国家管辖范围以外的海洋公域管理

Theodore Okonkwo

国家管辖范围以外的海洋公域管理

Theodore Okonkwo*

迄今为止，国际社会获取周边海域的方式都带有殖民化的色彩，往往以国家利益的名义获取新领土。地球上大部分的海洋都位于特定国家和地区的海岸或边界之外，过去，人类对海洋的认识有限，各国之间也因此产生了各种冲突。在此背景下，各国有必要也有法定义务来制定国家管辖范围以外海洋公域的管理方式和方法。最近，世界各国政府齐聚纽约，召开了第一届联合国筹备委员会会议，讨论一项旨在保护国家管辖范围以外海洋生物多样性的新国际条约的主要内容，并将在2017年将相关内容报告给联合国大会。本文将讨论公海保护活动中的这一重要进展。此外，海洋公域治理中还存在一些关键问题，本文希望在提高公众对这些问题的意识的同时，填补海洋公域管理中的一些空白。1982年《联合国海洋法公约》是一部海洋宪章，本文将研究该公约中有关海洋管理的规定。此外，本文还将探讨海洋公域与全球公域的构成、涉及海洋公域的法律制度、《联合国海洋法公约》中规定的争端解决机制的作用，并讨论国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的保护和可持续利用。

海洋公域 全球公域 生物多样性 国家管辖范围以外区域 《联合国海洋法公约》 可持续管理 争端解决机制

一、引 言

像本文这种性质的文章，通常开篇都会提出这样一个问题：海洋公域管理为何如此重要，值得重视？《保护学通讯》①Bethan C. O’Leary, Marit Winther-Johnson, John M. Bainbridge, Jemma Aitken, Julie P. Hawkins and Callum M. Roberts, Effective Coverage Targets for Ocean Protection, Conservation Letters, 2016, at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12247/pdf, 12 July 2016.杂志发表的一项新研究回顾了100多项早期研究，并指出30%～40%的海洋需要得到保护，避免开发和受损，以最好地保护生物多样性和生态系统。实际上，如果不建立公海海洋保护区，这一点是不可能实现的。早在2012年，②The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (the Rio +20 Summit), 2012.世界各国领导人就在考虑是否应该磋商签署一项保护和保全公海海洋生物的新协议。③United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio +20, The Future We Want, June 2012, para. 162.2015年6月，联合国大会迈出了重要一步，大会通过了一项决议，决定开始就这一重要和急需制定的国际条约进行谈判。因此，2016年3月28日到4月8日期间，第一届联合国筹备委员会会议在纽约举行，会议旨在确定关于保护国家管辖范围以外海洋生物多样性的新国际条约的制定进程。正是因为全球普遍意识到海洋在人类日常活动中占据了重要的位置，国际社会才开始关注并努力制定和确立一个强大且各国公认的法律框架。

世界各国都在努力拓展海洋空间，这种澎湃的激情，堪比殖民运动，因为他们意识到一个国家有能力控制海洋公域，便能实现巨大的经济和政治利益。1982年在蒙特利湾举办了第三届联合国海洋法大会，会上颁布了《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称“《公约》”），该公约允许各国在一定海域内行使主权权利。④Olivier Dubuquoy and Edouard Gaudot, The Ocean: From Colonized Territory to Global Nation, Green European Journal, Vol. 12, 2016, at http://www.greeneuropeanjournal. eu/7945-2/, 24 October 2016.根据《公约》，各国可以通过主张专属经济区来占用海洋空间，并在200海里专属经济区之外延伸其大陆架，最宽可至350海里。因此，各国通过主张专属经济区已经瓜分了大部分海洋，专属经济区现已覆盖海洋总面积的三分之一。

然而，海洋公域的界限在很大程度上却被忽视了。传统的世界化石能源争夺大战一般都在陆地上进行，而现在全球的目光已经转向海洋这一新战场。这已经引起了冲突和战争，若处理不当，冲突将逐步升级，超出可控范围。迪比克和戈多⑤Olivier Dubuquoy and Edouard Gaudot, The Ocean: From Colonized Territory to Global Nation, Green European Journal, Vol. 12, 2016, at http://www.greeneuropeanjournal. eu/7945-2/, 24 October 2016.认为，海上边界的延伸导致了争议区域的产生。他们指出：

这些新边界也会引发一些原有的反射性作用。如果一条边界已经划定了主权区域，那么就意味着这一领土不能处于几方的主权之下。相关国家在这一区域享有专属开发权。据国际能源署报道，“对于主要位于陆上和浅海水域的现有油气矿藏，其原油产量将在2011至2035年间下降三分之二”。按照国际能源署的说法，只能通过用新油气矿藏取代现有油田的方式，下降的原油产量才能得到补偿。

上述情况最终会导致富有石油和天然气矿藏的争议区域出现波动和紧张局势。公域是受法律制度管制的资源，允许共用和集体管理。本文敦促世界各国之间相互合作，因为这是应对公域紧张局势和争端的唯一恰当方式。海洋公域代表的是国家管辖范围以外的公海区域，位于国家专属经济区之外，覆盖了将近三分之二的海洋表面面积。各国应该开展合作，研究出创新办法，实现海洋公域资源的有效和可持续管理，保护不属于任何一国责任范围内海域的海洋生物多样性。⑥Birdlife South Africa, Report Workshop on Seabed Bycatch Mitigation in China’s Tuna Longline Fisheries, Shanghai, China, 17 April 2015, at http://www.commonoceans.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/common_oceans/docs/BLI_ChinaWorkshopReport17Apr2015. pdf, 12 July 2016; FAO, Report of the Second Project Steering Committee: Sustainable Management of Tuna Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation in ABNJ, Rome, Italy, 28-30 July 2015, at http://www.commonoceans.org/fleadmin/user_upload/common_oceans/docs/ ABNJ-Tuna-2015-PSC.pdf, 12 July 2016.海洋公域的利用和管理中经常存在涉及海洋生物和污染的问题。因此，保护海洋公域，还需要放眼全球公域，对沿海和陆上活动进行管理。⑦Boyce Thorne-Miller, The Living Ocean: Understanding and Protecting Marine Biodiversity, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1999; Cyrille de Klemm and Clare Shine, Biological Diversity Conservation and the Law: Legal Mechanism for Conserving Species and Ecosystems, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993; Richard L. Wallace ed., The Marine Mammal Commission Compendium of Selected Treaties, International Agreements and Other Relevant Documents on Marine Resources, Wildlife and Environment, Washington D.C.: Marine Mammal Commission, 1997.

“全球公域”是指国家政治范围以外的资源域。根据国际法，共有4个全球公域：公海、大气层、南极洲和外层空间。这些全球公域都由人类共同继承财产原则所支配，在公海上即奉行海洋自由原则（公海对每个人开放）。尽管个人、各国政府、国际组织都试图为大部分自然资源设置产权或施加其他形式的控制，但全球公域的概念仍是个例外。正如其他文章所指出的，很难获取全球公域中的一些资源（除渔业等少数资源外），然而，随着现代科技发明和科学的进步，获取全球公域中的资源变得更加容易，进而导致在这些资源域内的活动有所增加。⑧Charles S. Colgan, The Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: An Introduction and Invitation, Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, Vol. 2014, Article 8, December 2014, at http://cbe.miis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=joce, 12 July 2016.令人遗憾的是，其中大部分活动都没有有效的法律或政策来管理和规范。

海洋公域的不可侵犯性必须通过国际法得到维护。国际法应对开展危及海洋公域活动的海洋侵入者和实体实施系统的刑事起诉，不论该实体是否合法。我们必须为全人类和子孙后代的利益可持续地管理海洋。可悲的是，目前并没有合适的国际法框架，可以从整体上保护海洋公域免受人类活动的损害，希望联合国正在制定的新条约可以填补这一空白。

在这一点上，应当指出的是，2016年3月28日至4月8日，第一届筹备委员会大会在纽约联合国总部召开，会议在《公约》的框架下讨论了一项旨在保护和可持续利用国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的具有国际法约束力的文件草案的主要内容。在全体会议和非正式工作组会议中，筹备委员会审议了如下事项：具有国际法约束力的文件范围，及其与其他文件之间的关系；指导方针和原则；海洋遗传资源，包括相关的利益分享问题；基于区域的管理工具，包括海洋保护区；环境影响评估；能力建设和海洋技术转让。本届会议通过了第二届筹备委员会会议的结构安排，以及邀请主席作会议总结，并列出两届会议间的指示性问题清单，以便利第二届筹备委员会的顺利开展。与会者高度赞扬了会议讨论的进度、深度及其建设性意义，这标志着制定一项关于执行《公约》深海生物多样性相关规定的新协定的进程正式开始。⑨Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), Vol. 25, No. 106, 11 April 2016, at http://www.iisd.ca/ vol25/enb25106e.html, 12 July 2016.

