国际法案例英挪渔业案.docx

《国际法案例英挪渔业案.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《国际法案例英挪渔业案.docx（12页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、国际法经典案例英挪渔业案The Conclusions of the United Kingdom are explicit on this point: the base-line must be low-water mark on permanently dry land which is a part of Norwegian territory, or the proper closing line of Norwegian internal waters.低潮线原则The Court has no difficulty in finding that, for the purpose

2、 of measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, it is the low-water mark as opposed to the high-water mark, or the mean between the two tides, which has generally been adopted in the practice of States. This criterion is the most favourable to the coastal State and clearly shows the character of t

3、erritorial waters as appurtenant (附属物)to the land territory. The Court notes that the Parties agree as to this criterion, but that they differ as to its application.In this case, the Parties being in agreement on the figure of 4 miles for the breadth of the territorial sea, the problem which arises

4、is from what base-line this breadth is to be reckoned.从哪里开始划挪威的低潮线The Court finds itself obliged to decide whether the relevant low-water mark is that of the mainland or of the Since the mainland is bordered in its western sector byouter line of thewhich must be taken into account indelimiting the b

5、elt of Norwegian territorial waters. This solution is dictated by geographic realities.英国对于十海里原则的主张is entitled to claim as -Norwegianinternal waters, on historic grounds, all fjords and sunds which fall within the conception of a bay as defined in international law (see No. (6) below), whether the p

6、roper closing line of the indentation is more or less对十海里原则的反驳 In these circumstances the Court deems it necessary to point out that although the ten-mile rule has been adopted by certain States both in their national law and in their treaties and conventions, and although certain arbitral decisions

7、 have applied it as between these States, other States have adopted a different limit Consequently, the ten-mile rule has not acquired the authority of a general rule of international law.In the opinion of the United Kingdom Government, Norway is entitled, on historic grounds, to claim as internal w

8、aters all fjords and sunds which have the character of a bay. She is also entitled on historic grounds to claim as Norwegian territorial waters all the waters of the fjords and sunds which have the character of legal straits (Conclusions, point 9), and, either as internal or as territorial waters, t

9、he areas of water lying between the island fringe and the mainland.Byare usually meant waters which are treated asinternal waters but which would not have that character were it not for the existence of an historic title. The United Kingdom Government refers to the notion of historic titles both in

10、respect of territorial waters and internal waters, considering such titles, in both cases, as derogations from general international law. In its opinion Norway can justify the claim that these waters are territorial or internal on the ground that she has exercised the necessary jurisdiction over the

11、m for a long period without opposition from other States, a kind of -possessio longi temporis, with the result that her jurisdiction over these waters must now be recognized although it constitutes a derogation from the rules in force, p 131Norwegian sovereignty over these waters would constitute an

12、 exception, historic titles justifying situations which would otherwise be in conflict with international直线画法、1935年诏令所合用的划线方法符合国际法Court will confine itself at this stage to noting that, in order to apply this principle, several States have deemed it necessary to follow the straight base-lines method

13、 and that they have not encountered objections of principle by other States. This has been done, not only in the case of well-defined bays, but also in cases of minor curvatures of the coast line where it was solely a question of giving a simpler form to the belt of territorial waters.Even the Unite

14、d Kingdom did not contest it for many years: it was only in 1933 that the Uniteti Kingdom made a formal and definite protest.对于英国认为只能用于海湾的反驳it has been contended, on behalf of the United Kingdom, that Norway may draw straight lines only across bays. The Court is unable to share this view. If the bel

15、t of territorial waters must follow the outer line of theand if the method of straightbaselines must be admitted in certain cases, there is no valid reason to draw them only across bays, as in Eastern Finmark, and not also to draw them between islands, islets and rocks, across the sea areas separati

16、ng them, even when such areas do not fall within the conception of a bay. It is sufficient that they should be situated between the island formationsThe United Kingdom Government has directed its criticism more particularly against two sectors, the delimitation of which they represented as extreme c

17、ases of deviation from the general direction of the coast: the sector of Svaerholthavet (between base-points n and 12) and that of Lopphavet (between base-points 20 and 21). The Court will deal with the delimitation of these two sectors from this point of view.The base-line between points n and 12,

