欢迎, 游客
用户名: 密码: 记住我
01 四 2018
各位老友,若有老ID需要找回,请尽量回忆相关细节比如ID名称、注册时间、注册邮箱之类,联系我们可以解决。

浩如烟海
2018年4月1日
在不违背道德和法律的前提下,一切不合于其它版块的帖子,均可发表于此。
  • 页:
  • 1

主题: 宋杰:南中国海争端的法律性与政治性

宋杰:南中国海争端的法律性与政治性 2011-07-30 18:11 #1

  • 长见长利
  • 长见长利的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 高级会员
  • 高级会员
  • 帖子: 75
  • 声望: 1
  • 感谢您收到 0
尽管美国最近一再声称不介入南中国海争端,从而似乎表明其改变了以前公开支持越南和菲律宾的立场,维持着一种超然的“中立”,但事实却是,美国仅仅是改变了相关策略,在南中国海争端中极力打压中国的立场始终未曾真正改变。最近的例子发生在本月24日的东盟(亚细安)区域论坛(ARF)上。在该论坛上,美国国务卿希拉里(希拉莉)警告称,南中国海争端愈演愈烈,有“失控”之虞。她强调,争端各方都必须遵守国际法,拿出有力的法律依据,证明自己的主权要求,而不仅仅是依据“历史先例”。这些说法明显地是冲着中国来的。在美国的实质性支持下,想必越南也好,菲律宾也好,既不会轻易地放弃自身主张,也不会轻易地认同中国的主张。

  在此背景下,中国要想在南中国海争端中“杀出重围”,基于自身主张争取到实质性利益与优势,就有必要充分认识到南中国海争端的政治性与法律性,应在构筑自身主张坚实法律基础的背景下“运筹帷幄”,加大政治运作力度,强化实际有效控制,而不应单纯地指望通过外交谈判来缓和甚至解决南中国海争端。

构筑法律基础是政治解决的前提

  长期以来,中国一直主张通过政治谈判来解决南中国海争端。此主张尽管不错,但如果把此主张贯彻到一个极致,认为政治谈判不需要法律,那显然就“大错特错”。理想而高效的政治谈判,往往是融合了法律的谈判,是高度技术性和规则性的。精通法律和规则的谈判方,往往更容易在谈判中占据主导地位并反驳另一方缺乏法律依据或法律依据不充分的权利主张。因此,处理复杂的国际政治事务,必须要掌握并善于利用法律规则;法律规则利用得当,可以起到事半功倍的效果。就此意义而言,中国相应的法律准备是有一定欠缺的。

  从目前态势来看,围绕南中国海海洋权益争议的国家,诸如越南、菲律宾、马来西亚等,都基于不同理由和法律基础来援引并主张自身权益。这些理由,既有基于历史发现的,也有基于陆地领土自然延伸的,还有基于实际控制和地貌特征等等理由。中国的主张,则主要基于历史发现和历史性权利。但中国在基于历史发现和历史性权利主张对南中国海的法律权利时,对如下几个问题,则明显地准备不足,从而给了美国等“攻击”自身主张的“口实”:

  其一是,中国没有区分海洋权益和岛屿权益。明显地,对于“九段线”的法律属性和法律含义,中国一直没有从法律角度对其含义加以澄清。之所以这样说,是因为中国当前的主权性主张与其行为之间的“逻辑背离”:一方面,中国主张“九段线”所包围部分属于中国所有,既然属于中国所有,中国当然应拥有排他性的主权权威,其他国家的船舶无权未经许可进入;但另一方面,各国长期以来却一直能在该水域内“畅行无阻”,此种通行很少受到中国的抗议和反对。至少从中国的实际表现来看,中国似乎明显地对“九段线”所包围的水域和岛屿“一分为二”:对于岛屿,主张并争取主权权利;对于其中的水域,则明显“心不在焉”。

  其二是,对于历史发现和历史性权利作为法律依据的问题,中国现有准备并不很充分。尽管从国际法角度看,历史发现和历史性权利是一国取得领土的法律依据之一,但在一般情形下,历史性权利均是和其他权利如实际管理等结合在一起的,单纯基于历史性权利依据来作为谋求领土权利的法律依据并非不可以,但成功案例不多。在此背景下,中国要让自身主张获得其他国家的认可和接受,需要进行的法律工作很多,但从目前表现来看,这种法律准备比较少。

利用现有制度构筑法律基础

  就上述两个问题而言,笔者认为,中国可以从如下几个角度考虑来更好地构筑自身主张的法律依据和法律基础:

