还剩10页未读,继续阅读
本资源只提供10页预览,全部文档请下载后查看!喜欢就下载吧,查找使用更方便
文本内容:
国际法经典案例英挪渔业案The Conclusionsof the United Kingdomare expliciton thispoint:the base-linemust below-water markon permanentlydry landwhich is a part of Norwegianterritory,or theproper closingline ofNorwegian internalwaters.低潮线原则The Courthas nodifficulty infinding that,for thepurpose ofmeasuringthe breadthof the territorial sea,it is the low-water markasopposed to the high-water mark,or themean between the twotides,whichhas generallybeen adoptedin thepractice ofStates.This criterionisthe mostfavourable to the coastalState andclearly showsthe character of territorialwatersas appurtenant附属物tothe land territory.The Courtnotes that theParties agreeas tothis criterion,but that they differas toits application.In thiscase,the Partiesbeing inagreement on the figureof4miles for thebreadth of theterritorialsea,the problemwhich arisesis fromwhat base-linethis breadthis to be reckoned.从哪里开始划挪威的低潮线The Courtfinds itselfobliged todecide whether therelevant low-water markis thatof the mainland orof theSince themainland isborderedin itswestern sectorbyouter line of thewhich must be taken into accountindelimiting thebelt ofNorwegian territorial waters.This solutionis dictatedbygeographic realities.英国对于十海里原则的主张is entitledto claimas-Norwegianinternal waters,on historicgrounds,all fjords and sunds which fallwithin theconception of a bay asdefined ininternational lawsee No.6below,whethertheproper closingline of the indentationis moreor less对十海里原则的反驳In thesecircumstances the Court deemsit necessary topoint outthat althoughthe ten-mile rulehas beenadopted bycertain Statesboth in theirnational lawand in their treatiesand conventions,and althoughcertainarbitral decisionshave appliedit asbetween theseStates,other Stateshaveadopted adifferent limitConsequently,the ten-mile rulehas notacquiredthe authorityof ageneral ruleof internationallaw.In theopinion of theUnited Kingdom Government,Norway isentitled,onhistoric grounds,to claimas internalwaters allfjordsand sundswhich havethe character of a bay.She isalso entitledon historicgrounds toclaim asNorwegianterritorial watersall thewaters of the fjordsandsundswhichhavethe character oflegal straitsConclusions,point9,and,either as internal orasterritorial waters,the areasof waterlying betweenthe islandfringe and themainland.By areusually meantwaters whichare treatedasinternal watersbut which would not have thatcharacter wereit notfor theexistenceof anhistoric title.The UnitedKingdom Governmentrefers tothenotion ofhistoric titlesbothinrespect ofterritorial watersand internalwaters,considering suchtitles,in bothcases,as derogationsfrom generalinternationallaw.In itsopinion Norwaycan justifythe claimthat thesewatersare