本文首先探讨当今国际社会所面临的最重要的地缘政治问题，接着讨论我们应如何管理和治理国家管辖范围以外的海洋，以便为全人类和子孙后代的利益可持续性地利用海洋，永久地确保其潜能。本文还进一步探讨了以下问题：海洋公域和全球公域的定义；海洋公域的法律制度；争端解决和海洋公域；南海仲裁案；海洋公域的管理，这也自然而然地引出了保护和可持续利用海洋的问题；国家管辖范围以外区域的生物多样性。

二、海洋公域的法律制度

长久以来，海洋公域都是许多国家的经济支柱和政治权力基础，并通过决定海洋及其资源的利用和管理塑造了国家的未来。⑩A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783, reprint, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1965.历史上发生了很多在海洋公域内发生争端的案例，这在现代已经上升到很危险的境地。①James C. F. Wang, Handbook on Ocean Politics and Law, New York: Greenwood Press, 1992, pp. 107～142.鉴于过度开发、过度捕捞的加剧，海洋自然资源的枯竭，以及导致海洋污染和气候变化的人类活动的增加，发生这种被喻为“公地悲剧”的情况并不意外。②Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, Vol. 162, Issue 3859, 1968, pp. 1243～1248.随着这种情况的出现，各国现在已经意识到，为和平管理国家管辖范围以外的海洋公域，有必要开展合作并商议区域性和国际性的法律法规。在起草和协商众多管制海洋公域的多边贸易条约和国际协定以及确保这些条约与协定得以批准等方面，联合国及其下属机构起到了非常关键的作用。③管理海洋公域的主要公约、条约和协定包括：1982年《公约》、1992年《生物多样性公约》、1973年《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》、1946年《国际捕鲸公约》、1995年《执行1982年12月10日〈联合国海洋法公约〉有关养护和管理跨界鱼类种群和高度洄游鱼类种群之规定的协定》、1980年《南极海洋生物资源养护公约》、1972年《防止倾倒废物和其他物质污染海洋的公约》、《国际防止船舶造成污染公约》、《关于持久性有机污染物的斯德哥尔摩公约》和1995年《保护海洋环境免受陆源污染国家行动计划》。目前，已经存在一些应对海洋公域管理问题的法律和制度框架。值得注意的是，《公约》部分内容专门处理了世界海洋和南极各部分的管理问题。虽然目前存在一些应对海洋公域中自然资源问题的制度和监管框架，但还是存在根本性的空白和不一致，这些都需要立即引起注意。首先必须解决的一项重要法律问题是，海洋公域治理的法律监管框架非常零散。另外一个问题是，没有一个总的组织或机构负责制定和协调处理与海洋公域自然资源勘探和开发有关的现有或新问题的政策。第三个问题则是缺乏对新出现的问题和活动（如生物勘探）的监管标准，其中生物勘探活动就涉及获取遗传资源的权利和流程，以及资源利用的利益共享问题。考虑到这些问题，联合国大会已设立了不限成员名额非正式特设工作组，专门研究涉及养护和可持续利用国家管辖范围以外区域海洋生物多样性的问题。④在2015年1月23日举行的第69届联合国大会上，不限成员名额非正式特设工作组重申了在《我们想要的未来》第162段所作出的承诺。该文件是2012年6月20-22日在巴西里约热内卢举行的联合国可持续发展大会成果文件。2012年7月27日，联合国大会第66/288号决议批准了该文件，各国元首和政府首脑在决议中承诺在不限成员名额非正式特设工作组工作的基础上，立刻解决保护和可持续利用国家管辖范围以外海洋生物多样性的问题，包括决定根据《公约》来制定一份国际文书。

过去一个世纪，全球海洋公域的管理采取了2种方式。一种方式是首先关注与国际航运有关的法律问题。几个世纪以来，甚至可能几千年以来，国际货物运输的主要途径一直是航运。即使是现在，从重量来看，所有国际贸易的95%，或者从体积来看，所有国际贸易的三分之二，都是通过船舶从海上运输的。⑤Philip E. Steinberg, The Social Construction of the Ocean, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 4.由于公海不属于任何主权国家，所以在公海上的行为准则只能通过国际协定来实施。海洋空间治理工作最初涉及海上救捞责任和权利问题，然后再是公海船舶的援助规则。随着时间的推移，特别是在泰坦尼克号事件之后，人们日益关注船上工作人员或乘客的安全，而这些规则也逐渐演变成协议，以期提高在船上的安全性。国际海事组织就是致力于解决这些问题的国际机构。

第二种方式涉及对海洋资源的关注。从20世纪70年代开始，随着国际社会日益关注环境损害，人们的目光逐渐转向预防和减轻海洋污染。除了国际海事组织中现有的监管机构，与之有所交集的还有《公约》直接创建的机构，以及源于《公约》的国际法变化所确立的机构。渔业是另一种重要的海洋资源，但保护渔业的集体行动从20世纪中期才真正开始。20世纪80年代掀起了另一波建立渔业组织的热潮。在这波热潮中建立的机构数量众多，但关注的范围却很狭隘。虽然这些机构很难防止全球过度捕捞，但已经开始解决新出现的治理问题。

《公约》是在1973年至1982年召开的第三届联合国海洋法大会上颁布的国际协定，并于1994年11月16日生效。《公约》为世界海洋的利用提供了监管框架，尤其是在确保养护和公平利用资源和海洋环境，以及确保海洋生物资源的保护和保全方面。《公约》还涉及主权、各海域的使用权限和航行权等其他问题。⑥截至2016年10月26日，已有168个国家批准、加入或继承其前身加入《公约》。《公约》全文和状态，下载于http://www.un.org/depts/los/，2016年10月26日。《公约》中包含一节有关环境保护的内容，《公约》要求所有国家“保护和保全海洋环境”。⑦UNCLOS, Article 192.

在1972年召开的联合国环境与发展大会上，成立了环境和发展委员会，该委员会于1987年出版了《我们共同的未来》一文，承认了海洋保护的重要性。1992年，各国政府再次召开会议，讨论全球环境问题。会上通过了《里约宣言》和《21世纪议程》，前者规定了一系列原则，后者则是解决严重的环境与人类发展问题的行动计划，包括海洋生态系统的退化。1992年联合国环境与发展大会的成果之一是《生物多样性公约》，这是一部综合性条约，致力于处理海洋和陆地生态系统的相关问题，⑧Boyce Thorne-Miller, The Living Ocean: Understanding and Protecting Marine Biodiversity, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1999.并建立一个可以保护生物多样性的框架。然而，在是否、何时以及如何执行该公约等方面，每个成员国都被赋予了很大的自由裁量权。⑨Cyrille de Klemm and Clare Shine, Biological Diversity, Conserving Species and Ecosystems, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993.

在1992年联合国环境与发展大会召开之前，已经制定了《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》，用以保护各濒危物种，包括海洋中发现的目前仍保护不力的物种，而保护不力的主要原因是我们对这些物种的状态知之甚少。在所有规制国家管辖范围以外公域的公约和协定中，《公约》仍是根本性规范。一个公认的观点是，这些法律协定有助于形成健康、富有生产力和回弹力的海洋，并获得可持续发展。联合国在“里约＋⑩Jeff Ardon, Elisabeth Druel, Kristina Gjerde, Katherine Houghton, Julien Rochette and Sebastian Unger, Advancing Governance of the High Seas, IASS Policy Brief 1/2013, May 2013.”峰会《我们想要的未来》中强调：

海洋及其资源的养护和可持续利用对可持续发展具有重要作用，因为这有利于消除贫穷、实现持续经济增长、保证粮食安全、创造可持续生计及体面工作，同时也保护生物多样性和海洋环境，应对气候变化的影响。20

如上所述，联合国大会已经采取行动，致力于制定一份全球法律文件，以便与《公约》一同督促各国保护和可持续利用国家管辖范围以外区域的海洋生物多样性。然而，本文认为，尽管国际社会采取了相关行动，我们离形成一个“健康、富有生产力和回弹力的海洋”①At http://en.unesco.org/events/towards-sustainable-development-goal-ocean-healthyproductive-and-resilient-ocean-people, 11 October 2016.的目标还很远。相关的法律制度并未在海洋治理方面取得成效，有些国家未遵守也未充分落实这些制度，未遵守船旗国义务，对协同监管和执行机制的投资有限，过分依赖分业种方法来管理资源，公海治理的制度性基础设施不足，无法克服政治障碍，资源分配不公，以及地区性合作未取得成效。

公海治理框架是指法律规则、政治程序、以及法律规则借以适用和执行的制度性结构，其基础是《公约》。《公约》是一部综合性的法律文书，其为所有海洋活动的开展制定了必须遵守的法律框架，《公约》及其两个执行协定是海洋治理的主要法律框架。然而，《公约》也存在很多缺陷：用来管理人类在海洋环境中的活动的分业种方法，是以规管特定的行业和人类活动为基础的，如渔业、航运业和海底采矿业，这种方法导致“法规的时效和效力”存在很大的不一致，因为规管这些行业活动的各种机构之间缺乏互动。因此，分业种方法严重阻碍了对物种、栖息地和生态系统的保护，而这些正是生物多样性的核心部分。在实施《公约》的过程中，如涉及人类在公海上的活动的分业种管理，透明机制、问责机制和遵约汇报机制均比较薄弱，只存在为数不多的几个机制可以用来评估或管理行业活动、海洋酸化和气候变暖对同一海洋环境的累积影响。《公约》并未设立一个独立的秘书处，专门负责监督《公约》的执行，以及促进国家在实践中一贯适用《公约》。此外，《公约》也没有内置的遵约机制，负责监督各国履约，以及在必要时作出制裁，正如《关于消耗臭氧层物质的蒙特利尔议定书》和《国际濒危物种贸易公约》中规定的制裁。②《公约》确实设立了强制且具有约束力的争端解决机制，但是争端解决机制与遵约是不同的。相反，《公约》设立了3个全新的独立机构，③《公约》设立的这3个机构分别是国际海底管理局、国际海洋法法庭和大陆架界限委员会。每个机构都是独立的，各自肩负《公约》规定的特定与有限责任。这3个机构分别承担执行《公约》某些部分的职能。《公约》中的其他规定则由各国单独或共同执行，或通过“主管国际组织”、地区性或全球性机构和组织来执行。我们认为，《公约》的做法造成了主管机构的泛滥，这些机构的职责范围经常会有所重叠和冲突，但实际上他们都缺乏真正的规管或执行权力。遵守或执行海洋利用和管理的现有国际公约、条约和协定，一般采取自愿原则，在这种情况下，各国可以轻易地选择放弃本国不同意的事项或措施，却几乎不用为此承担全球层面的责任。与此同时，就算存在监管某些行业的机制，他们的效力也存在很大差异，各行业中的规则不统一，适用方式也不一致。④Global Ocean Commission, From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, at http://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOC_report_2015. July_2.pdf, 12 July 2016.

