南海仲裁裁决之法律谬误分析——历史性权利与岩礁认定
|
摘要
南海仲裁裁决错误解释《联合国海洋法公约》与历史性权利的关系,在岩礁认定方面也存在诸多法律谬误。第一,历史性权利源于国际习惯法,不应根据《公约》的规定来解读和切割。南海仲裁裁决依据《公约》否定中国在南海主张的历史性权利,适用法律错误。第二,南海仲裁裁决认为中国在南海主张的历史性权利否定了菲律宾享有专属经济区的权利。这客观上涉及中菲海洋划界问题。依据《公约》第298条,仲裁法庭对海洋划界争端不具有管辖权。第三,仲裁法庭曲解《公约》第121条第3款,提高了完全权利岛屿的认定标准,将中国南沙各岛均认定为岩礁,不能拥有专属经济区和大陆架。此外,在论证过程中,仲裁裁决逻辑上存在诸多矛盾。中方应运用缜密的法律分析手段为自身"不接受、不参与、不承认、不执行"南海仲裁的立场寻求国际法上的落脚点,并积极推动对《公约》强制仲裁制度的体制性改革。
The Award of the South China Sea Arbitration was issued on 12,July,2016.The Award has a lot of legal arbitration fallacies in the identification of historic rights and rocks as well as other serious flaws on many legal issues.(1)Historic rights of China in the South China Sea are deeply rooted in international customary law and should not be interpreted and modified according to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea.The Award of the South China Sea Arbitration denies China's claims to historic rights within the South China Sea on the basis of the wrong interpretation of the article 298(1)a(i)and the article 311 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea.This is a mistake in applying articles of UNCLOS.(2)The Award of the South China Sea Arbitration considers that China's relevant rights comprise a claim to historic rights to living and non-living resources within the Nine-Dash Line.The United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea does not include any express provisions preserving or protecting historic rights which are at variance with the Convention.The Tribunal considers the text and context of UNCLOS to be clear in superseding any historic rights that a state may once have had in the area that now forms part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of another state.Furthermore,the Tribunal considers that the Convention is clear in according sovereign rights to the living and non-living resources of the exclusive economic zone to the coastal state alone.For China's relevant rights comprise a claim to historic rights to living and non-living resources within the Nine Dash Lines,partially in areas that would otherwise comprise the exclusive economic zone or continental shelf of the Philippines.The Tribunal cannot agree with this position.Obviously and objectively,the Tribunal takes step intothe situation of involvement in the maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines.But according to article 298(1)of UNCLOS,the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the disputes concerning maritime delimitation.(3)Although the historical records have shown that some fishermen had been living on features of Nansha,China,the Tribunal considers that it cannot be considered to form a settled community on Spratly Islands because there was no description of conditions on the features suggesting that the population intended to reside permanently among the islands.Furthermore,commercial activities over these features comprise of mining and fishing which are centered on the sea areas adjacent to the feature and belonging to natural harvest,using offshore resources instead of features themselves.Distant fishermen exploited the territorial seas surrounding a small rock and made no use of the feature itself.However,they would not suffice to give the feature an economic life of its own.Nor would an enterprise be devoted to extracting the mineral resources of the seabed adjacent to such a feature and making no use of the feature itself.None of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands is capable of sustaining human habitation or an economic life of their own.Such features are rocks and shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.Thus,the Tribunal wrongfully interprets and applies the article 121(3)of UNCLOS,adding a new subjective element into the phrase of″human habitation″.Eventually,the Tribunal judges whether marine features have the ability to maintain human habitation or their own economic activities by″if there exited a stable community in history″.Moreover,there exist many logical doubts in the Award.(4)As a response,China should reveal the illegality of Award by issuing government white papers and research reports with careful legal analysis of the South China Sea Award developed by independent institutions.At the same time,it should actively promote re-examining the position of Annex Ⅶ in UNCLOS by the international society,seeking to modify the compulsory arbitration framework in AnnexⅦand play an important role in making UNCLOS more perfect.
