海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议:亚太地区海洋划界的替代方案

Vasco Becker-Weinberg

海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议:亚太地区海洋划界的替代方案

Vasco Becker-Weinberg*

在过去的几年里,开发人类近期难以企及的深海资源的技术可行性,以及扩大国家管辖以确保对非生物海洋自然资源之占有的渴望,已经使得沿海国对海洋领域尤其是对大陆架领域的主张增多。

纵观地球上的不同区域,亚太地区就是一个因对海洋油气矿藏的潜在开发引发有关沿海国家之争端的明显例证。事实上,一方面考虑到现有的争端以及该区域已划定的海洋边界数量,另一方面考虑到对能源需求的不断增长,海洋油气矿藏的开发权对亚太地区国家而言无疑已成为了一个关键议题。

虽然当代国际公法尤其是海洋法对此类争端的解决没有规定一个直截了当的做法,但是国家实践以及一些国际判例都就未决的海洋划界问题考虑了一些临时措施。

在某些情况下,例如共同开发协议这样的临时方案,已经允许对跨界的或在主权要求重叠区域发现的共同海洋资源的共同开发。在帝汶海、中国东北部海域和泰国湾实施的共同开发机制即是如此。

因此,虽然已知的海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议在法律上存在差异,各自概念和法律性质远未统一,但是经全面分析这些殊异的协议,提出一个适合于亚太地区具体情况并能最终改善该地区的经济、政治和社会状况的法律解决方案还是可能的。

海洋划界 海洋油气矿藏开发 亚太地区

一、引 言

(一)海洋划界和海洋油气矿藏开发

海洋油气矿藏的位置和性质,尤其是允许它们在岩石间隙自由流动这一在底土地质层间的流动性以及它们不可能停留在特定区域的性质,提出了两个或两个以上国家共同开发这一重要且独特的法律问题。

根据当前的海洋法,各国行使适用于各自海域的法律制度,尤其是有关生物海洋与非生物自然资源的开发法律制度项下的权利。

就大陆架而言,各国对开发在此发现的资源享有专属且不可剥夺的权利,无论有无事先宣告或占有这一海域。①Article 77(2)in fine(3)of UNCLOS.See Nguyen Quoc DINH,Patrick DAILLER and Alain PELLET,Droit International Public,7thed.,Paris:Librairie Générale de Doit et de Jurisprudence/E.J.A.,2002,p.1192;Victor PRESCOTT,National rights to hydrocarbon resources of the continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles,in Gerald BLAKE,Martin PRATT,Clive SCHOFIELD and Janet Allison BROWN ed.,Boundaries and Energy: Problems and Prospect s,London/The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.51～52;Philip ALLOTT,Mare Nostrum:a new international Law of the Sea,American Journal of International Law,Vol.4,1992,pp.767～768;René-Jean DUPUY and Daniel VIGNES,A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea,Vol.1,Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp.315～381;Laurent LUCCHINI and Michel VOELCKEL,Droit de la Mer,La Mer et son Droit.Les espaces maritimes(t.1),ed., Paris:Pedone,1990,pp.164～169;Jean COMBACAU,Le Droit de la Mer,ed.,Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,1985,pp.58～67;Charles ROSSEAU,Droit International Public.Les Relations Internationales(t.4),ed.,Paris:Sirey,1980,pp.358～359.然而,就专属经济区而言,有关沿海国的权利取决于该国的事先宣告并应被视为纯粹的结果权利(相比大陆架制度而言),有关资源开发的主权权利尤其如此。②Article 56 UNCLOS.See International Law Association,Report of the International Committee on the Principles Applicable to Living Resources Occurring Both within and without the Exclusive Economic Zone or in Zones of Overlapping Claims,by Professor Dr.Rainer Lagoni(Cairo Conference 1992),pp.1～32;René-Jean DUPUY and Daniel VIGNES,A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea,Vol.1,Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp.275～307.

根据《联合国海洋法公约》,③The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,made in Montego Bay,on December 10th,1982,published at 1833 UNTS 3.距离标准的采纳是为了划分大陆架边界,也是为了实现一个公平的结果,而非为了顺应海床的物理特性以及自然延伸(它们被认为是无关的)。①Article 76 of UNCLOS.See ICJ Reports(1984),pp.261～266,pp.312～317,pp.339～344 and(1981),p.88,127;E.D.BROWN,Sea-bed Energy and Minerals:the International Legal Regime.The Continental Shelf,Vol.1,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1992,pp.19～23;L.Dolliver M.NELSON,The roles of equity in the delimitation of maritime boundaries,American Journal of International Law,Vol.84,No.4,1990,p. 846;Shigeru ODA,The Law of the Sea in Our Time-I.New Developments 1966-1975,3 Publications in Ocean Development,Leyden:A.W.Sijthoff,1977,p.254.

在海岸相邻或相对的情况下,《联合国海洋法公约》规定划界应使用一条中间线,为诸如第三国出现等可能证明其修改正当的特殊情况留下余地,尽管海洋法公约在大陆架和专属经济区划界上倾向于使用公平原则而非中间线。②Articles 74 and 83 of UNCLOS.See ICJ Reports(1985),pp.41～43,pp.56～57.

第三国对大陆架和对专属经济区的权利有着明显的区别,尽管这两种制度在国家对海床和底土的权利规定上有许多重合。即便在《联合国海洋法公约》引进专属经济区制度前,已经非常明显的是,为了确保沿海国对海床的主权要求与第三国开发在此发现的其他资源如渔业资源的权利兼容,③Cecil J.B.HURST,Whose is the bed of the Sea?British Yearbook of International Law, Vol.4,1923-24,p.43.这一区别还是有必要的。

事实上,虽然两种制度都包含对海床和底土的规定,并注重以勘探及开发自然资源为目的的主权权利,但只有大陆架制度下的权利才具有专属性。④Articles 56(1),57 and 76(1)of UNCLOS.See Francisco ORREGO VICUÑA,La zone économique exclusive dans la législation et la pratique desÉtats,in Droit de La Mer(v.2) (coord.)Jean COMBACAU/Pierre-Marie DUPUY ed.,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp.44～45; The Exclusive Economic Zone.Regime and Legal Nature under International Law, Cambridge/New York/Port Chester/Melbourne/Sydney:Cambridge University Press, 1989,p.71;Barbara KWIATKOWSKA,The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea,2 Publications on Ocean Development,Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1989,pp.91～92;David Joseph ATTARD,The Exclusive E-conomic Zone in International Law,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1987,pp.192～210;Julio César LUPINACCI,The legal status of the exclusive economic zone in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea,in Francisco ORREGO VICUÑA ed.,The Exclusive Economic Zone.A Latin American Perspective,1 Foreign Relations of the Third World,Boulder Colorado:Westview Press,1984,pp.105～111;Hugo CAMINOS,The regime of fisheries on the exclusive economic zone,in Francisco ORREGO VICUÑA ed.,The Exclusive Economic Zone.A Latin American Perspective,1 Foreign Relations of the Third World, Boulder Colorado:Westview Press,1984,pp.151～155.在专属经济区内,沿海国必须适当顾及其他国家的权利和义务,并且以符合这些权利、义务和自由的方式行动,但在大陆架上,只有沿海国才有权行使勘探和开发在此发现的非生物海洋自然资源及定居物种这一固有的、排他的主权权利,只有沿岸国明确表示同意,其他国家才能从事类似行为。这就意味着,如果沿海国选择不勘探和开发在大陆架内发现的非生物海洋自然资源及定居物种,其他任何国家未经允许都不能这么做。①Articles 55,56 77(2)(4)and 81 of UNCLOS.

沿海国在大陆架的权利并不具有绝对性,在这个意义上,他们不知道任何限制。《联合国海洋法公约》明确规定,沿海国对大陆架的权利不影响上覆水域以及这些水域之上的大气空间的法律地位,也不影响其他国家诸如铺设海底电缆和管道、航行以及开展国际合作促进海洋科学研究活动等的权利与自由。②Articles 58,78,79 and 87(1)(a)and Part XIII of UNCLOS.

专属经济区保证了这两种制度之间的兼容性,沿海国在海床和底土上应以符合大陆架制度规定的方式行动,不统摄这两个海洋空间和简单地补足它们之间的划界。③Article 56(3)UNCLOS.See David Joseph ATTARD,The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1987,p.139.

在大陆架划界方面,《联合国海洋法公约》包括了适用于在对200海里的主张发生重合的封闭及半封闭海域中具有(延伸的)200海里相邻边界或具有相对边界国家之间划界的规则,以及适用于群岛国家之间或对该海域的主张发生重合的情况划界,且不损害未参与划界协议的国家的权利的规则。④Article 48,76(10),83 and 134(4)and article 9 of AnnexⅡof UNCLOS.

当主权要求产生重叠而各国未能对划界达成协议时,通常诸如共同开发协议这样的临时措施就发挥着充当一个务实的解决办法的作用,尤其是在开发归属不明的矿藏资源时。⑤Sun Pyo KIM,Maritime Delimitation and Interim Arrangements in North East Asia, Hague/London/New York:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,p.12;Rodman R. BUNDY,State practice in maritime delimitation,in Gerald H.BLAKE,ed.,World Boundaries.Maritime Boundaries(v.5),London/New York:Routledge,1994,pp.36～40; Mark J.VALENCIA,Joint jurisdiction and development in southeast Asia seas:factors and candidate areas,in Mark J.VALENCIA,ed.,Geology and Hy drocarbon Potential of the South China Sea and Possibilities of Joint Development,New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt:Pergamon Press,1985,p.575.如果油气矿藏横跨两国边界,可被界线双方开发,那么这些国家可以采取一种共同开发的方式开发共同海洋油气矿藏。然而,如果它们未能就划界或合作协议的达成一致,沿海国都不能从事任何对共同海洋油气矿藏产生影响的行为。⑥Article 83(3)UNCLOS in fine.