总之，目前管理对海洋产生影响的人类活动的法律制度尚存在不足，该制度无法让海洋实现可持续发展，无法实现资源的公平分配，也没法创造条件使源自海洋的经济利益最大化。因此，我们建议，在展望与努力制定新国际条约的同时，还应切实落实现有文件，填补执法空白，提高守法程度，加大执法力度，这将有利于解决目前的难题。付出更大的努力找出把现代的保护指令纳入《公约》现有治理框架的方法，这样目前的退化路径就可能得到逆转。

对于上述问题，可行的解决措施还包括改善监管情况，加强海军、渔业执法机构、警察机关、军事和区域性机构之间的合作，以及共享有关非军事威胁的信息。此外，还可以利用卫星监测船舶，再综合利用地面和太空系统提供的船舶自动识别系统标准信息。⑤Global Ocean Commission, From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, http://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOC_report_2015.July_2. pdf, 12 July 2016.尽管大家都承认，卫星有利于监控海上的非法活动，但是，在多数情况下，解读和利用大量的卫星数据却十分困难。此外，也没有一个国家可以单独承担建设全球范围的海上监控系统的费用。⑥Global Ocean Commission, From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, at http://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOC_report_2015. July_2.pdf, 12 July 2016.为改善这一普遍情况，相关机构已经提出了很多建议，例如，成立一个世界海洋组织，负责对全球海洋环境进行管理，并对海洋资源的获取进行规管；⑦WBGU, World in Transition: Governing the Marine Heritage, p. 253, at http://www.wbgu. de/fleadmin/templates/dateien/veroef f entlichungen/hauptgutachten/hg2013/wbgu_hg2013_ en.pdf, 24 October 2016.将区域性渔业管理组织转变成区域性海洋管理组织，在一个洋盆内的所有活动，如影响海洋生物资源的保育和管理以及海洋环境的保护和保全，均由区域性海洋管理组织负责管理。这类组织的职能范围包括在公海上建立海洋保护区，以及制定新的法律措施，对未履行保护义务的国家进行制裁。

最后，我们相信海洋公域法律制度的完善将起到重要作用，具体而言，可以帮助逆转全球海洋健康普遍恶化的局势，以及打造可持续发展的未来。自觉执行现有的法律和政策文件，提高履约程度，以及严格执法，肯定有利于解决不断出现的挑战，这些措施因此也是一系列建议的重要组成部分。无论如何，比较理想的做法是结合2016年联合国筹备委员会第一届会议上采纳的建议，制定一个新条约。在制定新条约时必须谨慎，不得打破《公约》下权利与义务之间的平衡。在指出这一点以后，还有必要问问是否需要彻底变革治理方法，以确保在综合管理全球海洋公域的过程中将可持续发展放在首位？如果答案是肯定的，那么如何做到彻底变革呢？这是一个开放式问题，有待继续讨论。

三、争端解决与海洋公域

本部分将探讨争端解决与海洋公域，以及这两者与中菲南海仲裁案的关系。争端解决涉及法律、规范与治理等问题。⑧Anshuman Chakraborty, Dispute Settlement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Its Role in Oceans Governance (LL.M Thesis), New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington, 2006.在奥斯特罗姆看来，冲突解决机制仍然是“使参与公共池塘资源治理的机构真正发挥积极职能作用”所需要的重要手段之一。⑨Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 181.欧盟委员会则认为，治理是公共机构的职能，指的是行使权力，意指执行机构、大会和司法机关所采取的行动。⑩European Commission, “What is Governance?”, at http://europa.eu.int/comm./governance/ index_en.htm, 9 September 2016.以此推之，法院、法庭等司法机关可以作为解决海洋公域相关争端的机构。因为经过适当磋商与合法执行的公约和协议具有法律效力，并可以通过解决争端的司法和非司法途径执行，因此，争端解决、海洋公域与中菲南海仲裁案之间的联系是显而易见的。所以，本文明确认为，海洋公域也不例外，相关方在某些情况下有权向国际海洋法法庭申诉。从这个意义上说，争端解决机制可以在海洋公域治理中发挥作用，但是，成效如何将取决于各国是否愿意使用这些机制来解决海洋公域和海事争端。

争端解决机制同样也可用于管理国家管辖范围外的海洋公域。在此，我们有必要回顾一下《公约》中有关争端解决的条款。①Annex VII & VIII and Parts XI and XV, UNCLOS.《公约》设立了国际海洋法法庭、海洋法仲裁法庭和特别仲裁法庭等司法机构，②Annex VII & VIII and Parts XI and XV, UNCLOS.专门负责裁定有关《公约》解释和适用的争端，其中包括有关海洋公域的争端。国际海洋法法庭对下述事宜具有管辖权：有关《公约》解释或适用的任何争端，以及将管辖权授予国际海洋法法庭的任何其他协议中具体规定的所有事项。③Statute of the ITLOS, Article 21.国际海洋法法庭应对各缔约国开放。对于《公约》“第十一部分明文规定的任何案件，或按照案件当事所有各方接受的将管辖权授予法庭的任何其他协定提交的任何案件”，国际海洋法法庭还对缔约国以外的实体开放。④Statute of the ITLOS, Article 20.

《公约》第十五部分为有关《公约》解释或适用的争端创建了一个全面的解决制度。《公约》规定，各缔约国应按照《联合国宪章》所指的和平方法解决他们之间有关《公约》解释或适用的任何争端。⑤UNCLOS, Article 279.但是，如果争端各方采用自行选择的和平方法未解决争端，则其应该将争端提交导致有拘束力裁判的强制解决程序，但必须遵守《公约》中规定的限制和例外。《公约》确立的争端解决机制包括4种方法：国际海洋法法庭、国际法院、按照附件七组成的仲裁法庭⑥PCA Case No. 2013-19: The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China.和按照附件八组成的特别仲裁法庭。缔约国有自由根据《公约》第287条作出的书面声明，选择上述一个或一个以上方法。如果争端各方未接受同一程序以解决这项争端，除各方另有协议外，争端仅可提交附件七所规定的仲裁。⑦UNCLOS, Article 287.

依照《国际海洋法法庭规约》的相关规定，海洋法法庭设立了下述分庭：简易程序分庭、渔业争端分庭、海洋环境争端分庭和海洋划界争端分庭。应争端当事方要求，海洋法法庭还组建了两个特别分庭，分别负责处理“关于在太平洋东南部保护和可持续开发旗鱼种群的案件（智利诉欧洲共同体）”和“关于划定加纳和科特迪瓦在大西洋的海上边界争端（加纳诉科特迪瓦）”。⑧ITLOS, Case Nos. 7 & 23.与国际海底区域中的活动有关的争端应提交给海洋法法庭的海底争端分庭处理。对于海底争端分庭管辖范围内的任何争端，争端一方可请求海洋争端分庭成立专案分庭，专案分庭由海洋争端分庭的3名法官组成。⑨Statute of the ITLOS, Article 36.到目前为止，已签有12项多边协议将管辖权授予海洋法法庭。除非争端各方另有约定，在与根据《公约》第292条迅速释放船只和船员有关的案件中，以及与根据《公约》第290条第5款在仲裁庭组成以前采取临时措施有关的案件中，法庭的管辖权具有强制性。海底争端分庭负责对国际海底管理局活动范围内发生的法律问题提供咨询意见。⑩UNCLOS, Article 191.法庭还可以就与《公约》目的有关的国际协定所规定的法律问题提供咨询意见。①Rules of the ITLOS, Article 138.可通过书面申请或者特殊协定通知的方式向海洋法法庭提交争端。提交海洋法法庭的案件的审理程序在法庭《规约》及《细则》中做了规定。

本文认为，争端解决机制可以对海洋公域争端的解决起到关键作用，而在这一方面，国际海洋法法庭和《公约》为此目的设立的其他机构已经做了很多工作。欲了解《公约》确立争端解决程序背后的逻辑，有必要思考《公约》起草者当初是否有意将争端解决程序用于管理海洋公域。本文认为答案是肯定的，因为通过设立争端解决机构，《公约》明确有意将海洋公域纳入其规管和宗旨范围内。《公约》着手解决因海洋公域利用的急剧增长而造成的事端和冲突。《公约》吸纳了有关争端解决的条文，这恰恰表明了其有意防止缔约国单方面解释《公约》。②L. B. Sohn, The Importance of the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in Myron H. Nordquist and John Norton Moore eds., Entry into Force of the Law of the Sea Convention, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995.下述文字解释了在《公约》中加入有关争端解决的条款的必要性：

为了就公约达成一致，各方有必要作出妥协，而有关有效解决争端之程序的条款对于稳定和保持妥协至关重要……争端解决机制相当于一个支点，支撑通过妥协达成的微妙平衡。否则，各方之间的妥协就会迅速土崩瓦解，永无恢复之日……有效的争端解决还可以确保公约法律文本的实质内容和意图能够得到一致、公正的解释。③U.N. Document A/CONF.62/WP.9/ADD.1, Memorandum by the President of the Conference on document A/CONF.62/WP.9, 31 March 1976, p. 122.

