The Spratly Islands dispute is an ongoing territorial dispute between China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei, concerning territorial sovereignty over the Spratly Islands. This conflicting territorial claim between these coastal parties is raising tensions in Asia, so the settlement of this dispute is of key importance for a peaceful atmosphere in the area. The dispute is also significant in respect of being an international geo-strategic, economic, political and legal matter. After a 1988 armed conflict between Vietnamese and Chinese forces, the claimants have looked for approaches to solve the conflict peacefully through different informal endeavors, but due to the complexity of the dispute there are a number of barriers to reaching a permanent settlement. This study puts forward some potential approaches for resolving the dispute, considering its complex nature, by evaluating the six parties’ competing claims and analyzing the legal soundness of their claims.

This note aims to explore the Taiwanese position before and after the Permanent Court of Arbitration Award regarding the South China Sea dispute. The findings suggest that the new Taiwanese Authority, led by Tsai Ing-Wen, has taken a slightly different approach toward the South China Sea, compared to Ma Ying-Jeou’s administration. The new Taiwanese Authority makes no comment on the eleven-dash line claim, which, in turn, implies that its approach is closer to that of the American orientation. It is suggested that the South China Sea Peace Initiative, proposed by Ma Ying- Jeou’s administration, should be followed by Tsai’s administration. In addition, the recognition of the 1992 Consensus by Tsai’s administration will encourage mainland China to consider Taiwan as one of the key players in future South China Sea negotiations.

The Philippine claim to Bajo de Masinloc, otherwise referred to as Scarborough Shoal, finds solid basis in international law. The territorial claim of the Philippines over Bajo de Masinloc is strong relative to the claim of China as well as with respect to the principles on the acquisition of territory in international law, in particular, on the basis of effective occupation. The sovereign rights and jurisdiction asserted by the Philippines over the maritime entitlements of the features in Bajo de Masinloc are founded on principles of international law and consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which both the Philippines and China have signed and ratified. This paper aims to examine the Philippine claim over Bajo de Masinloc particularly focusing on the 2012 standoff between the Philippines and China and the arbitration case filed by the Philippines against China over the West Philippine Sea.

Although China and Vietnam are involved in both territorial and boundary disputes in the South China Sea, at present, managing the territorial dispute over the Spratly Islands is more significant than anything else. Analysis of the dispute based on international law, particularly on the ICJ case law, may help the two sides to manage their dispute in a new perspective and generate political willingness to negotiate the joint development area instead of the sovereignty over the islands. China’s policy that the joint development area around the disputed islands is negotiable is quite a positive signal for peace in the South China Sea and provides a practical basis for new negotiations between China and Vietnam.

국제재판에서의 ‘궐석재판(闕席裁判)’이란 ‘재판소에 출석하지 않거나 출석하지 않은 경우를 말하는데, 국제재판소의 궐석재판제도 및 궐석재판의 국제사례에서 나타난 주요한 특징은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 궐석재판은 동 분쟁사건에 대하여 재판소가 ‘재판관할권’이 있음을 전제로 한다.1) 둘째, 강제관할권 수락선언이나 유보, 선택선언이나 배제선언은 그 자체가 지니는 법적 효력을 가지만, 그것이 본질적으로 ‘협약의 해석 및 적용에 관한 분쟁’에 해당되는 경우에는 동 협약에 의한 분쟁의 강제적 해결절차가 그대로 적용된다. 셋째, 궐석재판에서의 판결(결정 혹은 판정)은 ‘사실과 법’에 근거하여 내려져야 한다. 넷째, 궐석재판의 경우에도 재판절차는 공정성을 확보하며 비용효율적으로 재판을 진행하여야 한다. 이와 같은 국제재판의 궐석제도 및 국제판례가 지니는 주요한 법적 함의 및 독도와 관련하여 가지는 시사점은 다음과 같이 정리할 수 있다. 첫째, 국제재판의 궐석재판은 재판관할권이 성립되는 것을 전제로 하는 것이며, 재판관 할권이 인정되지 않는 경우에는 궐석재판의 재판기준 및 재판절차의 공정성 등은 이를 거론할 가치가 없을 것이다. 둘째, 독도영유권의 귀속에 관한 문제를 일본이 일방적으로 국제재판소에 제소하는 경우에도 우리나라가 그러한 제소에 응하지 않는 경우에는 어떠한 경우에도 동 제소에 관한 재판관할권이 인정되지 않을 것이다. 셋째, 일본이 일방적으로 영유권귀속의 문제를 청구하는 경우에도 강제적 관할권의 수락선언이나 배제선언의 법적 효력에 의하여 재판관할권이 성립되지 않을 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 최근 국제사회의 움직임, 남국중해 해양분쟁에 관한 국제중재재판 이 주는 시사점을 고려하여 우리나라 독도정책의 수립 및 시행을 전면적으로 새로이 검토 해야 한다고 본다.