等距离线在国际海洋划界方法论中的地位变迁、原因及启示  

The Evolution,Reasons and Implications of the Equidistance Line in International Maritime Delimitation Methodology

作　　者：孙杰 孙传香 SUN Jie;SUN Chuanxiang(Law School,Hunan University of Technology and Business,Changsha 410205,China;Law School,Zhejiang Normal University,Jinhua 321004,China)

机构地区：[1]湖南工商大学法学院,湖南长沙410205 [2]浙江师范大学法学院,浙江金华321004

出　　处：《浙江海洋大学学报（人文科学版）》2024年第3期8-15,共8页Journal of Zhejiang Ocean University(Humanities Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“国际海洋划界方法论视角下习惯国际法规则的实证研究”(编号:21BFX162)。

摘　　要：《大陆架公约》第6条规定的“等距离/特殊情况规则”与2009年黑海划界案正式确立的三阶段划界方法均将等距离线置于其重要地位。尽管国际法院与其他裁判机构否认适用等距离线方法的强制性,但等距离线方法在国际司法实践中的运用却渐趋广泛。经审视后发现,可预测性和操作方便性是等距离线方法在司法实践中得以广泛运用的主要原因,保持个案之间的一致性和连续性也是裁判机构选择该划界方法的重要理由。基于此,因存在领土主权争议或海岸线长度占优势以及当事国大陆架不共架而反对适用等距离线方法的国家,需对将相关争端提交司法程序或仲裁程序的解决方式持审慎态度。Both the“equidistance/special circumstances rule”as stipulated in Article 6 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf and the three-stage approach officially established in the 2009 Black Sea delimitation case underscores the importance of the equidistance line.Although the International Court of Justice and other judicial bodies deny the mandatory application of equidistance principle,its use in international judicial practice has become increasingly prevalent.A thorough examination reveals that predictability and operational convenience are the primary reasons for the widespread application of the equidistance principle in judicial practice.Additionally,maintaining consistency and continuity across cases is also an important reason for the judiciary to choose this delimitation method.In view of this,states that object to the application of equidistance principle due to territorial sovereignty disputes or a disproportionately long coastline,as well as the non-adjacency of continental shelves,should take a cautious attitude towards submitting relevant disputes to judicial or arbitration proceedings for resolution.

关 键 词：等距离线 海洋划界 特殊情况 方法论 

分 类 号：D993.5[政治法律—国际法学]