因此，《公约》中有关争端解决的条款构成了一个实质性的程序，可以通过国际海洋法法庭等司法机构保护《公约》缔约国的权利和自由。④Ivan A. Shearer, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Its Potential for Resolving Navigational Disputes, in Donald R. Rothwell and Sam Bateman eds., Navigational Rights and Freedoms and the New Law of the Sea, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000.我们还可以进一步认为，通过设立争端解决机制，《公约》为全球海洋公域管理奠定了国际法和法律协定基础。⑤Lawrence Juda, International Law and Ocean Use Management: The Evolution of Ocean Governance, London: Routledge, 1996.争端解决机构，作为海洋公域的治理机构，掌握控制海洋公域治理的生杀大权，无论是国际层面，还是区域和国家层面的。据迈尔斯认为，在国际层面，争端解决机制构成了海洋公域治理的强大支柱。《公约》的争端解决机制可以对国家管辖范围之外海洋公域的管理带来各种层面的影响，1997年以后提交国际海洋法法庭并经其处理的争端与案件便是典型案例。⑥截至目前，向海洋法法庭提交的案件共有25起，详情请参见https://www.itlos.org/en/ cases/list-of-cases/。

《公约》中关于有效处理争端的条款仍是海岸与海洋空间治理的主要部分。从上述论述可以推知，争端解决机制对海洋公域管理的作用不容忽视。良好的海洋公域管理，具有“预防和审理争端”⑦Sue Nichols, David Monahan and Michael Sutherland, Good Governance of Canada’s Offshore and Coastal Zone: Towards an Understanding of the Marine Boundary Issues, Geomatica, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2000, p. 415.所需要的包容性制度结构。这反过来也与海洋公域管理的基本作用相互关联，其中包括“维护有关海洋治理的实体法，以此作为强化政策协调和冲突解决机制的基础。”⑧At http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/publicomment/novgencomment/fry_ comment.pdf, 18 September 2016.这不仅局限于国际层面，还会全面影响地区、国家和地方层面，国际层面形成的原则和先例也可以各种方式适用于地区、国家和地方层面的海洋公域管理。按照《公约》第十五部分规定的争端解决条文所处理的争端和案例构成了相关先例，可以为海洋公域管理政策指定方向。本文认为，《公约》第十五部分中有关非强制性争端解决的一般规定，可以在海洋公域管理中发挥重要作用，并进一步加强第十五部分第1节，特别是第280条的规定，这也给予争端当事方充分的自由，让他们自行选择和平方式解决争端。⑨UNCLOS, Article 280.

通过上述讨论可见，争端解决机制不仅在国家管辖范围之外的海洋公域管理中起到重要作用，而且还对维护全球公域的和平与安全至关重要。具体而言，争端解决机制最终可以在下述方面对海洋公域的管理产生积极影响：管理和分配资源；划定海洋边界；巩固制度和机构；解释和阐释法律，制定法规；促进合作；缓解紧张局势，解决问题，保持和平与安全；确保国际法的遵守和执行；管理海洋利用方面的冲突。⑩Anshuman Chakraborty, Dispute Settlement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Its Role in Oceans Governance (LL.M Thesis), New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington, 2006, pp. 46～73.

在此，有必要提及菲律宾根据《公约》附件七提起的南海仲裁案。①PCA Case No. 2013-19: The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China, an Arbitration before the Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Conventions on Law of the Sea between the Republic of Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.菲律宾要求仲裁庭宣布中国的海洋主张无效。②中菲南海仲裁案涉及中国在南海的“U形线”主张在《公约》下的合法性问题。2015年10月29日，仲裁庭作出裁决，认定其具有审理该案的管辖权。菲律宾认为，中国主张的“U形线”无效，因为其违反了《公约》中有关专属经济区和领海的规定。菲方指出，大部分南海岛礁，如南沙群岛的多数岛礁，都无法维持生命，因而无法拥有《公约》中规定的大陆架。中国拒绝参加仲裁，认为其与菲律宾签署的几项条约都明确规定应通过谈判解决边界争端。中方还指控菲律宾违反了东盟与中国在2002年自愿签署的《南海各方行为宣言》，该宣言也规定应通过双边谈判解决边界与其他争端。中国在2014年12月发布了一份立场文件，认为中菲争端最终属于主权问题，而非开发权利问题，因此不能通过仲裁解决。具体而言，中国提出了两大反对意见：一、仲裁事项超出《公约》的调整范围，不涉及《公约》的“解释或适用”；二、菲律宾提交仲裁时，未履行就争端事项进行谈判的义务。

在上述立场文件中，中国主张：

菲律宾单方面提起仲裁的做法，不会改变中国对南海诸岛及其附近海域拥有主权的历史和事实，不会动摇中国维护主权和海洋权益的决心和意志，不会影响中国通过直接谈判解决有关争议以及与本地区国家共同维护南海和平稳定的政策和立场。

然而，中国拒绝参与仲裁，并未阻止仲裁庭推进仲裁。2015年10月29日，中菲南海仲裁案仲裁庭作出裁决，认定其具有审理该案的管辖权，并认为菲律宾的诉求具有可受理性。中国南海研究院院长、高级研究员吴士存指出，仲裁庭的这一裁决“毫无逻辑、不公平，可能导致南海紧张局势升级”。③Wu Shicun, The South China Sea Arbitration Case Could Exacerbate Disputes in the South China Sea, at http://nl.china-embassy.org/eng/hldt/t1374516.htm, 18 September 2016.此外，《公约》是该案的关键，中国主张，为确保公平、有效执行《公约》，《公约》创建了争端解决机制，包括仲裁，但仲裁庭未遵守相关规定。④Wu Shicun, The South China Sea Arbitration Case Could Exacerbate Disputes in the South China Sea, at http://nl.china-embassy.org/eng/hldt/t1374516.htm, 18 September 2016.中国拒绝接受这一裁决，并在此前向菲律宾提交了外交照会，反对菲律宾在《通知及权利声明》中提出的主张，呼吁菲律宾通过双边谈判解决相关争端。中国坚持认为，仲裁庭缺乏审理该案的管辖权。中国不可能遵守相关争端的任何最终裁决。

在一些政策选择中，就可以看出中菲南海仲裁案与海洋公域之间的联系，如海上安全。在东海与南海海面，渔船、沿海巡逻船、军舰等众多船舶穿梭如织。中国及其邻国在争议水域的活动日益增多，增加了船长或政治领袖因误判而引发武装冲突的风险，而美国也会因其对盟友日本和菲律宾的军事承诺而卷入冲突。南海问题不仅仅是相关国家的主张冲突，还关系到该地区的和平与稳定。争端双方应确保坚守承诺，维护地区安全，促使海事与经济活动能在该地区的海洋公域自由开展。此外，政策专家认为，还有必要针对南海地区设立一个危机管理体系，制定一系列预防措施来缓解地区紧张局势，将南海地区的军事冲突降级，这一点至关重要。

中菲南海仲裁案与南海地区的海洋公域还存在其他联系。这涉及到经济、外交和资源共享问题。争端导致南海和东海地区的申索国不在海洋公域资源开发方面进行合作，其中包括渔业和油气资源开发。相关的资源共享协议应包含双边联合巡逻机制，抑制可能引发冲突的来源，如非法捕鱼和油气勘探导致的小冲突。因此，争端当事方开展更多的外交与经济合作，共享经济惠益，可以降低风险。

四、海洋公域管理

上述讨论表明，地球上最重要的公共资源——海洋公域需要可持续性管理。⑤Leaders, The Tragedy of the High Seas, The Economist, 22 February 2014, pp. 10～12.1968年，加勒特·哈丁⑥Leaders, The Tragedy of the High Seas, The Economist, 22 February 2014, pp. 10～12.就提出，当多个个体共同拥有一项资源时，个人出于自身利益，往往会造成公共资源枯竭，也就是说，人们往往会过度利用公共财产而非予以保护，最终会损坏集体的长期利益。现在，加勒特·哈丁指出的“悲剧”就赤裸裸地摆在我们面前，给覆盖地球表面超过一半的海洋资源造成严重与不可逆的毁坏。

