海爭端解決機制的法律是一個面積很大的學術, 經濟, 和政治利益在哪裡公法與私法之間的關係正在全面發展，不斷展示新的挑戰.
目前講座和分析的目的是建立一個論壇，公共和私人國際法的接口上最近的事態發展的反映. 從歷史上看, 海的法律是公共和私人領域之間的分裂. We speak of it mostly in the context of interstate relations and private issues are often relegated to admiralty or maritime law (addressing liens, 受傷船員, etc). 然而, 在海洋法周遊公共和私人領域和公共國際法逐漸融合到國家法律體系中的影響關於一些問題的個人方式, 例如, 安全, 導航, 環保, 保護和開發資源, 科學研究, 民事和刑事管轄權. 也, oil companies are very concerned with delimitations of maritime zones and fishing fleets are concerned with rights and obligations in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Private activity is often the catalyst for conflicts between States as to rights and obligations on the sea. These conflicts demand methods for dispute settlements and many were borrowed from national legal systems.
在生效的後果 1994 的 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC), dispute settlement methods flourished and the tide is still rising twenty years later. States mostly remain the featured players in these forms of dispute settlement methods but there are some avenues for private actors to engage in as their interests almost always lie behind the interests of State actors.
因為根據海洋法爭端解決以下方式蓬勃開展 1994 and key developments and cases will be highlighted:
Overview of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC)
海洋法公約法旨在全面規範了海洋法律的幾乎所有方面, 對基準和內水形成一套規則, and on the several maritime zones (Territorial Sea, 毗連區, 專屬經濟區, 大陸架和擴展大陸架, the High Seas and the Deep Seabed Area).
It is possible for islands to generate some or all of the maritime zones. 文章 121 of the Law of the Sea Convention provides that an “island” is a form of land above the water at high tide which can generate all of the maritime zones if it can sustain human habitation and economic life. 然而, 不能維持自身的人類居住和經濟生活的島嶼是“石頭”，這僅產生領海.
海洋法公約的法律也提供了有關海峽規則, 群島, 封閉海域, 內陸國, 對管轄遠洋船舶規則.
部分 11 of the Convention attracted much attention during the negotiations as it provides rules pertaining to the exploitation of the Deep Seabed Area and institutional structures (including a Counsel and an Assembly).
部分 12 of the Convention sets forth rules for environmental protection of maritime areas. Some of these rules are regarded as a sophisticated environmental law treaty embedded within the Law of the Sea Convention.
以來 1994, we have acquired a very detailed set of rules relating to the conduct of State and non State actors in relation to the seas. These rules offer a template to evaluate whether a conduct is permissible or not.
有些規則不是很清楚, such as the rules on delimitation of the zones between States. When we refer to the appropriate rules in case of a dispute on the zones, 該公約規定，過程分層經濟區, 專屬經濟區, 大陸架“應在國際法的基礎上達成協議，以實現公平解決影響“, 這是說，國家應該聚在一起達成協議，並遵循公平思想為指導的一個相當不確定的方式, but does not provide how the delimitation process should go forward. If States cannot reach an agreement without a reasonable amount of time, 然後他們預計將訴諸紛爭下在部分規定的海洋法公約的法律解決程序 15 公約.
部分 15 公約建立了一個非常有創意的系統解決爭端. 部分 1 包括非強制性爭端解決程序，並呼籲各國進行談判, 調解, 調解. If these avenues do not solve the dispute, 部分 2 sets forth the compulsory dispute procedures which include the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under Annex VI, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), 根據附件七設立一個仲裁庭, 並特別仲裁法庭的建立形成為一個專家小組, 不一定律師, to deal with a dispute arising out of a particular area (e.g. 漁業, 海洋環境, 科學研究, 導航, etc.).
The innovative aspect of dispute resolution under the Law of the Sea Convention is that it does not impose a single method to settle disputes on a compulsory basis but allows for a lot of flexibility. How does one know which avenue to take? When joining the Convention, new members select one of the four mechanisms set out above. When a dispute arises and that both parties have selected the same mechanism upon joining, they are obligated to use it. When a member has failed to make a selection, it is deemed to have selected an Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII by default. When both parties have selected different options upon joining, they are both deemed to have selected an Arbitral Tribunal under Annex VII. In shirt, 仲裁是默認的過程.