The Award of the South China Sea Arbitration was issued on 12,July,2016.The Award has a lot of legal arbitration fallacies in the identification of historic rights and rocks as well as other serious flaws on many legal issues.(1)Historic rights of China in the South China Sea are deeply rooted in international customary law and should not be interpreted and modified according to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea.The Award of the South China Sea Arbitration denies China's claims to historic rights within the South China Sea on the basis of the wrong interpretation of the article 298(1)a(i)and the article 311 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea.This is a mistake in applying articles of UNCLOS.(2)The Award of the South China Sea Arbitration considers that China's relevant rights comprise a claim to historic rights to living and non-living resources within the Nine-Dash Line.The United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea does not include any express provisions preserving or protecting historic rights which are at variance with the Convention.The Tribunal considers the text and context of UNCLOS to be clear in superseding any historic rights that a state may once have had in the area that now forms part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of another state.Furthermore,the Tribunal considers that the Convention is clear in according sovereign rights to the living and non-living resources of the exclusive economic zone to the coastal state alone.For China's relevant rights comprise a claim to historic rights to living and non-living resources within the Nine Dash Lines,partially in areas that would otherwise comprise the exclusive economic zone or continental shelf of the Philippines.The Tribunal cannot agree with this position.Obviously and objectively,the Tribunal takes step intothe situation of involvement in the maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines.But according to article 298(1)of UNCLOS,the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the disputes concerning maritime delimitation.(3)Although the historical records have shown that some fishermen had been living on features of Nansha,China,the Tribunal considers that it cannot be considered to form a settled community on Spratly Islands because there was no description of conditions on the features suggesting that the population intended to reside permanently among the islands.Furthermore,commercial activities over these features comprise of mining and fishing which are centered on the sea areas adjacent to the feature and belonging to natural harvest,using offshore resources instead of features themselves.Distant fishermen exploited the territorial seas surrounding a small rock and made no use of the feature itself.However,they would not suffice to give the feature an economic life of its own.Nor would an enterprise be devoted to extracting the mineral resources of the seabed adjacent to such a feature and making no use of the feature itself.None of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands is capable of sustaining human habitation or an economic life of their own.Such features are rocks and shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.Thus,the Tribunal wrongfully interprets and applies the article 121(3)of UNCLOS,adding a new subjective element into the phrase of″human habitation″.Eventually,the Tribunal judges whether marine features have the ability to maintain human habitation or their own economic activities by″if there exited a stable community in history″.Moreover,there exist many logical doubts in the Award.(4)As a response,China should reveal the illegality of Award by issuing government white papers and research reports with careful legal analysis of the South China Sea Award developed by independent institutions.At the same time,it should actively promote re-examining the position of Annex Ⅶ in UNCLOS by the international society,seeking to modify the compulsory arbitration framework in AnnexⅦand play an important role in making UNCLOS more perfect.
引文
[1]贾宇:《历史性权利的意涵与南海断续线---对美国国务院关于南海断续线报告的批驳》,《法学评论》2016年第3期,第85-94页。[Jia Yu,″On Meaning of the Historical Title and the Nine Dash Lines:Refutation to the Report of US State Department’s on the Nine Dash Line of South China Sea,″Law Review,No.3(2016),pp.85-94.]
[2][斐济]萨切雅·南丹、沙卜素·罗森:《1982年联合国海洋法公约评注》第二卷,吕文正、毛彬译,北京:海洋出版社,2014年。[Nandan S.N.&Rosenme S.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea1982:ACommentary,trans.by LüWenzheng&Mao Bin,Beijing:China Ocean Press,2014.]
[3]Klein N.,Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[4]贾宇:《中国在南海的历史性权利》,《中国法学》2015年第3期,第179-203页。[Jia Yu,″On Historical Title of China in the South China Sea,″China Legal Science,No.3(2015),pp.179-203.]