为了避免悲剧的发生，有关机构有必要制定规则，平衡个体的私利和所有使用者的长期利益。从海洋公域中的公海海底采矿到全球海洋鱼类资源的枯竭，事态的发展有些令人担忧。显然，几十年来对海洋的破坏，现在正蔓延到陆地坏境。人们已经预料到这一悲剧。海洋公域会面临“公地悲剧”，即个体使用者使公共财产遭到枯竭。然而，人们尚未普遍意识到，悲剧造成的后果还包括破坏公域系统的代价并非全部由破坏者承担。在这一方面，渔业就是鲜明的例子。在过度捕捞的过程中，多种入侵物种因人类活动而在世界各地流动，往往每年都给海洋带来不可逆的破坏。此外，制造商与消费者将有害和有毒废品倒入海洋，污染海面和海底。因此，为保护海洋公域，有时候需要把海洋当成私有财产权进行分配，使海洋使用者与海洋的长期健康之间更息息相关。⑦这一做法已经在沿海国和群岛国的专属经济区进行尝试，但却未在公海施行。根据国际法，公海鱼类是面向所有国家开放的，其中的矿物属于“人类共同继承财产”。

海洋公域的国际管理一般涉及参与海洋管理的国际机构及相关的法律框架。此类国际机构主要有：联合国、联合国环境规划署、联合国开发计划署、联合国粮食与农业组织、联合国法律事务厅、国际海事组织以及国际捕鲸委员会。相关的国际协议包括《公约》、1972年《防止倾倒废物及其他物质污染海洋的公约》、《保护迁徙野生动物物种公约》、《生物多样性公约》、区域海洋公约、⑧旨在保护海洋环境的具有法律约束力的区域海洋公约框架。同时参见联合国环境规划署签署的区域海洋公约——1976年《保护地中海海洋环境和沿海地区公约》（《巴塞罗那公约》）。《防止船舶污染国际公约》、⑨《防止船舶污染国际公约》，英文简称为“MARPOL 73/78”，全称为《关于1973年防止船舶污染国际公约之1978年议定书》。《国际海上人命安全公约》、《联合国鱼类种群协定》、⑩1995年《联合国鱼类种群协定》于2001年生效，全称为1995年《执行1982年12月10日〈联合国海洋法公约〉有关养护和管理跨界鱼类种群和高度洄游鱼类种群之规定的协定》。《负责任渔业行为守则》，以及1993年粮农组织《促进公海渔船遵守国际养护与管理措施的协定》。这些协定中有些负责规管海洋公域，另外一些则与公域管理只有部分联系。此外，还有其他一些具有管理海洋公域职责的涉海机构，其中包括大陆架界限委员会、国际海底管理局、国际海洋法法庭与粮农组织区域渔业机构等。

然而，有些公海管理政策和机构已经不起作用了，必须得到彻底变革。①Leaders, The Tragedy of the High Seas, The Economist, 22 February 2014, pp. 10～12.例如，在海洋公域管理中，渔业管理无疑是一项重大问题。过度捕捞给海洋造成的伤害比其他人类活动都要严重。据世界银行报道，渔业的管理不善每年造成了多达500亿美元的损失。②Coral Triangle, Report: World’s Oceans Continue to Suffer from Overfishing’, at http:// iwlearn.net/iw-projects/3591/news/cti-iw-learn/5d5b48d6fd6fe918c1a6108491089e98, 24 October 2016.打击非法捕鱼是地区渔业机构的一大难题，因为这些机构没有打击非法渔民的经济能力。此外，因缺乏全球渔船登记资料，这些机构也没有掌握在其管辖水域内运行的渔船数量。再者，这些地区渔业机构制定的规则只对其成员国有约束力，也就意味着非成员国可以选择不遵守这些规则。

管理海洋公域的机构薄弱，职能失调，并缺乏制止过度捕捞所需要的人力和财力。这些机构被分割成渔业、采矿和海运等部门，却没有一个机构是专门统筹管理海洋的。因此，应该给予这些区域机构财政支持，让他们具备足够的财力，确保有效执行相关规则。此外，还应该设立一个新的联合国机构，负责统筹管理整个海洋公域。最后，应该让有权使用海洋公域的每个人都参与海洋公域事务管理，让他们享有发言权。③Humans Are Damaging the High Seas - Now the Oceans Are Doing Harm Back, at http:// www.businessinsider.com/humans-are-damaging-the-high-seas--now-the-oceans-are-doingharm-back-2015-1, 22 September 2016.

与海洋管理问题密切相关的另一个问题是国家管辖范围以外区域生物多样性的保护和可持续利用，该问题受到了国际社会越来越多的关注。④第59届联合国大会：在其第59/24号决议中，联合国大会设立了一个不限成员名额非正式特设工作组，研究保护和可持续利用国家管辖范围以外海洋生物多样性的问题，并呼吁各国和国际组织立即采取行动，依据国际法，处理对海洋生物多样性和生态系统造成不利影响的破坏性做法。科学数据尽管尚不充足，但却体现了该地区生物多样性的丰富和脆弱，特别是海山、深海热泉生物，以及冷水珊瑚。国际社会也越发关注现有和新出现的深海活动给生物多样性带来的人为压力，如捕鱼和生物勘探。

《公约》规定，国家管辖范围以外区域包含：

(i)公海，即专属经济区、领海或群岛国群岛水域之外的水体；⑤UNCLOS, Article 86.

(ii)“区域”，即国家管辖范围以外的海床和洋底及其底土。⑥UNCLOS, Article 1.

国家管辖范围以外区域是不归任何一个国家管制的公共海域。已设计出一项国家管辖范围以外区域的计划，旨在使国家管辖范围之外海域中的渔业资源得到有效、可持续性管理，并使该片海域的生物多样性得到保护。为达到这一目标，该计划分为4个具体的方面：

· 金枪鱼渔业与生物多样性的可持续管理；

· 深海生物资源与生物多样性的可持续利用；

· 有关可持续渔业与生物多样性保护的海洋合作关系；

· 加强有效管理国家管辖范围以外区域的全球能力。⑦At http://www.commonoceans.org/home/en/, 1 November 2016.

在这一方面，需要签订一项执行协定来帮助解决上述问题，具体做法是提供一项机制，增加及详细阐述《公约》中有关国家管辖范围以外区域的一般性条款，并使这些条款具有可操作性；改善现有机构之间的合作；为保护和可持续利用这些区域中的资源和生物多样性，协调基于生态系统的治理。⑧Sharelle Hart, Element of a Possible Implementation Agreement to UNCLOS for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2008, at https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_ marine_paper_4.pdf, 12 July 2016.现有的国家管辖范围以外区域管理框架以分业种管理为主，由不同的国际和区域机构实施，“急需相关部门立即进行干预，对国家管辖范围以外区域开展基于生态系统的综合管理，保护海洋生态系统和生物多样性，可持续性利用海洋公域资源，在获得社会经济惠益的同时，避免给环境带来不利影响。”⑨At https://globaloceanforum.com/areas-of-focus/areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction/, 12 July 2016.从这个意义上说，国家管辖范围之外海洋治理和管理的改善，涉及更好地执行现有文件和解决衡平问题的方式方法。⑩Marjo Vierros, Governance of Marine Area Beyond National Jurisdictions, at http://ourworl d.unu.edu/en/governance-of-marine-areas-beyond-national-jurisdictions, 12 July 2016.

为保护海洋资源，必须采取基于生态系统的方法来管理海洋与渔业。①Arlo H. Hemphill and George Shillinger, Casting the Net Broadly: Ecosystem-based Management Beyond National Jurisdiction, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Fall 2006, pp. 56～59.有几篇论文已经注意到下述问题：全球海洋公域资源的衰减，如鲔鱼、长嘴鱼、鲨鱼和海龟等大型海洋捕食者；②Ransom A. Myers and Boris Worm, Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities, Nature, Vol. 423, No. 6937, 2003, pp. 208～283; James R. Spotila, Richard D. Reina, Anthony C. Steyermark, Pamela T, Plotkin and Frank V. Paladino, Pacific Leatherback Turtles Face Extinction, Nature, Vol. 405, No. 6786, 2000, pp. 529～530.捕食者多样性的减少；③Boris Worm, Marcel Sandow, Andreas Oschlies, Heike K. Lotze and Ransom A. Myers, Global Patterns of Predator Diversity in the Open Oceans, Science, Vol. 309, Issue 5739, 2005, pp. 1365～1369.深海极危鱼类物种；④Jennifer A. Devine, Krista D. Baker and Richard L. Haedrich, Fisheries: Deep-sea Fishes Quality as Endangered, Nature, Vol. 439, No. 7072, 2006, p. 29.鱼类资源的过度捕捞和衰竭；⑤Jean-Jacques Maguire, Michael Sissenwine, Jorge Csirke and Richard Grainger, The State of the World Highly Migratory, Straddling and Other High Seas Fishery Fish Stocks and Associated Species, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 495, 2006, at http://www.fao.org/ newsroom/common/ecg/1000302/en/paper.pdf, 12 July 2016.海山与珊瑚礁生态系统的破坏。⑥Henry Nicholls, Marine Conservation: Sink or Swim, Nature, Vol. 432, No. 7013, 2004, pp. 12～14.在探寻基于生态系统的海洋公域管理方式时，我们悲伤地发现，国家管辖范围以外区域的管理仍以分业种、单物种管理方式为主，管理机构各自为政，没有统一、一致的管理，这种传统的管理方式已经被证实无法有效确保海洋生态系统的健康和完整。因此，国家管辖范围以外的脆弱生态系统仍未得到保护，以至于几个生态系统现在都遭到过度利用或衰竭。近期发布的一些全球和地区性海洋环境评测报告都注意到了这些趋势，如皮尤海洋委员会、⑦Pew Oceans Commission, America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2003/06/02/americas-livingoceans-charting-a-course-for-sea-change, 12 July 2016.美国海洋政策委员会⑧U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, at http:// govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report. pdf, 12 July 2016.和英国皇家环境污染委员会⑨Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Turning the Tide: Addressing the Impact of Fisheries on the Marine Environment, at http://www.rcep.org.uk/fsheries/Turningthetide. pdf, 12 July 2016.发布的报告。这些报告均建议采用基于生态系统的管理方式来“处理海洋利用中方方面面的问题，包括渔业问题。”⑩Linda Glover and Sylvia Earle eds., Defying Ocean’ End: An Agenda for Action, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2004.

