海争端解决机制的法律是一个面积很大的学术, 经济, 和政治利益在哪里公法与私法之间的关系正在全面发展，不断展示新的挑战.
目前讲座和分析的目的是建立一个论坛，公共和私人国际法的接口上最近的事态发展的反映. 从历史上看, 海的法律是公共和私人领域之间的分裂. We speak of it mostly in the context of interstate relations and private issues are often relegated to admiralty or maritime law (addressing liens, 受伤船员, etc). 然而, 在海洋法周游公共和私人领域和公共国际法逐渐融合到国家法律体系中的影响关于一些问题的个人方式, 例如, 安全, 导航, 环保, 保护和开发资源, 科学研究, 民事和刑事管辖权. 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.
在生效的后果 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.
因为根据海洋法争端解决以下方式蓬勃开展 1994 and key developments and cases will be highlighted:
Overview of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC)
海洋法公约法旨在全面规范了海洋法律的几乎所有方面, 对基准和内水形成一套规则, and on the several maritime zones (Territorial Sea, 毗连区, 专属经济区, 大陆架和扩展大陆架, 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, 不能维持自身的人类居住和经济生活的岛屿是“石头”，这仅产生领海.
海洋法公约的法律也提供了有关海峡规则, 群岛, 封闭海域, 内陆国, 对管辖远洋船舶规则.
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.
以来 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.
有些规则不是很清楚, 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, 该公约规定，过程分层经济区, 专属经济区, 大陆架“应在国际法的基础上达成协议，以实现公平解决影响“, 这是说，国家应该聚在一起达成协议，并遵循公平思想为指导的一个相当不确定的方式, but does not provide how the delimitation process should go forward. If States cannot reach an agreement without a reasonable amount of time, 然后他们预计将诉诸纷争下在部分规定的海洋法公约的法律解决程序 15 公约.
部分 15 公约建立了一个非常有创意的系统解决争端. 部分 1 包括非强制性争端解决程序，并呼吁各国进行谈判, 调解, 调解. 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), 根据附件七设立一个仲裁庭, 并特别仲裁法庭的建立形成为一个专家小组, 不一定律师, to deal with a dispute arising out of a particular area (e.g. 渔业, 海洋环境, 科学研究, 导航, 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, 仲裁是默认的过程.
在通往公约起草谈判, 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 并包括, 特别是, 国际法院前自动例外强制解决争端，防止一个挑战可捕量的测定, ITLOS or an Arbitral Tribunal. There are also optional carve outs which can be invoked by a State upon joining the Convention (e.g. 一个成员可能会选择不接受针对强制性争端解决对划界争端, 涉及历史性海湾纠纷, or disputes concerning military activities). 例如, 当中国批准海洋法公约法, 它调用的所有可选的排除，然后声称，没有依据中国之后去与这些问题有关的任何索赔.
即使国家在加入该公约中选择一些可选剥离出局, 他们仍然有义务从事非强制性的解决纠纷的方式，如谈判, mediation and conciliation. These do not however lead to legally binding decisions.
现在有 167 成员国对海洋法公约的法律和 147 缔约国 1994 Agreement relating to the Deep Seabed (“有关联合国公约第十一部分的执行情况的海洋法协定 10 十二月 1982“）. 以来 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), 有些是双边, 另一些则与船残骸, 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.
当海洋法公约法在20世纪70年代和80年代进行了谈判, 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, 在过去的 10 年份, 看来在契约海底的兴趣再次生长如图所示的大量增加，从欲从事海底勘探公司由国际海底管理局收到的申请和技术允许它的进展.
在海中的当代法律的详细规则, 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 从谈判 1994 至 2012, 他们中的一些成功, 如那个 2003 阿塞拜疆之间协商, 哈萨克斯坦和俄罗斯联邦, 该 2004 澳大利亚和新西兰之间的谈判, 该 2008 毛里求斯，塞舌尔专属经济区划界条约, 等等.
在划界的背景下, there are some real disadvantages in pursuing compulsory dispute mechanisms and considerable advantages in negotiating. During negotiations, 各方仍然控制着一系列的包括划定边界的精确的结果非常重要的问题, 正在定义的线的方式, 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, 一个法庭出庭适用国际法的时候, 双方缺乏灵活性，没有留下的创作空间，并往往有利于总是一边，而没有考虑到所有参与者的利益的特定范围内运行. 然而, 谈判期间，, 各方共同追求发展的过程中的海洋空间，并能够抛开法律纠纷专注于实际措施，以确保各方的根本目的, 特别是当每一方都希望追求不同类型的剥削.
相比之下, States rarely resort to mediation or good offices. 例如, 该 2015 伯利兹，危地马拉边界争端调解美洲国家组织一直没有解决争议，并导致双方国际法院法院提出此事.
调解提供了一种用于在第一部分 15 of the Law of the Sea Convention but is almost never used by States. 该 1981 冰岛/挪威大陆架争端至于周杰伦马延岛是有史以来为数不多的调解之一.
美国不倾向于使用调解，因为一旦他们决定放弃控制权之争，并通过第三方的身体允许正式决定, 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, 国家也宁愿失去仲裁，并有理由撤销仲裁裁决，而不是失去了调解，并没有任何法律依据设定的结果搁置.