[5][美]路易斯·B·宋恩、克里斯汀·古斯塔夫森·朱罗、约翰·E·诺伊斯等:《海洋法精要》,傅崐成等译,上海:上海交通大学出版社,2014年。[Sohn L.B.,Juras K.G.&Noyes J.E.et al.,The Law of the Sea in a Nutshell,trans.by Fu Kuncheng et al.,Shanghai:Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press,2014.]
[6]高健军:《〈联合国海洋法公约〉争端解决机制研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2014年。[Gao Jianjun,Dispute Settlement System under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2014.]
[7]杨泽伟:《〈联合国海洋法公约〉的主要缺陷及其完善》,见高之国、贾宇主编:《海洋法概要》,北京:中国民主法制出版社,2015年,第103-117页。[Yang Zewei,″The Main Defects of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seaand How to Promote and Make Them Perfect,″in Gao Zhiguo&Jia Yu(eds.),Law of the Sea in Nutshell,Beijing:China Democracy and Law Press,2015,pp.103-117.]
[8][美]路易斯·亨金:《国际法:政治与价值》,张乃根、马忠法、罗国强等译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005年。[Henkin L.,International Law:Politics and Values,trans.by Zhang Naigen,Ma Zhongfa&Luo Guoqiang et al.,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2005.]
[9]罗国强:《理解南海共同开发与航行自由问题的新思路---基于国际法视角看南海争端的解决路径》,《当代亚太》2012年第3期,第64-77页。[Luo Guoqiang,″A New Idea on the Common Development of the South China Sea and the Freedom of Navigation:A Solution to the South China Sea Dispute on the Basis of International Law,″Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies,No.3(2012),pp.64-77.]
[10][英]伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友译,北京:法律出版社,2003年。[Brownlie I.,Principle of Public International Law,trans.by Zeng Lingliang&Yu Minyou,Beijing:Law Press,2003.]
[11]张晏玱:《海洋法案例研习》,北京:清华大学出版社,2015年。[Zhang Yanqiang,Case Study of the Law of the Sea,Beijing:Tinghua University Press,2015.]
[12]吴士存:《国际海洋法最新案例精选》,北京:中国民主法制出版社,2016年。[Wu Shicun,Selected Cases of the Latest International Law of the Sea,Beijing:China Democracy and Law Press,2016.]
[13]高圣惕:《论南海仲裁管辖权裁决之谬误》,《国际问题研究》2016年第2期,第100-125页。[Gao Shengti,″On the Fallacy of Arbitral Jurisdiction in the South China Sea,″International Studies,No.2(2016),pp.100-125.]
(1)参见Award of the South China Sea Arbitration,PCA Case No.2013-19,http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7,下同。
(1)《中华人民共和国政府关于在南海的领土主权和海洋权益的声明》(2016年7月12日)指出,中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益包括:(一)中国对南海诸岛,包括东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛和南沙群岛拥有主权;(二)中国南海诸岛拥有内水、领海和毗连区;(三)中国南海诸岛拥有专属经济区和大陆架;(四)中国在南海拥有历史性权利。参见http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1379491.shtml,2017年9月11日。
(2)Juridical Regime of Historic Waters Including Historic Bays,DOCUMENT A/CN.4/143,Para.33.
(3)同上,Para.13。
(4)原文为:Tribunal concludes that,as between the Philippines and China,China’s claims to historic rights,or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction,with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the″nine-dash line″are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention.The Tribunal concludes that the Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein。
(1)中华人民共和国外交部《中国坚持通过谈判解决中国与菲律宾在南海的有关争议》,2016年7月13日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1380600.shtml,2017年9月11日。
(2)菲律宾的诉讼请求:1.宣布中国在南海海域的权利是由《联合国海洋法公约》设立的,包括《公约》第二部分领海和毗连区,第五部分专属经济区和第六部分大陆架,和菲律宾的权利相同;2.宣布中国对南海所谓的“九段线”的海事权利主张违反《公约》,是无效的。参见Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,PCA Case No.2013-19,2015-10-29,http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506,Para.147.