笔者认为需要有效保护海洋公域环境，确保公域资源的保护和可持续利用。这涉及到一个综合的治理结构，不仅可以有效保护个体使用者的利益，还可以保护国际社会的整体利益。然而，海洋公域的管理现状是，分业种的管理组织和按地理位置划分的管理组织各自为政。这一情况导致了一系列难题和缺漏，包括相关国家未参加和执行有关法律制度所引起的问题。其中，规管空白体现在区域性渔业管理组织和区域性公海公约中涉及公海的规定不足，渔业部门和环保部门缺乏协调与合作。《联合国鱼类种群协定》无法适用于某些公海鱼种，因此也产生了巨大的规管空白。①Rosemary Rayfuse and Robin M. Warner, Securing a Sustainable Future for the Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction: The Legal Basis for an Integrated Cross-sectoral Regime for High Seas Governance for the 21st Century, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2008, pp. 399～421.此外，尚没有相关制度规管电缆和管道铺设、军事活动和深海旅游等活动。②Rosemary Rayfuse and Robin M. Warner, Securing a Sustainable Future for the Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction: The Legal Basis for an Integrated Cross-sectoral Regime for High Seas Governance for the 21st Century, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2008, pp. 399～421.这些缺漏或空白影响了海洋继续提供重要的生态系统服务和食物资源的能力，因而阻碍海洋公域实现基于生态系统的综合治理。这要求相关部门立即采取行动。

五、结 语

国家管辖范围以外的海洋公域管理研究涉及许多问题。海洋对民族、经济和文化塑造均有一定的作用。在法国历史学家布罗代尔看来，地中海就有力塑造了欧洲的文艺复兴，为欧洲探索海洋的方方面面开辟了道路，③Charles S. Colgan, The Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: An Introduction and Invitation, Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, Vol. 2014, Article 8, December 2014, p. 3, at http://cbe.miis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=joce, 12 July 2016.影响了人们对与海洋相关的经济与政治力量的认知。

人类与海洋之间的关系对世界各国的经济与政治诉求都产生了影响。在此背景下，国家层面和国际层面都展开了讨论，探讨应该如何运用国际法来保护和管理海洋。在联合国创建了一个可以制定国际海洋法成文法的新国际论坛之前，海洋法主要属于国内法和习惯法的范畴。

如前文所述，思考海洋和海洋资源问题的需要日渐急迫，促使国际社会采取了几项行动。本文检视了与海洋公域管理有关的问题，在顾及因此产生的国家、地区和国际冲突的同时，勾勒出国际社会处理这些日益严重的问题的路径。当然，海洋公域管理方面最重要的问题还是在于谁控制自然资源及国家管辖范围之外的海洋空间。另一个问题是谁对国家管辖范围以外海域行使军事权力。国家管辖权和国际管辖权问题，可移动资源的财产权问题，如渔业和运输路线问题，以及渔业和化石燃料资源的开发问题，仍是需要继续讨论的主要问题。通过探讨海洋公域管理方面的问题和挑战，本文旨在提高公众对海洋重要性的意识，并因此呼吁所有国家将海洋公域管理纳入国家政策。最后，研究海洋是希望能够更好地了解相关的社会生态系统的性质，因为海洋的生态健康与地区或国家经济健康紧密相连。

粗略地回顾本文的讨论重点，可以发现很难精确地界定此类研究课题的探讨范畴。然而，虽然无法精确界定探讨范畴，本文还是尝试讨论并界定了海洋公域和全球公域的地理范围。

目前，海洋公域由一系列国际性、区域性和行业协定和条约规制，这些协定和条约有些时候还会产生重叠，进而引发一些复杂而难解的问题。在某些地方还存在规管空白，无人拥有全权采取行动。典型的例子是，尽管有些地区性海洋公约可以设立海洋保护区，但公约中却没有对捕鱼和海底采矿等活动施加限制，仅仅因为这些活动归其他组织管理。也因此，保护区无法阻止严重危及海洋生物的活动。除了管理南冰洋的国际委员会外，并没有在公海设立“完全海洋保护区”的机制。没有一个强大的新条约，人类活动将继续威胁或危害海洋和地球。通过及时制定新条约，我们就可以为子孙后代保护海洋公域的生物多样性。联合国已采取措施，准备制定一项新条约，但是仍有许多工作有待完成。刚刚结束的第一届联合国筹备委员会会议标志着海洋的未来已经出现了转折点。时间是成败的关键，相关谈判必须本着合作的精神进行。希望在2018年前可以出台一份各国普遍接受、可执行的新法律文件，以保护我们的海洋母亲。

海洋公域的管理难度大。这片广袤无边的海域，不归任何国家所有，还经常对人类不大友善，因此很难监管。有鉴于此，管理海洋事务的国际机构极力变更造船方式和船舶运行方式，在这方面的工作也颇有成效。国际海事组织出台了一系列国际协定，在提高船舶安全性的同时，又减少了船源污染。尽管依据海洋法设立的很多组织才成立不久，还处于发展阶段，但是，对于接受其管辖的国家而言，这些组织已经显示出治理成效，他们至少改变了国际层面的海洋治理方式。随着时间的推移，这些组织会如何发展，《公约》能否帮助解决海洋治理方面的困难，还有待观察。

考虑到目前的海洋治理制度，以及国家管辖范围以外海洋生物多样性面临的威胁，本文认为，地球的可持续性发展有赖于卓有成效的海洋管理方法。首先需要给海洋公域管理分配充足的人力和财力资源；其次，应该推进《公约》的相关规定，特别是涉及海洋环境保护的部分。最后，应该基于国际合作，采用整体性治理方法。就国家管辖范围之外的海洋公域而言，采取聚合力强的国际行动无比重要。保护海洋，不应只停留在频繁地召开国际会议，作出相关决议，相反，国际社会应该担负起自己的责任，制定可持续性的保护制度，切实解决海洋管理方面遇到的难题。

中译：谢红月

I. Introduction

The initial question to be asked in an article of this nature is why ocean commons management is so important as to deserve attention? After reviewing more than 100 earlier studies, a new research, published in the journal Conservation Letters,①Bethan C. O’Leary, Marit Winther-Johnson, John M. Bainbridge, Jemma Aitken, Julie P. Hawkins and Callum M. Roberts, Effective Coverage Targets for Ocean Protection, Conservation Letters, 2016, at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12247/pdf, 12 July 2016.indicates that 30～40 percent of the oceans need protection from exploitation and harm in order to best conserve biodiversity and ecosystems. This will be impossible in practice without high seas marine protected areas (MPAs). Earlier in 2012②The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (the Rio +20 Summit), 2012.the world leaders committed to deciding whether to begin negotiations on a new agreement to conserve and protect marine life on the high seas.③United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio +20, The Future We Want, June 2012, para. 162.In June 2015, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) took an important step and adopted a resolution to begin negotiations on this important and much needed international treaty. Consequently, from March 28 to April 8, 2016, the frst United Nations Preparatory Committee Session was held in New York to chart the road map for a new international treaty to conserve maritime biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). The international concern and ef f orts to institute and establish a strong universally acceptable legal framework could only be attributed to the global acknowledgment of the important place which the oceans occupy in daily activities of humans.

The struggle by the States of the world to acquire new maritime spaces, with a passion comparable to the colonization periods, can only be explained on the ground of the realization of nations of the world of the vast economic and political advantages inherent in their ability to control the ocean commons. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), promulgated in the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in Montego Bay in 1982, allows States to exercise sovereign rights over the seas and oceans.④Olivier Dubuquoy and Edouard Gaudot, The Ocean: From Colonized Territory to Global Nation, Green European Journal, Vol. 12, 2016, at http://www.greeneuropeanjournal. eu/7945-2/, 24 October 2016.Under UNCLOS, States can appropriate maritime spaces by claiming Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and extend their continental shelves beyond the 200 nautical miles of the EEZ up to amaximum of 350 nautical miles. Thus, EEZs have drastically carved up the oceans, now covering a third of their total area.

