规则、利益与南海地区秩序
|
摘要
中国和美国在南海问题上相互指责对方破坏以国际法规则为基础的国际秩序。然而什么样的秩序被破坏,什么类别的规则被违反,争论的重点是国际秩序被破坏还是法律规则被违反,这些都是值得研究的问题。通过对秩序、规则两个概念的解析和相关国家利益的比较,本文认为,争论的主体是秩序。这个主体既有法律规则解释争端的性质,又有权力斗争的性质。把握这场争论的双重性质,对于正确对待国际法在国际关系中的作用,构建稳定且可持续的南海地区秩序,具有重要意义。
While China and the United States blame each other for violating so-called rules-based international order regarding the South China Sea issue,it is not clear what
kind of rules is violated,what kind of order is breached,and whichever is the focus in this controversy.In the opinion of the author,the substance of the dispute involves the future of the regional order.This conclusion is based on the analysis of the meaning of rule and order and the balance of the national interests of relevant parties.The dispute is characteristic of both legal and power politics.It is important to grasp the dual natures of the dispute for constructing a stable and enduring order in the South China Sea.
While China and the United States blame each other for violating so-called rules-based international order regarding the South China Sea issue,it is not clear what
kind of rules is violated,what kind of order is breached,and whichever is the focus in this controversy.In the opinion of the author,the substance of the dispute involves the future of the regional order.This conclusion is based on the analysis of the meaning of rule and order and the balance of the national interests of relevant parties.The dispute is characteristic of both legal and power politics.It is important to grasp the dual natures of the dispute for constructing a stable and enduring order in the South China Sea.
引文
(1)《中国外长王毅就所谓南海仲裁庭裁决结果发表谈话》, 中国外交部网,2016年7月14日,http://www.fmprc.gov. cn/web/zyxw/t1379787.shtml
(2)Joint Statement of the Japan-United States-Australia Trilateral Strategic Dialogue, http://www.state. gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/07/260442.htm, July 28, 2016.
(3)“Cooperation from Strength: US,China and South China Sea”,Center for a New American Security,January 2012,https: //www. cnas.org/publications/reports/cooperation-from-strength-the-united-states-china-and-the-south-china-sea. 有中国学者认为,美国学术界对南海问题的认识有倾向性、对抗性、片面性等特点,参见刘琳《对近年来美国南海问题研究的梳理及评估》,《亚太安全与海洋研究》2018 年第1期。彼得·达顿居然指责中国的领土主权主张,反映出对国际法的无知。
(4)张海文:《从国际法视角看南海争议问题》,《世界知识》2012年第4期。
(5)左希迎:《南海秩序的新常态及其未来走向》,《现代国际关系》2017年第6期;黄凤志、罗肖:《关于中国引领南海战略态势的新思考》,《国际观察》2018年第2期。这种说法的意图是强调中国对主权的重视,同时指责某些国家滥用国际法侵犯中国的主权。但这种把主权和国际法放在相互对立的位置上的表述令人困惑。国际法的基本原则是主权平等,这一点在《联合国宪章》的原则部分规定得很清楚。主权和国际法是密切联系不可分割的,这两种国际秩序的对立在理论上是无法想象的。
(6)“从来不存在一个真正全球性的‘世界秩序’”。 参见〈美〉基辛格著,胡利平、林华、曹爱菊译《世界秩序》,中信出版集团,2015年,序言第IX页。
(7)〈英〉赫德利·布尔:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究(第三版)》(影印本),第4页。
(8)〈英〉赫德利·布尔:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究(第三版)》(影印本),第8页。
(9)〈英〉赫德利·布尔:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究(第三版)》(影印本),第16-18页。(布尔使用的“pattern”, “disposition”等词在中文中很难找到合适的对应词,可译成“模式”、“倾向”,意指相互协调、配合的行为组合。)
(10)〈美〉基辛格著,胡利平、林华、曹爱菊译《世界秩序》,中信出版集团,2015年,序言第XVIII页。
(11)Robert O. Keohane,“International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?”, Foreign Policy, No.110, Spring, 1998, p.86.
(12)Sir Arthur Watts,“ The Importance of International law”, Michael Byers ed., The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.7.