(1)《公约》第311条规定:1.在各缔约国间,本公约应优于1958年4月29日《日内瓦海洋法公约》。2.本公约不应改变各缔约国根据与本公约相符合的其他条约而产生的权利和义务,但以不影响其他缔约国根据本公约享有其权利或履行其义务为限。3.本公约两个或两个以上缔约国可订立仅在其各国相互关系上适用、修改或暂停适用本公约的规定的协定,但这种协定不应涉及本公约中某项规定,如对该规定予以减损就与公约的目的及宗旨的有效执行不相符合,而且这种协定不影响本公约所载各项基本原则的适用,同时这种协定的规定不影响其他缔约国根据本公约享有其权利和履行其义务。4.有意订立第3款所指任何协定的缔约国,应通过本公约的保管者将其订立协定的意思及该协定所规定的对本公约的修改或暂停适用通知其他缔约国。5.本条不影响本公约其他条款明示许可或保持的其他国际协定。6.缔约国同意对第136条所载关于人类共同继承财产的基本原则不应有任何修正,并同意它们不应参加任何减损该原则的协定。
(2)Keith H.,George K.&Gideon R.,″Land,Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute,″http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203619,2016-09-11.
(3)根据中国政府的最新声明,我国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益包括:南海诸岛的主权;南海诸岛的内水、领海和毗连区;南海诸岛的专属经济区和大陆架;在南海的历史性权利。见《中华人民共和国政府关于在南海的领土主权和海洋权益的声明》(2016年7月12日)。相对之前,我国目前的主张明确了岛礁及其附近海域的主权、管辖权的范围(法源为《公约》),严正声明了我国在“九段线”以内,除南海诸岛拥有的领海、毗连区以及专属经济区以外的海域享有历史性权利(法源为《公约》以外的国际法)。
(1)《维也纳条约法公约》第30条第3款规定:遇先订条约全体当事国亦为后订条约当事国,但不依第五十九条终止或停止施行先订条约时,先订条约仅于其规定与后订条约规定相合之范围内适用。《海洋法公约》第293条第1款规定:根据本节具有管辖权的法院或法庭应适用本公约和其他与本公约不相抵触的国际法规则。
(2)《裁决》错误地认定中国在南海主张权利为对南海断续线内海域生物资源和非生物资源的历史性权利。
(3)《公约》第57条规定:专属经济区从测算领海宽度的基线量起,不应超过二百海里。《公约》第76条第1款规定:沿海国的大陆架包括其领海以外依其陆地领土的全部自然延伸,扩展到大陆边外缘的海底区域的海床和底土,如果从测算领海宽度的基线量起到大陆边的外缘的距离不到二百海里,则扩展到二百海里的距离。
(4)原文为:China to consider that its claimed historic rights to living and non-living resources effectively negate the exclusive economic zone rights of other littoral States to the South China Sea。
(5)《公约》有关大陆架的规定如第76、第83条,也有类似的表述。
(6)中华人民共和国外交部《中国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》,2014年12月7日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjb_673085/zzjg_673183/tyfls_674667/xwlb_674669/t1217143.shtml,2016年9月11日。
(7)中华人民共和国外交部《中华人民共和国政府关于在南海的领土主权和海洋权益的声明》,2016年7月12日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1379491.shtml,2016年9月11日。
(8)中华人民共和国外交部《中国坚持通过谈判解决中国与菲律宾在南海的有关争议》,2016年7月13日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1380600.shtml,2016年9月11日。
(1)《公约》第13条规定:1.低潮高地是在低潮时四面环水并高于水面,但在高潮时没入水中的自然形成的陆地。如果低潮高地全部或一部分与大陆或岛屿的距离不超过领海的宽度,该高地的低潮线可作为测算领海宽度的基线。2.如果低潮高地全部与大陆或岛屿的距离超过领海的宽度,则该高地没有自己的领海。《公约》第121条规定:1.岛屿是四面环水并在高潮时高于水面的自然形成的陆地区域。2.除第3款另有规定外,岛屿的领海、毗连区、专属经济区和大陆架应按照本公约适用于其他陆地领土的规定加以确定。3.不能维持人类居住或其自身经济生活的岩礁,不应有专属经济区或大陆架。
(2)《公约》第121条第3款原文为:Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf。
(3)参看张辉《南沙群岛:岛屿抑或岩礁?---南海仲裁案裁决书第Ⅵ部分解读与评论》,见《2016年中国海洋法学会年学术研讨会论文集》,第417-427页。
(1)参看樊懿《海洋法下的岛屿之辩》,武汉大学法学院2013年博士学位论文,第19页。