各国的活动不能是为了试图占有或事实占有各自海域且必须适当顾及第三国的权利。事实上,如果两个国家同意共同开发在某一海域发现的海洋油气矿藏,而第三国也对此主张权利,那么若无后者的同意或参与,有关国家不得实施该协议,否则对导致的损失需承担国际责任。①ICJ Reports 1997,p.178,152.See Betsy Baker Röben,Civil liability as a control mechanism for environmental protection at the international level,in Fred L.Morrison/Rüdiger Wolfrum ed.,International,Regional and National Environmental Law,The Hague/ London/Boston:Kluwer Law International,2000,p.836;Rüdiger WOLFRUM,Means of ensuring compliance with and enforcement of international environmental law,272;The Hague/London/New York:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1998,pp.81～82;International Law Association,Report of the International Com mittee on the Principles Applicable to Living Resources Occurring Both within and without the Exclusive Economic Zone or in Zonesof Overlapping Claims,by Professor Dr.Rainer Lagoni(Cairo Conference 1992), p.24.

此外,海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议项下共同开发区的划定并不取代海洋划界,共同开发区也不构成对海洋边界的临时划界。共同开发海洋自然资源和海洋划界这两个议题不应被混淆,这两者之间的关联性也不应被认为是两者择其一的关系。认为划界是开发共同海洋自然资源的先前程序或者前提条件的假设很可能被证明是武断的,因为它们很可能共存,甚至当合作开发协议已经得以成功实施,只要各国不必处理共同资源管理这一复杂而费力的问题,从而利于对海洋划界的解决,各国最终还是会对海洋划界达成一致。在这些情况下,各国均期待一个允许开发海洋资源的临时措施,海洋边界争端最终将不复存在或不再突显。

根据《联合国海洋法公约》第74条第3款和第83条第3款,各国实施的任何临时措施都应具有可操作性且不得妨害最终划界,这必然意味着无论对争议的海洋划界采取何种临时措施,最终划界始终取决于国家之间的自愿协议。此外,第三国在共同开发区内有权行使《联合国海洋法公约》第七编规定的公海自由,尽管有国家控制并管理着这些地区。

(二)海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的概念

海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议是各国为克服海洋划界程序和共同资源开发的障碍探索出来的兼具创造性和实用性的法律途径,尽管寻求一个解决共同海洋油气矿藏开发难题的法律方法的创造性和实用主义往往是经济驱动的结果,而非法律驱动的结果。因此,各国的合作是整合经济利益和更好更有效开发自然资源之需的成果。

考虑到现有对海洋划界僵持不下的争端数量,以及尤其考虑到巴林和沙特阿拉伯在五十多年前签署首份协议而只有很少的协议得到实施,②Bahrain-Saudi Arabia Frontier Agreement,made on February 22nd,1958,published at UNTS 1733(1993),pp.3～13.尽管它们以前也就陆上资源共同开发考虑过这个做法,①Agreement between the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic and the Austrian Federal Government concerning the Principles of Geological Co-operation between the Czechoslovak Republic and the Republic of Austria,made in Prague,on January 23rd,1960,published at 495 UNTS 7241(1964),pp.112～122.Agreement between the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic and the Austrian Federal Government Concerning the Working of Common Deposits of Natural Gas and Petroleum,made in Prague,on January 23rd, 1960,published at 495 UNTS 7242(1964),pp.134～140.海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的数量甚少。

这可能是由于对海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的法律特点,以及这些协议促成一个可能最终改变某一地区地缘政治环境的法律方案的优点缺乏了解。在某些情况下,各国由于政治、社会和经济上的差异,甚至是由于缺乏促进必要互依互靠进而从双边、区域或多边层面解决这些争端的外交关系,拒绝、反对或不予理会其他国家解决这类争端的尝试。②Douglas M.JOHNSTON and Mark J.VALENCIA,Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems. Status and Solutions,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp. 24～26.在其他场合,国家会采取不同的有时是激进的解决方案,包括军事占领岩礁和岛屿以强化各自对争议海域及周边区域的要求,从而确保对在此区域发现的海洋自然资源的开发权的非法授予,南沙群岛的情况即为一例。①Jon M.VAN DYKE,Disputes over islands and maritime boundaries in East Asia,in Seoung-Yong HONG and Jon VAN DYKE ed.,Maritime Boundary Disputes,Settlement Processes,and the Law of the Sea,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2009,pp.62～75;Alex G.Oude ELFERNIK,The Islands in the South China Sea:how does their presence limit the extent of the high seas and the Area and the maritime zones of the mainland coasts? Ocean Development and International Law,Vol.32,No.2,2001,pp.169～191;Monique CHEMILLER-GENDREAU,Sovereignty over the Parcel and Spratly Islands,The Hague/London/Boston:Kluwer Law International,2000,pp.141～143;ZOU Keyuan,The Chinese traditional maritime boundary line in the South China Sea and its legal consequences for the resolution of the dispute over the Spratly Islands,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.14,No.1,1999,pp.27～55;Mark J.VALENCIA and Jon M.VAN DYKE,Comprehensive solutions to the South China Sea disputes:some options,in Gerald BLAKE,Martin PRATT,Clive SCHOFIELD and Janet Allison BROWN ed.,Boundaries and Energy:Problems and Prospects.International Boundary Studies Series,London/The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998;Christopher C.JOYNER,The Spratly Islands dispute:rethinking the interplay of law,diplomacy,and geopolitics in the South China Sea,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.13,No.2,1998,pp.193～236;Lian A.MITO,The Timor Gap treaty as a model for joint development in the Spratly islands,American University International Law Review,Vol.13,No.3,1998,p.752;Daniel J.DZUREK,The Spratly Islands dispute:who’s on first?,Maritime Boundaries,Vol.2,No.1,1996,pp.1～67;Brian K.MURPHY,Dangerous ground:the Spratly islands and international law,Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 1994,pp.187～212;Jon M.VAN DYKEand Dale L.BENNETT,Islands and the delimitation of the Ocean Space in the South China Sea,Ocean Yearbook,Vol.10,1993,pp.54～89;Ted MCDORMAN,The South China Sea islands dispute in the 1990s-a new multilateral process and continuing friction,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.8,No.2,May 1993,pp.272～276;S.p.JAGOTA,Maritime boundary and joint development zones:emerging trends,Ocean Yearbook,Vol.10,1993,pp.126～127;Hungdah CHIU and Choon-Ho PARK,Legal status of the Parcel and Spratly Islands,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.3,No.1,1975,pp.1～28;Mark J.VALENCIA,National marine interests in Southeast Asia,in George KENT/Mark J.VALENCIA ed.,Marine Policy in Southeast Asia,Berkeley/Los Angeles/London:University of California Press,1985,pp.33～57;Jeanette GREENFIELD,China and the Law of the Sea,in James CRAWFORD and Donald R.ROTHWELL ed.,The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1995,pp. 21～40.

海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议还可能包括生物资源的勘探和开发。事实上,共同开发的概念最初即用于国际渔业管理,之后才用于海洋油气矿藏共同开发。

共同开发这一概念适用于大陆架和专属经济区。事实上,有关专属经济区和大陆架重叠的争端并不一定指向海洋划界,因为国家可能为了勘探和开发各自的海洋自然资源而决定建立合作开发机制。各国可以选择在某一特定法律框架下建立的一个或多个共同开发区里开发生物与非生物海洋自然资源,允许各国同时开发跨界油气矿藏并实施共同的渔业储备管理政策。

每个共同开发协议的法律特性都是独特的,这使得确定或就其关键条款甚至是海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议这一概念的定义达成共识非常困难。

共同开发协议已被认为是海洋划界的一种替代选择,允许各国在平等享有国家主权要求重叠的特定海域里发现的资源的同时,共同参与勘探和开发油气矿藏。①William T.ONORATO,Promoting foreign investment through international petroleum joint development regimes,ICSID Review,Vol.1,No.1,1986,pp.81～88;ZOU Keyuan, The Chinese traditional maritime boundary line in the South China Sea and its legal consequences for the resolution of the dispute over the Spratly Islands,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.14,No.1,1999,p.157.然而,这种共同开发协议的范围并不包括最终的海洋划界后以及当国家要求不发生重叠时实施的那些协定。此外,当谈到建立收入或成本分担计划时,还没有可以参考的经验,因为国家可以根据自身的利益及这些协议的实用性自行定义合作开发协议的内容。②Mark J.VALENCIA,Joint jurisdiction and development in southeast Asia seas:factors and candidate areas,in Mark J.VALENCIA,ed.,Geology and Hy drocarbon Potential of the South China Sea and Possibilities of Joint Development,New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt:Pergamon Press,1985,p.576.

对共同开发协议的另一个看法是,两国共同开发在国家管辖区域内发现的非生物海洋自然资源的主权权利存在重合。③Mark J.VALENCIA,Taming troubled waters:joint development of oil and mineral resources in overlapping claim areas,San Diego Law Review,Vol.23,No.3,1986,p.683; Douglas M.JOHNSTON and Mark J.VALENCIA,Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems. Status and Solutions,Shigeru ODA ed.,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,p.36.Ian TOWNSEND-GAULT and William G.STORMONT,Offshore petroleum joint development arrangements:functional instrument?Compromise?Obligation?In Gerald H.BLAKE,William J.HILDESLEY,Martin A.PRATT,Rebecca J.RIDLEY and Clive H.SCHOFIELD ed.,The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources,London/Dordrecht/Boston:Graham&Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff,1995,p.51.这种观点从根本上认为介入国只能行使共同开发协议中的主权权利,这种共同开发行为的范围只限于开发非生物海洋自然资源。④David ONG,The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol.31,2000,p.121.然而,从共同开发海洋油气矿藏协议概念而来的共同开发生物海洋自然资源之撤销,可能会被证明无法完全代表国家在海洋自然资源国际化方面的实践。⑤On the internationalization of marine natural resources,see Vasco BECKER-WEINBERG, The internationalization of marine natural resources in UNCLOS,in Rainer Lagoni,Peter Ehlers and Marian Paschke ed.,Recent Developments in the Law of the Sea,Berlin/Munster/Vienna/Zurich/London:LIT Verlag,2010,pp.9～54.此外,共同开发海洋油气矿藏协议的设想不可避免地在后者与有违此种合作的法律环境的国家主权权利之间建立起了联系。

在共同开发海洋油气矿藏的概念下,包括开发生物海洋自然资源看来可能令人费解。然而,实践已经证实,国家愿意利用在开发共同海洋油气矿藏这一棘手问题上达成的共识,从而将那些处理共同控制某一特定海域的其他相关事项的规定也囊括进来。①Treaty between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe on the Joint Development of Petroleum and Other Resources in Respect of Areas of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Two States,made in Abuja,on February 21st,2001,at www.nigeriasaotomejda.com,5 March 2011.此外,各国可能会扩大合作以包括诸如航行安全、海洋科学研究或海洋环境保护等问题。事实上,共同开发协议的现状表明,它们可能还包括不属于国家主权范围内的其他权利的行使,尽管其中一些协议未能明确各国同意在共同开发区内行使的这些权利的性质,加强乃至推进这些协议相比于主权权利行使在功能与实用上的意义。②Hazel FOX,Paul MCDADE,Derek Rankin REID,Anastasia STRATI and Peter HUEY ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas:A Model Agreement for States for Joint Development with Explanatory Commentary,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1989,pp.49～50.