territorialor internalon theground thatshe hasexercised thenecessaryjurisdiction overthem for a long period withoutopposition fromother States,akind of-possessio longitemporis,with theresult thather jurisdictionoverthese watersmust nowbe recognizedalthough itconstitutes aderogationfrom the rules inforce,[p131]Norwegian sovereigntyover thesewaters wouldconstitute anexception,historic titlesjustifying situationswhichwouldotherwise bein conflictwithinternational直线画法、年诏令所合用的划线方法符合国际法1935Court willconfine itselfat thisstageto notingthat,in orderto applythis principle,several Stateshavedeemed itnecessarytofollow thestraight base-lines methodand that theyhave notencountered objectionsof principleby otherStates.This hasbeendone,not only in thecase ofwell-defined bays,but alsoin casesof minorcurvaturesof the coast linewhere it was solelya questionof givinga simplerformtothebelt ofterritorial waters.Even theUnitedKingdomdid notcontest itfor manyyears:itwasonlyin1933that theUniteti Kingdommade aformal anddefinite protest.对于英国认为只能用于海湾的反驳it hasbeen contended,on behalfof theUnitedKingdom,that Norwaymay drawstraight linesonly across bays.The Courtisunable toshare thisview.If thebelt ofterritorialwatersmust followthe outerlineof theand ifthe method of straightbaselinesmustbeadmitted incertain cases,there isno validreason todrawthem onlyacrossbays,asinEastern Finmark,and notalso todraw thembetweenislands,islets androcks,across thesea areasseparating them,evenwhen suchareas donot fallwithin theconceptionof a bay.It issufficient thattheyshould besituated betweenthe islandformationsThe UnitedKingdom Governmenthas directedits criticismmore particularlyagainsttwo sectors,the delimitationof whichthey representedas extremecasesof deviationfrom the general directionof thecoast:the sector ofSvaerholthavet betweenbase-points nand12and thatof Lopphavetbetweenbase-points20and
21.The Courtwill dealwith thedelimitation ofthesetwo sectorsfrom thispoint ofview.The base-line betweenpoints nand12,which is
38.6sea milesin length,delimits thewaters of the Svaerholtlying betweenCape Nordkynand theNorthCape.The UnitedKingdom Governmentdenies that the basinsodelimited has the character of a bay.Its argumentis foundedon ageographicalconsideration.In itsopinion,the calculationof the basinspenetration inlandmust stopatthetip of the SvaerholtpeninsulaSvaerholtklubben.The penetrationinland thusobtained beingonly n.5seamiles,as against
