에 관한 연구................ 19
3. 중국의 해양전략과 길림성 동북아 해상협력에 관한 고찰.... 41
4. 북한의 해양자원개발연구 동태................................................. 65
5. 중국 황해해역 해양에너지 개발 현황 및 발전전망.................75
6. 황해분지 지질구조 및 석유자원 개발에 관한 연구................107
7. 북황해 수산업의 지속가능한 발전을 위한 새로운 메커니즘.145
8. 황해지역 수산자원 보존에 관한 법적쟁점 고찰.................... 165
9. 북황해 해조장(海藻場) 조성 기술에 대한 연구 및 응용...... 18
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Common Currents : Examining How We Manage the Ocean Commons
No full textThe world’s oceans are both vast and mysterious.1 They cover over 70 percent of the planet, and hold roughly 97 percent of its water. Measured by volume, they provide 99 percent of the living space on the planet. It is estimated that they remain more than 80 percent unexplored, unmapped, and indeed unknown, and it is commonly accepted that although we have identified several hundred thousand marine species, that represents only a small proportion of the ocean’s biodiversity. The oceans provide humanity with a staggering array of goods and services. They furnish protein to feed us, medicines to keep us healthy, shipping routes to connect us, fuel to power our cities, protection for our vulnerable coastal settlements, recreational opportunities to delight us, and wonders to inspire us. For centuries, human ability to exploit ocean goods and services was limited to resources near shore and near the surface. In the last hundred years or so, however, technological advances have given us the ability to access and control distant and deep ocean resources. But the ocean also faces the triple threats posed by climate change, extraction, and pollution. Greenhouse gas emissions cause both direct and indirect problems for ocean systems. The oceans have absorbed as much as 40% of the anthropogenic carbon emissions since the late 1800s. That absorptive capacity has helped at least temporarily buffer the globe against temperature increases, but at the cost of significant increases in ocean acidity, which disrupt ocean ecosystems.Rising global temperatures also affect the oceans, causing fish species to change their range, bleaching corals, reducing dissolved oxygen, and intensifying harmful algal blooms. Climate change is a dire threat, but hardly the only anthropogenic problem ocean systems face. Human populations extract numerous resources from the ocean, from fish to marine genetic resources and from oil and gas to rare minerals, often in unsustainable or ecologically harmful ways. And we emit staggering quantities of pollution into the marine environment, from land-based plastics that have formed a gyre of marine debris in the Pacific to a steady flow of chemicals, medications, and more channeled through local wastewater systems.The range of current threats introduces new dimensions to an old dilemma: ocean governance. Governance of the oceans has long been a delicate balancing act between those wishing to exert individualized control over ocean resources and those who see the world’s oceans as the paradigmatic shared resource. The oceans cannot be fenced. Pollution does not stay contained where it enters the seas. Highly migratory fish and mammals travel thousands of miles, without regard to jurisdictional boundaries
- …