(13)Andrew Hurrell,“International Law and the Constitution of International Society”, Michael Byers ed., The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.344. 建构主义者则对国际法寄予更高的期望:在持续的国际合作中,也许能产生一种合作的政治文化,形成共享的规范话语。哈里尔(Andrew Hurrell)认为:“法律调整国际合作并对国际冲突施加限制;法律有助于促进一种合作的国际政治文化并发展出共享的规范话语。”但是,这种理论的正确性很难检验。或许可以说,历史实践不能证明法律具有限制国际冲突的作用,文化和规范话语等概念也过于宽泛,其存在与否和作用如何无法准确判断。
(14)Hans J. Morgenthau,“The Problem of Sovereignty Reconsidered” , Columbia Law Review, Vol.48, No.3 April 1948, p.343.
(15)Stephen D. Krasner, “Wars, Hotel Fires, and Plane Crashes”, Review of International Studies, Vol.26, No.1, January 2000, p.134.
(16)John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999, p.37.
(17)《南海各方行为宣言》,中国外交部网,2016年8月19日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjb_673085/zzjg_673183/yzs_673193/dqzz_673197/nanhai_673325/t848051.shtml
(18)《温家宝出席第十四次中国与东盟领导人会议提出六点倡议》,新华网, http://news.xinhuanet. com/mrdx/2011-11/19/c_131257057.htm
(19)《〈南海及其周边海洋国际合作框架计划(2011—2015)〉在京发布》, http://ocean.china.com. cn/2012-12/27/content_27532431.htm
(20)《落实〈南海各方行为宣言〉第13次高官会在中国满洲里举行》,中国外交部网,2016年8月17日,http://www. fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjbxw_673019/t1389417.shtml;《第19次中国—东盟领导人会议通过〈中国与东盟国家应对海上紧急事态外交高官热线平台指导方针〉》,新华网,http://news.xinhuanet. com/world/2016-09/08/c_129273307.htm
(21)《2018年6月28日外交部发言人陆慷主持例行记者会》,中国外交部网, 2018年6月29日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/fyrbt_673021/t1572535.shtml
(22)胡波:《中国海洋强国的三大权力目标》,《太平洋学报》2014年第3期。
(23)“Remarks at the Fifth Annual South China Sea Conference”, Daniel R. Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, The Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, July 21, 2015, http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2015/07/245142.htm; CRS Report R42784, Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, by Ronald O′ Rourke, Congressional Research Service, September 18, 2015. p.29.
(24)CRS Report R42784, p.4.
(25)CRS Report R42784, p.7.
(26)Gary Roughead, “China, Time and Rebalancing”, Hoover Institution, undated (but with copyright of 2014), March 25, 2014, http://www.hoover.org/taskforces/military-history/strategika/11/roughead; Jim Talent, “The Equilibrium of East Asia”, National Review Online, December 5, 2013; Robert E. Kelly, “What Would Chinese Hegemony Look Like?”, The Diplomat, February 10, 2014; CRS Report R42784, p.3.
(27)John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999, p.34.
(28)Michael Walzer, “Coda: Can the Good Guys Win?”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol.24, No.1, 2013, p.440.
(2)Joint Statement of the Japan-United States-Australia Trilateral Strategic Dialogue, http://www.state. gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/07/260442.htm, July 28, 2016.
(3)“Cooperation from Strength: US,China and South China Sea”,Center for a New American Security,January 2012,https: //www. cnas.org/publications/reports/cooperation-from-strength-the-united-states-china-and-the-south-china-sea. 有中国学者认为,美国学术界对南海问题的认识有倾向性、对抗性、片面性等特点,参见刘琳《对近年来美国南海问题研究的梳理及评估》,《亚太安全与海洋研究》2018 年第1期。彼得·达顿居然指责中国的领土主权主张,反映出对国际法的无知。
(4)张海文:《从国际法视角看南海争议问题》,《世界知识》2012年第4期。
(5)左希迎:《南海秩序的新常态及其未来走向》,《现代国际关系》2017年第6期;黄凤志、罗肖:《关于中国引领南海战略态势的新思考》,《国际观察》2018年第2期。这种说法的意图是强调中国对主权的重视,同时指责某些国家滥用国际法侵犯中国的主权。但这种把主权和国际法放在相互对立的位置上的表述令人困惑。国际法的基本原则是主权平等,这一点在《联合国宪章》的原则部分规定得很清楚。主权和国际法是密切联系不可分割的,这两种国际秩序的对立在理论上是无法想象的。
(6)“从来不存在一个真正全球性的‘世界秩序’”。 参见〈美〉基辛格著,胡利平、林华、曹爱菊译《世界秩序》,中信出版集团,2015年,序言第IX页。
(7)〈英〉赫德利·布尔:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究(第三版)》(影印本),第4页。
(8)〈英〉赫德利·布尔:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究(第三版)》(影印本),第8页。
(9)〈英〉赫德利·布尔:《无政府社会:世界政治秩序研究(第三版)》(影印本),第16-18页。(布尔使用的“pattern”, “disposition”等词在中文中很难找到合适的对应词,可译成“模式”、“倾向”,意指相互协调、配合的行为组合。)
(10)〈美〉基辛格著,胡利平、林华、曹爱菊译《世界秩序》,中信出版集团,2015年,序言第XVIII页。
(11)Robert O. Keohane,“International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?”, Foreign Policy, No.110, Spring, 1998, p.86.
