从“蒙特·卡夫卡”号案析国际海洋法 法庭的地位和作用

国际海洋法法庭是专门处理海洋法争端的常设性国际司法机构, 成立至今处理的大 多是关于“船只和船员的迅速释放”的案件, “蒙特·卡夫卡”号案即是此类典型案例。通过分析法庭 对“蒙特·卡夫卡”号案的审理可知, 法庭在有关“船只和船员的迅速释放” 、规定“临时措施”以及有 关海底争端的案件方面具有强制管辖权, 这使法庭在处理海洋法争端方面处于独特的重要地位。 但依据《联合国海洋法公约》的规定, 法庭不是处理海洋法争端的唯一机构。实践中, 更多的海洋法 争端被提交到了国际法院。基于此, 我们应正确认识国际海洋法法庭的地位和作用     

中菲南海争端仲裁庭的法律问题

菲律宾无视它与中国之间《南海各方行为宣言》的存在与有效性,以变相的岛礁主权争端和海洋划界争端的方式,单方面提起南海争端强制仲裁。虽然此举不符合《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称《公约》）规定的条件,但并不意味着菲律宾启动该程序具有非法性。即使中国不接受该仲裁和不参与仲裁程序,也不影响中菲仲裁庭的合法成立及其程序的合法性与对中国不利裁决的有效性。因此,对待仲裁庭的后续书面程序和口诉程序,中国是维持现行政策还是重新参与,是值得重新评估的一个问题。重新参与后续程序应该是中国的一个适当政策选择。因为参与所面临的最大挑战——南海“断续线”的法律地位——可以通过反驳《公约》对之不适用从而避免澄清其地位的棘手问题。更重要的是,依据“南方蓝鳍金枪鱼案”仲裁庭的推理与裁决和中国2006年声明以及国际海洋划界与外大陆架划界案例,《南海各方行为宣言》属于《公约》第281条第1款中排除附件7强制仲裁的“协议”,菲律宾的大部分实体请求属于不可裁决事项,因而仲裁庭应该裁定对本争端无管辖权或不可受理。即使中国继续奉行不参与政策,也不应该无所作为。中国可以采取“间接参与”的方式,在仲裁庭开始书面程序后,公开发表一份正式书面文件,以全面反对菲律宾提起仲裁和反对仲裁庭对争端的管辖权和可受理性。     

论中菲南海仲裁案之“无效性”

菲律宾单方面对中国启动《联合国海洋法公约》附件七的强制仲裁程序,中国已多次对外宣示"不接受、不参与"之立场。强制仲裁实难解决南海争端。中菲仲裁案的管辖权问题目前尚未解决,即便进入实体审理阶段,菲方亦无必胜把握。由于两国在南海领土主权及海洋划界争端未被提交仲裁,菲方若败诉,可能在不违反判决的前提下提出许多法律理由将其持续在南海对抗中国的作为"合法化",中方若被判败诉亦可如此。判决并不具备解决中菲南海冲突及争端的法律效力,两国针对核心争端的各自立场及法律论点不会因本案判决受任何影响。     

国际海洋法争端解决机制对钓鱼岛争端的影响

钓鱼岛争端并不仅仅在于岛屿本身的归属, 还涉及到在中日海域划界中的地位, 以及周围地区的资源开采等方面的问题。当海洋法争端升级时, 国家应先寻求政治手段缓和局 势, 同时积极研究《联合国海洋法公约》设置的争端解决机制, 采取行动, 以防止自己在公约的框 架内处于不利境地。所以, 分析公约的争端解决机制, 总结各缔约国对该机制的态度, 以及国家 之间过去和现在解决不同类型的海洋法争端所用的方法, 会对我国解决钓鱼岛争端及进行海域 划界提供借鉴。     

