美国无权擅自在中国专属经济区从事“军事测量”——评“中美南海摩擦事件”

专属经济区的军事测量活动是沿海国与非沿海国和海洋强国围绕海洋军事利用及科学研究活动引生争论、争端的焦点问题。以美国为代表的海洋强国主张专属经济区的军事测量与水文测量一样都属于行使航行和飞越自由权,别国无权干涉。而中国以及大多数发展中的沿海国家则认为专属经济区的军事测量属于海洋科学研究,必须得到沿海国的批准并接受沿海国的管辖。从《联合国海洋法公约》的宗旨以及各相关条款的规定看,军事测量活动对沿海国家构成了严重的安全威胁。未经沿海国同意的他国在其专属经济区内的军事测量活动是不符合《联合国海洋法公约》精神的。美国虽然没有批准《联合国海洋法公约》,但其却恰恰利用了公约的制度创制并享有了公约的利益,为此,美国理应承担相应的国际责任。     

论专属经济区中的军事研究和测量活动

美军研究和测量船在我国专属经济区的监视和情报收集活动从未间断过,近期又频繁地在亚太地区进行联合军事演习,其"项庄舞剑"的意图昭然若揭。军事研究和测量活动应当被定性为军事活动,因而在专属经济区内的此类活动与《联合国海洋法公约》中"海洋应只用于和平目的"的宗旨相悖,已构成对沿海国安全的威胁,已经受到了诸多国家的质疑。沿海国对专属经济区内的军事活动进行管辖,并不妨碍航行自由,而是履行国际义务、维护航行自由与航道安全畅通的举措。     

论专属经济区内的外国军事活动

专属经济区作为《联合国海洋法公约》设立的新制度,没有明确规定其中的外国军事活动性质,各国对《公约》的相关条款的理解形成两种对立的观点:即认为专属经济区内的外国军事活动是他国的自由;或是该事项为沿海国的专属管辖权。通过分析《公约》制定的背景以及立法宗旨,专属经济区内的军事测量应事先得到沿海国的同意,具体内容尚需国际习惯法或者双边或多边条约规范。     

从国际法角度看美国测量船闯入中国专属经济区事件

专属经济区是《联合国海洋法公约》新设立的一个区域,专属经济区的法律地位以及他国在其内所享有的权利一直是国际法学界所关注的问题之一。美国“鲍迪奇”号海洋测量船闯入中国专属经济区事件,引起人们对他国在该区域所享有的“航行自由权”、“海洋科研自由权”等进行再一次审视。在《公约》下,这种所谓的“自由权”绝对不是什么“不受任何约束”的权利。因此,各国在享有并行使这类“自由权”时,应不忘尊重沿海国的有关权益并遵守国际法准则。     

论专属经济区上空的法律地位和飞越自由

1982年《联合国海洋法公约》规定的专属经济区制度是缔约国妥协的产物.《公约》排除了专属经济区属于领海的可能性,并给专属经济区下了一个功能性的定义,即通过精确描述沿海国和其他国家的自由、权利和义务来从功能上实现对专属经济区的界定,但未对专属经济区是否属于公海作出明确回答.因此,无论明确肯定或者否定专属经济区属于公海的一部分,都与《公约》的本意相悖.根据《公约》的规定,沿海国的权利和管辖权是主权性的,其他国家的自由是公海性的,因此专属经济区上空的飞越自由是公海性的,且与沿海国在专属经济区的主权权利和管辖权关涉不大.故此,防空识别区制度不可能从沿海国在专属经济区的主权权利和管辖权中找到法律依据,其实际上是国家行使自保权的行为.     

国际海洋法法庭的创建——我的个人经历和感受

<正> 联合国已将1998年定为国际海洋年,承认海洋占地球表面的71％。浩瀚的海洋蕴藏着极其丰富的生物资源及矿物和其他非生物资源,是“人类食物、居住和收入的泉源”。 然而,随着大陆架和专属经济区等法律概念的出现,由海域划界而引起的争端,此起彼伏,层出不穷。因油轮失事、海洋开发等人类活动,石油泄入海洋造成严重污染的事件也司空见惯。沿海国养护和管理生物资源的利益同其他国家在其海域内捕鱼的要求经常处于矛盾对立之中。渔业争端屡见不鲜。200海里专属经济区的普遍建立迫使远洋捕鱼国的部分渔船转移到公海。在专属经济区内外的邻接水域内,沿海国与远洋捕鱼国之间矛盾加深。即使1995年国际     

联合国海洋法公约与中国在南海的既得权利

《公约》在规定新的海洋法律秩序、赋予各国新的海洋权益的同时 ,并不完全打破既有的海洋法律秩序 ,不损害各国既得的海洋权利。《公约》规定的群岛水域、专属经济区和大陆架制度 ,允许沿海国扩展享有主权或主权权利的海域 ,但只能向传统的公海海域扩展 ,不得损害别国既得的领土主权和主权权利。中国对南海断续国界线内的历史性水域享有的各项历史性权利是在《公约》生效以前很久就已经确立的既得权利     

论海洋石油勘探与开发的法律方式

一、海洋石油勘探与开发法律方式的类型 海洋蕴藏丰富的石油资源，其绝大部分位于沿海国专属管辖的近海区域——大陆架及专属经济区。根据普遍接受的大陆架制度和专属经济区制度，沿海国为资源勘探开发的目的，对其近海区域享有“主权权利”。“主权权利”不是主权，而是沿海国为勘探和开发其近海的自然资源所必要的和与这种活动相关的一切权利，包括管辖权利以及防止和处罚违法行为的权利。主权权利是专属的，即沿海国如不勘探或开...     