在通往公約起草談判, it was considered important to establish certain automatic and optional carve outs to the compulsory dispute settlement methods. These are provided for in Section 3 部分 15 並包括, 特別是, 國際法院前自動例外強制解決爭端，防止一個挑戰可捕量的測定, ITLOS or an Arbitral Tribunal. There are also optional carve outs which can be invoked by a State upon joining the Convention (e.g. 一個成員可能會選擇不接受針對強制性爭端解決對劃界爭端, 涉及歷史性海灣糾紛, or disputes concerning military activities). 例如, 當中國批准海洋法公約法, 它調用的所有可選的排除，然後聲稱，沒有依據中國之後去與這些問題有關的任何索賠.
即使國家在加入該公約中選擇一些可選剝離出局, 他們仍然有義務從事非強制性的解決糾紛的方式，如談判, mediation and conciliation. These do not however lead to legally binding decisions.
現在有 167 成員國對海洋法公約的法律和 147 締約國 1994 Agreement relating to the Deep Seabed (“有關聯合國公約第十一部分的執行情況的海洋法協定 10 十二月 1982“）. 以來 1994, 更多的努力，已作出澄清海洋法, some agreements are global (e.g. dealing with fish crossing zones) or regional (e.g. fish resources in a specific area), 有些是雙邊, 另一些則與船殘骸, 文物, 等等. All these agreements constitute a rather complicated web of regulations which are always to be considered against the backdrop of well established rules of customary international law.
當海洋法公約法在20世紀70年代和80年代進行了談判, there was a lot of interest about the exploitation of the resources relating to the Deep Seabed which then decreased as other avenues were considered to replace some minerals to be exploited from the Deed Seabed (e.g. 合成材料, new sources for minerals on land in particular in the developing countries). 然而, 在過去的 10 年份, 看來在契約海底的興趣再次生長如圖所示的大量增加，從欲從事海底勘探公司由國際海底管理局收到的申請和技術允許它的進展.
在海中的當代法律的詳細規則, the increasing interest in exploiting resources and the threat of compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms encourage States to enter into negotiations. Identifying the fact that negotiations are going forward is difficult as States often keep them quiet. Studies have however reported 16 從談判 1994 至 2012, 他們中的一些成功, 如那個 2003 阿塞拜疆之間協商, 哈薩克斯坦和俄羅斯聯邦, 該 2004 澳大利亞和新西蘭之間的談判, 該 2008 毛里求斯，塞舌爾專屬經濟區劃界條約, 等等.
在劃界的背景下, there are some real disadvantages in pursuing compulsory dispute mechanisms and considerable advantages in negotiating. During negotiations, 各方仍然控制著一系列的包括劃定邊界的精確的結果非常重要的問題, 正在定義的線的方式, the terms and the timing of the agreement and the way the agreement is presented publically. It is generally believed that litigation always carries risks for the parties and that the range of legal findings available to the tribunal is more restricted than the range of options open to the negotiators. 也, 一個法庭出庭適用國際法的時候, 雙方缺乏靈活性，沒有留下的創作空間，並往往有利於總是一邊，而沒有考慮到所有參與者的利益的特定範圍內運行. 然而, 談判期間，, 各方共同追求發展的過程中的海洋空間，並能夠拋開法律糾紛專注於實際措施，以確保各方的根本目的, 特別是當每一方都希望追求不同類型的剝削.
相比之下, States rarely resort to mediation or good offices. 例如, 該 2015 伯利茲，危地馬拉邊界爭端調解美洲國家組織一直沒有解決爭議，並導致雙方國際法院法院提出此事.
調解提供了一種用於在第一部分 15 of the Law of the Sea Convention but is almost never used by States. 該 1981 冰島/挪威大陸架爭端至於周杰倫馬延島是有史以來為數不多的調解之一.
美國不傾向於使用調解，因為一旦他們決定放棄控制權之爭，並通過第三方的身體允許正式決定, States prefer to go all the way to an ultimately binding decision. There is not much to gain from a process which looks a lot like arbitration without the benefit of legal certainty flowing from the issuance of an arbitral award. 也, 國家也寧願失去仲裁，並有理由撤銷仲裁裁決，而不是失去了調解，並沒有任何法律依據設定的結果擱置.
