公平结果考察下三阶段划界方法的司法实践与发展
|
摘要
国际海洋划界始终坚持以取得公平划界结果为目标,同时也在寻求划界方法的确定性。三阶段方法作为海洋划界方法的最新发展,一定程度上平衡了划界的确定性和灵活性之间的关系。但国际司法机构在实践中已经明显向追求划界确定性上过度倾斜,将三阶段方法作为海洋划界的标准方法对待,过度重视其在划界过程中的工具价值,由此暴露出三阶段方法存在的诸多问题。海洋划界须以公平划界结果为目标,兼顾海洋划界的确定性、可预测性和灵活性,依据案件事实选择合适的划界方法。在适用三阶段方法进行海洋划界时,为最终实现公平划界结果,有必要充分考虑各种划定临时分界线的方法,将影响划界的相关情况贯穿案件始终予以考虑,加强对临时分界线的调整依据、调整方法以及涉及的科学技术等内容的客观解释,避免比例检测沦为国际司法机构的自证工具。
The international maritime delimitation has always insisted on achieving the goal of equitable demarcation and is also seeking certainty in demarcation.The three-stage approach,as the latest development of maritime delimitation methods,balances the relationship between certainty and flexibility of demarcation to some extent.However,in practice,the international judiciary has clearly over-inclined the definitive demarcation of the demarcation,treated the three-stage method as the standard method of maritime delimitation,and over-emphasized the value of its tools in the demarcation process.There are many problems with this method.The maritime delimitation must be guided by the results of fair demarcation,taking into account the certainty,predictability and flexibility of maritime delimitation.It is necessary for the international judiciary to select appropriate demarcation methods based on the facts of the case.When selecting the three-stage method and in order to achieve the final result of fair demarcation,it is necessary to fully consider the various methods of delineating the temporary demarcation line,the relevant situation affecting the demarcation will always be considered throughout the case to avoid proportional detection,strengthen the rationale for the adjustment of the temporary boundary line,the adjustment method and the scientific and technical aspects involved,and avoid the probabilistic testing becoming a self-certifying tool for international jurisdictions.
The international maritime delimitation has always insisted on achieving the goal of equitable demarcation and is also seeking certainty in demarcation.The three-stage approach,as the latest development of maritime delimitation methods,balances the relationship between certainty and flexibility of demarcation to some extent.However,in practice,the international judiciary has clearly over-inclined the definitive demarcation of the demarcation,treated the three-stage method as the standard method of maritime delimitation,and over-emphasized the value of its tools in the demarcation process.There are many problems with this method.The maritime delimitation must be guided by the results of fair demarcation,taking into account the certainty,predictability and flexibility of maritime delimitation.It is necessary for the international judiciary to select appropriate demarcation methods based on the facts of the case.When selecting the three-stage method and in order to achieve the final result of fair demarcation,it is necessary to fully consider the various methods of delineating the temporary demarcation line,the relevant situation affecting the demarcation will always be considered throughout the case to avoid proportional detection,strengthen the rationale for the adjustment of the temporary boundary line,the adjustment method and the scientific and technical aspects involved,and avoid the probabilistic testing becoming a self-certifying tool for international jurisdictions.
引文
(1)本文所指的国际司法机构包括国际法院、国际海洋法法庭和海牙常设仲裁法院。
(2)Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v.Ukraine),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2009,p.89,para.78.
(3)参见沈韦良、许光建:《第三次联合国海洋法会议和海洋法公约》,《中国国际法年刊》1983年,第401-435页。
(4)North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v.Denmark;Federal Republic of Germany v.Netherlands),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1969,pp.48-49,paras.88-90.
(5)Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia v.Libyan Arab Jamahiriya),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1982,pp.59-60,para.70.
(6)Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v.Malta),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1985,p.47,para.63.
(7)《公约》第15条规定:如果两国海岸彼此相向或相邻,两国中任何一国在彼此没有相反协议的情形下,均无权将其领海伸延至一条其每一点都同测算两国中每一国领海宽度的基线上最近各点距离相等的中间线以外。但如因历史性所有权或其他特殊情况而有必要按照与上述规定不同的方法划定两国领海的界限,则不适用上述规定。
(8)本文收集了2009年到2018年6月之间的7个案例,包括:2009年罗马尼亚/乌克兰案(国际法院)、2012年孟加拉/缅甸案(国际海洋法法庭)、2012年尼加拉瓜/哥伦比亚案(国际法院)、2014年智利/秘鲁案(国际法院)、2014年孟加拉/印度案(海牙常设仲裁法院)、2017年加纳/科特迪瓦案(国际海洋法法庭)、2018年哥斯达黎加/尼加拉瓜案(国际法院)。
(9)Supra note[2],p.101,para.118.
(10)Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v.Myanmar),Judgment,I.T.L.O.S Reports 2012,pp.67-68,paras.239-240.
(11)Maritime Dispute (Peru v.Chile),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2014,p.65,para.180.
(12)Territorial and MaritimeDispute in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v.Honduras),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2007,p.741,para.272.
(13)Supra note[10],pp.62-63,paras.216-217.