虽然共同开发协议还只在双边层面实施,但是对建立多边合作开发协议已有很多尝试,包括在区域的框架下解决海洋划界争端的尝试。③On the unsuccessful French proposal for a joint development regime with Spain and Italy as an alternative to maritime boundary delimitation,see Umberto LEANZA,The delimitation of the continental shelf of the Mediterranean Sea,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.8,No.3,1993,p.388.Also see,Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia,the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand Relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Boundaries in the Northern Part of the Strait of Malacca,published at National Legislative Series,UN Doc.No.ST/LEG/SER.B/18,p.429(1976).This agreement provides that a hydrocarbon deposit that should straddle a boundary line will only be developed after consultation between the three States.

因此从一个更广的意义上看,共同开发协议可以被定义为:两个或两个以上的国家为勘探和开发在海洋土壤和底土中发现的自然资源而实施的安排。然而,鉴于当前的国家实践,对海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议更严格的法律描述将定义后者为:涉及自然资源可能被发现的海域,主要但不限于规定勘探和(或)开发活动及共同管理在海床和海洋底土中发现的油气矿藏,以及实施介入国认为必要或有关的所有活动,且不损害国际法授予的第三国在先的权利和自由,由两个或两个以上有权(尽管不依赖于介入国主张的此类权利)国家签署的、由国际法调整的、可以自我调节的合约性文件。

然而,面对不断发展的国家实践以及谈判及加入国际协议的国家自由裁量权,这个定义可能会被证明是不恰当的。

二、亚太地区的国家实践

(一)帝汶海

东帝汶和澳大利亚的海岸间距离大概为250海里,①Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation-Legal and Technical Aspects of Political Process,Leiven/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2003,p.358;Henry BURMESTER,Australia and the Law of the Sea,in James CRAWFORD and Donald R.ROTHWELL ed.,The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1994,pp.51～64.这就使得两国的大陆架会发生重叠。

澳大利亚根据被淹没的陆地至东帝汶海槽的自然延伸,对距其北部海岸150海里始终坚持两个大陆架的存在。②Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Spatial allocation of continental shelf rights in the Timor Sea:Reflections on maritime delimitation and joint development,in Estudos em Direito Internacional Público,ed.,Coimbra:Almedina,2004,pp.274～275,277;Victor PRESCOTT,National rights to hydrocarbon resources of the continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles,in Gerald BLAKE,Martin PRATT,Clive SCHOFIELD and Janet Allison BROWN ed.,Boundaries and Energy:Problems and Prospects,London/The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998,pp.71～72;Malcom EVANS,Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989,pp.99～118;John Robert Victor PRESCOTT,Australia’s Maritime Boundaries,Canberra:Department of International Relations/The Australian National University Canberra,1985,pp.115～117; The Political Geography of the Oceans.Problems in Modern Geography,London/Vancouver:David&Charles Newton Abbot,1975,pp.191～192;C.COOK,Filling the gapdelimiting the Australia-Indonesia maritime boundary,Australian Yearbook of International Law,Vol.10,1981-1983,pp.170～171.然而东帝汶认为这种主张是无法接受的,正如葡萄牙和印度尼西亚之前认为的,虽然时期不同。

参照国际法院对类似案件的裁决,东帝汶认为帝汶海的划界应根据中间线,当面临其他海床洼地时,不应该考虑东帝汶海槽的地质特征,因为这些洼地并不代表大陆架的断裂或错位。①ICJ Reports(1982),p.18,pp.54～58,p.64,and(1985),p.13,pp.34～35.See Masahiro MIYOSHI,Some thoughts on maritime boundary delimitation,in Seoung-Yong HONG and Jon VAN DYKE ed.,Maritime Boundary Disputes,Settlement Processes,and the Law of the Sea,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2009,pp.108～113;Laurent LUCCHINI,La délimitation des frontières maritimes dans la jurisprudence internationale: vue d’ensemble,in Rainer LAGONI and Daniel VIGNES,ed.,Maritime Délimitation,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006,pp.4～5;David ONG,The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law,Vol.31,2000,p.79:William T. ONORATO and Mark J.VALENCIA,The new Timor Gap Treaty:legal and political implications,ICSID Review,Vol.28,2000,p.62;Mark J.VALENCI and Masahiro MIYOSHI,Southeast Asia seas:joint development of hydrocarbons in overlapping claim areas, Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.16,No.3,1986,p.228;E.D. BROWN,The Tunisia-Libya continental shelf case,Marine Policy/International Journal Ocean Affairs,Vol.7,No.3,1983,pp.145～148.此外,对自然延伸标准的采用也不应放弃对其他标准的考虑,诸如澳大利亚的主张中没有提出的划界平等和划界公平。②ICJ Reports(1985),pp.40～41.事实上,如果后者得以被成功主张,已知的帝汶海海床和底土油气矿藏的大部份将处于澳大利亚的大陆架内,而适用中间线则将东帝汶置于非常有利的地位,因为大部分已知的油气矿藏都靠近东帝汶海岸。③Stuart KAYE,Negotiation and dispute resolution:a case study in international boundary making-the Australia-Indonesia boundary,in Alex G.Oude ELFERINK and Donald R. ROTHWELL ed.,Oceans Management in the 21stCentury:Institutional Frameworks and Responses,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.146～147;William T. ONORATO and Mark J.VALENCIA,International cooperation for petroleum development:the Timor Gap Treaty,ICSID Review,Vol.5,No.1,1990,pp.2～3;Jonathan I. CHARNEY,International maritime boundaries for the continental shelf:the relevance of natural prolongation,in Nisuke ANDO,Edward MCWHINNEY and Rüdiger WOLFRUM ed.,Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda(Vol.2),The Hague/London/New York:Kluwer Law International,2002,p.1029;Mark J.VALENCIA and Masahiro MIYOSHI,Southeast Asia seas:joint development of hydrocarbons in overlapping claim areas,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.16,No.3,1986,p.230.在这种情况下,如果海洋划界问题被提交至国际法院审理,澳大利亚很可能请求重新调整中间线,上述情况也几乎肯定会引发印度尼西亚的干预。④ICJ Reports(1990/1992),(1985),pp.41～43,pp.56～57 and(1981),p.21.See David ONG,The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law,Vol. 31,2000,p.117;Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation-Legal and Technical Aspects of Political Process,Leiven/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2003,p.379.

澳大利亚、印度尼西亚和东帝汶对帝汶海的海洋划界,在不同的场合进行了双边谈判,尽管澳大利亚和印度尼西亚还有其他悬而未决的海洋争端,它们已签署了两份划界协定。①Indonesia and Australia have a boundary dispute since 1953 regarding the continental between the two countries in the Sahul Shelf.第一份协议针对了巴布亚新几内亚和印度尼西亚的海洋划界,②Agreement between Australia and Indonesia Concerning Certain Boundaries between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia,made in Jakarta,on February 12th,1973,published at 975 UNTS 4(1975).第二份协议针对了阿拉弗拉海的海洋划界,设想从根本上解决海床和底土自然资源勘探和开发中的国家主权问题。③Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing Certain Seabed Boundaries,made in Canberra,on May 18th,1971,and entered into force on November 7th,1969,published at 974 UNTS 307(1975).Also see Treaty between Australia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea Concerning Sovereignty and Maritime Boundaries in the area between the Two Countries,including the area known as Torres Strait,and Related Matters,made in Sydney,on December 18th,1978,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-PNG1978TS.PDF,1 February 2011; Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary and Certain Seabed Boundaries, made in Perth,on March 14th,1997,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-IDN1997EEZ.pdf,1 February 2011; Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing Certain Seabed Boundaries in the Area of the Timor and Arafura Seas,Supplementary to the Agreement of 18 May 1971,made in Jakarta,on October 9th,1972,published at 974 UNTS 319(1957).

这两份协议都包括自然资源条款,根据这些条款,如果任何油气矿藏的延伸横跨了边界并因此能全部或部分被边界的任一方所开采,那么两国将就最有效开发这些资源的方式以及公平分配上述开发取得的利益的制度谋求达成协议。④Articles 6 and 7.

确立巴布亚新几内亚和印度尼西亚之间边界的协议不包括东帝汶的大陆架,因为当时这片领土仍由葡萄牙统治。⑤Article 2 of the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia establishing certain seabed boundaries, made in Canberra,on May 18th,1971.Also see Portuguese Law 7/75,July 17th,1975.只有在1975年12月7日印度尼西亚入侵和占领东帝汶后,这片领土才开始在事实上受印度尼西亚控制。⑥Resolutions(UN Security Council)384,December 22nd,1975,389,April 22nd,1976,1236, May 7th,1999,1246,June 11th,1999,1262,August 27th,1999,1264,September 15th,1999, and 1272,October 25th,1999.Also see Indonesian Law 7,July 17th,1976,which recognizes the integration of East Timor in the State of Indonesia.This law was revoked on October 20th,1999 by an Act of the Indonesian Popular Assembly.