38.6miles ofbreadth atthe entrance,it isalleged that thebasin inquestion doesnothavethecharacterof abay.The Courtis unabletoshare thisview.It considersthatthebasin inquestion mustbe contemplatedinthe lightof allthe geographicalfactors involved.The factthat apeninsulajuts outand formstwo widefjords,the Lakse-fjord andthe Porsangerfjord,cannot deprivethebasinof thecharacterofabay.It isthe distancesbetweenthe disputedbaseline andthemostinland point of thesefjords,50and75seamiles respectively,which mustbe takeninto accountin appreciatingtheproportion betweenthe penetrationinland andthe widthatthemouth.TheCourt concludesthat Svaerholthavethas thecharacterofabay.The delimitationof theLopphavet basinhas alsobeen criticizedby theUnitedKingdom.As hasbeen pointedout above,its criticismof theselection ofbasepoint No.21may be regarded asabandoned.The Lopphavetbasinconstitutes anill-defined geographicwhole.It cannotberegardedas havingthecharacterofabay.It ismade upof anextensive areaof waterdotted withlargeislands whichare separatedby inletsthat terminateinthevarious fjords.The base-line hasbeen challengedon theground that it doesnot respectthegeneral directionof thecoast.It shouldbe observedthat,however justifiedtherule inquestion may be,[p142]it isdevoid of any mathematicalprecision.Inorder properlyto applytherule,regard mustbe hadfortherelation betweenthedeviation complainedof andwhat,according tothe termsoftherule,mustbe regardedasthe general directionofthecoast.Therefore,one cannotconfineoneself toexamining onesectorofthecoastalone,except ina caseofmanifest abuse;nor canone relyontheimpression thatmaybegathered fromalarge scalechart ofthis sectoralone.In thecase inpoint,the divergencebetweenthe base-line andthe landformations isnot suchthatitisadistortionof thegeneral directionofthe Norwegian coast.The factSThe historicalfacts laidbefore theCourt establishthat asthe resultofcomplaints fromthe Kingof Denmarkand of Norway,atthebeginning oftheseventeenth century,British fishermenrefrained fromfishing inNorwegiancoastal watersforalongperiod,from1616-1618until
1906.In1906a fewBritish fishingvessels appearedoff the coasts ofEasternFinnmark.From1908onwards theyreturned ingreater numbers.These weretrawlersequipped withimproved andpowerful gear.The localpopulationbecame perturbed,and measureswere takenby theNorwegian Governmentwitha viewto specifyingthe limitswithin whichfishing wasprohibited toforeigners.For allthe foregoingreasons,theCourtfound ineach casethattheuse oftheequidistance methodof delimitation was notobligatory asbetweentheParties;that noother singlemethodofdelimitationwasin allcircumstances obligatory;that delimitationwas to be effectedby agreementin accordancewith equitableprinciplesand takingaccount ofall relevantcircumstances,in sucha wayasto leaveas muchas possibleto eachParty allthose partsofthecontinentalshelf thatconstituted anatural prolongation of itsland territory,withoutencroachment onthe naturalprolongationofthelandterritory ofthe other;andthat,if suchdelimitation