(12)Sir Arthur Watts,“ The Importance of International law”, Michael Byers ed., The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.7.
(13)Andrew Hurrell,“International Law and the Constitution of International Society”, Michael Byers ed., The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.344. 建构主义者则对国际法寄予更高的期望:在持续的国际合作中,也许能产生一种合作的政治文化,形成共享的规范话语。哈里尔(Andrew Hurrell)认为:“法律调整国际合作并对国际冲突施加限制;法律有助于促进一种合作的国际政治文化并发展出共享的规范话语。”但是,这种理论的正确性很难检验。或许可以说,历史实践不能证明法律具有限制国际冲突的作用,文化和规范话语等概念也过于宽泛,其存在与否和作用如何无法准确判断。
(14)Hans J. Morgenthau,“The Problem of Sovereignty Reconsidered” , Columbia Law Review, Vol.48, No.3 April 1948, p.343.
(15)Stephen D. Krasner, “Wars, Hotel Fires, and Plane Crashes”, Review of International Studies, Vol.26, No.1, January 2000, p.134.
(16)John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999, p.37.
(17)《南海各方行为宣言》,中国外交部网,2016年8月19日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjb_673085/zzjg_673183/yzs_673193/dqzz_673197/nanhai_673325/t848051.shtml
(18)《温家宝出席第十四次中国与东盟领导人会议提出六点倡议》,新华网, http://news.xinhuanet. com/mrdx/2011-11/19/c_131257057.htm
(19)《〈南海及其周边海洋国际合作框架计划(2011—2015)〉在京发布》, http://ocean.china.com. cn/2012-12/27/content_27532431.htm
(20)《落实〈南海各方行为宣言〉第13次高官会在中国满洲里举行》,中国外交部网,2016年8月17日,http://www. fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjbxw_673019/t1389417.shtml;《第19次中国—东盟领导人会议通过〈中国与东盟国家应对海上紧急事态外交高官热线平台指导方针〉》,新华网,http://news.xinhuanet. com/world/2016-09/08/c_129273307.htm
(21)《2018年6月28日外交部发言人陆慷主持例行记者会》,中国外交部网, 2018年6月29日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/fyrbt_673021/t1572535.shtml
(22)胡波:《中国海洋强国的三大权力目标》,《太平洋学报》2014年第3期。
(23)“Remarks at the Fifth Annual South China Sea Conference”, Daniel R. Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, The Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, July 21, 2015, http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2015/07/245142.htm; CRS Report R42784, Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, by Ronald O′ Rourke, Congressional Research Service, September 18, 2015. p.29.
(24)CRS Report R42784, p.4.
(25)CRS Report R42784, p.7.
(26)Gary Roughead, “China, Time and Rebalancing”, Hoover Institution, undated (but with copyright of 2014), March 25, 2014, http://www.hoover.org/taskforces/military-history/strategika/11/roughead; Jim Talent, “The Equilibrium of East Asia”, National Review Online, December 5, 2013; Robert E. Kelly, “What Would Chinese Hegemony Look Like?”, The Diplomat, February 10, 2014; CRS Report R42784, p.3.
(27)John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999, p.34.
(28)Michael Walzer, “Coda: Can the Good Guys Win?”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol.24, No.1, 2013, p.440.