(2)参看张辉《南沙群岛:岛屿抑或岩礁?---南海仲裁案裁决书第Ⅵ部分解读与评论》,见《2016年中国海洋法学会年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第421页。
(1)参看张辉《南沙群岛:岛屿抑或岩礁?---南海仲裁案裁决书第Ⅵ部分解读与评论》,见《2016年中国海洋法学会年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第422页。
(2)参看罗国强《论南海仲裁裁决的枉法性》,见《中国海洋法学会2016年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第381-394页。
(3)参看谢琼《〈联合国海洋法公约〉附件七仲裁制度的完善---一种体制性改革的设想》,见《中国海洋法学会2016年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第347-352页。
(1)参看刘衡《论〈联合国海洋法公约〉附件七仲裁制度的不合理性》,见《中国海洋法学会2016年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第353-363页。
[2][斐济]萨切雅·南丹、沙卜素·罗森:《1982年联合国海洋法公约评注》第二卷,吕文正、毛彬译,北京:海洋出版社,2014年。[Nandan S.N.&Rosenme S.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea1982:ACommentary,trans.by LüWenzheng&Mao Bin,Beijing:China Ocean Press,2014.]
[3]Klein N.,Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[4]贾宇:《中国在南海的历史性权利》,《中国法学》2015年第3期,第179-203页。[Jia Yu,″On Historical Title of China in the South China Sea,″China Legal Science,No.3(2015),pp.179-203.]
[5][美]路易斯·B·宋恩、克里斯汀·古斯塔夫森·朱罗、约翰·E·诺伊斯等:《海洋法精要》,傅崐成等译,上海:上海交通大学出版社,2014年。[Sohn L.B.,Juras K.G.&Noyes J.E.et al.,The Law of the Sea in a Nutshell,trans.by Fu Kuncheng et al.,Shanghai:Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press,2014.]
[6]高健军:《〈联合国海洋法公约〉争端解决机制研究》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2014年。[Gao Jianjun,Dispute Settlement System under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2014.]
[7]杨泽伟:《〈联合国海洋法公约〉的主要缺陷及其完善》,见高之国、贾宇主编:《海洋法概要》,北京:中国民主法制出版社,2015年,第103-117页。[Yang Zewei,″The Main Defects of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seaand How to Promote and Make Them Perfect,″in Gao Zhiguo&Jia Yu(eds.),Law of the Sea in Nutshell,Beijing:China Democracy and Law Press,2015,pp.103-117.]
[8][美]路易斯·亨金:《国际法:政治与价值》,张乃根、马忠法、罗国强等译,北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005年。[Henkin L.,International Law:Politics and Values,trans.by Zhang Naigen,Ma Zhongfa&Luo Guoqiang et al.,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2005.]
[9]罗国强:《理解南海共同开发与航行自由问题的新思路---基于国际法视角看南海争端的解决路径》,《当代亚太》2012年第3期,第64-77页。[Luo Guoqiang,″A New Idea on the Common Development of the South China Sea and the Freedom of Navigation:A Solution to the South China Sea Dispute on the Basis of International Law,″Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies,No.3(2012),pp.64-77.]