(14)See Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v.Colombia),Separate Opinion of Judge Abraham,pp.115-119,https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/124/124-20121119-JUD-01-02-EN.pdf,(last visited December8,2018).
(15)Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean(Ghana v.C?te D’Ivoire),Judgment,I.T.L.O.S.Reports 2017,p.76,para.254.
(16)Supra note[2],p.112,para.155.
(17)Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v.Colombia),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2012,p.696,para.192.
(18)In the Matter of the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary (Bangladesh v.India),Award,P.C.A 2014,pp.105-117,paras.372-399.
(19)Supra note[15],p.91,para.312.
(20)Supra note[2],p.113,para.158.
(21)Supra note[17],p.702,para.211.
(22)Supra note[2],pp.126-127,paras.199-201.
(23)Supra note[11],p.69,para.191.
(24)Supra note[15],pp.118-121,paras.414-425.
(25)Supra note[10],pp.79-82,paras.285-297.
(26)Supra note[17],pp.117-121,paras.400-408.
(27)Supra note[2],pp.109-110,para.149.
(28)Supra note[10],p.47,para.152.
(29)Supra note[15],p.89,para.303.
(30)Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v.Nicaragua),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2018,p.59,para.154.
(31)Supra note[15],p.61,para.194.
(32)Supra note[17],p.706,para.223.
(33)Supra note[15],pp.128-129,paras.452-455.
(34)Supra note[17],p.115,paras.393-394.
(35)Supra note[2],pp.123-126,paras.189-198.
(36)Supra note[17],pp.704-705,paras.217-220.
(37)Supra note[15],pp.129-135,paras.456-478.
(38)Supra note[2],p.128,para.204.
(39)Supra note[17],pp.705-706,paras.221-222.
(40)参见高健军:《国际海洋划界论——有关等距离/特殊情况规则的研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第162-163页。
(41)Supra note[17],p.151,para.481.
(42)Supra note[2],p.99,para.110.
(43)Supra note[17],p.154,paras.493-494.
(44)黑海案中,罗马尼亚和乌克兰的相关海岸长度之比为1∶ 2.8,划界所得相关海域之比为1∶ 2.1;孟加拉/缅甸案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 1.42,相关海域比为1∶ 1.54;孟加拉/印度案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 1.92,相关海域比为1∶ 2.81;秘鲁/智利案中,法庭认为比例严重失调的状况并未出现;加纳/科特迪瓦案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 2.53,相关海域比为1∶ 2.02;尼加拉瓜/哥伦比亚案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 8.2,相关海域比为1∶ 3.44;哥斯达黎加/尼加拉瓜案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 1.42,相关海域比为1∶ 1.3。
(45)参见张华:《国际司法裁决中的海洋划界方法论解析》,《外交评论》2012年第6期,第145页。
(46)FayokemiOlorundami,“The ICJ and Its Lip Service to the Non-Priority Status of the Equidistance Method of Delimitation”,(2015) 4 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law,p.66.
(47)Supra note[15],p.84,para.284.
(48)Supra note[12],p.746,para.287.
(49)I Made AndiArsana,Chris Rizos,Clive Schofield,“The Application of GIS in Maritime Boundary Delimitation”,in Alias Abdul-Rahman,SisiZlatanova and Volker Coors(eds.),Innovations in 3D Geo Information System,(Berlin/Heidelberg:Springer,2006),p.716.
(50)Supra note[17],p.99,para.343.
(51)See Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v.Colombia),Declaration of Judge Keith,p.125,https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/124/124-20121119-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf,(last visited December 8,2018).
(52)Supra note[17],p.702,para.211.
(53)Supra note[6],p.55,para.75.
(54)Supra note[11],p.69,para.193.
(55)利比亚/马耳他案中双方海岸线长度比为8∶ 1,面积比为3.8∶ 1;格陵兰/扬马延案中双方海岸线长度比为9.2∶ 1,面积比为3∶ 1。
(56)Supra note[17],pp.716-717,para.244.
(57)FayokemiOlorundami,”Objectivity versus Subjectivity in the Contextof the ICJ’s Three-stage Methodology of MaritimeBoundary Delimitation”,(2017)32 The International Journal ofMarine and Coastal Law,p.53.
(2)Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v.Ukraine),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2009,p.89,para.78.
(3)参见沈韦良、许光建:《第三次联合国海洋法会议和海洋法公约》,《中国国际法年刊》1983年,第401-435页。
(4)North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v.Denmark;Federal Republic of Germany v.Netherlands),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1969,pp.48-49,paras.88-90.
(5)Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia v.Libyan Arab Jamahiriya),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1982,pp.59-60,para.70.
(6)Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v.Malta),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1985,p.47,para.63.
