| 3,157 | 13 | 95 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称《公约》）的整体性是实现缔约国之间的利益及权利义务平衡的前提。从条约解释的视角来看《，公约》整体性的重要意义不言而喻。《公约》作为“一揽子协议”暗含整体性要求，《公约》的整体性同样体现于争端解决机制的设计初衷上，但整体性不能被理解为规范事项上的周延性。南海仲裁案裁决在《公约》与一般国际法的关系、大陆国家远海群岛整体性、岛屿制度等问题上的不当的法律解释和适用对《公约》整体性造成贬损，裁决对《公约》有关条款“司法造法”式的解释，可能进一步导致缔约国适用《公约》的国际实践碎片化和国际法的不成体系化。
Abstract：The integrity of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is a prerequisite for achieving a balance of interests and rights and obligations among the signatories. From the perspective of treaty interpretation, the integrity of the Convention is of great significance. As a“package agreement”, the Convention embodies the requirements of the treaty integrity. The integrity of the Convention is also reflected in its original intension for the design of dispute settlement mechanisms, but its wholeness cannot be understood as the extension of normative matters. The South China Sea Arbitration Award has derogated the integrity of the Convention with its improper treaty interpretations and applications in terms of the relationship between the Convention and general international law, the wholeness of offshore archipelagoes of continental states and the island system. Furthermore, the“judicial law-making”interpretations of some clauses of the Convention made in this award may fragment the international practice in the signatories' application of the Convention, and disintegrate the systematicity of international law.
[1]中华人民共和国外交部边界与海洋事务司.中国应对南海仲裁案文件汇编[C].北京:世界知识出版社,2016.
[2]中国国际法学会.南海仲裁案裁决之批驳[M].北京:外文出版社,2018.
[3]National Institute for South China Sea Studies. A legal critique of the award of the arbitral tribunal in the matter of the South China Sea arbitration[J]. Asian Yearbook of International Law, 2018,2:151-293.
[4]ANDERSON D H. Legal implications of the entry into force of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea[J]. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1995, 2:313-326.
[5]KOH T, JAYAKUMAR S. The negotiating process of the Third UNCLOS, UNCLOS in 1982:a commentary, Centre for Oceans Law and Policy[M]. New York:University of Virginia, 1985.
[6]GARDINER R K. Treaty interpretation[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2008.
[7]BARNES R. The Law of the Sea Convention, and the integrated regulation of the oceans[J]. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2012(4):859-866.
[8]BOYLE A. Further development of the Law of the Sea Convention:mechanisms for change[J]. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2005(3):563-584.
[9]BUZAN B. Negotiating by consensus:developments in technique at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea[J]. American Journal of International Law, 1981(2):324-384.
[10]NORDQUIST M H. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982:a commentary[M]. New York:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985.
[11]VIGNES D. Will the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea work according to consensus rules[J]. American Journal of International Law, 1975(1):119-129.
[12]TREVES T. Devices to facilitate consensus:the experience of the Law of the Sea Conference[J]. Italian Yearbook of International Law, 1976(2):39-40.
[13]PLANT G. The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and the preparatory commission:models for United Nations law-making[J]. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1987(3):525-558.
[14]MALONE J L. The sea after UNCLOS III[J]. Law&Contemp. Probs., 1983(2):29-36.
[15]TANAKA Y. The International Law of the Sea[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2012:31.
[16]SOHN L B. Settlement of Law of the Sea disputes[J]. International Journal of Marine&Coastal Law, 1995(10):205-206.
[17]ADEDE A O. The system for settlement of disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea[M]. Dordrecht:Martinus Nijhoff, 1987.
[18]SOHN L B. Peaceful settlement of disputes in ocean conflicts:does UNCLOS III point the way[J]. Law&Contemp. Probs.,1983(2):195-200.
[19]NOYES J E. The international tribunal for the Law of the Sea[J]. Cornell International Law Journal, 1999(1):110-182.
[20]BUGA I. Territorial sovereignty issues in maritime disputes:a jurisdictional dilemma for Law of the Sea tribunals[J]. International Journal of Marine&Coastal Law, 2012(1):59-95.
[21]DONALD R R. Land and maritime disputes and UNCLOS[G]//Public international law colloquium on maritime disputes settlement. Hong Kong:Chinese Society of International Law, 2016:48-49.
[22]詹宁斯,瓦茨.奥本海国际法:第一卷第二分册[M].王铁崖,李适时,汤宗舜,等译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1998.
[23]ALLEN G H. International law for seagoing officers[M]. New York:Naval Institute Press, 2014.
[24]FREESTONE D. The Law of the Sea Convention at 30:successes, challenges, and new agendas[J]. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2012(4):675-682.
[25]ALLOTT P. Power sharing in the Law of the Sea[J]. American Journal of International Law, 1983(1):1-30.
[26]JAMES C. Brownlie’s principles of public international law[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2012.
[27]李浩培.条约法概论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:351.
[28]KLEIN N. The limitation of UNCLOS part XV dispute settlement in resolving South China Sea disputes[J]. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2016(4):1-32.