producedoverlapping areas,they weretobedividedbetween theParties inagreed proportions,or,failing agreement,equally,unless theydecided ona regimeof jointjurisdiction,user,or exploitation.In thecourse ofnegotiations,the factorstobetakenintoaccount weretoinclude:thegeneralconfiguration ofthecoastsoftheParties,as wellas thepresenceofanyspecial orunusual features;so faras knownor readilyascertainable,the physicaland geologicalstructure andnatural resourcesofthe continental shelf areasinvolved,the elementofareasonable degreeofproportionality betweenthe extentofthecontinental shelfareas appertainingtoeach Stateandthelength ofits coastmeasured inthegeneraldirection ofthecoastline,taking intoaccount theeffects,actual orprospective,of anyothercontinentalshelfdelimitations inthe sameregion.英挪渔业案英国诉挪威国际法院,年1951【案情】英国长期以来在挪威海岸外的海域捕鱼自世纪以来,英国就时常17在捕鱼方面与挪威(当时是丹挪王国)发生争执年后,英挪两国还1911发生过几次捕鱼争端年,英国向挪威政府提出一份备忘录,指责挪1933威在划定领海基线上所采用的方法不合法年月日,挪威颁布一1935712项国王诏令,诏令宣布北纬以北的海域为挪威专属渔区根据该26288,诏令,挪威沿岸以其外缘的高地、岛屿和礁石的个点为基点,用直线把48这些基点连成直线基线,宣布基线向海一面海里的海域为挪威的专属渔4区英国在年已曾经反对过挪威采用直线基线的方法,并认为挪威采1933用的直线太长(最长者达海里)挪威年的诏令颁布后,英挪两国441935进行了多次谈判,但没有结果在年间,英国不少渔船被挪威政1948-1949府拿捕年月日,英国以请求书向国际法院起诉,要求国际法院1949928指出挪威划定领海的方法是否违背国际法因英挪两国均已接受了国际法院的强制管辖,国际法院接受了这个案件,对英挪两国的渔业争端进行审理并在年月日作出判决19511218【诉讼与判决】诉讼要求特殊协定请求国际法院:
1.1宣布适用于划定基线的国际法原则o挪威政府将根据这条基线向海一面划出一个延伸4海里完全留给其本国国民使用的专属渔区,这条基线的确定应尽可能考虑双方的论点,以避免两国发生进一步的法律争议2如法院认为挪威政府有权划定上条所指的渔区并把该渔区只留给其本国国民使用,请对挪威政府对在该线以外的区域干扰英国渔船所造成的损失判予赔偿.诉讼主张2英国政府认为挪威政府1935年诏令所划出的线不是依照国际法划出的,并认为本案应适用的原则是领海基线必须是最低潮线连接内水的封闭线不应超过10海里挪威不否认有这些规则,但认为这些规则对挪威不适用,并坚持说它所采用的划定基线的方法,无论从哪一方面来说都是符合国际法的经过书面诉讼和口头诉讼后,国际法院认为本案须研究三个问题1英国提出的原则是不是国际法的正确说明?2挪威的方法是不是符合国际法?3挪威的国王诏令是不是正确地适用了这种方法.法院的分析3法院认为在处理这个案件时,有几个基本点是必需考虑的第一个考虑是领海从属于陆地的观念沿海国正是根据陆地才有权取得沿岸水域的权利国家划定领海界线时必需考虑实际的需要和当地的要求,并考虑领海基线的划定可能偏离其海岸一般趋势的合理的范围第二个考虑是某些海域与把它分隔或包围的陆地组成部分之间的靠近程度,因为划定基线时,应考虑其靠近程度是否足以使该海域成为内水沿岸国在有关海湾规则的基础上根据自己的地理情况来决定第三个考虑是延伸的范围除了地理因素之外,不要忽略了特殊的经济利益,这个因素的现实性和重要性是由长期的惯例所证实了的关于第一个问题英国提出了两个原则,一是“低潮线原则”,二是“十海里原则”°至于“低潮线原则”,国际法院指出为了确定测算领海宽度的基线,国家实践曾采用过低潮线、高潮线或两者的平均线这个标准能清楚地体现领海与陆地领土毗邻的特点各国都采用这个标准,挪威和英国都采用这个标准,不过作法上各有不同,在国际法上,没有统一的规则在本案中,挪威的4海里领海宽度的主张是没有争议的,问题只是这4海里应从什么地方算起挪威的低潮线应该从什么地方划出这就首先要考虑挪威海岸的特点了挪威海岸长约1500公里,地貌异常特殊,沿岸群山环抱,断断续续,其中包含无数岛屿、小岛和干礁,形成一个星罗棋布的小岛群,挪威称之为“石垒”sk-jargaard海岸外是一片浅平的沙滩该区域渔源丰富,足当地居民赖以生存的重要生活来源从争议地区最南端到“北角”,沿岸就是一片石垒在石垒里面,几乎每一个小岛都有大小不等的海湾、海峡和仅供当地居民往来的水道“石垒”构成挪威陆地的一个构成部份了挪威的海岸不像其他国家那样是陆地与海洋的明显边界,而是其“石垒”的外界在确定挪威领海基线的时候,低潮线是大陆的低潮线还是构成其大陆一部份的“石垒”的低潮线?就是说,挪威主张的海里领一海宽度的起点线4一基线应从大陆的低潮线算起,还是从“石垒”的低潮线算起?