(7)《公约》第15条规定:如果两国海岸彼此相向或相邻,两国中任何一国在彼此没有相反协议的情形下,均无权将其领海伸延至一条其每一点都同测算两国中每一国领海宽度的基线上最近各点距离相等的中间线以外。但如因历史性所有权或其他特殊情况而有必要按照与上述规定不同的方法划定两国领海的界限,则不适用上述规定。
(8)本文收集了2009年到2018年6月之间的7个案例,包括:2009年罗马尼亚/乌克兰案(国际法院)、2012年孟加拉/缅甸案(国际海洋法法庭)、2012年尼加拉瓜/哥伦比亚案(国际法院)、2014年智利/秘鲁案(国际法院)、2014年孟加拉/印度案(海牙常设仲裁法院)、2017年加纳/科特迪瓦案(国际海洋法法庭)、2018年哥斯达黎加/尼加拉瓜案(国际法院)。
(9)Supra note[2],p.101,para.118.
(10)Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh v.Myanmar),Judgment,I.T.L.O.S Reports 2012,pp.67-68,paras.239-240.
(11)Maritime Dispute (Peru v.Chile),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2014,p.65,para.180.
(12)Territorial and MaritimeDispute in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v.Honduras),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2007,p.741,para.272.
(13)Supra note[10],pp.62-63,paras.216-217.
(14)See Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v.Colombia),Separate Opinion of Judge Abraham,pp.115-119,https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/124/124-20121119-JUD-01-02-EN.pdf,(last visited December8,2018).
(15)Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Atlantic Ocean(Ghana v.C?te D’Ivoire),Judgment,I.T.L.O.S.Reports 2017,p.76,para.254.
(16)Supra note[2],p.112,para.155.
(17)Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v.Colombia),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2012,p.696,para.192.
(18)In the Matter of the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary (Bangladesh v.India),Award,P.C.A 2014,pp.105-117,paras.372-399.
(19)Supra note[15],p.91,para.312.
(20)Supra note[2],p.113,para.158.
(21)Supra note[17],p.702,para.211.
(22)Supra note[2],pp.126-127,paras.199-201.
(23)Supra note[11],p.69,para.191.
(24)Supra note[15],pp.118-121,paras.414-425.
(25)Supra note[10],pp.79-82,paras.285-297.
(26)Supra note[17],pp.117-121,paras.400-408.
(27)Supra note[2],pp.109-110,para.149.
(28)Supra note[10],p.47,para.152.
(29)Supra note[15],p.89,para.303.
(30)Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v.Nicaragua),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 2018,p.59,para.154.
(31)Supra note[15],p.61,para.194.
(32)Supra note[17],p.706,para.223.
(33)Supra note[15],pp.128-129,paras.452-455.
(34)Supra note[17],p.115,paras.393-394.
(35)Supra note[2],pp.123-126,paras.189-198.
(36)Supra note[17],pp.704-705,paras.217-220.
(37)Supra note[15],pp.129-135,paras.456-478.
(38)Supra note[2],p.128,para.204.
(39)Supra note[17],pp.705-706,paras.221-222.
(40)参见高健军:《国际海洋划界论——有关等距离/特殊情况规则的研究》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第162-163页。
(41)Supra note[17],p.151,para.481.
(42)Supra note[2],p.99,para.110.
(43)Supra note[17],p.154,paras.493-494.
(44)黑海案中,罗马尼亚和乌克兰的相关海岸长度之比为1∶ 2.8,划界所得相关海域之比为1∶ 2.1;孟加拉/缅甸案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 1.42,相关海域比为1∶ 1.54;孟加拉/印度案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 1.92,相关海域比为1∶ 2.81;秘鲁/智利案中,法庭认为比例严重失调的状况并未出现;加纳/科特迪瓦案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 2.53,相关海域比为1∶ 2.02;尼加拉瓜/哥伦比亚案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 8.2,相关海域比为1∶ 3.44;哥斯达黎加/尼加拉瓜案中,相关海岸长度比为1∶ 1.42,相关海域比为1∶ 1.3。
(45)参见张华:《国际司法裁决中的海洋划界方法论解析》,《外交评论》2012年第6期,第145页。
(46)FayokemiOlorundami,“The ICJ and Its Lip Service to the Non-Priority Status of the Equidistance Method of Delimitation”,(2015) 4 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law,p.66.
(47)Supra note[15],p.84,para.284.
(48)Supra note[12],p.746,para.287.
(49)I Made AndiArsana,Chris Rizos,Clive Schofield,“The Application of GIS in Maritime Boundary Delimitation”,in Alias Abdul-Rahman,SisiZlatanova and Volker Coors(eds.),Innovations in 3D Geo Information System,(Berlin/Heidelberg:Springer,2006),p.716.
(50)Supra note[17],p.99,para.343.
(51)See Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v.Colombia),Declaration of Judge Keith,p.125,https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/124/124-20121119-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf,(last visited December 8,2018).
(52)Supra note[17],p.702,para.211.
(53)Supra note[6],p.55,para.75.
(54)Supra note[11],p.69,para.193.
(55)利比亚/马耳他案中双方海岸线长度比为8∶ 1,面积比为3.8∶ 1;格陵兰/扬马延案中双方海岸线长度比为9.2∶ 1,面积比为3∶ 1。
(56)Supra note[17],pp.716-717,para.244.
(57)FayokemiOlorundami,”Objectivity versus Subjectivity in the Contextof the ICJ’s Three-stage Methodology of MaritimeBoundary Delimitation”,(2017)32 The International Journal ofMarine and Coastal Law,p.53.