论制止危害中国海洋领土安全活动的法律对策

近年来,中国海洋领土安全受到各种危害活动的严重威胁,主要表现在钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿和南沙群岛部分岛礁被外国非法占领,在专属经济区内以及专属经济区上空针对中国的外国军事活动明显增多等等。因此,为了持续宣示中国对被外国占领的岛礁的主权,应通过特别立法建立巡航制度,派遣军舰前往我被占领土地区巡航,在时机成熟时收复岛礁并实行有效控制;借助国内立法明确中国政府在“专属经济区军事活动”问题上的立场,针对不同性质的活动适用不同的规则;建立“防空识别区”防止针对中国的外国军用飞机飞越专属经济区上空。我们的立场、观点和主张应借助国内立法确定下来,为将来解决国际争端主张我方权利时提供有力证据。     

论专属经济区军事利用的法律问题

专属经济区是海洋法公约创设的自成一类的新海域和新制度。沿岸国对其自然资源拥有主权并享有专属管辖权。其他国家在沿岸国专属经济区虽享有“航行、飞越”等有关军事利用的自由,但这种自由不属于传统的公海自由,其上覆区域也不是“国际空域”。因此,任何国家任何形式的军事利用活动,都必须尊重沿岸国的主权和安全,只用于和平目的,禁止一切非法活动。沿岸国和其他国家在专属经济区水体和海床军事利用权限的范围和程度上是有区别的。     

Rethinking Regional Disparity in China

Income disparities in China decreased both across provinces and across three transprovincial areas from 1978 through 1984. After 1984 there was an increase in disparity across the three areas, but there was no change across provinces. The faster growth of the coastal area can be attributed to the growth of the previously relatively poorer areas of the eastern seaboard. But this was not realised at the cost of growth in other areas; instead it contributed to overall national economic growth. International trade and foreign direct investment are the main driving forces behind the changes in regional disparity. The reasons for the concentration of trade and foreign investment in the coastal area are its inherent comparative advantage in terms of lower labour costs, better infrastructure facilities, close relations with overseas Chinese, favourable geographic location, as well as national industrial policies that protect the domestic market from foreign investment. The central government's preferential policies towards the coastal area were a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for such a concentration of foreign trade and investment.     

位于他国内水外国船舶上犯罪之管辖权

针对位于他国内水的外国船舶上的犯罪之管辖权问题,指出船旗国不能根据领土原则行使管辖权。沿海国对在本国内水的外国船舶上的犯罪拥有排他性的领土管辖权。一般而言,沿海国对于下列犯罪行使管辖权：一是沿海国国民犯罪或使该沿海国国民受到损害的犯罪;二是破坏沿海国安宁和安全的犯罪;三是违反沿海国有关检疫、入出境、海上安全、海关事务、水域污染或禁止贩毒的法律的行为或犯罪;四是其他性质严重犯罪。根据国际习惯法规则或双边领事条约的规定,对于轻微的不影响船舶以外秩序的犯罪,沿海国一般不行使管辖权,由船旗国管辖。     

Waiver of the two-year home country physical presence requirement for certain foreign medical graduates--INS. Interim rule with request for comments

This rule amends the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) regulations by allowing certain foreign medical graduates who entered the United States in J-1 status, or who acquired J-1 status after arrival in the United States, to obtain a waiver of the 2-year home country residence and physical presence requirement under section 212(e)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) pursuant to a request by a State Department of Public Health, or its equivalent. The waiver is intended to permit these foreign medical graduates to work at a health care facility in an area designated by the Secretary, Health and Human Services (HHS), as having a shortage of health care professionals ("HHS-designated shortage area"). This interim rule also contains provisions which will permit these foreign medical graduates to change their nonimmigrant status in the United States from J-1 exchange visitor to H-1B specialty occupation worker.     