为了在合理管理、生物海洋资源保持和最佳利用的共同利益,这两国还进一步在合作机制上达成协议。①Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia relating to cooperation in fisheries,made in Jakarta,on April 22nd,1992,published at 1170 UNTS(1994),pp.288～294.Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Australia concerning the Implementation of a Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Arrangement,made in Jakarta,on October 29th,1981,and entered into force on February 1st,1982,published at Kriangsak KITTICH AISAREE,The Law of the Sea and Maritime Boundary Delimitation in South-East Asia,Oxford/New York:Oxford University Press,1987,p.198.Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Regarding the Operations of Indonesian Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australian Exclusive Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf,made in Jakarta,on November 7th,1974,and entered into force on February 28th,1975,at http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apb.html,1 February 2011.在近二十年的谈判未果后,澳大利亚和印度尼西亚同意推迟海洋划界这一分歧问题并在《帝汶沟条约》的法律框架下共同开发帝汶海的自然资源。②Article 33(1)of the Timor Gap Treaty signed between Australia and Indonesia on December 11th,1989,at www.austlii.edu.au,1 February 2011.On the Timor Gap Treaty,see Masahiro MIYOSHI,The joint development of offshore oil and gas in relation to maritime boundary delimitation,2-5 Maritime Briefing/International Boundaries Research Unit, Vol.2,No.5,1999,pp.17～21;Keith SUTER,Timor Gap treaty:The continuing controversy,Marine Policy:the International Journal of Ocean Affairs,Vol.17,No.4,July 1993,pp.294～302;Francis M.AUBURN and Vivian L.FORBES,The Timor Gap treaty and the Law of the Sea Convention,Ocean Yearbook,Vol.10,1993,pp.40～53;Henry BURMESTER,The zone of co-operation between Australia and Indonesia:a preliminary outline with particular reference to applicable law,in Hazel FOX ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas,VolumeⅡ.The Institute’s Revised Model Agreement.Conference Papers,The Australia/Indonesia Zone of Co-operation Treaty 1989,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1990,pp.128～139;Ernst WILLHEIM,Australia-Indonesia sea-bed boundary negotiations:proposals for a joint development zone in the“Timor Gap”,Natural Resource Journal,Vol.29,1989,pp.821～842; Mochtar KUSUMA-ATMADJA,Joint development of oil and as by neighboring countries,in The Law of the Sea Institute,University of Hawaii,Mochtar KUSUMA-ATMADJA,Thomas A.MENSAH and Bernard H.OXMAN ed.,Sustainable Development and Preservation of the Oceans:The Challenges of UNCLOS and Agenda 21,1983,pp.592～609;John Robert Victor PRESCOTT,Australia’s Maritime Boundaries,Canberra:Department of International Relations,The Australian National University,1985,p.117; Douglas M.JOHNSTON and Mark J.VALENCIA,Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems. Status and Solutions,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp. 70～74.

《帝汶沟条约》是第一个由国家实施的广泛共同开发海洋油气矿藏的协议,并已成为一个其他国家所效仿的范例,如圣多美和普林西比民主共和国与尼日利亚之间存在的共同开发协议。这是一个复杂而全面的法律协议,包括了多条超出作为海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议核心内容的规定,即建立共同开发区和负责管理在此发现的自然资源、授予各项开发权的实体,以及建立一个适用于开发资源的完全自主的法律协议。

该协议的执行是为了满足澳大利亚不断增长的能源需求,以及使在国际法项下无法实现的颁发勘探帝汶海区域许可证行为合法化,类似于印度尼西亚占领前对于葡萄牙那样。《帝汶沟条约》创设了必要的顾及勘探作业之延续及运营者既得权利之巩固的规范制度。①Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation-Legal and Technical Aspects of Political Process,Leiven/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2003,pp.393～396;William T.ONORATO and Mark J.VALENCIA,The new Timor Gap Treaty:legal and political implications,ICSID Review,Vol.28,2000,p. 61;Douglas M.JOHNSTON and Mark J.VALENCIA,Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems.Status and Solutions,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991,pp.2～3.

1991年2月22日,《帝汶沟条约》一生效,葡萄牙就在国际法院对澳大利亚提起了诉讼,指责后者就侵犯葡萄牙在东帝汶的权利和义务、东帝汶人民的自决权向葡萄牙和东帝汶人民承担责任,虽然这在后来未能成功。②ICJ Reports(1995)92.See Pierre-Marie DUPUY,A general stocktaking of the connections between the multilateral dimension of obligations and codification of the law of responsibility,European Journal of International Law,Vol.13,No.5,2002,p.1056; Christine M.CHINKIN,East Timor moves into the World Court,European Journal of International Law,1993,Vol.4,No.2,pp.208～218;Maria Clara MAFFEI,The case of East Timor before the International Court of Justice-some tentative comments,European Journal of International Law,Vol.4,No.2,1993,p.225,p.227,p.231;Stuart KAYE, Negotiation and dispute resolution:a case study in international boundary making-the Australia-Indonesia boundary,in Alex G.Oude ELFERINK and Donald R.ROTHWELL ed.,Oceans Management in the 21stCentury:Institutional Frameworks and Responses, Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.2～3.

随着印度尼西亚占领的结束,东帝汶的领土由联合国驻东帝汶过渡政府管辖。③United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor,Resolution(UN Security Council)1272,October 25th,1999.后者由联合国驻东帝汶特派团接续,该特派团组织负责组织了1999年10月19日开启了东帝汶独立进程的广泛谘商。④United Nations Mission in East Timor,Resolution(UN Security Council)1246,June 11th,1999.东帝汶过渡政府的司法、政治和立法职能包括了代表未来东帝汶这一国利益和经济活力加入国际协定的职责。⑤Secretary-General Report S/1999/1024,35,October 4th,1999.

东帝汶过渡政府和澳大利亚为使《帝汶沟条约》适应新的现状而开始谈判,即一个独立的东帝汶,通过国际公认的东帝汶人民自决权以及对国家自然资源的主权,消除了该条约中任何潜在的非法性。①On the principle of peoples’permanent sovereignty over natural resources,see Vasco BECKER-WEINBERG,A nacionalização do petróleo e o princípio do aproveitamento conjunto entre Estados,Estudos de Direito Internacional e Relações Internacionais,Lisbon: AAFDL,2008,pp.373～398.这些谈判促成了《意见交换书》及随后于2010年2月10日签署的关于修订的《帝汶沟条约》的《谅解备忘录》。②Published at David ONG,The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law,Vol.31,2000,p.106.

《帝汶沟条约》的共同开发模式的维持,意味着保持印度尼西亚相关立法以及根据《帝汶沟条约》设立的部长理事会和联合管理局发布的决定和指令的效力,并保护运营者与上述联合管理局订立的成果分成协议项下运营者取得的权利。因此,联合国东帝汶过渡政府承担了印度尼西亚在《帝汶沟条约》下的一切权利和义务,除了有违东帝汶人民利益的规定。③Article 165 of the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of East Timor.这些条款或者被撤销,或者被修改以适合情势(当这种情况有利时),如关于培训东帝汶国民并赋予东帝汶国民合同优先权的义务。澳大利亚也不得不修改所有与这一新安排相反的国家立法。④Petroleum(Timor Sea Treaty)/(Consequential Amendments)/Act 2003 n.10/2003. The Petroleum(Submerged Lands)Act 1967 and the Continental Shelf(Living Natural Resources)/Amendment Act 1978.

2001年7月5日,联合国驻东帝汶过渡政府和澳大利亚签署了第二份《谅解备忘录》,再次确认了最初采用的共同开发模式,但不再依据《帝汶沟条约》,而是2000年2月10日签署的《谅解备忘录》中协议的《帝汶沟条约》的修订版本,并从那时起称之为《帝汶海条约》。⑤Timor Sea Treaty,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-TLS2002TST.PDF,1 February 2011.Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Democratic Republic of East Timor and the Government of Australia Concerning an International Unitization Agreement for the Greater Sunrise field,made in Dili,on May 20th,2002,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-TLS2002SUN.PDF,1 February 2011.Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste Concerning Arrangements for Exploration and Exploitation of Petroleum in an Area of the Timor Sea between Australia And East Timor,Dili,20 May 2002,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-TLS2002EX.PDF,1 February 2011.

(二)中国东北海

中国东北海是一个在海洋环境保护、航海和渔业合作上具有重要先例的区域。①Fishery Agreement between the Governments of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea,made on August 3rd,2000.Sino-Japanese Agreement on Fishery,made in November 11th,1997,entered into force on June 1st,2000.Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Russian Federation on Co-operation in the Field of the Environment,made in Moscow,on June 2nd,1994.Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan on Co-operation in the Field of Environmental Protection,made in Seoul,on June 29th,1993. Agreement on Environmental Co-operation between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the People’s Republic of China,made in Beijing,October 28th,1993.Agreement on Fishing between Japan and South Korea,made in Tokyo,on June 22nd,1965.Also see Joint Statement on Sustainable Development among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea and Joint Statement on the Tenth Anniversary of Trilateral Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,both made in Beijing,on October 10th,2009.Action Plan for Promoting Trilateral Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,made in December 13th,2008.The 2005-2006 Progress Report of the Trilateral Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,adopted by the Three-Party Committee,made in Cebu,on January 12th,2007.The Action Strategy on Trilateral Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,made on November 27th,2004.Joint Declaration on the Promotion of Tripartite Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,made in Bali,on October 7th,2003.然而,油气矿藏的存在已经被证明是一个相关国家间争议的焦点,尤其在有关海洋划界方面。②On cooperation in the Northeast and Southeast Asian seas,see Mark J.VALENCIA,Relevance of lessons learned to Northeast Asia,in Mark J.VALENCIA,Maritime Regime Building.Lessons Learned and Their Relevance for Northeast Asia,Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publioshers,2001,p.145;Yoshio OTANI,Les problèmes actuels de la mer du Japon et la coopération future,in La Méditerranée et le Droit de la Meràl’aube du 21esiècle/The Mediterranean and the Law of the Sea at the dawn of the 21stcentury (dir.)Giuseppe CATALDI,Actes du colloque inaugural de la Association Internationale du Droit de la Mer(Naples,22 et 23 Mars 2001)ed.Bruylant(Brussels:2002),p.313; ZOU Keyuan,The establishment of a marine legal system in China,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.13,No.1,1998,pp.44～45.