有時, the parties will reach an impasse during the negotiations but nevertheless need to resolve the dispute as they might not otherwise be able to exploit resources. They will then turn to compulsory dispute resolution. Some countries, 如尼加拉瓜, 非常熟悉的過程，並已經出現在多個場合多次國際法院前. The more familiar States become with the process, the more likely they are to prefer compulsory Law of the Sea dispute resolution in the future.
以來 1994, 仲裁已經成為最流行的手段來解決海洋爭端. 根據海洋法公約的法律附件七, 法庭的組成 5 仲裁員, 每一方爭端任命的仲裁員，他們共同委任其餘三個. In the event that it is needed, the President of ITLOS serves as the appointing authority. The arbitral tribunal decides on its own procedures which provides for a lot of flexibility.
Some examples of the LOSC Annex VII Arbitrations include:
- 澳大利亞和新西蘭訴. Japan (“southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration”)
- 愛爾蘭訴. UK (“Mox Plant Arbitration”)
- 馬來西亞v. Singapore (“Land Reclamation Arbitration”)
- 巴巴多斯v. 特立尼達和多巴哥海洋劃界仲裁
- 圭亞那v. 蘇里南海洋劃界仲裁
- 孟加拉國v. India (“Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration”)
- 毛里求斯v. UK (“Chagos Archipelago Arbitration”)
- 阿根廷v. Ghana (“ARA Libertad Arbitration”)
- 菲律賓v. China (“South china / West Philippines Sea Arbitration”)
- 馬耳他v. Sao Tome and Principe (“Duzgit Integrity Arbitration”)
- 荷蘭v. Russian Federation (“Arctic sunrise Arbitration”)
- 丹麥就法羅群島訴. European Union (“Atlanto-Scandian Herring Arbitration”)
海洋法公約的法律並沒有, 通過它自己, seek to address issues of sovereignty over territory. It is therefore important to keep in mind, 在附件七仲裁分析, 出現的問題管轄權每當法庭被要求在什麼國家有主權特定領土排除.
例如, 在查戈斯群島仲裁, 毛里求斯宣稱群島的英國政府是非法和毛里求斯領土應該包括查戈斯群島. 當毛里求斯帶來的訴訟中 2010, it tried to frame it in a way that only indirectly touched sovereignty issues. 然而, 三月 2015, 仲裁庭認為它缺乏管轄權爭端直接有關的主權, 這是不是其管轄範圍之內. 不過，該法庭指出，主權的一些小問題, 附屬於相關索賠, 可在排除.
在菲律賓v. 中國仲裁, the Philippines are challenging China’s activity in the South China Sea and Seabed Area and argues that China’s claims over the area delimited by the “Nine-Dash Line” are not lawful under the Law of the Sea Convention. The Philippines are therefore seeking a finding that China’s claims over this area is unlawful. The Philippines are also asking the tribunal to determine whether some features claimed by both the Philippines and China qualify as islands, and a finding regarding the Philippines’ rights beyond its exclusive economic zone. China rejects the tribunal’s jurisdiction 特別是 on the ground that the essence of the subject matter of the dispute is sovereignty. A hearing on jurisdiction was scheduled for July 2015 和, 如果管轄權找到, 對案情的聽證會將於稍後 2015.
States are using arbitration more and more because tribunals are quick are issuing decisions and give the parties a lot of control over the procedure. A downside of arbitration is the fact that it is more expensive than court proceedings.
海洋法公約法的一個顯著特點是一個新的機構的創建, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, 它可以同時聽到有爭議和無爭議的情況下，為海爭端解決法.
21 法官當選 9 年由締約國擔任國際海洋法法庭. 各締約國可提名最多兩位候選人. There is a process to ensure equitable distribution among the judges and the term of one third of them expires every three years. ITLOS operates somewhat in similar way to the ICJ in terms of having some permanence to the institution and a rotation system.
ITLOS has the particularity of being able to hear “prompt release” cases taking place on an expedited basis when a coastal State has seized a foreign vessel and its crew (usually in its Exclusive Economic Zone) and brought it into its ports.
Standing is not limited to State actors and natural or juridical persons may appear before ITLOS (although they have to obtain permission of their flag State).