[10][英]伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友译,北京:法律出版社,2003年。[Brownlie I.,Principle of Public International Law,trans.by Zeng Lingliang&Yu Minyou,Beijing:Law Press,2003.]
[11]张晏玱:《海洋法案例研习》,北京:清华大学出版社,2015年。[Zhang Yanqiang,Case Study of the Law of the Sea,Beijing:Tinghua University Press,2015.]
[12]吴士存:《国际海洋法最新案例精选》,北京:中国民主法制出版社,2016年。[Wu Shicun,Selected Cases of the Latest International Law of the Sea,Beijing:China Democracy and Law Press,2016.]
[13]高圣惕:《论南海仲裁管辖权裁决之谬误》,《国际问题研究》2016年第2期,第100-125页。[Gao Shengti,″On the Fallacy of Arbitral Jurisdiction in the South China Sea,″International Studies,No.2(2016),pp.100-125.]
(1)参见Award of the South China Sea Arbitration,PCA Case No.2013-19,http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7,下同。
(1)《中华人民共和国政府关于在南海的领土主权和海洋权益的声明》(2016年7月12日)指出,中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益包括:(一)中国对南海诸岛,包括东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛和南沙群岛拥有主权;(二)中国南海诸岛拥有内水、领海和毗连区;(三)中国南海诸岛拥有专属经济区和大陆架;(四)中国在南海拥有历史性权利。参见http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1379491.shtml,2017年9月11日。
(2)Juridical Regime of Historic Waters Including Historic Bays,DOCUMENT A/CN.4/143,Para.33.
(3)同上,Para.13。
(4)原文为:Tribunal concludes that,as between the Philippines and China,China’s claims to historic rights,or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction,with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the″nine-dash line″are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention.The Tribunal concludes that the Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein。
(1)中华人民共和国外交部《中国坚持通过谈判解决中国与菲律宾在南海的有关争议》,2016年7月13日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1380600.shtml,2017年9月11日。
(2)菲律宾的诉讼请求:1.宣布中国在南海海域的权利是由《联合国海洋法公约》设立的,包括《公约》第二部分领海和毗连区,第五部分专属经济区和第六部分大陆架,和菲律宾的权利相同;2.宣布中国对南海所谓的“九段线”的海事权利主张违反《公约》,是无效的。参见Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,PCA Case No.2013-19,2015-10-29,http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506,Para.147.
(1)《公约》第311条规定:1.在各缔约国间,本公约应优于1958年4月29日《日内瓦海洋法公约》。2.本公约不应改变各缔约国根据与本公约相符合的其他条约而产生的权利和义务,但以不影响其他缔约国根据本公约享有其权利或履行其义务为限。3.本公约两个或两个以上缔约国可订立仅在其各国相互关系上适用、修改或暂停适用本公约的规定的协定,但这种协定不应涉及本公约中某项规定,如对该规定予以减损就与公约的目的及宗旨的有效执行不相符合,而且这种协定不影响本公约所载各项基本原则的适用,同时这种协定的规定不影响其他缔约国根据本公约享有其权利和履行其义务。4.有意订立第3款所指任何协定的缔约国,应通过本公约的保管者将其订立协定的意思及该协定所规定的对本公约的修改或暂停适用通知其他缔约国。5.本条不影响本公约其他条款明示许可或保持的其他国际协定。6.缔约国同意对第136条所载关于人类共同继承财产的基本原则不应有任何修正,并同意它们不应参加任何减损该原则的协定。
(2)Keith H.,George K.&Gideon R.,″Land,Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute,″http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203619,2016-09-11.