随着1968年一份由一群来自日本、韩国、台湾和美国的科学家们起草的、由联合国亚洲及远东委员会赞助的报告的发布,中国东海巨大的油气潜力广为人知。在上述报告公布后的一年内,日本、韩国和台湾宣称对发现油气矿藏的大陆架的更多部分拥有主权,并且就其开发迅速与石油公司达成运营协议。事实上,早在1968年,韩国已着手划分日本也宣称在七个地块上拥有主权的中国东海的一块区域,并将开发权授予四家公司。作为回报,日本也将对两国主权要求重叠的区域的开发权授予韩国。

1970年,在缺少一个大陆架海洋划界协议的情况下,这三个国家或地区试图达成一个海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议,搁置海洋划界争端。①ZOU Keyuan,The Chinese traditional maritime boundary line in the South China Sea and its legal consequences for the resolution of the dispute over the Spratly Islands,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.14,No.1,1999,pp.161～168;Hong NONG and Wu SHICUN,The energy security of China and oil and gas exploitation in the South China Sea,in Myron H.NORDQUIST,John Norton MOORE and Kuen-chen FU ed.,Recent Developments in the Law of the Sean and China,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006,p.145;Jon M.VAN DYKE,The Republic of Korea’s maritime boundaries,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.18,No.4,2003, pp.509～540;Mark J.VALENCIA,Regional maritime regime building:prospects in northeast and southeast Asia,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol. 31,No.3,2000,pp.223～247;Relevance of lessons learned to Northeast Asia,in Mark J. VALENCIA ed.,Maritime Regime Building:Lessons Learned and Their Relevance for Northeast Asia,The Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publioshers,2001,p.143; Mark J.VALENCIA and Jon M.VAN DYKE,Comprehensive solutions to the South China Sea disputes:some options,Gerald BLAKE,Martin PRATT,Clive SCHOFIELD and Janet Allison BROWN ed.,Boundaries and Energy:Problems and Prospects.London/ The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998,pp.85～115;Jonathan CHARNEY, Central East Asian maritime boundaries and the Law of the Sea,American Journal of International Law,Vol.89,No.4,1995,pp.746～748;Zhiguo GAO,The South China Sea: from conflict to cooperation?Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol. 25,No.3,1994,p.352;Masahiro MIYOSHI,The Japan/South Korea joint development agreement 1974,in Hazel FOX ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas.VolumeⅡ.The Institute’s Revised Model Agreement.Conference Papers.The Australia/Indonesia Zone of Co-operation Treaty 1989,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1990,pp.89～97;Choon-ho PARK,Joint development of mineral resources in disputed waters:the case of Japan and South Korea in the East China Sea,in Mark J.VALENCIA ed.,The South China Sea.Hy drocarbon Potential&Possibilities of Joint Development,Oxford/New York/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt:Pergamon Press,1981,p.1335.

由于上述共同开发协议包括了中国主张主权的部分大陆架,此举遭到了中国的反对,这反过来又导致美国要努力保护其已与日本、韩国和台湾签订运营协议的石油公司的权利。结果,台湾最终退出了这一共同开发协议的三方模式,使得日本和韩国就双边共同开发协议进行谈判。②Paul C.YUAN,China’s offshore oil development policy and legislation:an overall analysis,The International Journal of Estuary and Coastal Law,Vol.3,No.2,1988,pp.101～137.

经过近三年的划界磋商和对有关冲绳湾问题二十多年的划界分歧后,在1974年,日本和韩国签署了两项协议,结束了两国在中国东海大陆架划界上的海洋争端。①Seo-Hang LEE,Korea’s claims to maritime jurisdiction,Korean Journal of Comparative Law,Vol.18 1990,p.70;Choon-h PARK,East Asia and the Law of the Sea,4thed,Seoul: Seoul National University Press,1988,pp.131～132.韩国认为,日本在中国东海的大陆架应该止于海湾,后者边界的一部分应划于韩国和中国之间。但日本认为,应按照1958年《日内瓦大陆架公约》规定的等距离原则,不应把冲绳湾作为划界的一个决定性因素。②Convention on the Continental Shelf,made in Geneva,on April 29th,1958,published at 499 UNTS(1964),p.311.

这两项协议是各国在区分对待海洋划界和海洋自然资源开发上达到的结果,使得能够在国家主张没有重叠的区域就海洋划界、在主权宣称重叠的地区对已发现的海洋油气矿藏实施共同开发达成协议,尽管中国反对这一合作。③Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Establishment of Boundary in the Northern Part of the Continental Shelf Adjacent to the Two Countries, made in Seoul,on February 5th,1974,published at 1225 UNTS(1981),pp.104～105.A-greement between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning Joint Development of the Southern Part of the Continental Shelf Adjacent to the Two Countries,made in Seoul,on January 30th,1974,published at 1225 UNTS(1981),pp.114～126.See Masahiro MIYOSHI,The Japan-South Korea agreement on joint development of the continental shelf,in Mark J.VALENCIA ed.,Geology and Hydrocarbon of the South China Sea and Possibilities of Joint Development,Proceedings of the Second EAPI/CCOP Workshop.East-West Center,Honolulu,Hawaii,22-26 August 1983,New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt:Pergamon Press,1985,pp.551～552.此外,两国同意不将最初宣称的把日本海内的竹岛考虑在海洋划界内,同时大陆架划界协定不影响上覆水域和大气空间的法律地位。④Article 3 of the 1974 Maritime Delimitation Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea.这份协议也包括一个自然资源条款,根据该条款,各国将努力就跨界油气矿藏开发达成协议,在协议未能达成的情况下,根据任一国的要求,受命的仲裁员将对最有效开发上述油气矿藏的方法做出裁决。⑤Article 2 of the 1974 Maritime Delimitation Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

由于日本需要修改其国内立法以适应协议规定的义务,同时各国担忧在共同开发区内的传统渔业的保护问题以及后者位于台风和热带气旋易发生区域这一事实,海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的实施被推迟了。⑥South Korea ratified the agreement on December 1974,while Japan only in June 1978. The joint development agreement entered into force on June 22nd,1978 and the first development operation took place only in May 1979.See Masahiro MIYOSHI,The Japan/ South Korea joint development agreement 1974,in Hazel FOX ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas.VolumeⅡ.The Institute’s Revised Model Agreement.Conference Papers.The Australia/Indonesia Zone of Co-operation Treaty 1989,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1990,pp.545,549～550.

日本和韩国在朝鲜海峡的界线各自划定后,双方签署的海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议立即在两国大陆架南部创建了一个共同开发区。

为便日本和韩国授权的特许运营者的勘探和开发活动,共同开发区可能被划分为亚区。特许运营者们经国家批准依次加入运营协议,以便共同开展这些活动,有权平等分享共同开发区内提取的自然资源,并按相同比例承担各项费用。在这种情况下,这些资源被认为是在特许运营者本国大陆架提取的,为了譬如税收的目的,适用的法律为该国法律。

与这样的运营协议有关的一个细节是,特许运营者不得不同意一个争端解决机制,并调整勘探和开发活动以适应渔业利益。在这种情况下,为保证这样的争议不会持久并且最终不会对勘探和开发活动产生影响,各国达成一种强制性机制是更有利的。

该协议在国家和由后者授权的特许运营者间建立了直接的关系,适用该国可以适用的国内法。例如一国可能依照其法律法规并与其他国家协商取缔特许运营者的勘探或开发权。为处理好各自勘探和开发活动的一切运作,特许运营者应根据各自的运营协议中指定操作人员。

根据共同开发协议设立的日本—大韩民国联合委员会只是充任两国在履行该协议上的咨询机构。该机构每年召开一次会议,其建议对各国不具有约束力。

日本和韩国并没有规定一个适用于海洋环境保护的共同协议,只是规定两国同意采取措施防止海洋碰撞及防止和消除共同开发区的勘探和开发活动造成的海洋污染。在海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议后签署的意见交换书提及的措施是仅有的共同措施。

该协议还包括一个自然资源条款,规定特许运营者们应通过协商并经国家批准,就最有效开发可能超过共同开发区边界的油气矿藏的方法谋求达成一项协议。如果特许运营者们不能达成协议,两国在必要的协商后提出一个共同的建议。

其他东北亚国家关心的一个问题是,据报告,中国和朝鲜已同意在黄海实施海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议。此外,中国和日本就共同开发中国东海海洋油气矿藏尚未达成一致意见,尽管两国长期认可只有合作才有可能为现有海洋划界争端提供一个解决办法。①GAO Jianjun,A note on the 2008 cooperation consensus between China and Japan in the East China Sea,in Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.40.2009, pp.291～296;ZOU Keyuan,Implementing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in East Asia:issues and trends,Singapore Year Book of International Law,Vol. 9,2005,p.6;DENG Xiaoping,Speech at the third plenary session of the Central Advisory Commission of the Communist Party of China,October 22,1984,in 3 Selected Works of DENG Xiaoping,Beijing:Foreign Languages Press,1984.Also see Communiquéby the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China“China’s Path of Peaceful Development and Its View of Regional Security”,Speech by Ambassador Zhang Junsai,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zwjg/zwbd/t520658.htm,1 March 2011.

1997年,中国和日本签署了一份适用于两国专属经济区内合作捕鱼的新协议,据此每个国家签发许可证允许对方国家的渔船在各自专属经济区开展捕鱼活动。根据这项协议,两国应在根据渔业协定设立的日中联合渔业委员会上进行协商,以确定许可证的签发的条件。这项协议进一步规定,每个国家应采纳并告知对方国家适用于各自专属经济区的保护措施。此外,各国合作开展渔业和海洋生物资源保护科学研究,以及在一国国民或渔船在对方国家专属经济区内遭受海难时尽可能提供援助和保护。

该协议还在专属经济区内国家主张重叠以及没有最终达成划界协议的地方建立一个临时措施区。①On cooperative fishing agreements between China and Japan,see Park Hee KWON,The Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia,The Hague/London/Boston:Kluwer Law International,2000,pp.51～57.An unofficial translation of the text of the agreement is published at pp.208～213.在这种情况下,由于协议只对中国和日本有强制力,也在该区域开展捕鱼活动的韩国国民和渔船将不适用渔业协定的规定,引发对生物资源利用的担心。

次年,韩国和日本签署了适用于两国专属经济区但不包括待划界的以及与1974年共同开发区部分重叠的海域的第二项渔业协议。

为让各国了解可捕的物种、捕捞的配额、可捕鱼的区域以及其他适用于一国国民和渔船在对方专属经济区的情况,此渔业协定还建立了韩日联合渔业委员会。各国应进一步合作保护海洋生物资源。②On cooperative fishing agreement between South Korea and Japan,see Park Hee KWON, The Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia,The Hague/London/Boston:Kluwer Law International,2000,pp.57～66.An unofficial translation of the text of the agreement is published at pp.215～223.

