UN의 분쟁해결제도와 ICJ의 역할

The Role of the ICJ in the Settlement of Disputes by the UN: Some Implications of the Corfu Channel Case for Korea

This paper aims at showing that the Corfu Channel case brought before the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the UN, has some indirect implications for Korea. Albania’s declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ for the Corfu Channel case in accordance with Security Council Resolution 9 (1946) was followed by Japan’s general declaration in 1951. In 1954, Japan tried to get a Security Council resolution by which the Council would recommend Korea and Japan to refer the alleged Liancourt Rocks dispute to the ICJ, as the Council recommended Albania and the U.K. to refer the Corfu Channel case to the ICJ by its Resolution 22 (1947) under Article 36, paragraph 3, of the UN Charter. A Security Council resolution, however, could not confer compulsory jurisdiction on the ICJ, as stated in the Aerial Incident of 1999 case. Evidential issues raised and decided in the Corfu Channel case, such as proof by circumstantial evidence, would also likely be invoked in similar cases.