However, the boundary of the ocean commons is largely unobserved. The ocean has become the new frontier in the globalized race for fossil energy, which was traditionally carried out on the land. This has occasioned conficts and wars, which, if not handled properly, would escalate beyond manageable proportions. Dubuquoy and Gaudot argue that areas of dispute have emerged as a result of maritime border extension. In their own words,

These new borders also trigger old ref l exes. If a border has come to delimit a sovereign area, this implies that the territory cannot come under a competing sovereignty. There is an exclusive right of exploitation. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “[c]rude oil production from existing deposits, situated mainly on land or in shallow coastal waters, will drop by two thirds between 2011 and 2035.” This decrease, according to the IEA, may be compensated, but only by replacing the current oil fi elds with the new deposits.⑤Olivier Dubuquoy and Edouard Gaudot, The Ocean: From Colonized Territory to Global Nation, Green European Journal, Vol. 12, 2016, at http://www.greeneuropeanjournal. eu/7945-2/, 24 October 2016.

The consequence of the above is the emergence of volatility and tension in disputed areas containing rich deposit of oil and gas. The commons are resources governed by legal systems that enable sharing and collective management. This article urges cooperation among States of the world, as it is the only appropriate response to tensions and disputes in the ocean commons. The ocean commons represent the open sea areas which are beyond national jurisdiction and fall outside countries’ EEZs, covering nearly two thirds of the ocean’s surface. Countries should cooperate to fashion out innovative approach to achieve efficient and sustainable management of the ocean commons resources and biodiversity conservation in marine areas that do not fall under the responsibility of any one country.⑥Birdlife South Africa, Report Workshop on Seabed Bycatch Mitigation in China’s Tuna Longline Fisheries, Shanghai, China, 17 April 2015, at http://www.commonoceans.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/common_oceans/docs/BLI_ChinaWorkshopReport17Apr2015. pdf, 12 July 2016; FAO, Report of the Second Project Steering Committee: Sustainable Management of Tuna Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation in ABNJ, Rome, Italy, 28-30 July 2015, at http://www.commonoceans.org/fleadmin/user_upload/common_oceans/docs/ ABNJ-Tuna-2015-PSC.pdf, 12 July 2016.Problemsusually arise within the use and management of ocean commons concerning sea life and pollution, thus, the protection of the ocean commons from harm, also requires management of coastal and land-based activities on behalf of the global commons.⑦Boyce Thorne-Miller, The Living Ocean: Understanding and Protecting Marine Biodiversity, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1999; Cyrillede Klemm and Clare Shine, Biological Diversity Conservation and the Law: Legal Mechanism for Conserving Species and Ecosystems, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993; Richard L. Wallace ed., The Marine Mammal Commission Compendium of Selected Treaties, International Agreements and Other Relevant Documents on Marine Resources, Wildlife and Environment, Washington D.C.: Marine Mammal Commission, 1997.

The term “global commons” refers to resource domains or areas that are situated outside of the political reach of any country. Under international law, there are four global commons: the high seas, the atmosphere, the Antarctica and the outer space. These have been guided by the principle of the common heritage of mankind - the open access doctrine or the mare liberum (free sea for everyone) in the case of the high seas. Despite attempts by individuals, national governments and international bodies to create property rights or other forms of control over most natural resources, the concept of the global commons has remained an exception. As pointed out elsewhere, access to some of these resources found within the global commons, except for a few like fsheries, has been difficult, but modern technological invention and advancement of science have made access to the resources of the global commons easier, resulting in increased activities in these resource domains.⑧Charles S. Colgan, The Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: An Introduction and Invitation, Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, Vol. 2014, Article 8, December 2014, at http://cbe.miis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=joce, 12 July 2016.Unfortunately, there is no ef f ective laws or policies to manage and regulate most of these activities.

The sanctity of the ocean commons must be maintained via international law, which should enforce systematic criminal prosecution on ocean poachers, on entities whether legal or illegal, that engage in activities detrimental to the ocean commons. The oceans must be sustainably managed for the beneft of all mankind and future generations yet unborn. Sadly, there is no international legal framework in place that can holistically protect the ocean commons from human activities. It is hoped that the ongoing development of a new treaty by the United Nations could help close the gap.

In this connection, it should be noted that the frst session of the Preparatory Committee on the elements of a draft text of an international legally binding instrument under the UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marinebiodi-versity of the ABNJ was convened from 28 March to 8 April 2016 at UN Headquarters in New York. Meeting in plenary and informal working group settings, the Committee considered: the scope of an international legally binding instrument and its relationship with other instruments; guiding approaches and principles; marine genetic resources, including questions on beneft-sharing; areabased management tools, including MPAs; environmental impact assessments; and capacity building and marine technology transfer. The session agreed to a procedural roadmap outlining the structure of PrepCom 2, and on having a Chair’s summary of meeting and an indicative list of issues circulated during the intersessional period, to facilitate preparations for PrepCom 2. Several participants praised the pace and depth of the discussions, and the constructive spirit that marked the beginning of a formal process expected to lead to the adoption of a new UNCLOS implementing agreement on deep-sea biodiversity.⑨Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), Vol. 25, No. 106, 11 April 2016, at http://www.iisd.ca/ vol25/enb25106e.html, 12 July 2016.

This article examines the most important geo-political question facing the international community today, and then explores how we should manage and govern the oceans outside national jurisdiction, in order to use them sustainably and ensure their potentials forever, for the beneft of all mankind and future generations yet unborn. This article further probes the following themes: the definition of ocean commons and global commons; the legal regime of ocean commons; dispute settlement and ocean commons; the South China Sea arbitration case; managing the ocean commons which naturally throws up the issue regarding the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans; biological diversity of ABNJ.

II. Legal Regime of Ocean Commons

The ocean commons for long served as a base of economic sustenance and political power for many States and shaped the future of countries by determining the use and control of the sea and its resources.⑩A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783, reprint, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1965.History is replete with cases of disputes within the ocean commons, which in modern period have escalated to unenviable heights.①James C. F. Wang, Handbook on Ocean Politics and Law, New York: Greenwood Press, 1992, pp. 107～142.This is hardly unexpected given the rise in over-exploitation,overfishing and depletion of natural resources of the oceans as well as human activities that cause pollution and climate change in the oceans, which has been likened to the “Tragedy of the Commons”.②Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, Vol. 162, Issue 3859,1968, pp. 1243～1248.With this scenario, countries now feel the need to cooperate and negotiate regional and international laws and regulations for the peaceful management of the ocean commons beyond national jurisdiction. The United Nations and its subunits have played a very crucial role in drafting, negotiating and securing the ratifcation of numerous multilateral trade treaties and international agreements that govern the ocean commons.③These conventions, treaties and agreements governing the ocean commons mainly include: UNCLOS, 1982; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973; International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946; Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 1982, Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995; Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), 1980; Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention 1972 or LC’ 72); International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL); International Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities, 1995.Presently, a number of legal and institutional frameworks exist to deal with the management of the ocean commons. It is noteworthy that parts of the UNCLOS are dedicated to the management of the world’s oceans and various components of the Antarctica. Despite some existing institutional and regulatory frameworks addressing natural resource issues in the ocean commons, fundamental gaps and inconsistencies still exist, which require immediate attention. An important legal issue that must be addressed is the severe fragmentation of legal regulatory frameworks governing the ocean commons. There is also a problem of not having an umbrella or single institution developing and coordinating policies for existing or new issues associated with natural resource exploration or exploitation of the ocean commons. The third gap is the lack of regulatory standards for emerging issues and activities, such as bioprospecting, which involves rights and processes regarding the access to the genetic resources and the sharing of benefts arising from the use of these resources. It is with these gaps in mind that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) established an Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversitybeyond areas of national jurisdiction.④In its sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly held on 23 January 2015, the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group re-affirmed the commitment in paragraph 162 of the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 20 to 22 June 2012, entitled “The Future We Want”, as endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 66/288 of 27 July 2012. In the document, the heads of State and Government committed to address, on an urgent basis, building on the work of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group, the issue of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of ABNJ, including by taking a decision on the development of an international instrument under the UNCLOS.

Global management of the ocean commons has taken two dif f erent approaches over the past century. One approach began with a focus on the legal issues pertaining to international shipping. For centuries, or perhaps even millennia, shipping has been the main way that goods are transported internationally. Even now, 95 percent of all international trade as measured by weight and two-thirds as measured by volume is transported on the ocean by ships.⑤Philip E. Steinberg, The Social Construction of the Ocean, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001, p. 4.Since the high seas do not belong to any sovereign State, rules about conduct on the open ocean can only be implemented by international agreements. Initial ef f orts to govern ocean spaces involved issues of liability and salvage rights at sea, followed by rules on assistance to ships on the high seas. These evolved over time into agreements to increase the level of safety on ships, with an increasing concern (especially in the wake of the Titanic disaster) for those who work or travel on them. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the international institution that addresses these issues.

The second approach involved attention to the resources of the ocean. Beginning in the 1970s, with an increase in global concern about environmental damage, the focus shifted to the prevention and mitigation of ocean pollution. In addition to, and intersecting with, existing regulatory institutions under the IMO are those created by the UNCLOS and occasioned by the international legal changes stemming from it. The fisheries is another important ocean resource. Collective action to protect fsheries began in earnest in the mid-twentieth century, with another wave of fsheries organizations created in the 1980s.These institutions are numerous but narrowly focused. Though they have had difficulty in preventing global overfshing, they have evolved to address emerging governance issues.