首先,就九段线包围水域和岛屿而言,中国首先可考虑宣称其为群岛水域。群岛水域是《联合国海洋法公约》所明文规定的法律制度。但由于群岛水域属于“宣告性”法律制度,一国要想将其适用于本国特定水域,首先必须宣告相应水域为“群岛水域”;在没有宣告之前,群岛水域法律制度是不能适用的。在中国一再对九段线所包围部分宣告主权的情形下,将九段线所包围的部分宣告为群岛水域,应该是最能保护自身利益的法律措施。
  其次,中国如果无意于宣告九段线所包围部分为群岛水域,从中国过去的实践及相应实践应“一贯性”的立场来看,则应区分对待其所包围的水域部分和岛屿部分。换言之,对于岛屿部分,中国坚守目前的主权属性不动摇;但对于水域部分,则应一分为二:除开相应岛屿所本应拥有的领海、专属经济区与大陆架外,对于其他水域,中国应坚持其国际水域属性,保证其他国家船舶的航行自由。但对于在九段线包围水域内的专属经济区等水域,中国则应根据《联合国海洋法公约》强化自身权利,应敢于并坚决地利用公约的规定来抵制美国的航行自由主张。

  再次,中国应改变维持固守现状的观念。中国应该认识到,历史权利和历史发现并不是取得权利的有效证据和途径,相反,权益的取得和维护向来取决于现实的有效控制和管理。能够持续地、平稳地控制和管理,往往是取得权益的决定性因素。从这个角度来看,在围绕南中国海海洋权益的争夺中,中国并不当然地处于优势地位,因为中国只有效地控制着有限的几个岛屿。因此,中国应改变目前的维持现状的立场,而应争取对争议岛屿的更多控制。惟有如此,才能为自身利益争取到具有相对优势的“客观证据”。在这方面,中国似乎应该铭记美国地缘政治学家斯拜克曼的如下言语,“得不到实力支持的政治理想,好像没有什么存在价值。”

  最后,单纯地就历史权利而言,特别是就历史性证据的证明力而言,中国应寻找更多的支撑性案例。在这方面,无论是国际法庭也好,还是各国国内实践也好,是有一定的案例来支撑中国论点的。但遗憾的是,中国在过去的相关主张中一直严重地忽视了此点,从而不免给他国提供了攻击的借口。

  作者是法学博士,现任浙江工商大学法学院副教授

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

宋杰:南中国海争端的法律性与政治性 2011-07-31 06:30 #2

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0
This is a good article. It agrees with much of what I had posted myself. Below is a link to my recent post at this forum titled: "S. China Sea - possession is nine-tenth of the law."

[url]viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3538[/url]

China's historicl claim is the strongest of all. Malaysia and Brunei based their claim on the UNCLOS EEZ which is nonsense because the UNCLOS cannot take one nation's sovereign territories and give them to another nation. Philippines claim is based on the piratical action of one Tomas Cloma which is nothing more than nonsense. Vietnam claim is also based on discovery in the 17th Century which is much later than the Chinese discovery in the 3rd Century BCE. All of them also based their claim on "effective occupation and control" which is another way of saying I got it so I can keep it. This is why China cannot allow them to continue to occupy them.

The Chinese government is basing its actions and policy based on what Deng had said about settling the problem through joint development. Deng knew nothing about international law and in so doing has endangered China's claim of sovereignty. And each day that goes by will make China's claim so much weaker and other countries' claim that much stronger.

The obvious conclusion is to take immediate action and evict all other countries and re-establish China's "effective occupation and control" over these islands. Unfortunately, the Chinese government for whatever reasons is still going in the wrong direction and acting irrationally and contrary to its own best interest. If China had like I suggested declared that the other countries had violated the agreement by occupying Chinese sovereign territories and conducting explorations for oil and gas and give them an ultimatum to leave and followed it up with military force to evict them, then the problem could have been settled quickly and relatively painlessly. But frustratingly the Chinese government still continued to spin a cocoon of self-restricting agreements around itself and lost a golden opportunity by signing a new agreement with even more restrictions and erosions of Chinese sovereign rights.

Maybe the Chinese leaders are congratulating themselves on their cleverness of having avoided a confrontation. But the truth is they have seriously eroded China's sovereign claim even more and make it more difficult for China to assert its sovereignty claim in a court of law. I just don't know what to say.

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

宋杰:南中国海争端的法律性与政治性 2011-07-31 06:50 #3

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0

Quote from the article:
在中国一再对九段线所包围部分宣告主权的情形下,将九段线所包围的部分宣告为群岛水域,应该是最能保护自身利益的法律措施。


群岛水域 = archipelagic waters

This is similar to what I had said about archipelagic waters within the Nansha A. in my post titled "S. China Sea - possession is nine-tenth of the law." The archipalagic waters is only inside the baseline around the outermost islands or features such as atolls, cays, shoals, etc. The nine-division boundary can be declared to be China's sea boundary with everything between it and the archipelagic baseline as the territorial sea. Everything inside the archipelagic baseline is archipelagic waters which is the same as the internal waters with the exception that there is right of innocent passage for foreign vessels.

The difference between what I said and what this article says is that I think archipalagic waters is the part inside of the archipelagic baseline while this article says everything inside the 9-division line is the archipelagic waters. I think I'm right because archipelagic waters must be inside an archipelagic baseline which is drawn to connect the outermost coast of the outermost features of the archipelago. Obviously the 9-division line does not represent an archipelagic baseline because they don't connect any islands or features of the archipelago.

This will reassure America and other countries of their right of innocent passage.

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

  • 页:
  • 1
管理者: Liang3a
创建页面时间:0.148秒
核心: Kunena 论坛