中国企业在美国反垄断诉讼中的挑战与应对:基于对相关判决的质疑

中国企业在美国的一系列反垄断诉讼发生在中国加入世界贸易组织后与美国在经贸关系中博弈摩擦不断升级的背景之下,其中涉及了美国反托拉斯法的域外适用、国际礼让原则、外国法查明、外国政府对本国法律解释的效力等一系列焦点问题。在相关案件的判决中,美国法院就上述问题的观点和论述存在诸多漏洞和偏颇之处,包括限缩适用"国际礼让原则"中"真实冲突"的条件、外国法查明中客观性的缺失等。而未来随着中国企业日益成为美国反托拉斯重点关注对象,中国企业会面临更多挑战,需从美国国内法、国际法、中国相关政策法规的制定以及企业自身行为的合规性等方面积极应对。     

国外科技法制对我国科技立法的启示

随着科学技术在经济发展中的地位不断提高,科技立法成为各国重要任务之一。美国、法国、日本等国外科技法制,在管理法制化、科技评估制度、科技人员管理机制、科技税收优惠制度等方面,对我国科技立法的完善均有借鉴作用。     

The Power of EU Collective Action: The Impact of EU Data Privacy Regulation on US Business Practice

Contemporary critiques of globalisation processes often focus on the potential levelling of regulatory standards and the export by the United States of neoliberal norms of deregulation and market facilitation. This paper, in contrast, examines the extra-jurisdictional impact of EU regulatory policy on the behaviour of foreign private parties, even in powerful states such as the United States. Shaffer finds that the threat of curtailing access to the EU's large market provides the EU with leverage. By acting collectively, EU Member States can magnify the impact of European policy on US business practice and enhance EU Member State clout in the negotiation of de jure and de facto foreign standards. The site of analysis is the current dispute between the United States and the European Union over the provision of 'adequate' data privacy protection in accordance with the EU Directive on data privacy. The paper explores the many ways in which the Directive affects US practice through changing the stakes of US players – including regulators, businesses, privacy advocates, lawyers and privacy service providers – and thereby shifting the playing field in the United States on which competing interest groups clash. In examining the interaction of EU law, US practice and international trade rules, the author finds that WTO law, rather than constraining the Directive's extra-jurisdictional impact, provides the EU with a shield against US retaliatory threats, thereby facilitating a trading up of data privacy standards. The paper concludes by examining the conditions under which cross-border exchange can lead to a leveraging up of social protections: the desire for firms to expand their markets, Member States' collective bargaining power buttressed by market clout, the nature of luxury goods, the externalities of foreign under-regulation legitimising EU intervention, and the constraints of supranational trade rules.     

CHINESE INVESTMENT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION & NATIONAL SECURITY

Rapidly increasing foreign direct investment from China within the European Union over the past decade has been, in general, greatly fostered by an open and non-discriminatory legal regime. However, 28 Member States retain control over the review of such investment for purposes of evaluating national security concerns within their respective borders. Current trends reveal a strong likelihood of substantial increases within the coming years in Chinese investment touching upon so-called “strategic” or “sensitive” sectors within the European Union nations. Similar Chinese investment in the United States has raised some strong opposition from the federal government on national security grounds. Accordingly, this article compares and contrasts the European Union’s current fragmented system of national security review with that of the United States — a centralized legal regime which provides for exclusive federal government national security review of foreign investment. The question is then posed as to the likelihood of the European Union adopting an American-style unified national security review system to replace the existing fragmented system, especially in light of the newly enhanced legal competence of European Union authorities over issues concerning foreign investment. This article then concludes with an analysis of the advantages to Chinese investors stemming from the creation of such a European-wide system of national security review.     

Federal old-age, survivors and disability insurance computation of benefits under totalization agreements--SSA. Notice of proposed rulemaking

Section 233 of the Social Security Act (the Act) authorizes the President of the United States to enter into Social Security agreements with foreign countries which permit the establishment of entitlement to benefits under title II of the Act by combining periods of coverage under the United States (U.S.) system and the system of the foreign country with which the U.S. has such an agreement. This process is called "totalization." We have gained a considerable amount of experience under the rules (Section 404.1918) for computing a totalization benefit while implementing the three agreements now in effect. That experience has shown that those rules are difficult to administer and that they can cause some undesirable results for benefit applicants. The rules also make it difficult to negotiate and implement additional agreements. In order to avoid administrative problems and other undesirable results we are proposing a new U.S. totalization benefit computation method which uses neither foreign earnings nor foreign coverage.     

法院地国家国内法中的冲突规则与国际条约的关系

法院地国家国内法中的冲突规则和已对该国生效的国际条约中的冲突规则同属该国国际私法的渊源。多数国家的国际私法制定法均有优先适用国际条约中的冲突规则的规定,但其国际私法分则对国际条约中的冲突规则的处理方式则主要有三种不同的立法模式。在裁判涉外民事案件的实践中,实体法解决办法有别于冲突法解决办法,仅在案件不符合国际统一实体私法条约的适用条件的情形下,才能依法院地国家国内法的冲突规则确定准据法。涉外合同的双方当事人选择已对法院地国家和其他缔约国生效的国际条约并不等于选择了合同准据法。而如果涉外合同的双方当事人选择了尚未对法院地国家生效、但已对两个或两个以上其他国家生效的国际条约,则只能视为对无法律约束力的“非国家规则” 的选择。由于“程序问题适用法院地法”,涉外民事案件的程序事项既不适用冲突规则,也不适用实体私法规则。法院地国家国内法的冲突规则不会同国际条约中的国际民事程序法规则发生抵触。