变迁中的“航行自由”和非缔约国之“行动”  

U.S.Freedom of Navigation Operations in the Shifting Legal Order of the Seas

作　　者：张新军[1] Zhang Xinjun

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院

出　　处：《南大法学》2020年第4期110-129,共20页NanJing University Law Journal

基　　金：科技部国家重点研发计划重点专项项目“海洋划界决策支持系统研发与应用”第一子课题“国际海洋划界实践的法理分析”(课题号:2017YFC1405501)资助。

摘　　要：第二次世界大战之后,国际海洋秩序发生了巨大的变化。在这一过程中,美国作为发达国家和海洋强国,始终站在维护传统航行自由和抵抗沿海国对航行自由的限制和影响这一边。最终美国选择置身于《联合国海洋法公约》(简称《公约》)之外,但坚持《公约》的大部分规则是习惯法,通过“航行自由计划”的实施,试图控制和影响《公约》相关条款的解释。不言而喻,在《公约》未做出规定的有关历史性水域和海湾、远洋群岛水域、远洋低潮高地等问题上,“航行自由行动”和对象国的反应,就处于形成中的习惯法而言均有意义。对于《公约》作出规定的部分,一般而言,非缔约国的实践即使与《公约》解释相关,也并不具有“解释相关的嗣后实践”的功能。但是,考虑到《公约》条款可能反映同一内容的习惯法规则这一因素,美国的某些行动是行使《公约》明确规定但被“非法”拒绝的通行权(如最大12海里领海的规定)。在《公约》条款是否在《公约》缔结后“结晶”为习惯法的规则这一问题上,非缔约国而不是缔约国的实践,才可能有意义(过境通行权)。在习惯法和《公约》对同一内容暧昧不清的情形下(军舰在领海的通航涉及的无害通过制度、直线基线和专属经济区或毗连区的军事活动等几个问题),考虑到《公约》缔约国的后续实践由于解释立场差异巨大难以达成解释上的合意,由不参加《公约》的极少数国家的实践来掌控《公约》的解释是荒谬的。但是在个案中,适用此类规则进行合法性判断时,利害相关国的行动须被纳入考量,因此对象国有必要采取对抗性措施。The legal order of the Seas has been subjected to great change since the end of the Second World War.The United States,a developed country and a super maritime power,always stands on the side of maintaining the traditional freedom of navigation and resisting the influences of regulatory power of coastal countries on it.Despite the fact that the United States has actively participated in the UN-sponsored negotiations on the law of the sea,it chose to stay outside the 1982 UNCLOS,insisting that most of the UNCLOS provisions reflect rules of customary law.Through the implementation of“Freedom of Navigation Operations”,the United States attempts to control and influence the interpretation of relevant provisions in the UNCLOS.It goes without saying that on issues such as historic waters and bays,freedoms of navivgation operations and the response of targeted countries are both meaningful in terms of customary law in the formation.For the prousions in the UNCLOS,generally speaking,the practice of a non-party cannot be credited as“subsequent practice inrelation to the interpretation of treaties”.However,on the question whether or not an UNCLOS provision has been“crystallized”into rules of customary law after the adoption of UNCLOS,it is the practice of non-parties rather than that of the state parties that would make sense(the right of transit passage,for example).Having said that,in the case that customary rules and the provisions of the UNCLOS are ambiguous on the same content(the navigation of foreign warships in the territorial sea in the context of innocent passage,straight baseline and certain military activities in the exclusive economic zone or contiguous zone,etc.),and even the subsequent practice by state parties to the UNCLOS is inconsistent,it is absurd to say that the practice of non-parties can determine the interpretation of these provisions.The unilateral act of a non-party asserting a specific interpretation as such requires response from the state targeted by the unilateral act in question.

关 键 词：航行自由行动 海洋法公约 非缔约国实践 武力行使 公海自由 无害通过 过境通行 专属经济区军事活动 

分 类 号：D993.5[政治法律—国际法学]