(3)根据中国政府的最新声明,我国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益包括:南海诸岛的主权;南海诸岛的内水、领海和毗连区;南海诸岛的专属经济区和大陆架;在南海的历史性权利。见《中华人民共和国政府关于在南海的领土主权和海洋权益的声明》(2016年7月12日)。相对之前,我国目前的主张明确了岛礁及其附近海域的主权、管辖权的范围(法源为《公约》),严正声明了我国在“九段线”以内,除南海诸岛拥有的领海、毗连区以及专属经济区以外的海域享有历史性权利(法源为《公约》以外的国际法)。
(1)《维也纳条约法公约》第30条第3款规定:遇先订条约全体当事国亦为后订条约当事国,但不依第五十九条终止或停止施行先订条约时,先订条约仅于其规定与后订条约规定相合之范围内适用。《海洋法公约》第293条第1款规定:根据本节具有管辖权的法院或法庭应适用本公约和其他与本公约不相抵触的国际法规则。
(2)《裁决》错误地认定中国在南海主张权利为对南海断续线内海域生物资源和非生物资源的历史性权利。
(3)《公约》第57条规定:专属经济区从测算领海宽度的基线量起,不应超过二百海里。《公约》第76条第1款规定:沿海国的大陆架包括其领海以外依其陆地领土的全部自然延伸,扩展到大陆边外缘的海底区域的海床和底土,如果从测算领海宽度的基线量起到大陆边的外缘的距离不到二百海里,则扩展到二百海里的距离。
(4)原文为:China to consider that its claimed historic rights to living and non-living resources effectively negate the exclusive economic zone rights of other littoral States to the South China Sea。
(5)《公约》有关大陆架的规定如第76、第83条,也有类似的表述。
(6)中华人民共和国外交部《中国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》,2014年12月7日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjb_673085/zzjg_673183/tyfls_674667/xwlb_674669/t1217143.shtml,2016年9月11日。
(7)中华人民共和国外交部《中华人民共和国政府关于在南海的领土主权和海洋权益的声明》,2016年7月12日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1379491.shtml,2016年9月11日。
(8)中华人民共和国外交部《中国坚持通过谈判解决中国与菲律宾在南海的有关争议》,2016年7月13日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1380600.shtml,2016年9月11日。
(1)《公约》第13条规定:1.低潮高地是在低潮时四面环水并高于水面,但在高潮时没入水中的自然形成的陆地。如果低潮高地全部或一部分与大陆或岛屿的距离不超过领海的宽度,该高地的低潮线可作为测算领海宽度的基线。2.如果低潮高地全部与大陆或岛屿的距离超过领海的宽度,则该高地没有自己的领海。《公约》第121条规定:1.岛屿是四面环水并在高潮时高于水面的自然形成的陆地区域。2.除第3款另有规定外,岛屿的领海、毗连区、专属经济区和大陆架应按照本公约适用于其他陆地领土的规定加以确定。3.不能维持人类居住或其自身经济生活的岩礁,不应有专属经济区或大陆架。
(2)《公约》第121条第3款原文为:Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf。
(3)参看张辉《南沙群岛:岛屿抑或岩礁?---南海仲裁案裁决书第Ⅵ部分解读与评论》,见《2016年中国海洋法学会年学术研讨会论文集》,第417-427页。
(1)参看樊懿《海洋法下的岛屿之辩》,武汉大学法学院2013年博士学位论文,第19页。
(2)参看张辉《南沙群岛:岛屿抑或岩礁?---南海仲裁案裁决书第Ⅵ部分解读与评论》,见《2016年中国海洋法学会年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第421页。
(1)参看张辉《南沙群岛:岛屿抑或岩礁?---南海仲裁案裁决书第Ⅵ部分解读与评论》,见《2016年中国海洋法学会年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第422页。
(2)参看罗国强《论南海仲裁裁决的枉法性》,见《中国海洋法学会2016年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第381-394页。
(3)参看谢琼《〈联合国海洋法公约〉附件七仲裁制度的完善---一种体制性改革的设想》,见《中国海洋法学会2016年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第347-352页。
(1)参看刘衡《论〈联合国海洋法公约〉附件七仲裁制度的不合理性》,见《中国海洋法学会2016年学术研讨会论文集(下)》,第353-363页。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |