论南极海域的法律地位  

Study on the Legal Status of Antarctic Ocean

作　　者：陈力[1] 

机构地区：[1]复旦大学法学院,上海200438

出　　处：《复旦学报（社会科学版）》2014年第5期150-160,共11页Fudan Journal（Social Sciences）

基　　金：作者主持的国家哲学社会科学基金项目"我国南极权益维护的法律保障研究"(项目批准号:11BFX141);中美富布莱特项目(2012~2013)Antarctic Governance and the US-China Cooperation Under the Antarctic Treaty System的阶段性成果

摘　　要：以1959年《南极条约》为核心的南极条约体系与联合国《海洋法公约》在重叠适用于南极海域时产生了权利义务的碰撞与冲突。在"南极条约区域"内,基于《南极条约》确立的主权冻结原则以及《体系》建立的南极环境保护价值导向,任何形式的海域主权要求都缺乏基本的法律与政治基础,因而是非法和无效的。南极条约体系不仅否定了主权要求国基于"双焦点主义"而提出的海域主权要求,而且限制了各国依《海洋法公约》享有的公海与"国际海底区域"权利;在"南极条约区域"外,岛屿主权国延伸至"南极条约区域"内的合法的外大陆架权利及专属经济区权利与《体系》的冲突,则因南极地区特殊的地缘状况与政治法律安排而得以缓冲和兼容。作为"非主权要求国"与南极事务大国,我国应警惕个别国家试图瓜分南极海域并将其据为己有的战略企图,坚决反对主权要求国对南极大陆附属海域任何形式的主权要求,积极推动南极条约协商会议成员国对南极海洋事务的集体决策权与管辖权,努力维护我国在南极海域的合法权益。A conflict will arise when the Antarctic Treaty systems and the Law of Sea Convention are applied overlap in the Antarctic Ocean. In the ＂Antarctic Treaty Area＂, any Maritime claim is illegal and invalid due to the ＂Sovereignty Frozen Principle＂ and the environmental priority established by ATS. The rules of ATS not only denied any maritime claims based on the Bi-focalism approach, but also constraint the marine time fight on high sea and the area according to the Law of Sea Convention; beyond the ＂Antarctic Treaty Area,＂ the conflict between the coastal State of sub- Antarctic islands and the ATS has been compatible and cushioned. As a non-claimant of Antarctica, China should pay attention to the new marine claims in the Southern Ocean, oppose any form of Marine claims in the Antarctic Treaty Area and promote the collective decision power and jurisdiction of ATCM and CCAMLR to the Ocean affairs in the Southern Ocean and safeguard China＇s legal fight and interest in this area.

关 键 词：南极海域法律地位 南极条约体系 《海洋法公约》 主权冻结原则 

分 类 号：D993.5[政治法律—国际法学]