中韩海洋权益之争

海洋对主权国家具有重要意义,由于《联合国海洋法》对专属经济区及海洋大陆架的划界原则没有明确的规定,中韩关于二者的划界原则又各不相同,韩国在大陆架划界问题上持双重标准,以实现一已之利为目的,因而在海洋资源的开发与利用上,韩国不顾中国的海洋权益,多次制造渔业纠纷,挑起黄海、东海大陆架划界争端,继而又侵占中国东海水域的苏岩礁。尽早解决中韩海洋权益之争,是中韩战略合作伙伴关系中面临的一个重要课题。     

菲律宾提起南海争端强制仲裁程序与中国的应对

2013年1月,菲律宾就南海争端向中国提起强制仲裁程序.中菲两国接受了《联合国海洋法公约》关于强制仲裁的义务,因而菲律宾启动南海争端的仲裁程序无需中国同意.但是,菲律宾启动该仲裁程序,违反了中菲在《南海各方行为宣言》中达成的共识,存在法律适用错误,中国有正当理由不予接受.中国的不接受在强制仲裁程序中只意味着对仲裁庭管辖权的初步反对,却不能阻止仲裁程序本身的进行,因而中国积极参与仲裁程序肯定比消极对待更能收到积极的效果.因此,中国应该参与仲裁庭的组建,并与菲律宾积极谈判和协商,争取终止仲裁程序.如果仲裁庭最终建立起来,则中国应出席仲裁庭,坚持反对仲裁庭的管辖权和可受理性.按照“南方蓝鳍金枪鱼案”裁决的推理与裁定,仲裁庭最终应该裁定对中菲南海争端没有管辖权.     

《联合国海洋法公约》强制争端解决机制下的南海争端解决

《联合国海洋法公约》第十五部分关于强制争端解决机制的规定实质上就是一个普通的仲裁条款,它在处理南海问题时面临着诸多局限。首先,《公约》争端解决机制的强制性是有限度的,第十五部分第一节和第三节为缔约国提供了可以规避强制机制的附加说明和选择性排除条款。其次,中菲南海争端显然是关于主权和海域划界的争端,明显超出了《公约》的管辖范围。仲裁庭对海上地物性质及"九段线"合法性的裁决会对中国的主张"未审先判"。再次,中菲达成的《南海各方行为宣言》及中国根据《公约》298条做出的排除性声明是否能够排除仲裁庭对南海争端的管辖权?仲裁庭对此并没有给出令人信服的回答。最后,在可受理性问题上,必要的第三方问题及诉由消失问题的存在也使得本案不可受理。     

论澳巴海洋边界划分方法之特色及其对中日东海海域划界之借鉴意义

大陆架及专属经济区制度产生以来,相邻或相向沿海国的海域划界特别是其彼此的专属经济区(或专属渔区)与大陆架应统一还是分别划界问题之重要性日益凸显。独具特色的澳巴海域划界条约采用的划界方法,对中日关于东海海域划界冲突立场之协调富有借鉴意义,在东海中日争议海域,可以通过就大陆架和上覆水域分别划定界线并设立适当联合开发区来解决争端。     

《联合国海洋法公约》的缺陷及中美日南海海权博弈对策比较分析

现行的《联合国海洋法公约》存在重大缺陷,无论从法理还是实践的视角看,都存在不公平性。南海争端的核心是领土主权争端,《联合国海洋法公约》并不适用于主权和领土争议,因此也就不适用于南海争端的处理。菲律宾对中国提出南海仲裁案的背后推手是美日等国。基于现行《联合国海洋法公约》的缺陷,为了解决南海争端,中国采取外交谈判优先的战略,美国在《联合国海洋法公约》框架外采取了以军事优势为基础的海洋威慑战略,日本则实行国际干预架构下的海洋同盟战略。采取上述不同战略的根本实质在于中美日三国围绕南海展开的海权博弈。中国应倡导南海海洋治理的两个创新性理念:以法治海、以海治海。     

俄罗斯与波罗的海邻国的海洋划界争端解决

在波罗的海,俄罗斯与芬兰、波兰、瑞典、爱沙尼亚、立陶宛等5国是海岸相邻或相向的邻国,存在着领海、专属经济区和大陆架边界的划定问题。目前,当事国在依据国际法并结合海域实情的基础上,通过直接谈判已解决了大多数海洋划界争端。值得注意的是,这些海洋划界争端的解决,在划界原则与方法、岛屿法律效力、难题应对及最终界线等方面都展现出共性与个性的处理智慧。     