此外,在同一年,中国和韩国签署了一个适用于两国在黄海专属经济区以及临时措施区和过渡区的新渔业协定。此渔业协议规定,一国的国民和渔船在对方专属经济区开展捕鱼活动,要遵循后者签发的许可证和由该协议建立的中韩联合渔业委员会提出的建议。③On cooperative fishing between China and South Korea,see Park Hee KWON,The Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia,The Hague/London/Boston:Kluwer Law International, 2000,pp.66～72.

(三)泰国湾

1979年,泰国和马来西亚签署了一项《谅解备忘录》,为开发国家主权要求重叠的泰国湾大陆架海床资源建立了一个联合管理局。①Memorandum of Understanding between the Kingdom of Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority for the Exploitation of the Resources of the Sea-bed in a defined Area of the Continental Shelf of the Two Countries in the Gulf of Thailand, made in Chiang Mai,on February 21st,1979,published at Phiphat TANGSUBKUL, ASEAN and the Law of the Sea,Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,1982, pp.130～133.See Clive SCHOFIELD and May TAN-MULLINS,Maritime claims,conflicts and cooperation in the Gulf of Thailand,Ocean Yearbook,Vol.22,2008,pp.75～116; David ONG,Thailand/Malaysia.Joint development agreement 1990,The International Journal of Estuary and Coastal Law,Vol.6,No.1,1991,pp.61～63;Ian TOWNSENDGAULT,The Malaysia/Thailand Joint Development Arrangement,in Hazel FOX ed., Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas.VolumeⅡ.The Institute’s Revised Model Agreement.Conference Papers.The Australia/Indonesia Zone of Co-operation Treaty 1989,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1990,pp.102～107.The joint development area established under this Mo U has been duly considered when establishing the maritime boundaries between Thailand and Vietnam.See Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between the Two Countries in the Gulf of Thailand,made in Bangkok,on August 9th,1997,published at Jonathan I.CHARNEY and Robert W.SMITH,The American Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.4),The Hague/London/New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2002,pp.2692～2694.同时,两国根据1978年2月27日至3月1日召开的“泰国湾和中国南海大陆架马泰划界会议”通过的指导方针,就上述《谅解备忘录》项下的共同开发区大陆架划界展开谈判。②R.HALLER-TROST,The Contested Maritime and Territorial Boundaries of Malaysia.An International Law Perspective,London/The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998,pp.350～359;Ted MCDORMAN,Malaysia-Vietnam,in Jonathan I. CHARNEY and Lewis M.ALEXANDER,The American Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.3),Report Number 5-19,The Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.2335～2344.

同年,两国签署了第二份《谅解备忘录》,在进一步承诺继续谈判达成最终划界的同时,确定了两国在泰国湾大陆架划界上还需要考虑的问题。③Articles 1 and 3 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Kingdom of Thailand and Malaysia on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Boundary between the Two Countries in the Gulf of Thailand,made in Kuala Lumpur,on October 24th,1979,at www. un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/THAMYS1979CS.PDF,1 March 2011.第二份《谅解备忘录》还包括一个自然资源条款,规定这两国应合寻求达成有效开发可能跨界的油气矿藏协议,公平分担一切招致的费用和收益。④Article 4 of the 1979 MoU between Thailand and Malaysia on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Boundary.

设立的联合管理局的《谅解备忘录》规定,如果各国在其期限届满之前就泰国湾大陆架的划界达成协议,这个机构将终止,其收益和资产以及其亏损和债务由两国均分。如果各国不能就划界达成一致,合作开发协议将自动接续相同期限,如果《谅解备忘录》中没有另行规定。①Article 6(2)of the 1979 Mo U between Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority.

此外,该《谅解备忘录》规定,如果资源的共同开发表明将更具成本效益,各国可能最终同意重新谈判并订立一个新的共同开发协议,而非各自开展近岸开发活动,尤其考虑到油气矿藏跨界这一可能。②Article 6(1)of the 1979 Mo U between Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority.

然而,由于泰国在实施合作开发协议上经验不足以及两国在协调有关国内油立法、共同开发区的开发权应当如何授予运营者上的困难,各国未能就联合管理局的自治程度达成一致。③D.H.ARIFFIN,The Malaysian philosophy of joint development,in Mark J.VALENCIA ed.,Geology and Hy drocarbon of the South China Sea and Possibilities of Joint Development,Proceedings of the Second EAPI/CCOP Workshop,East-West Center,Honolulu,Hawaii,August 22ndto 26th,1983,New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfort:Pergamon Press,1985,p.534.泰国为此提议运用传统的特许运营模式,但马来西亚鉴于其海洋石油开发上已获得的经验则认为成果分成协议更加适合。④David ONG,The 1979 and 1990 Malaysia-Thailand joint development agreements:a model for international legal co-operation in common offshore petroleum deposits?The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.14,No.2,May 1999,pp.228～230;Zhiguo GAO,International Petroleum Contracts.Current Trends and New Directions,London:Grahm&Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff,1994,pp.23～57.

随着启动并详细规定了联合管理局权力的第二个共同开发协议的实施,这些国家在1990年将只在这个问题上达成协议,但各国选择对第一份《谅解备忘录》授予这个实体的权力和自治权进行限制,使得后者成为一个只具有象征性而非执行性的角色。⑤Agreement between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand on the Constitution and Other Matters Relating to the Establishment of the Malaysia-Thailand Joint Authority,made in Kuala Lumpur,on May 30th,1990,published at Jonathan I.CHARNEY and Lewis M.ALEXANDER,The American Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.1),Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1993,pp.1111～1123.事实上,虽然最初的联合管理局具有必要之职权以采取必要之最大化共同开发区收益的行动,但是根据第二个《谅解备忘录》,只寻求授予联合管理局管理勘探和开发共同开发区非生物自然资源活动的权力,这可能是各国担忧联合管理局行政色彩过浓的结果。⑥Article 3(2)of the 1979 Mo U between Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority.

泰国和马来西亚在第二份《谅解备忘录》中就授予运营者在共同开发区的勘探和开发权采用成果分成合同,及采用的税收和财政法规达成了协议。⑦Articles 8,9 to 12,16,17 of the 1979 MoU between Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority.

1992年,马来西亚和越南签署了一项《谅解备忘录》,就共同开发《谅解备忘录》中相应确认的在泰国湾大陆架指定区域发现的海洋油气矿藏确立了一个简单的安排。①Memorandum of Understanding between Malaysia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for the Exploration and Exploitation of Petroleum in a Defined Area of the Continental Shelf Involving the Two Countries,made in Kuala Lumpur,June 5th,1992,published at Jonathan I.CHARNEY and Lewis M.ALEXANDER ed.,The American Society of International Law,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.3),The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.2341～2344.根据这一《谅解备忘录》,两国同意各国的石油公司在指定区域合作从事勘探和开发活动,产生的一切费用及获得的一切收益由两国平等承担和分享。此外,上述《谅解备忘录》进一步规定,如果一个油田部分位于指定区域、部分位于马来西亚或越南的大陆架,那么这些国家将达成双方都能接受的开发这些资源的条款。②Articles 2,3 and 8(d)(e)of the Mo U between Malaysia and Vietnam.

2001年,柬埔寨和泰国就主张重叠的泰国湾大陆架海域签署了一项《谅解备忘录》,③Memorandum of Understanding between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the Royal Thai Government regarding the Area of Their Overlapping Maritime Claims to the Continental Shelf,made in Phnom Penh,on June 18th,2001,published at David A.COLSON and Robert W.SMITH,The American Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.5),Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2005,pp. 3745～3746.然而两国后来就共同开发此区域发现的海洋油气矿藏以及《谅解备忘录》中确定的领海、大陆架、专属经济区海域划界达成协议。④1 and 2 of the Mo U between Cambodia and Thailand.为了起草实施合作开发协议以及解决上述海域划界问题,这些国家进一步同意建立一个联合技术委员会。⑤3 of the Mo U between Cambodia and Thailand.

最后,还应提到的是,柬埔寨和越南签署了协议建立共同的历史性水域,两国借此同意共同开发区历史水域中发现的自然资源的开发由共同协议确定。⑥Agreement on Historic Waters of Vietnam and Kampuchea,made in Ho Chi Minh City,on July 7th,1982,published at Jonathan I.CHARNEY and Lewis M.ALEXANDER,The A-merican Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.3), The Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.2364～2365.

三、海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的前提和原则

在前面提到的这三个地区,我们可以确定导致各国通过和实施海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的各种情况。认识这些情况与了解各国在共同开发区的权利性质以及确定海洋油气矿藏共同开发这一概念的法律性质及其在国际法下的意义密切相关,特别是在主张重叠的情况下。

亚太地区海洋划界的不同争端,除了与岛屿和其他以沿海国对各自海域主张主权权利为特征的领土争端,大多与基于地貌和地质方面的重叠主张有关。事实上,各国倾向在上述区域将实施共同开发协议作为超越冲突的海洋主张和领土争端之存在而导致的僵局的办法,尤其考虑到这些争端解决可以通过谈判以及最终通过第三国的同意或介入,将最终导致与具有能源野心的国家(至少)长期不容的过程。此外,有关国家需要建立一个法律框架解决运营权的非法授予这一事实,使得沿海国无需根据国际法就有权这样做。

大陆架的固有性和专属性是“土地主导海洋”①ICJ Reports(1978)37,86.这种认识的结果,只要沿海国与其他国家在适用于大陆架划界的距离标准的主张不相悖或是相符的,一国开发与勘探大陆架自然资源的主权权利与其在陆地上的权利明显相关联。如果重叠的主张源于,例如大陆架相对或相邻各国可能无法勘探底土和海底区域,也不能为此授予钻探权。②Article 81 of UNCLOS.