有时, 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, 非常熟悉的过程，并已经出现在多个场合多次国际法院前. 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.
以来 1994, 仲裁已经成为最流行的手段来解决海洋争端. 根据海洋法公约的法律附件七, 法庭的组成 5 仲裁员, 每一方争端任命的仲裁员，他们共同委任其余三个. 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:
- 澳大利亚和新西兰诉. Japan (“southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration”)
- 爱尔兰诉. UK (“Mox Plant Arbitration”)
- 马来西亚v. Singapore (“Land Reclamation Arbitration”)
- 巴巴多斯v. 特立尼达和多巴哥海洋划界仲裁
- 圭亚那v. 苏里南海洋划界仲裁
- 孟加拉国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”)
- 菲律宾v. China (“South china / West Philippines Sea Arbitration”)
- 马耳他v. Sao Tome and Principe (“Duzgit Integrity Arbitration”)
- 荷兰v. Russian Federation (“Arctic sunrise Arbitration”)
- 丹麦就法罗群岛诉. European Union (“Atlanto-Scandian Herring Arbitration”)
海洋法公约的法律并没有, 通过它自己, seek to address issues of sovereignty over territory. It is therefore important to keep in mind, 在附件七仲裁分析, 出现的问题管辖权每当法庭被要求在什么国家有主权特定领土排除.
例如, 在查戈斯群岛仲裁, 毛里求斯宣称群岛的英国政府是非法和毛里求斯领土应该包括查戈斯群岛. 当毛里求斯带来的诉讼中 2010, it tried to frame it in a way that only indirectly touched sovereignty issues. 然而, 三月 2015, 仲裁庭认为它缺乏管辖权争端直接有关的主权, 这是不是其管辖范围之内. 不过，该法庭指出，主权的一些小问题, 附属于相关索赔, 可在排除.
在菲律宾v. 中国仲裁, 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 特别是 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, 如果管辖权找到, 对案情的听证会将于稍后 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.
海洋法公约法的一个显著特点是一个新的机构的创建, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, 它可以同时听到有争议和无争议的情况下，为海争端解决法.
21 法官当选 9 年由缔约国担任国际海洋法法庭. 各缔约国可提名最多两位候选人. 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).
尽管非常强大法院在汉堡能够听争议和非争议案件的可用性, litigation before ITLOS has been very modest. 该 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 “争议关于孟加拉湾孟加拉国和缅甸之间的海洋边界划界“和 国际海洋法法庭无案. 23 “关于争议在大西洋加纳和科特迪瓦之间的海洋边界划界“).
无疑, 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.
对一些自海洋法国际法院判决 1994 include:
- 1998 渔业管辖权 (Spain v. 加拿大） 2001 海洋划界和领土问题 (Qatar v. Bahrain)
- 2002 陆地和海洋边界 (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)
- 2007 在加勒比海领土和海洋争端 (Nicaragua v. Honduras)
- 2012 领土和海洋争端 (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
- 2009 海洋划界黑海 (Romania v. Ukraine)
- 2014 海事争议 (Peru v. Chile)
- 2014 捕鲸南极 (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, 用于分隔的方法是相当不确定的，但在过去几十年的判例, 特别是涉及到黑海纠纷, 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, 法庭进行一个比例分析，由此着眼于水的两部分分隔, 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灵活性和当代法理学表明上下文, 特别是在岛或其它特征的存在, matter a lot. Depending on their size, 岛屿有时会非常有意义，将是决定性的，其中的临时等距线绘制的, 或有时会被法庭推开并不会决定的情况下被使用.
Geographic considerations are the dominant force driving these cases. Issues about which State entity should be entitled to which area, 经济资源和演员是更有利于环境的不考虑.
The ICJ or ITLOS may render Advisory Opinions. ITLOS recently issued its first Advisory Opinion for the West African Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. 委员会要求其有关国际海洋法法庭的四个问题, 特别是, 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. 无疑, 更多咨询意见将在未来被要求获得进一步的指导，各国根据国际法的权利和义务.
也有可能获得从海底争端分庭咨询意见, a sub unit of ITLOS which can both hear disputes between State and non State actors and issue Advisory Opinions. 在 2011, 它呈现了第一次咨询意见海底采矿.
根据LOSC, 几乎所有国家都获得一个大陆架达 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 会员, 专家地质和物理学领域, 谁将会裁决索赔，并出具推荐到哪里大陆架的界限应当制定并, 如果遵循, 被认为是一项具有约束力的划界 面对面的人 所有各方LOSC.
有确实是争端解决涨潮海下的由现已细则量驱动法, 在海上，在保护这些资源的资源越来越大的兴趣, 和强制性争端解决的前景笼罩着国家行为者.
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, 岛国, 也许有一天甚至消失.
Source: Lalive Lecture, 15 七月 2015, 日内瓦, A Rising Tide: Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea, 由肖恩·墨菲教授
Speakers: Marcelo Kohen, 迈克尔·施奈德, 肖恩·墨菲
- Summary by Olivier Marquais, Aceris法LLC