[29]UN. Juridical regime of historic waters, including historic bays-study prepared by the secretariat[J]. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1962(2):1-65.
[30]HAYES M. The Law of the Sea:the role of the Irish delegation at the Third UN Conference[M]. New York:UN, 2011:61–63.
[31]PLATZ?DER R. Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea:documents[M]. New York:UN, 1983:122.
[32]TREVES T. The ownership of the Xisha and Nansha Islands according to French and British national archival records[G]//Public international law colloquium on maritime disputes settlement. Hong Kong:Chinese Society of International Law,2016:402-403.
[33]CHARNEY J I. Third party dispute settlement and international law[J]. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 1997(1):81-89.
[34]HUGO C, MICHAEL R M. Progressive development of international law and the package deal[J]. American Journal of International Law, 1985(4):871-890.
[35]DYKE V. Consensus and confrontation:the United States and the Law of the Sea Convention[M]. Honolulu:Law of the Sea Institute, 1984:42-43.
[36]KVINIKHIDZE S. Contemporary exclusive fishery zones or why some states still claim an EFZ[J]. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2008(2):271-295.
[37]HELFER L R. Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication[J]. Yale Law Journal, 1997(2):273-391.
(1) Sovereignty and Maritime Delimitation in the Red Sea(Eritrea v.Yemen),Case No.1996-04,Award of the Tribunal in the Second StageMaritime Delimitation:92.
(2)《公约》第51条第1款规定：在不妨害第49条的情形下，群岛国应尊重与其他国家间的现有协定，并应承认直接相邻国家在群岛水域范围内的某些区域内的传统捕鱼权利和其他合法活动。行使这种权利和进行这种活动的条款和条件，包括这种权利和活动的性质、范围和适用的区域，经任何有关国家要求，应由有关国家之间的双边协定予以规定。这种权利不应转让给第三国或其国民，或与第三国或其国民分享。
(1) The South China Sea Arbitration(Phil.v.China),Case No.2013-19,Award(Perm.Ct.Arb.),2016:para.360.
(2) U.N.Doc.A/CONF.62/30(1974),https：//treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=3&clang=_en.
(3) U.N.A/PV.2169,pp.17-20(1973),https：//treaties.un.org/doc/source/Publication Checklist-E.pdf.
(4) U.N.A/Conf.62,the Informal Single Negotiating Texts(ISNT),WP.8,WP.9 and WP.9/Rev.1,the Revised Single Negotiating Texts,WP.8/Rev.1 and WP.9/Rev.2,the Informal Composite Negotiating Text,WP.10,WP.10/Rev.1 and WP.10/Rev.2,WP.10/Rev.3 and the Draft Convention,L.78,https：//treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=3&clang=_en.
(1) Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean(Somalia v.Kenya),Preliminary Objections,Judgement,ICJ Reports 2017:17,para.125.
(2) The Ara Libertad Case(Argentina v Ghana),Request for the Prescription of Provisional Measures,Order of 15 December 2012,Joint Separate Opinion of Judge Wolfrum and Judge Cot,ITLOS:para.6.
(1) Memorandum by the President of the Conference on Document A/CONF.62/WP.9,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.62/WP.9/Add.1,1976:para.6.
(2) Memorandum by the President of the Conference on Document A/CONF.62/WP.9,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.62/WP.9/Add.1,1976:para.6.
(3) Doc.A/CONF.62/SR.185,Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,Volume XVII,185th plenary meeting,Statement by the President:14,para.53.
(1) AICONF.62/49,https：//www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm.
(2) M/V SAIGA(No.1)(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v.Guinea),Dissenting Opinion of Rüdiger Wolfrum,4 December 1997,para.24.See also Certain Expenses of the United Nations Case,ICJ Reports 1962:159,South-West Africa Case,Second Phase,ICJ Reports 1966:39,48.
(3) The South China Sea Arbitration,Award of 12 July 2016:120,para.283.
(4) AICONF.62/49,https：//www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm.
(1) International Law Commission,Conclusions of the work of the study group on the fragmentation of international law:difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law,U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/L.682(2006):para.278.
(2) The South China Sea Arbitration,Award of 12 July 2016:para.538.
(3) UNCLOS III,Algeria,Dahomey,Guinea,Ivory Coast,Liberia,Madagascar,Mali,Mauritania,Morocco,Sierra Leone,Sudan,Tunisia,Upper Volta and Zambia:draft articles on the regime of islands,UN Doc.A/CONF.62/C.2/L.62/Rev.1,27 August 1974,Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on The Law of the Sea.
(1) International Law Commission,Conclusions of the work of the study group on the fragmentation of international law:difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law,U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/L.682(2006):para.278.
基本信息:
DOI：10.15886/j.cnki.hnus.202108.1805
中图分类号:D993.5
引用信息:
[1]丁铎.《联合国海洋法公约》整体性及其对条约解释的限制——以南海仲裁案裁决为例[J].海南大学学报(人文社会科学版),2022,40(02):23-32.DOI:10.15886/j.cnki.hnus.202108.1805.
基金信息:
国家社会科学基金项目（20BFX211）