当考虑到导致各国订立海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的不同情况,一个必然的结论是,各国需共同努力加强合作,因为合作是一种需要而不是义务,也没有第三方迫使国家这样做。此外,各国根据他们的自由裁量权,而非对《联合国海洋法公约》第74(3)和83(3)的某种解释假设的订立临时协议的责任,进行谈判并就这些协议的内容达成一致。

实施共同开发协议的国家间合作先例的存在不应该被视为确立了一项以共同开发协议形式规定的合作义务,也不应该被视为一个为此决定后者成功与否的因素。存在共同开发协议在没有任何合作先例的情况下得以成功实施的例子,也存在共同开发协议在有这样的先例无法成功实施的例子,即有生物海洋自然资源的共同管理的先例,各国也未能实施海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议。

然而,两个或两个以上国家或在《联合国海洋法公约》中许多条款规定的区域框架内的合作的存在,必然提供了国家间互动并愿意建立可能最终搁置海洋划界争端的解决路径。③Articles 63(3),64(1),65,66(2)(4),69(3),74(3),83(3),100,117,118,119,123,194(1), 197,200,242,266,270 and 273 of UNCLOS.然而,并没有共同非生物自然资源开发的义务,在海洋划界发生争端的情况下尤其如此。④ICJ Reports 1982,Judge Evensen’s Dissenting Opinion,320～321.See Vasco BECKERWEINBERG,The internationalization of marine natural resources in UNCLOS,in Rainer Lagoni,Peter Ehlers and Marian Paschke ed.,Recent Developments in the Law of the Sea,Berlin/Munster/Vienna/Zurich/London:LIT Verlag,2010,pp.29～40.事实上,尽管很多海洋边界悬而未决,很多共同开发协议已经被实施了,很多国家在合作开发协议的保障下进行海洋开发活动的同时试图解决海洋划界争端。①In a different view,see Zhiguo GAO,The legal concept and aspects of joint development in international law,in Ocean Yearbook,Vol.13,1998,pp.112～113;Legal aspects of joint development in international law,in Mochtar KUSUMA-ATMADJA,Thomas A.MENSAH and Bernard H.OXMAN,ed.Sustainable Development and Preservation of the O-ceans:The Challenges of UNCLOS and Agenda 21,The Law of the Sea Institute,University of Hawaii,1983,p.633.

共同开发海洋油气矿藏和海洋划界的差异也由这一事实佐证:后者并不确立国家在油气矿藏横跨界限时有订立共同开发协议的义务,也不确立国家有订立包括自然资源条款的海洋划界协议的义务。

与国家之间缔结的任何其他国际协定类似,海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议要求各国按照一般的条约法采取行动,践行可适用的国际法原则,如条约必须遵守,合作和善意等原则。国际法理论一般认为,在这种情况下,合作原则对于两个沿海邻国的要求具体为共享共同资源的存在信息,包括当开发某种资源的活动可能会影响对方国家的利益时,有义务告知此类开发活动的意图。②Mark J.Valencia,Regional maritime regime building:prospects in northeast and southeast Asia,Ocean Development and International Law,Vol.31,No.3,2000,p.224;Rodman R. Bundy,Natural resource development(oil and gas)and boundary disputes,in Gerald H. Blake,William J.Hildesley,Martin A.Pratt,Rebecca J.Ridley and Clive H.Schofield ed., The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources,London/Dordrecht/Boston:Graham&Trotman,1995,pp.36,39;ICJ Reports 1974,pp.35～36.因此,在没有规定各国谈判及和平解决争端的义务的情况下,合作原则并不是一国通过并实施共同油气矿藏共同开发协议之义务的法律渊源。③Articles 279 and 299 UNCLOS.See ICJ Reports 1974,p.33,74 and 75,pp.35～36.事实上,虽然《联合国海洋法公约》没有规定缔约义务,但是它规定了谈判义务,其范围可概括如下:国家必须秉持善意参与谈判直至达成协议。④Articles 63(1),74(3),83(3),117,118 and 123 of UNCLOS.See Rainer Lagoni,Report of the International Committee on the EEZ,in International Law Association ed.,Report of the Sixty-Fifth Conference:Cairo(1992),p.5.

在善意原则之下,各国必须秉持善意采取行动和参与谈判,以达成一个可以接受的结果,在非为执行一项协议的情况下,进行国际法项下有意义而合法的谈判。①Article 2(2)of the Charter of the United Nations.Articles 74(3)and 83(3)of UNCLOS.See,ICJ Reports 1982,Judge Gros’Dissenting Opinion,3 and 4;ICJ Reports 1974,pp.35～36 and 1969,48 and 85;ICJ Reports 1969,48 and Judge Jessup’Separate Opinion,80.Also see Peter D.Cameron,The rules of engagement:developing cross-border petroleum deposits in the North Sea and the Caribbean,International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Vol.55,2006,p.567;Jon M.Van Dyke,Sharing Ocean Resources:In a Time or Scarcity and Selfishness,in Harry N.Scheiber ed.,Law of the Sea:The Common Heritage and Emerging Challenges,The Hague/London/Boston 2000,pp.26～35; E.D.Brown,The International Law of the Sea,V.1 Introductory Manual,Aldershot/ Brookfield USA/Singapore/Sydney:Dartmouth Publishing Company,1994,pp.158～159; René-Jean DUPUY and Daniel VIGNES,A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea,Vol. 1,Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp.477～486;Rainer Lagoni,Interim measures pending maritime delimitation agreements,American Journal of International Law,Vol.78,No.2,1984,pp.355～358;also see International Law Association,Report of the International Com mittee on the Principles Ap plicable to Living Resources Occurring Both within and without the Exclusive Economic Zone or in Zones of Overlapping Claims,by Professor Dr.Rainer Lagoni(Cairo Conference 1992),p.29.

各国进一步承担着相互制约的义务,这意味着不得实施或放弃实施任何可能破坏或使任何开发此类资源的解决方案不可能、不得实施或放弃实施任何可能破坏或使选定达成一个具体解决方案之方法不可能的责任。②Juraj Andrassy,Les relations internationales de voisinage,79 Recueil des Cours(1951-Ⅱ),p.110.因此,未经所有有关国家同意,各国不得在谈判期间继续或从事共有油气矿藏开发。

适用善意原则另一个需要考虑的方面是,每个国家都有权被告知在后者主权或管辖权或主张重叠的区域可能发现的资源的存在和位置,当然秘密信息除外。③Article 302 of UNCLOS.See Rainer Lagoni,Oil and gas deposits across national frontiers,American Journal of International Law,Vol.73,No.1,1979,p.237.比例原则的主要原因不言自明。如果这样的义务不存在,这对不了解上述信息的国家来说将非常不利,使得谈判结果不公平。

四、海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议在亚太地区的的前景

国际法就共同油气矿藏开发没有规定可行的解决方案,也没有指明特定的后果,而是在前面所述的条款中规定了合作的一般义务。因此,在寻求一个可能最终会实现理性繁荣的明智而务实的成果更可取的情况下,它将始终取决于国家双边、多边或区域层面寻求并对亚太地区海床和底土的海洋财富共同开发达成一致这一法律解决方案,而不是坚持分裂的立场,并用不切实际的独占来延续僵局。

考虑到亚太地区大部分的海洋划界都很困难,也许是一个无法完成的任务,海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议可以规定必要的法律框架,借此在坚持尊重这一地区所有国家的独立和领土完整的同时,国家可以从油气矿藏开发中获益,又不损害各自的主权要求。①On the difficulties facing maritime delimitation in the South China Sea and in particular regarding the delimitation of boundaries between South Pacific States and between East Asian States,see Steven Kuan-Tsyh YU,The law of EEZ/Shelf boundary delimitation:the practice of States in the South China Sea,in Chinese Society of International Law ed.,Proceedings of the International Law Association(ILA)First Asian-Pacific Regional Conference,1996,pp.45～48;Donald R.ROTHWELL,The law of the sea in the Asian-Pacific region:an overview of trends and developments,in Chinese Society of International Law ed.,Proceedings of the International Law Association(ILA)First Asian-Pacific Regional Conference,1996,p.58.Both these Authors recognize the innovative character of joint development agreements regarding maritime delimitation disputes.Also see Victor PRESCOTT and Clive SCHOFIELD,Undelimited maritime boundaries of the Asian Rim in the Pacific Ocean,Maritime Boundaries,Vol.3,No.1,2001,pp.1～68.

东盟是此种区域努力的必要示范,东南亚地区越来越多的人意识到海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的好处,建立可以进一步加强东帝汶与该组织的联系的国家间高层次互动,从而增加了富有经验的国家数量,增强了对以非生物海洋自然资源国际化这种形式为代表的优势的理解。事实上,建立一个东盟共同发展合作委员会或开发共同的海洋油气矿藏的政府间组织,可能会促进自我约束并因此带来资源开发地区的稳定,②The ASEAN Charter;The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, made on November 4th,2002.The Philippines Proposal dated August 16th,1999 of the ASEAN-China Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.The Joint Statement of the Meeting of Heads of State/Government of the Member States of ASEAN and the President of the People’s Republic of China,made on December 16th,1997.The Joint Declaration by the Republic of the Philippines-Peoples Republic of China Consultations on the South China Sea and on Other Areas of Cooperation and the Joint Declaration on the Fourth Annual Bilateral Consultations between the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of Philippines,both made on August 10th,1995.The ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea,made on July 22nd,1992.The Manila Declaration on the South China Sea,made on July 1992.The Principles of Bandung of 1991.The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia,made on February 24th,1976.The Declaration of Bangkok,made on August 8th,1967.这与1967年12月建立的东南亚渔业发展中心促进亚太地区渔业的可持续发展如出一辙。③On the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center,at www.seafdec.org,1 February 2011.