儘管非常強大法院在漢堡能夠聽爭議和非爭議案件的可用性, litigation before ITLOS has been very modest. 該 22 cases registered are almost all related to “prompt release” matters and ITLOS very rarely decides cases on the merits. Although States mostly prefer going before the ICJ, more and more cases are registered before ITLOS (such as ITLOS Case No. 16 “爭議關於孟加拉灣孟加拉國和緬甸之間的海洋邊界劃界“和 國際海洋法法庭無案. 23 “關於爭議在大西洋加納和科特迪瓦之間的海洋邊界劃界“).
無疑, the number one forum for States seeking judicial settlement concerning the Law of the Sea is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which is not limited to law of the sea issues and may then decide maritime and sovereignty issues.
對一些自海洋法國際法院判決 1994 include:
- 1998 漁業管轄權 (Spain v. 加拿大） 2001 海洋劃界和領土問題 (Qatar v. Bahrain)
- 2002 陸地和海洋邊界 (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)
- 2007 在加勒比海領土和海洋爭端 (Nicaragua v. Honduras)
- 2012 領土和海洋爭端 (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
- 2009 海洋劃界黑海 (Romania v. Ukraine)
- 2014 海事爭議 (Peru v. Chile)
- 2014 捕鯨南極 (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening)
The ICJ jurisprudence is fairly robust and contributes greatly to our understanding of how Law of the Sea disputes should be decided. 例如, 很多年了, 用於分隔的方法是相當不確定的，但在過去幾十年的判例, 特別是涉及到黑海糾紛, has established a three-part approach to delimitation (first, the tribunal draws a provisional equidistant line from base points on the coasts of both States parties to the delimitation dispute; second, the tribunal considers factors calling for adjustments such as a small bump on the coast of one State which drastically impacts the provisional equidistant line; third, 法庭進行一個比例分析，由此著眼於水的兩部分分隔, looks at the ratio and at the coastlines and decides whether there is a significant disproportion in the maritime spaces awarded to each State). 有法庭的做法有很大的靈活性和當代法理學表明上下文, 特別是在島或其它特徵的存在, matter a lot. Depending on their size, 島嶼有時會非常有意義，將是決定性的，其中的臨時等距線繪製的, 或有時會被法庭推開並不會決定的情況下被使用.
Geographic considerations are the dominant force driving these cases. Issues about which State entity should be entitled to which area, 經濟資源和演員是更有利於環境的不考慮.
The ICJ or ITLOS may render Advisory Opinions. ITLOS recently issued its first Advisory Opinion for the West African Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. 委員會要求其有關國際海洋法法庭的四個問題, 特別是, to the rights and obligations of flag and coastal States regarding fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone. The backdrop to the request was allegations by African States that third States were not properly regulating their vessels. Twenty-two States parties to the Convention filed written statements before ITLOS. 無疑, 更多諮詢意見將在未來被要求獲得進一步的指導，各國根據國際法的權利和義務.
也有可能獲得從海底爭端分庭諮詢意見, a sub unit of ITLOS which can both hear disputes between State and non State actors and issue Advisory Opinions. 在 2011, 它呈現了第一次諮詢意見海底採礦.
根據LOSC, 幾乎所有國家都獲得一個大陸架達 200 nautical miles but States sometimes argue that their Continental Shelf continues past this line. Extending a State’s Continental Shelf allows it to exploit resources further but also takes away other States’ ability to exploit resources in the area.
The Law of the Sea Convention created a Commission to hear the numerous Extended Continental Shelf Claims and their underlying scientific arguments. The Commission consists of 21 會員, 專家地質和物理學領域, 誰將會裁決索賠，並出具推薦到哪裡大陸架的界限應當制定並, 如果遵循, 被認為是一項具有約束力的劃界 面對面的人 所有各方LOSC.
有確實是爭端解決漲潮海下的由現已細則量驅動法, 在海上，在保護這些資源的資源越來越大的興趣, 和強制性爭端解決的前景籠罩著國家行為者.
New forms of dispute are now starting to emerge. Global climate change is generating a significant amount of disputes as seas are rising from the melting of glaciers, arctic ice and the expansion of water generally. Baselines are therefore changing. Some nations, 島國, 也許有一天甚至消失.
Source: Lalive Lecture, 15 七月 2015, 日內瓦, A Rising Tide: Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea, 由肖恩·墨菲教授
Speakers: Marcelo Kohen, 邁克爾·施奈德, 肖恩·墨菲
- Summary by Olivier Marquais, Aceris法LLC