18、which is 38.6 sea miles in length, delimits the waters of the Svaerholt lying between Cape Nordkyn and the North Cape. The United Kingdom Government denies that the basin so delimited has the character of a bay. Its argument is founded on a geographical consideration. In its opinion, the calculation

19、 of the basins penetration inland must stop at the tip of the Svaerholt peninsula (Svaerholtklubben). The penetration inland thus obtained being only n.5 sea miles, as against 38.6 miles of breadth at the entrance, it is alleged that the basin in question does not have the character of a bay. The Co

20、urt is unable to share this view. It considers that the basin in question must be contemplated in the light of all the geographical factors involved. The fact that a peninsula juts out and forms two wide fjords, the Lakse-fjord and the Porsanger fjord, cannot deprive the basin of the character of a

21、bay. It is the distances between the disputed baseline and the most inland point of these fjords, 50 and 75 sea miles respectively, which must be taken into account in appreciating the proportion between the penetration inland and the width at the mouth. The Court concludes that Svaerholthavet has t

22、he character of a bay.The delimitation of the Lopphavet basin has also been criticized by the United Kingdom. As has been pointed out above, its criticism of the selection of base point No. 21 may be regarded as abandoned. The Lopphavet basin constitutes an ill-defined geographic whole. It cannot be

23、 regarded as having the character of a bay. It is made up of an extensive area of water dotted with large islands which are separated by inlets that terminate in the various fjords. The base-line has been challenged on the ground that it does not respect the general direction of the coast. It should

24、 be observed that, however justified the rule in question may be, p 142 it is devoid of any mathematical precision. In order properly to apply the rule, regard must be had for the relation between the deviation complained of and what, according to the terms of the rule, must be regarded as the gener

25、al direction of the coast. Therefore, one cannot confine oneself to examining one sector of the coast alone, except in a case of manifest abuse; nor can one rely on the impression that may be gathered from a large scale chart of this sector alone. In the case in point, the divergence between the bas

26、e-line and the land formations is not such that it is a distortion of the general direction of the Norwegian coast.The factS：The historical facts laid before the Court establish that as the result of complaints from the King of Denmark and of Norway, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, Brit

27、ish fishermen refrained from fishing in Norwegian coastal waters for a long period, from 1616-1618 until 1906.In 1906 a few British fishing vessels appeared off the coasts of Eastern Finnmark. From 1908 onwards they returned in greater numbers. These were trawlers equipped with improved and powerful

28、 gear. The local population became perturbed, and measures were taken by the Norwegian Government with a view to specifying the limits within which fishing was prohibited to foreigners.For all the foregoing reasons, the Court found in each case that the use of the equidistance method of delimitation

29、 was not obligatory as between the Parties; that no other single method of delimitation was in all circumstances obligatory; that delimitation was to be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles and taking account of all relevant circumstances, in such a way as to leave as much a

30、s possible to each Party all those parts of the continental shelf that constituted a natural prolongation of its land territory, without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the land territory of the other; and that, if such delimitation produced overlapping areas, they were to be divided bet

31、ween the Parties in agreed proportions, or, failing agreement, equally, unless they decided on a regime of joint jurisdiction, user, or exploitation.In the course of negotiations, the factors to be taken into account were to include: the general configuration of the coasts of the Parties, as well as

32、 the presence of any special or unusual features; so far as known or readily ascertainable, the physical and geological structure and natural resources of the continental shelf areas involved, the element of a reasonable degree of proportionality between the extent of the continental shelf areas app

33、ertaining to each State and the length of its coast measured in the general direction of the coastline, taking into account the effects, actual or prospective, of any other continental shelf delimitations in the same region.英挪渔业案英国诉挪威国际法院，1951年【案情】英国长期以来在挪威海岸外的海域捕鱼。自17世纪以来，英国 就时常在捕鱼方面与挪威（当时是丹挪王国）发生争