英国认为挪威的基线应该是构成挪威领土部份的干地和挪威内水的低潮线法院不能允许这个看法法院指出合用低潮线规则有三种方法那就是平行线法、圆弧法和直线法trace parallelearc ofcircles straightbaselinesystem最简单的是平行线法,即领海的外界彻底与海岸平行这个方法对海岸正常的国家是容易做到的当海岸曲度很大如挪威海岸东部的芬马克和沿岸岛屿密布如沿着挪威海岸西部的“石垒”的时候,基线就会脱离低潮线而只能根据地理结构划出了在这种情况下,低潮线就不能作为一个规则提出来要求海岸线必须与它的整个弯曲度相一致在本案中,英国在备忘录中曾经以低潮线标准反对挪威,但它在复辩状和在其代理人的陈述中已抛却了这个观点但另一方面,英国在复辩状中又认为正确的方法是“圆弧法”圆弧法是美国代表在年在海牙国际法编纂会议上提出的这1930是用新技术划出领海宽度的方法,其目的是实现领海必须沿着海岸线划出的原则但这种方法也没有法律的强制作用,英国代理人在口头答辩中也承认这一点法院指出,为了实现领海带必须沿着海岸线划出的原则,许多国家已认为有必要采用直线基线法,它们并没有受到别的国家反对直线基线法就是在低海线上选定适当的点,用直线把各点连起来这种方法不仅可以用予正常的海湾,也可以用于曲度不大的海岸英国认为挪威只能用宵线划出湾口的封闭线法院不能允许这个看法如果领海的基线必须沿着“石垒”的外线划出,就没有理由认为这种方法只能合用于海湾了至于“十海里原则”英国认为,根据国际法,海湾的封闭线不应超过海里,除非挪威能证明所有大湾小湾都是它的历史性水域,封闭线才10可以超过海里,但英国也承认挪威有权把这些水域作为它的历史性水域10挪威认为它以历史权利作为根据,但它对历史权利的解释不同,正如挪威代理人在听讯时所说的,“挪威政府不是以历史来论征它的额外权利,对海域提出为法律所拒绝的权利,挪威是用历史和其他因素一起来说明它所采用的方法是符合法律的”挪威政府的历史权利的概念是与它对普通国际法规则的理解是一致的在它看来,国际法的这些规则已考虑到事物的多样性,划线必须符合不同地区的特殊情况它认为,它所采取的直线基线法是当地情况之必需,是彻底符合法律的国际法院指出,“历史性水域”通常是指内水英国把历史性水域合用到内水和领海,这是违背国际法的至于直线的长度,虽然有些国家主张十海里,但也有许多国家采用不同的长度因此,“十海里规则”无论对海湾来说,还是对各个岛屿之间的海域来说,都还没有取得普遍国际法规则的权威由于挪威已不能在其海岸合用十海里规则,就不能以这个规则反对挪威关于第二个问题年诏令所合用的划线方法是否符合国际1935S I挪威认为,采用直线法划基线,已成为了挪威传统的方法这种方法是由挪威海岸的特殊地理情况造成的这种作法已为一系列的实践形成为挪威的一种制度六十多年来,这种制度从来没有受到其他国家反对国际法院也认为,挪威政府从年的诏令以来,直到本争端发生以前,就1812不断地通过诏令、报告、外交照会等文件表明采用直线方法划基线挪威的直线基线制度是从在本争端发生以前,就已经在长期的实践中确定下来了各国政府对这种方法的容忍态度证明他们不认为那是违反国际法的行为多少年来,连英国也没有提出异议惟独年月日的备忘录才1933727受到英国正式反对挪威的划线方法是根据其地理特点的需要决定的,它并没有为其他国家反对,应认为是没有违背国际法的关于第三个问题挪威的国王诏令的划线方法是否正确合用?在辩论中,英国认为挪威年国王诏令所划定的基线中的某些线段,例如斯1935维荷尔泰维特和洛伐维特没有彻底沿着海岸的Svaehol thavetLop-phavet,普通方向,于是是不符合上述标准的法院研究了这两个线段之后,认为斯维荷尔泰维特实际上是一个带有海湾性质的盆地,无非分成两个大湾洛伐维特在基线与陆地部份的稍许偏离,不能认为是偏离海岸的普通方向斯维荷尔维特自世纪以来就被挪威认为是它的内水,早已隶属于挪威的主权之下,至于洛17伐维特,偏离是很轻微的,由沿岸国自己解决就行了判决
4.根据上述分析,法院驳回了英国的要求,并于年月日作出195112281判决判决以票判定年月日挪威国王102“1935712诏令划定渔区的方法没有违反国际法以票判定“由倒王诏令采用8:4直线方法划出的基线没有违反国际法”判决作出时,阿尔瓦勒斯、海克沃斯、舒模等三位法官发表了个别意见;麦克奈尔和里德两位法官发表了不允许见【评注】基线是陆地和海洋的分界线,也是测算领海及其他海域的起点线确定基线是海洋法中最重要的问题但海洋法上还没有为各国统一合用的原则或者规则罗马时期最初采用高潮线,后来改用低潮线低潮线现在已为各国所普遍接受了年的《北海渔约》把低潮线称为“实际的标准”1812在年的国际法编纂会议上,低潮线被称为“通常的基线”年的19301958《领海与毗连区公约》把低潮线称为“正常基线”,所谓正常,是因为在正常情况下,它与海岸彻底平行但在海岸不那末正常的时候,就是说,在海岸弯曲度很大和岛屿又多的情况下,沿岸国就采用别的基线,直线基线就是普遍合用的一在本案中,英国认为挪威不应采用直线基线,不应以石垒的外缘作为基线,不应采用超过十海里长度的基线这三个主张都给国际法院驳回了直线基线最先是英国采用的远在年,英国就用直线划出马恩岛和安1604格尔西岛之间的基线后来许多国家都用直线划出湾口或者河口的封闭线到世纪,大多数国家都采用直线基线了因此,挪威用直线划出其基线,19那是无可非议的至于挪威的基线应是连接其石垒最外缘的线还是其陆地的海岸线?国际法院根据挪威沿岸的地貌特点,认定“石垒”是挪威陆地的一个构成部份,于是基线应是石垒的外界而不是陆地的海岸这个判断是非常客观和公正的所谓十海里的长度标准,在国际法上根本就没有这个规则,那只是英美北大西洋海岸渔业仲裁案裁决中提出的建设,运没有成为习惯法规则本案是有关领海基线制度的一个非常重要的案例国际法院在判决中指出采用直线基线的三个基本观点沿海国有权根据自己的地理特点选用划出领海基线的方法;1直线基线不应在任何明显的程度偏离海岸的普通方向;2基线向陆地一面的海域是沿岸国的内水3这些观点是在总结海洋法历史发展的基础上提出来的,这些观点已为各国在实践中所接受,并已反映在《领海与毗连区公约》第条和《联合国4海洋法公约》第条和第条中国际法院在本案的判决对现代海洋法的78发展具有非常重要的意义theNorwegianfisheries zoneas regardsthat partofNorwaywhich issituatednorthward of
66028.8V Northlatitude....shall runparallel withstraightbase-lines drawnbetween fixedpoints onthemainland,on islandsor rocks,starting fromthe finalpointofthe boundarylineofthe Realmin theeasternmostpartofthe Varangerfjordand goingas faras。