浅议中日东海权益之纷争/

2019-04-30 22:46:45

The economic Japan disputes SEA



近年来,随着钓鱼岛、“春晓”油气田、“冲之鸟”事件的发生,中日间东海海权之战再次升级。中日两国政府在这场“海战”中,都各有不同的主张和观点。本文分为四部分。主要是通过这四部分的评述,来说明事件,提出观点,以及从国际法角度来对事件进行分析和论证。
中日东海权益争议焦点之一是钓鱼岛。近年来,日本右翼分子在钓鱼岛上设置灯塔,竖立“太阳旗”和纪念死者的木牌,日军出动战舰阻止我民间“保钓”人员上岛,不断制造事端,挑衅中国对钓鱼岛主权占有的事实。由于二次世界大战之后,美日政府之间做出的一系列不法行为,致使日本政府对钓鱼岛实际占有。所以日本政府不断打出“先占原则”、“实施了有效统治”、“时效占有”等法律牌,来宣称对钓鱼岛的主权拥有。但无论是日本提出的依据“无主地先占”原则拥有钓鱼群岛主权的主张,还是以“长期连续的有效治理”取得钓鱼群岛主权的理由,或是二战后日美之间的条约或协议,都不能在国际法上被认定为日本拥有钓鱼群岛主权的依据 。
“春晓”气田也是中日“东海争端”的导火索。在中日两国所主张的东海大陆架和专属经济区划界的分歧上,中日两国对各自权益的主张都来自《国际海洋法公约》。《国际海洋法公约》规定沿海国拥有从其领海基线起不超过200海里的专属经济区,以及相应的开发自然资源的权利。由于东海最宽处不过360海里,这就导致中日各自主张的专属经济区部分重叠。由“春晓气田”引发的争端,就是源于中日两国所主张的东海大陆架和专属经济区的分歧。中国政府主张的 “大陆架自然延伸”原则和日本政府所主张的“中间线”原则,可以说是当今海洋划界争端中具有代表性的两个主张。日本主张“等距中间线”原则,强调共架邻国应平分东海专属经济区。但从事实上我们可以清楚地看到,国际上主张此观点的仅30多个国家,属于少数。如果将东海争端定性为大陆架之争,国际法院对此类争议也早有判例。比如1969年德国与丹麦、荷兰关于北海大陆架的争议。国际法院的规定和当今国际社会的共识是,大陆架划分的标准是公平原则,“中间线”也不能作为专属经济区和大陆架划界的共同原则。在海洋划界的问题上,通过协商达成协议应优先于“中间线”;“中间线”只有在符合公平原则时方可使用;“中间线”仅可作为争议方开始谈判的出发点。
为了“多划多得”中国的经济海域界线,日本还在不受中国承认为一个岛的“冲之鸟”岩礁上,建立日本灯塔,这是中日东海海域权益之争的另一焦点。被日本政府人工加固后的“冲之鸟”,俨然成为了一个“岛屿”。但由人工加固而成的岛屿,是不能成为拥有周边200海里专属经济区的法律依据的。《海洋法公约》第121条规定,岩礁不具备主张专属经济区的条件。公约的具体条文主要是两句话:第一,岛屿应该是高潮时高于水面的自然形成的陆地区域;第二,不能维持人类居住或其本身的经济生活的岩礁,不应有专属经济区和大陆架。“冲之鸟”是岩不是岛,日本政府自然不能要求其作为岛屿在国际海洋法中所拥有的主权权利。
面对日本政府在东海问题上的无理取闹,中国政府一贯恪守承诺,提出暂时搁置争议、共同开发的建议,努力通过和平互利方式解决问题,体现了一个大国的风范。目前,在尚未彻底解决东海划界问题之前,建立有效的合作机制,搁置争议、共同开发,是积极务实的做法。例如:中国政府与日本政府之间曾经签订的《中日渔业协定》,就是一个很好的解决问题的范例。搁置争议并不意味着中国放弃主权立场,目的是等待时机,使该问题得到彻底解决。我们相信,东海问题一定会通过和平方式得到圆满解决。