34、执。1911年后， 英挪两国还发生过几次捕鱼争端。1933年，英国向挪威政府提出一 份备忘录，指责挪威在划定领海基线上所采用的方法不合法。1935 年7月12日，挪威颁布一项国王诏令，诏令宣布北纬26。288,以 北的海域为挪威专属渔区。根据该诏令，挪威沿岸以其外缘的高地、 岛屿和礁石的48个点为基点，用直线把这些基点连成直线基线，宣 布基线向海一面4海里的海域为挪威的专属渔区。英国在1933年已 曾经反对过挪威采用直线基线的方法,并认为挪威采用的直线太长 （最长者达44海里）。挪威1935年的诏令颁布后，英挪两国进行了 多次谈判，但没有结果。在1948-1949年间，英国不少渔船被挪威政 府

35、拿捕。1949年9月28日，英国以请求书向国际法院起诉，要求国 际法院指出挪威划定领海的方法是否违背国际法。因英挪两国均已接 受了国际法院的强制管辖，国际法院接受了这个案件，对英挪两国的 渔业争端进行审理并在1951年12月18日作出判决。【诉讼与判决】1 .诉讼要求。特殊协定请求国际法院:(1)宣布适用于划定基线的国际法原则o挪威政府将根据这条基线向海一面划出一个延伸4海里完全留给其本国国民使用的专属渔 区，这条基线的确定应尽可能考虑双方的论点，以避免两国发生进一 步的法律争议。(2)如法院认为挪威政府有权划定上条所指的渔区并把该渔区只 留给其本国国民使用，请对挪威政府对在该线以外的区域干扰

36、英国渔 船所造成的损失判予赔偿。2 .诉讼主张。英国政府认为挪威政府1935年诏令所划出的线不是依照国际法 划出的，并认为本案应适用的原则是：领海基线必须是最低潮线：连 接内水的封闭线不应超过10海里。挪威不否认有这些规则，但认为这些规则对挪威不适用，并坚持 说它所采用的划定基线的方法，无论从哪一方面来说都是符合国际法 的。经过书面诉讼和口头诉讼后，国际法院认为本案须研究三个问 题：(1)英国提出的原则是不是国际法的正确说明？(2)挪威的方法是不是符合国际法？(3)挪威的国王诏令是不是正确地适用了这种方法?3 .法院的分析。法院认为在处理这个案件时，有几个基本点是必需考虑的。第 一个考虑是领海

37、从属于陆地的观念。沿海国正是根据陆地才有权取得沿岸水域的权利。国家划定领海界线时必需考虑实际的需要和当地的要求，并考虑领海基线的划定可能偏离其海岸一般趋势的合理的范 围。第二个考虑是某些海域与把它分隔或包围的陆地组成部分之间的 靠近程度，因为划定基线时，应考虑其靠近程度是否足以使该海域成 为内水。沿岸国在有关海湾规则的基础上根据自己的地理情况来决 定。第三个考虑是延伸的范围除了地理因素之外，不要忽略了特殊的 经济利益，这个因素的现实性和重要性是由长期的惯例所证实了的。关于第一个问题。英国提出了两个原则，一是“低潮线原则”， 二是“十海里原则” 至于“低潮线原则”，国际法院指出：为了确定测算领海

38、宽度的 基线，国家实践曾采用过低潮线、高潮线或两者的平均线。这个标准 能清楚地体现领海与陆地领土毗邻的特点。各国都采用这个标准，挪 威和英国都采用这个标准，不过作法上各有不同，在国际法上，没有 统一的规则。在本案中，挪威的4海里领海宽度的主张是没有争议的，问题只 是这4海里应从什么地方算起。挪威的低潮线应该从什么地方划出。 这就首先要考虑挪威海岸的特点了。挪威海岸长约1500公里，地貌 异常特殊，沿岸群山环抱，断断续续，其中包含无数岛屿、小岛和干 礁，形成一个星罗棋布的小岛群，挪威称之为“石垒”(sk-jargaard)。 海岸外是一片浅平的沙滩。该区域渔源丰富，足当地居民赖以生存的 重要生活

39、来源。从争议地区最南端到“北角”，沿岸就是一片石垒。 在石垒里面，几乎每一个小岛都有大小不等的海湾、海峡和仅供当地居民往来的水道。“石垒”构成挪威陆地的一个构成部份了。挪威 的海岸不像其他国家那样是陆地与海洋的明显边界，而是其“石垒” 的外界。在确定挪威领海基线的时候，低潮线是大陆的低潮线还是构 成其大陆一部份的“石垒”的低潮线？就是说，挪威主张的4海里领 一 海宽度的起点线一基线应从大陆的低潮线算起，还是从“石垒”的低 潮线算起？英国认为挪威的基线应该是构成挪威领土部份的干地和 挪威内水的低潮线。法院不能允许这个看法。法院指出：合用低潮线 规则有三种方法。那就是：平行线法(trace par

40、allele)、圆弧法 (arc of circles)和直线法(straightbaseline system)。最简单的 是平行线法，即领海的外界彻底与海岸平行。这个方法对海岸正常的 国家是容易做到的。当海岸曲度很大(如挪威海岸东部的芬马克)和 沿岸岛屿密布(如沿着挪威海岸西部的“石垒”)的时候，基线就会 脱离低潮线而只能根据地理结构划出了。在这种情况下，低潮线就不 能作为一个规则提出来要求海岸线必须与它的整个弯曲度相一致。在 本案中，英国在备忘录中曾经以低潮线标准反对挪威，但它在复辩状和 在其代理人的陈述中已抛却了这个观点。但另一方面，英国在复辩状 中又认为正确的方法是“圆弧法”。圆弧法

41、是美国代表在1930年在 海牙国际法编纂会议上提出的。这是用新技术划出领海宽度的方法， 其目的是实现领海必须沿着海岸线划出的原则。但这种方法也没有法 律的强制作用，英国代理人在口头答辩中也承认这一点。法院指出， 为了实现领海带必须沿着海岸线划出的原则，许多国家已认为有必要 采用直线基线法，它们并没有受到别的国家反对。直线基线法就是在 低海线上选定适当的点，用直线把各点连起来。这种方法不仅可以用 予正常的海湾，也可以用于曲度不大的海岸。英国认为挪威只能用宵 线划出湾口的封闭线。法院不能允许这个看法。如果领海的基线必须 沿着“石垒”的外线划出，就没有理由认为这种方法只能合用于海湾 了。至于“十海里

42、原则”。英国认为，根据国际法，海湾的封闭线不 应超过10海里，除非挪威能证明所有大湾小湾都是它的历史性水域， 封闭线才可以超过10海里，但英国也承认挪威有权把这些水域作为 它的历史性水域。挪威认为它以历史权利作为根据，但它对历史权利的解释不同, 正如挪威代理人在听讯时所说的，“挪威政府不是以历史来论征它的 额外权利，对海域提出为法律所拒绝的权利，挪威是用历史和其他因 素一起来说明它所采用的方法是符合法律的。”挪威政府的历史权利的概念是与它对普通国际法规则的理解是 一致的。在它看来，国际法的这些规则已考虑到事物的多样性，划线 必须符合不同地区的特殊情况。它认为，它所采取的直线基线法是当 地情况之

43、必需，是彻底符合法律的。国际法院指出，“历史性水域”通常是指内水。英国把历史性水 域合用到内水和领海，这是违背国际法的。至于直线的长度，虽然有 些国家主张十海里，但也有许多国家采用不同的长度。因此，“十海 里规则”无论对海湾来说，还是对各个岛屿之间的海域来说，都还没有取得普遍国际法规则的权威。由于挪威已不能在其海岸合用十海里 规则，就不能以这个规则反对挪威。关于第二个问题。1935年诏令所合用的划线方法是否符合国际 S?I挪威认为，采用直线法划基线，已成为了挪威传统的方法。这种方 法是由挪威海岸的特殊地理情况造成的。这种作法已为一系列的实践 形成为挪威的一种制度。六十多年来，这种制度从来没有受

44、到其他国 家反对。国际法院也认为，挪威政府从1812年的诏令以来，直到本 争端发生以前，就不断地通过诏令、报告、外交照会等文件表明采用 直线方法划基线。挪威的直线基线制度是从在本争端发生以前，就已 经在长期的实践中确定下来了。各国政府对这种方法的容忍态度证明 他们不认为那是违反国际法的行为。多少年来，连英国也没有提出异 议。惟独1933年7月27日的备忘录才受到英国正式反对。挪威的划 线方法是根据其地理特点的需要决定的，它并没有为其他国家反对， 应认为是没有违背国际法的。关于第三个问题。挪威的国王诏令的划线方法是否正确合用？在 辩论中，英国认为：挪威1935年国王诏令所划定的基线中的某些线 段

45、，例如斯维荷尔泰维特(Svaehol thavet)和洛伐维特 (Lop-phavet),没有彻底沿着海岸的普通方向，于是是不符合上述标 准的。法院研究了这两个线段之后，认为斯维荷尔泰维特实际上是一 个带有海湾性质的盆地，无非分成两个大湾。洛伐维特在基线与陆地 部份的稍许偏离，不能认为是偏离海岸的普通方向。斯维荷尔维特自17世纪以来就被挪威认为是它的内水，早已隶属于挪威的主权之下, 至于洛伐维特，偏离是很轻微的，由沿岸国自己解决就行了。4 .判决。根据上述分析，法院驳回了英国的要求，并于1951年12月281 日作出判决：判决以10： 2票判定：“1935年7月12日挪威国王诏令划定渔区的方法

46、没有违反国际法。以8:4票判定：“由倒王 诏令采用直线方法划出的基线没有违反国际法。”判决作出时，阿尔瓦勒斯、海克沃斯、舒模等三位法官发表了 个别意见；麦克奈尔和里德两位法官发表了不允许见。【评注】基线是陆地和海洋的分界线，也是测算领海及其他海域的起点 线。确定基线是海洋法中最重要的问题。但海洋法上还没有为各国统 一合用的原则或者规则。罗马时期最初采用高潮线，后来改用低潮线。 低潮线现在已为各国所普遍接受了。1812年的北海渔约把低潮 线称为“实际的标准”。在1930年的国际法编纂会议上，低潮线被 称为“通常的基线”。1958年的领海与毗连区公约把低潮线称 为“正常基线”，所谓正常，是因为在正

47、常情况下，它与海岸彻底平 行。但在海岸不那末正常的时候，就是说，在海岸弯曲度很大和岛屿 又多的情况下，沿岸国就采用别的基线，直线基线就是普遍合用的一在本案中，英国认为挪威不应采用直线基线，不应以石垒的外缘 作为基线，不应采用超过十海里长度的基线。这三个主张都给国际法 院驳回了。直线基线最先是英国采用的。远在1604年，英国就用直 线划出马恩岛和安格尔西岛之间的基线。后来许多国家都用直线划出 湾口或者河口的封闭线。到19世纪，大多数国家都采用直线基线了。 因此，挪威用直线划出其基线，那是无可非议的。至于挪威的基线应 是连接其石垒最外缘的线还是其陆地的海岸线？国际法院根据挪威沿岸的地貌特点，认定“

48、石垒”是挪威陆地的一个构成部份，于是基线应是石垒的外界而不是陆地的海岸。这个判 断是非常客观和公正的。所谓十海里的长度标准，在国际法上根本就 没有这个规则，那只是英美北大西洋海岸渔业仲裁案裁决中提出的建 设，运没有成为习惯法规则。本案是有关领海基线制度的一个非常重要的案例。国际法院在判 决中指出采用直线基线的三个基本观点：(1)沿海国有权根据自己的地理特点选用划出领海基线的方法；(2)直线基线不应在任何明显的程度偏离海岸的普通方向；(3)基线向陆地一面的海域是沿岸国的内水。这些观点是在总结海洋法历史发展的基础上提出来的，这些观点 已为各国在实践中所接受，并已反映在领海与毗连区公约第4 条和联合

49、国海洋法公约第7条和第8条中。国际法院在本案的判 决对现代海洋法的发展具有非常重要的意义。the Norwegian fisheries zone as regards that part of Norway which is situated northward of 66028.8V North latitude . shall run parallel with straight base-lines drawn between fixed points on the mainland, on islands or rocks, starting from the final point of the boundary line of the Realm in the easternmost part of the Varangerfjord and going as far as