在双边层面,中国和越南在北部湾①Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China“Chinese Premier Meets with His Vietnamese Counterpart”,made on April 17th,2009,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg/yzs/gjlb/2792/2794/t558266.htm,1 March 2011.China-Viet Nam Joint Statement,made on October 25th,2008,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/ 2649/t520438.htm,1 March 2011.Joint Communiquébetween the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,made on October 8th,2004,at www.fmprc. gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t163759.htm,1 March 2011.以及前者和菲律宾在中国南海②“China will uphold the principle of shelving disputes and seeking joint development, continue to step up cooperation in the South China Sea with the Philippines and other pertinent parties”in Communiquéby the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China“Ambassador Liu Jianchao pays Courtesy call on Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Romulo”,made on March 13th,2009,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/ zwjg/zwbd/t542281.htm,1 March 2011.引入共同开发所做出的努力,应被理所当然地认为是中国接受临时措施解决海洋划界的例子。

在东北亚地区,由于最近朝鲜半岛军事升级,我们不应该期望在黄海上的合作增加,尽管中韩就海洋划界最近也作出了努力。③China-ROK Joint Communiqué,made on September 17th,2008,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/ eng/wjdt/2649/t513632.htm,1 March 2011.China-ROK Joint Statement,made on May 26th,2008,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t469103.htm,1 March 2011.Also see Mark J.VALENCIA,Conclusions and the way forward,Marine Policy:International Journal Ocean Affairs,Vol.29,No.2,2005,pp.185～187;Conclusions,regime building and the way forward,Marine Policy:International Journal Ocean Affairs,Vol.28,No.1, 2004,pp.89～96;Regime building in the East China Sea,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.34,No.1,2003,p.199;Yann-huei SONG and ZOU Keyuan, Maritime legislation of mainland China and Taiwan:developments,comparison,implications,and potential challenges for the United States,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.31,No.4,2000,pp.303～345.然而,通过承认区域合作的好处和必要性,各国过去几年已在中国东海取得了显著进展。④China-Japan Joint Statement on All-round Promotion of Strategic Relationship of Mutual Benefit May 22nd,2008 at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t458431.htm,1 March 2011.此外,中国和日本已经达成了可能会在中国东海实施合作开发的谅解。⑤Communiquéby the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China,“China’s Path of Peaceful Development and Its View of Regional Security”,Speech by Ambassador Zhang Junsai,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zwjg/zwbd/t520658.htm,1 March 2011.Also see GAO Jianjun,A note on the 2008 cooperation consensus between China and Japan in the East China Sea,in Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.40.2009,pp.291～294.

主要目标不应是强迫或强行要求新兴国家的实践构成必要的法律习惯规则履行共同开发共同海洋油气矿藏的义务,而是应该强调实施这样的法律协议所带来的好处。事实上,并没有区域或全球层面的证据表明这种义务已经形成或鉴于现今国家实践是紧急的。这也是亚太地区的情况。

在这个问题上,有学者认为,在与可以为适用共同开发协议提供一个良好基础的封闭或半封闭海接壤的国家之间存在合作协议先例的区域,区域性习惯规则有可能形成,这可以为模式的适用提供一个良好的组成部分,为海洋划界和非生物资源开发困境规定一个解决方案。这些地区包括了北海、波斯湾、中国东海和中国南海。①David ONG,Joint development of common offshore oil and gas deposits:“mere”state practice or customary International Law?American Journal of International Law,Vol. 93,No.4,1999,p.795,p.804.

这样一个适用于国家主权要求重叠的封闭海或半封闭海的区域的习惯的存在,将有利于克服《联合国海洋法公约》第123条确立的合作原则与《联合国海洋法公约》第56条规定的国家权利之间的兼容问题,而不修改现行的海洋法律。然而,各国在《联合国海洋法公约》第123条项下的合作义务,不应被理解为一种结果性的义务,尤其是当考虑到沿海国在不同海洋区域的权利时,而应被理解为与封闭海或半封闭海洋接壤国家这一特定情况下的一种手段性的义务。事实上,虽然《联合国海洋法公约》推动了各国在封闭和半封闭海上的合作,但是没有规定各国在这些海洋空间上的权利。因此,除非各国同意将这种权利授予一个区域实体,否则《联合国海洋法公约》第123条对区域合作将会是一个障碍。②VALENCIA,Regional maritime regime building:prospects in northeast and southeast A-sia,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.31,No.3,2000,p.237.此外,《联合国海洋法公约》第123条没有提及非生物海洋自然资源。

如果这些区域义务存在,那么我们将几乎不可能确定每种实施海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的强制性义务情况应该考虑的情形以及这样的共同开发法律框架应该如何(如果没有可以任意适用的协议模式)。

从本质上讲,国家仍然可以就共同油气矿藏的开发自由做出双边或多边的努力,其中可能包括建立一个合作开发机制,或任何其他海洋自然资源国际化的形式,诸如加入区域组织并通过如国家间就共同油气矿藏的存在和位置或采取符合国际法的跨界污染预防和合作措施进行信息交流的行为规则。③Resolutions UN(GA)2996(XXVII),2997(XXVII)and 2295(XXVII),all dated December 15th,1972,and specially Resolution UN(GA)3129(XXVIII),December 13th, 1973 regarding environmental cooperation on joint development of natural resources;UNEP Doc.GC.6/CRP.2 May 19th,1978.See Charles Robson,Transboundary petroleum reservoirs:legal issues and solutions,in Gerald H.Blake,William J.Hildesley,Martin A. Pratt,Rebecca J.Ridley and Clive H.Schofield ed.,The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources,London/Dordrecht/Boston:Trotman&Martinus Nijhoff,1995,pp.3～4.

五、海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议规定

已在亚太地区实施的海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议规定了不同的法律框架,并包含不同的法律规定。这不仅是这些协定的共同特点,而且也是过去50年其他已在世界不同地区履行的海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的共同特点。

那些已知的海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的内容之间的差异,是每个协议由于关国家关注不同、期待不一带来的特定、漫长而复杂的谈判导致之结果。

最全面的海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议是那些通过设立一个这些国家在各自管理资源开发协议规定授予权限及自治(包括授予运营者以必要的开发权、征税和争端解决等的职权)的国家法项下的实体,建立了在资源管理上相当程度上免受各国直接干预的法律制度的协议。在这些情况下,各国建立必要的机制控制这些实体的活动,例如,通过创建一个委员会或机构(其等级高于代表国家而受指派委员会或机构成员或者通过预算的委员会或机构)。①Timor Gap Treaty and Timor Sea Treaty.另外,国家可能通过诉诸有关国家主管部门或国有公司以管理或开发在各协议创建的共同开发区里发现的资源而选择扮演一个积极的角色。②MoU between Malaysia and Vietnam.

在海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的保障下,各国可能会建立不同层级的法律互动。这些包括国家间的、国家和运营者或由有关国家和运营者创造的实体之间的权利和义务,以及当两个或两个以上的运营者可能开发同一共同的油气矿藏时不同运营者之间的权利和义务。它可能是这种情况,例如,两个或两个以上的运营商为确保有效开发而要求共同油气矿藏实施了一个联合开发机制。③Unitization may be characterized as a coordinated effort by two or more parties to develop a common hydrocarbon deposit as if it was one single unit,regardless of overlapping claims or of international boundaries that they cross,while preserving its geological characteristics combined with the purpose to retrieve as much of its content as possible.

一个具体的共同开发协议的复杂性取决于介入国之间的信任程度和其对将被列入事项的接受程度,以及后者对实施一个比较全面的、可规制介入国和第三国对共同开发区如防止污染和保护海洋环境或规定管道和海底电缆的铺设路线之使用的法律协议的承诺。

传统上,尽管已知的海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议和各国的自由裁量权千差万别,一些法律规定被认为是代表了海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的必要内容。这些规定有共同开发区的指定,待开发自然资源的确定,适用于共同开发区的司法和法律框架的建立以及未来运营项下的规定,包括对运营许可和选定授予运营权的方法的规定。①Rainer LAGONI,Festlandsockel und Ausschlieβliche Wirtschaftszone,in Wolfgang Graf VITZTHUM(colabs.)Gerhard HAFNER,Wolff Heintschel VON HEINEGG,Rainer LAGONI,Alexander PROELβ,Wolfgang Graf VITZTHUM and Rüdiger WOFRUM ed., Handbuch des Seerechts,Verlag Munich:C.H.Beck,2006,p.281;Hazel FOX,Paul MCDADE,Derek Rankin REID,Anastasia STRATI and Peter HUEY ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas.A Model Agreement for States for Joint Development with Explanatory Commentary,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1989,pp.333～372;Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation-Legal and Technical Aspects of Political Process,Leiven/ Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2003,pp.292～293.

然而,由于各国日益认识到海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议表明在规定相当长时期内共同开发区的控制和管理上的潜力,各国在近来的协议中包括了其他对诸如开发生物海洋自然资源,执行健康、安全和就业法规,或批准适用于共同开发区内开发活动的共同税制等事项规定。

六、结 论

《联合国海洋法公约》的生效并没有就两个或两个以上国家共享的或在主权要求重叠的地区发现的海洋油气矿藏的开发规定一个答案或指导方针。《联合国海洋法公约》仅规定了一个国际法项下确立的合作原则而来的强化的义务,包括各国为海洋划界达成谅解或采取临时措施(当各国未能就海洋划界达成共识)而做出富有意义的努力。然而,这种强化的义务并不意味着各国应在非生物海洋自然资源的保护和管理或订立海洋划界协定或采取如海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议这样的临时措施上进行合作。

考虑到海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议有在海洋边界划界之前、之后以及之中实施的情况,这些协议和海洋划界之间是没有相关性的,前者也不应被视为后者的替代选择或后者的取代方案。

海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议的目的并非为了实现海洋区域国际化,或改变适用于不同海洋空间、最终确定各国在各自海域的权利义务之法律性质和内容的法律协议。事实上,一旦订立海洋油气矿藏共同开发协定,各国主要考虑的是各自的国家利益,而不是任何与历史上开发非生物海洋自然资源的办法谋求一致的、集体的或共同的福利。

尽管如此,没有一个由两个或两个以上国家共享或在主权要求重叠的区域发现的海洋油气矿藏共同开发的义务,并不意味着国家不承担一些国际法项下就这些资源规定的义务。这些义务主要包括告知有关国家共享的海洋油气矿藏、不实施或放弃实施任何可能破坏或使任何开发此类资源的解决方案不可能、不实施或放弃实施任何可能破坏或使选定达成一个具体解决方案之方法不可能的责任。

海洋油气矿藏的存在一直是并将继续是对亚太地区海洋划界的一个障碍和有关国家冲突的重要根源。对海洋油气矿藏共同开发协议作为克服这种僵局的一个务实可靠的法律选择,加强区域努力、不断增强认识其优点可能是开启一个合作时代并最终促进亚太地区经济、政治和社会进步的关键。

(中译:余芮,黄海奇:责任编辑:黄海奇)

*Vasco Becker-Weinberg,国际马克斯·普朗克海洋事务研究所研究员。电子邮箱:weinberg@mpipriv.de。