지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In the East Timor(Portugal v. Australia) case, as the ICJ rejected the arguments of the plaintiff, Portugal, due to the fact that if the ICJ deals with the case, it would touch upon the rights and duties of Indonesia without its consent, the ICJ does not have chance to deal with the merit of the case which includes the issue of self-determination. However, the Court may be subject to criticism for its failure to consider the most important third party and the people of East Timor. Australia had an international obligation to respect the rights of the East Timorese to self-determination regardless of anything Indonesia had done. The East Timorese continue to hold their right to self-determination under the U.N. Charter and customary international law, as well as recompense for their misappropriated natural resources. The U.N. and its member states should protect these interests as provided by the trusteeship system enshrined in the U.N. Charter. When the people of East Timor have the opportunity to freely decide their status under the conditions prescribed by the Charter, only then will they have effectively exercised their right of self-determination.
Australia’s recognition of Indonesia as the sovereign power over East Timor may well be illegal vis-a-vis Portugal. Even if this was not so, however, Australia’s lone recognition of Indonesia’s sovereignty status contrary to resolutions of the United Nations indicates that such recognition is a violation of its obligations erga omnes. This is attributable to the increasing role the international organization plays in international law. Third parties, especially U.N. member states, have an obligation to respect and act in accordance with U.N. General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions. The terms of the resolution determine its binding nature. Thus, when the Security Council declared Indonesia’s actions in respect to their intervention in East Timor as illegal, Australia, as well as other U.N. member states possessed an obligation to comply and respect that Resolution. This obligation entails refraining from entering into agreements with the wrongdoer State regarding the subject-matter of the illegal act. Australia and U.N. member states thus incur international responsibility to recognize Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor and to refrain from lending support or assistance to Indonesia. Likewise, Indonesia, being responsible for creating and maintaining a situation that the U.N. deems illegal, has an obligation to put an end to the situation. While the illegal situation continues, Indonesia and Australia remain accountable for any violations of their international obligations.
Australia’s recognition of Indonesia as the sovereign power over East Timor may well be illegal vis-a-vis Portugal. Even if this was not so, however, Australia’s lone recognition of Indonesia’s sovereignty status contrary to resolutions of the United Nations indicates that such recognition is a violation of its obligations erga omnes. This is attributable to the increasing role the international organization plays in international law. Third parties, especially U.N. member states, have an obligation to respect and act in accordance with U.N. General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions. The terms of the resolution determine its binding nature. Thus, when the Security Council declared Indonesia’s actions in respect to their intervention in East Timor as illegal, Australia, as well as other U.N. member states possessed an obligation to comply and respect that Resolution. This obligation entails refraining from entering into agreements with the wrongdoer State regarding the subject-matter of the illegal act. Australia and U.N. member states thus incur international responsibility to recognize Indonesia’s illegal occupation of East Timor and to refrain from lending support or assistance to Indonesia. Likewise, Indonesia, being responsible for creating and maintaining a situation that the U.N. deems illegal, has an obligation to put an end to the situation. While the illegal situation continues, Indonesia and Australia remain accountable for any violations of their international obligations.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 사건의 개요 및 판결요지
Ⅲ. 판결에 대한 비판적 고찰
Ⅳ. 결론
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
호주와 동티모르 간의 티모르해 분쟁의 전개 - 한일 간의 동중국해 해양경계획정에의 함의 -
고려법학
2015 .01
-
동티모르의 국제관계: 다변화 시도
아시아연구
2009 .09
-
Conflict Transformation and State Interests : U.S. Foreign Policy in East Timor
OUGHTOPIA
2010 .12
-
국제법상 대세적 의무에 관한 연구
일감법학
2018 .01
-
Teaching and Research in International Law in Indonesia
국제법학회논총
1984 .12
-
The Population of Indonesia
人口問題論集
1979 .12
-
Is Australia an East Asian Country ?
한국정부학회 학술발표논문집
2001 .12
-
Teaching and Research in International Law in Australia
국제법학회논총
1984 .12
-
국제법상 對世的 義務 위반에 대한 ICJ 제소의 原告適格
홍익법학
2018 .01
-
국제법상 인권보호 의무의 대세적 성질
국제법학회논총
2014 .12
-
인도네시아와 중국의 관계 정상화 요인 분석
동남아연구
2010 .01
-
Slaughterhouse Diplomacy : Australia’s Beef With Indonesia
Global Asia
2011 .06
-
Indonesia's Security Concerns and Responses
아세아연구
1984 .07
-
國際法上 對世的 權利ㆍ義務의 確立
국제법학회논총
2002 .12
-
국민의 의무이행을 확보하기 위한 입법론적 연구
유럽헌법연구
2019 .01
-
濠洲의 通商政策과 韓ㆍ濠通商協力
무역학회지
1999 .10
-
국제강행규범과 대세적 효력 원칙 개념의 비교
중앙법학
2011 .09
-
Indonesia’s Papua : A Land of Violated Rights
Journal of Multicultural Society : OMNES
2012 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
국제법상 인권보호 의무의 대세적 성질
김석현
국제법학회논총
2014
.12
국제인도법상 Erga omnes의 고찰 : 어떠한 경우에도 국제인도법의 존중을 보장할 의무의 성격을 중심으로
최은범
,
박지현
인도법논총
2007
.09
한반도의 분단체제와 그 극복
김용해
사회와 철학
2012
.04
UN 안전보장이사회 결의와 국제법상의 강행규범 : 이라크 재건 과정을 중심으로
박정원
한양법학
2009
.05
Conflict Transformation and State Interests : U.S. Foreign Policy in East Timor
Kwang Ho Chun
OUGHTOPIA
2010
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000706107