海洋维权执法下《联合国海洋法公约》的适用——南海仲裁案第13项仲裁请求裁决评析

发布时间：2018-02-25 09:04

本文关键词： 南海仲裁案《联合国海洋法公约》船旗国义务沿海国保护权《国际海上避碰规则》　出处：《太平洋学报》2017年02期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：仲裁庭无视对菲律宾第13项请求进行判断的前提——黄岩岛主权归属及沿海国的确定,武断地得出《联合国海洋法公约》第298条1(b)不适用于领海的结论。仲裁庭对菲律宾第13项请求不具有管辖权。菲律宾船舶在我国黄岩岛领海的通过不能构成无害通过,我国有权根据《联合国海洋法公约》第25条采取必要的步骤以行使保护权。在行使沿海国保护权的特殊情形下,应对《国际海上避碰规则》适用于船舶航行进行严格解释。《联合国海洋法公约》第94条的义务主体是船旗国,义务的属性是管辖义务,违反《国际海上避碰规则》并不必然违反《联合国海洋法公约》第94条的义务。
[Abstract]:The arbitral tribunal ignored the premise of the determination of the thirteenth request of the Philippines-the sovereignty of Huangyan Island and the determination of the coastal State, Arbitrarily reaching the conclusion that article 298 (b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not apply to the territorial sea... the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over the thirteenth claim of the Philippines... the passage of a Philippine ship in the territorial sea of our country, Huangyan Island, cannot constitute innocent passage, My country has the right, in accordance with article 25 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to take the necessary steps to exercise the right of protection... in exceptional cases where the right to protection of coastal States is exercised, The International rules for the Prevention of collisions at Sea shall be strictly interpreted as applicable to the navigation of ships. Article 94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea shall be subject to the flag State and the attribute of the obligation is the jurisdictional obligation, Violation of the International Code for the Prevention of collisions at Sea does not necessarily violate Article 94 of UNCLOS.
【作者单位】：大连海事大学;
【基金】：国家社科基金项目“中韩海域划界中的国际法问题研究”(15BFX192)、“南海断续线的法理与历史依据研究”(14ZDB165)的阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D993.5

【参考文献】