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  

On Application of UNCLOS from the Perspective of Law Enforcement on the Sea——Analysis on Award of Submission No. 13 of South China Sea Arbitration

作　　者：曲波[1] 梁赟[1] QU Bo LIANG Yun(Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China)

机构地区：[1]大连海事大学,辽宁大连116026

出　　处：《太平洋学报》2017年第2期20-30,共11页Pacific Journal

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

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。When addressing Philippines＇ Submission No. 13, the Arbitral Tribunal disregarded matters of sovereignty of Huangyan Dao and the recognition of coastal states, the plausible precondition that the Tribunal should take into consideration. The conclusion that Article 298 （ 1 ） （b） of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea （UNCLOS） did not apply to the territorial sea was arbitrary. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over Philippines＇ Submission No. 13. Philippines＇ vessels do not enjoy the right of innocent passage within China＇s territorial sea of the Huangyan Dao, and China is entitled to take necessary measures to exercise rights of protection according to Article 25 of UNCLOS. Under specific circumstances of coastal states exercising their rights of protection, the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea （ COL- REGS） should be interpreted strictly concerning its application to vessels＇ navigation. The subject of duties under the Article 94 of UNCLOS is the flag State, and the nature of duties is administrative. The breach of COLREGS does not consequently lead to the breach of duties under the Article 94 of UNCLOS.

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》 

分 类 号：D990[政治法律—国际法学]