In recent years, along with the occurrence of the affairs of Diaoyu Island, “Chunxiao” oil gas farmland and Chun-Chi-Nio reef, the disputes about the rights of East Sea between Japan and China have been intensified. The governments of Japan and China have different claims and standpoints about the disputes. This text is divided into four parts. It primarily accounts for the affairs, puts forward the standpoints, and then analyses the disputes from the point of view of international law.
One of the focuses of the disputes about the rights and interests of East Sea between china and Japan is Diaoyu Island. In recent years, Japanese right wing radicals put lighthouse, set up the “the Sun Ensign” and the wooden plaque to commemorate the dead on Diaoyu Island. Japan's Militia started out battleships to hold back Chinese folk persons who protected Diaoyu Island to land. Japan starts incidents continuously, challenges the reality that China is in possession of the sovereignty of Diaoyu Island. After World War II, a series of illegal actions made by the governments of America and Japan caused Japanese government occupied Diaoyu Island actually. So Japanese government tees off some legal trumps continuously, such as “the first occupation, the first ownership”, “actualizing valid governance”, “time limited efficacy occupation ”etc, and pronounces that Japan is in possession of the sovereignty of Diaoyu Island. However, whether Japanese government claims her sovereignty of Diaoyu Island for above excuses or the treaties or agreements between America and Japan, Japan can’t be in possession of the sovereignty of Diaoyu Island from the point of view of international law.
The “ Chunxiao” oil gas farmland is also a fuze of the disputes about East Sea between China and Japan. There are bifurcations about the delimitations of the continental shelf areas and exclusive economic zones of East Sea. China and Japan claim their rights and interests on the basis of the Law of the Sea Convention. The Law of the Sea Convention regulates that the right of the near sea is not beyond 200 sea miles, and the right of exploitation the nature resources. The breadth of East Sea is not more than 360 sea miles. This causes the partial overlap of the exclusive economic zone areas that China and Japan claim respectively. The bifurcations about the delimitations of the continental shelf areas and exclusive economic zones of East Sea have led to the dispute about “Chunxiao” gas farmland. Chinese government argues the principle of “natural extension of continental shelf”. Japanese government argues the principle of “middle line”. The two arguments are two representative opinions about the disputes of delimitations of seas. The principle of “equal middle line” argued by Japan emphasizes that neighboring countries should go halves with each other in the exclusive economic zone of East Sea. In fact, we can see distinctly this argument is minority, for there are only more than 30 nations in the world which agree to this standpoint. If the nature of the dispute were determined as a dispute about continental shelf, the International Court of Justice has prejudications about such disputes long ago, such as the dispute of the continental shelf of North Sea among Germany, Denmark and Holland. The provisions of the International Court of Justice and international social common regards now are that the standard of the delimitation of continental shelf is equity principle, and the “ equal midline” can't be used as a common principle of the delimitations of the continental shelf areas and exclusive economic zones. As for the issue of the delimitation of sea, concluding agreement through consultation should be priority to the principle of “middle line”. The principle of “ middle line” can only be used to delimit sea when it accords with equity principle. “Middle line” is just a start point for negotiation between disputed countries.
In order to get more of China’s economic marine area, Japan even built up a lighthouse on the reef called Chun-Chi-Nio which was not be accepted as an island by Chinese government. This is another focus of the disputes about East Sea between China and Japan. Chun-Chi-Nio reef was intendly changed into an island by Japanese government by pinning up through manual work. However, islands that are pinned up through manual work can not be a legal warrant of owning 200 sea miles exclusive economic zone around the islands. The Article 121 of the Law of the Sea Convention prescribes that reefs can not be a legal warrant of claiming exclusive economic zones. The two specific items of Article 121 are as follows: firstly, island is the natural land area which is above the sea level duration of high tide; secondly, the reef which can not sustain the inhabitation of living or economic existence for human beings can not have exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. Chun-Chi-Nio is a reef rather an island, so Japanese government can not take it an island and therefore its ownership.
When facing the disputes, Chinese government sticks to the promise all along, put forwards the suggestion of “setting the disputes aside, and then to develop it jointly”, and tries our best to solve the issue peacefully, which incarnates the grace and bearing of a great nation. Now, before solving the issue perfectly, building up an effective cooperation system, setting it aside and developing it jointly is an active and practical way. It is a good sample to sign the Sino-Japan fishing agreement between the governments. Setting the disputes aside doesn’t mean we want to give up the ownership but to waiting for a good chance to solve the issue thoroughly .We could believe the disputes could be solved perfectly through peaceful way.