越南近海渔业及其对地区安全与合作的影响

20世纪90年代中期越南出于“海上安全”、经济社会发展、近岸渔业资源和环境保护的需要,大力发展“近海”渔业。然而,越南“近海”渔业意在凸显其单方面“专属经济区”权利主张和对我国南沙群岛、西沙群岛的主权声索,侵犯了我国南海岛礁主权和海洋权益,将升温南海争端,损害地区传统安全,不利于共同开发和南海争端的良性发展;越南的“近海”渔业对南海海洋渔业资源和海洋环境的保护也有不利影响,但客观上可能促进南海非传统安全合作。     

海洋划界前临时安排在南海的适用

海洋划界前临时安排是缓和争端方矛盾的最佳途径,它能给予各方充分的时间来重新审视自己的立场,并能为海洋边界的最终划定奠定良好的基础。南海争端涉及六国七方,其划界争议的解决尤为复杂。近年来,我国与南海周边国家签订了一系列海洋划界前临时安排,但这些临时安排存在可操作性差、约束力弱、合作层次低等弊端。未来我国在与南海争端方签订海洋划界前临时安排时,应努力克服上述弊端,使其价值能真正凸现出来。     

Structural,Domestic, and Strategic Interests in the European Union: Negotiation Positions in the Council of Ministers

Preferences are a crucial element for analyzing decision making and negotiations, but knowledge about which factors determine these preferences is sparse. Some quantitative and qualitative studies of European Union (EU) negotiations have assumed that the negotiation conflict dimensions in intergovernmental negotiations reflect market‐versus‐regulation approaches as well as a north–south dimension. In this study, I demonstrate that these findings can be extended to show that the relevant determining factors for negotiation positions are economic structural variables and the degree to which a country benefits from the EU. Furthermore, the domestic interests of EU governments better explain a government's interest in some specific issues, such as consumer protection or fishery policies, than do their partisan preferences. Moreover, I am able to show that in frequent negotiations, such as EU Council of Ministers negotiations, sincere preferences dominate; however, some factors, such as extreme salience, can increase the likelihood that a minister will choose a less sincere strategic position such as an extreme position.     

构建中日韩自贸区农产品市场准入谈判分析

构建中日韩自贸区,必定要在农产品领域实现贸易自由化,其中农产品的市场准入问题首当其冲。虽然中日韩已签署的双边自贸协定对三国间农产品市场准入谈判有重要的借鉴意义,但日韩为保护国内脆弱的农业,大量运用关税和非关税措施,并在多边农业谈判中就关税削减、特殊保障措施的存废等问题的立场与中国存在较大差异,这预示着上述问题将成为中日韩自贸区农产品市场准入谈判的难点。因此,即将开启的中日韩自贸区农产品市场准入谈判,应当结合有益的国内外实践,恰当规划谈判议程,遵守非歧视性原则,灵活设定关税削减问题中的农产品准入范围、过渡期,规范适用农产品特殊保障措施,从而推动该谈判各项共识的早日达成,进而加快中日韩自贸区谈判的进程。     

南海问题新趋势及前景探析

南海问题是南海周边国家之间长期悬而未决的领土争端问题。近年来,南海地区安全形势的变化表现出一些新特征。文章分析了南海问题的最新发展趋势,探究其未来走向,认为应该采取一种综合性的危机管理与预防机制,通过加强在能源、非传统安全领域的功能性合作,建立互信措施,并在此基础上努力达成有约束力的规范性安排,以寻求最终解决南海问题。     

南海共同开发案例研究

目前南海争端愈演愈烈,共同开发停滞不前。但毋庸置疑,若以和平手段解决南海争端,那么共同开发就必定会作为一项重要的过渡性争端解决措施而被各当事国所采用。南海泰国湾地区共同开发案的制度设计,能够为南海主海在某个特定时间和空间节点实施共同开发提供法律框架范本。为此,本文选取“马来西亚-泰国”、“马来西亚-越南”两个业已实施的共同开发案例,分析其管理机构与模式、合同制度、费用分摊与收益分享机制、管辖权及其冲突之解决、争端解决方式等法律制度层面的问题,以期未雨绸缪,对我国未来在南海构建行之有效的共同开发机制提供智力支持。     

Managing the conceptual gap on sovereignty in China–EU relations

While, historically, sovereignty is what Europeans invented and what the Chinese were forced to accept, today it is what Europeans try to bury and what the Chinese hold dear. A conceptual gap on sovereignty clearly exists between China and Europe which more often than not exerts a negative impact on their relationship. It breeds misunderstandings and disputes, makes it more difficult to reach agreements on many bilateral issues, and complicates China–Europe cooperation in third countries. But the conceptual gap on sovereignty does not prevent China and Europe from building a strategic partnership. Given that strengthening or weakening national sovereignty means totally different things to China and Europe, the two parties should jointly and proactively manage their divergence on sovereignty issues by mutual avoidance, mutual assurance, and mutual accommodation, in order to unlock sovereignty-related impasses in China–Europe relations.     

Negotiation or Mediation?: An Exploration of Factors Affecting the Choiceof Conflict Management in International Conflict

The conditions under which negotiation or mediation are chosen in internationalconflict have been little studied. Previous research has tended tofocus on the motivations and rational calculations of the states involved.Scant attention has been given to examining the effect of the context onthis choice. In this article, we present a framework for studying the contextualconditions under which negotiation or mediation are likely to takeplace. Employing an original data set, we find that negotiation tends to beused when conflicts are relatively simple, of a low intensity, and when bothparties are relatively equal in power. Mediation, on the other hand, tends tobe used in disputes characterized by high complexity, high intensity, longduration, unequal and fractionated parties, and where the willingness ofthe parties to settle peacefully is in doubt.     

Chronicling the Complexification of Negotiation Theory and Practice

The essay reviews the content of twenty-five years of Negotiation Journal , identifying themes and issues explored on its pages in the past, the current issues challenging the field's scholars and practitioners, and the issues likely to confront us in the future. It argues that while we in the field hoped for simple, elegant, and universal theories of negotiation and conflict resolution, the last twenty-five years have demonstrated the increasing complexification of negotiation theory and practice, from increased numbers of parties and issues, and dilemmas of intertemporal commitments, ethics, accountability, and relationships of private action to public responsibility.     

Cognitive Maelstroms,Nested Negotiation Networks,and Cascading Decision Effects: Modeling and Teaching Negotiation Complexity with Systemic Multiconstituency Exercises

Negotiation practitioners today struggle to manage complex political, economic, and cultural disputes that often involve an array of intertwined issues, parties, process choices, and consequences – both intended and unintended. To prepare next‐generation negotiators for these multifaceted challenges, negotiation instructors must keep pace with the rapidly evolving complexity of today's world. In this article, we introduce systemic multiconstituency exercises (SMCEs), a new educational tool for capturing this emerging reality and helping to close the experiential learning gap between the simulated and the non‐simulated environment. We discuss our pedagogical rationale for developing The Transition, a seventy‐two‐party SMCE inspired by the complex conflicts in Afghanistan and Central Asia and then describe our experiences conducting multiple iterations of this simulation at Harvard University. We argue that SMCEs, in which stakeholders are embedded in clusters of overlapping networks, differ from conventional multiparty exercises because of their immersive character, emergent properties, and dynamic architecture. This design allows for the creation of crucial negotiation complexity challenges within a simulated exercise context, most importantly what we call “cognitive maelstroms,” nested negotiation networks, and cascading decision effects. Because of these features, SMCEs are uniquely suited for training participants in the art of network thinking in complex negotiations. Properly designed and executed, systemic multiconstituency exercises are next‐generation teaching, training, and research platforms that carefully integrate negotiation, leadership, and decision‐making challenges.