The UNCLOS is an international agreement resulting from the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which took place between 1973 and 1982. The UNCLOS came into force on November 16, 1994. It providesa regulatory framework for the use of the world’s seas and oceans, inter alia, to ensure the conservation and equitable usage of resources and the marine environment and to ensure the protection and preservation of the living resources of the sea. UNCLOS also addresses other issues such as sovereignty, rights of usage in maritime zones and navigational rights.⑥As of 26 October 2016, 168 States have ratifed, acceded to, or succeeded to, UNCLOS. For the full text and status of UNCLOS, at http://www.un.org/depts/los/, 26 October 2016.It contains a section on environmental protection, requiring all States “to protect and preserve the marine environment.”⑦UNCLOS, Article 192.

The World Commission on Environment and Development, established by the UNCED in 1972, published a report entitled “Our Common Future” in 1987, where the importance of protecting the ocean was recognized. In 1992, world governments met again to discuss the global environment. This resulted in the“Rio Declaration” which establishes principles, and “Agenda 21”, a plan of action for addressing serious issues of environment and human development, including degradation of marine systems. One of the outcomes of the 1992 Conference was the Convention on Biological Diversity, a comprehensive treaty, addressing both marine and terrestrial ecosystems,⑧Boyce Thorne-Miller, The Living Ocean: Understanding and Protecting Marine Biodiversity, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1999.and establishing a framework within which biodiversity can be protected. However, each member State is given much discretion on whether, when, and how to implement it.⑨Cyrille de Klemm and Clare Shine, Biological Diversity, Conserving Species and Ecosystems, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993.

Prior to the 1992 Conference, a global treaty - the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) - was established to protect individual species that are in trouble. These species include those found in the oceans which are currently poorly protected, largely because of little knowledge about the status of most of them. Of all the international conventions and agreements governing the management of ocean commons beyond national jurisdiction, UNCLOS remains the grundnorm. There is a common perception that these legal agreements would facilitate the attainment of a healthy, productive and resilient ocean for sustainable development. The United Nations in the Rio +20 Declaration “The Future We Want,” stressed the importance of:

the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans and seas and of their resources for sustainable development, including through their contributionsto poverty eradication, sustained economic growth, food security and creation of sustainable livelihoods and decent work, while at the same time protecting biodiversity and the marine environment and addressing the impacts of climate change.⑩Jeff Ardon, Elisabeth Druel, Kristina Gjerde, Katherine Houghton, Julien Rochette and Sebastian Unger, Advancing Governance of the High Seas, IASS Policy Brief 1/2013, May 2013.

As described above, efforts are being made by the United Nations General Assembly to develop a globally legal instrument that will work with UNCLOS to press for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in ABNJ. However, it is argued, despite these efforts, we are far from achieving the goal of “a healthy, productive and resilient ocean.”①At http://en.unesco.org/events/towards-sustainable-development-goal-ocean-healthyproductive-and-resilient-ocean-people, 11 October 2016.Failures of the legal regime in the governance of the oceans include lack of compliance and inadequate implementation by States; lack of compliance with flag State duties; limited investment in collaborative monitoring and enforcement mechanisms; over-reliance on sectoral approaches to resource management; limited institutional infrastructure for high seas governance; inability to overcome political roadblocks; inequitable resource allocations; and inef f ective regional cooperation.

The governance framework for the high seas - that is, the legal rules, political processes and institutional structures through which those rules are applied and enforced, is based on the UNCLOS. UNCLOS is the only legal instrument that holistically sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. UNCLOS, together with its two implementing agreements, is the dominant legal framework for ocean governance. However, UNCLOS also suffers from a number of defects: the sectoral approach adopted to manage human activities in the marine environment which are based on the regulation of specifc industries and human activities, such as fsheries, shipping and seabed mining, creates considerable inconsistency in the “timeliness and effectiveness of regulation,” since there is a little interplay between the various institutions that are mandated to regulate these sectoral activities. This adversely impedes the conservation of species, habitats and ecosystems which are the core components of biological diversity. In administering the UNCLOS, transparency, accountability and compliance-reporting mechanisms are very weak when itcomes to sectoral management of human activities on the high seas, and only few mechanisms exist to assess or manage the cumulative effects of multiple industrial activities, together with ocean acidification and warming, on the same ocean environment. UNCLOS did not establish a separate secretariat charged with monitoring its implementation and promoting its consistent application in state practice. It neither established any built-in compliance mechanisms to monitor the performance of States and impose sanctions where necessary, such as those contained in the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).②UNCLOS did establish mechanisms for compulsory and binding settlement of disputes, but that is to be distinguished from compliance.Instead, UNCLOS created three entirely new and separate institutions,③The three institutions created by UNCLOS are the International Seabed Authority, the ITLOS and the Commission for the Limits of Continental Shelf. Each of these organizations is autonomous and has specifc, limited responsibilities established by UNCLOS.with specific functions and responsibilities of implementing some parts of UNCLOS. The other provisions in UNCLOS are left to be implemented either by States acting individually and collectively, or through “competent international organizations,”agencies and bodies at regional or global levels. We argue that what UNCLOS has done has created a proliferation of competent authorities, with overlapping and competing mandates, which in reality lack any real regulatory or enforcement powers. Compliance to or implementation of the existing international conventions, treaties and agreements governing the use and management of the oceans are voluntary, in that case, States can easily opt out of issues or measures they do not agree with, and their accountability at the global level is near zero. Regulatory mechanisms for specifc sectors, where available, vary widely in their ef f ectiveness and there is inconsistency in the rules set in each sector and how they are applied.④Global Ocean Commission, From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, at http://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOC_report_2015. July_2.pdf, 12 July 2016.

To sum up, the current legal regime for the management of the human activities impacting the oceans is not sufficient to attain a sustainable level and equity in resource allocation or to create the conditions for maximizing economic benefits from the oceans. We therefore, recommend that while prospecting and shopping for a new international treaty, effective implementation of existing instruments, bridging of implementation gaps, and strengthening compliance and enforcement will contribute to addressing the present challenges. More hasto be done by seeking ways to import modern conservation imperatives into the existing governance framework provided by UNCLOS, so that the present path of degradation may be moved backward.

Viable solutions to the problems above, also lie in improved surveillance, better cooperation between navies, fsheries enforcement agencies, police forces, military and regional organizations and the sharing of information regarding nonmilitary threats. It is also desirable to combine satellite-based vessel detection with standard Automatic Identifcation System (AIS) information from both terrestrial and space systems.⑤Global Ocean Commission, From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, at http://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOC_report_2015. July_2.pdf, 12 July 2016.While it is admitted that satellites can contribute to monitoring the ocean for illegal activity, interpreting and utilizing the vast amounts of data is quite difficult in most circumstances. Also no single country can afford to set up a system for maritime surveillance on a global scale.⑥Global Ocean Commission, From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, at http://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOC_report_2015. July_2.pdf, 12 July 2016.In order to improve the prevailing situation, many proposals have been put forward: creating a World Oceans Organization to function as a global steward of the marine environment and to regulate access to its resources,⑦WBGU, World in Transition: Governing the Marine Heritage, p. 253, at http://www.wbgu. de/fleadmin/templates/dateien/veroef f entlichungen/hauptgutachten/hg2013/wbgu_hg2013_ en.pdf, 24 October 2016.and converting Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) into Regional Ocean Management Organizations (ROMOs) with the mandate to manage all activities within an ocean basin that impact upon the conservation and management of marine living resources and the protection and preservation of the marine environment. The capacities of these organizations include the power to establish MPAs on the high seas and introduce new legal measures to impose sanctions on States that fail to meet their conservation obligations.

Finally, it is believed that an improved legal regime of the ocean commons will play a crucial role in reversing the prevailing deterioration in the health of the global ocean and in developing sustainable future. Tacit implementation of the existing legal and policy instruments, strengthened compliance and better enforcement will defnitely contribute to addressing ongoing challenges and will therefore, form an important part of any suite of recommendations. Whateverthe case maybe, it is desirable to establish a new treaty, taking into account the recommendations adopted at the First Session of the UN Preparatory Committee held in 2016. This work must be carefully done so as not to disrupt the balance of rights and responsibilities under UNCLOS. Having made this point, it is time to ask whether a fundamental change of approach is needed to ensure that sustainability is placed at the forefront of collective management of the global ocean commons. And if so, how that would be achieved? This is an open-ended issue needs further exploration.

III. Dispute Settlement and Ocean Commons

In this section, we will discuss dispute settlement and ocean commons, and the links between the two and the Sino-Philippine Arbitration on South China Sea Disputes. Dispute settlement raises the issue of laws, norms and governances.⑧Anshuman Chakraborty, Dispute Settlement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Its Role in Oceans Governance (LL.M Thesis), New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington, 2006.For Ostrom, the conflict resolution mechanisms remain an integral part of“making institutions involved in the governance of common pool resources truly robust in performance.”⑨Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 181.The European Commission states that governance is an institutional affair and refers to exercise of power and connotes actions by executive bodies, assemblies and judicial bodies.⑩European Commission, “What is Governance?”, at http://europa.eu.int/comm./governance/ index_en.htm, 9 September 2016.In this context, it means that judicial bodies such as courts and tribunals qualify as institutions that play a role in dispute settlement concerning the ocean commons. Since conventions and agreements that are properly negotiated and legally executed have the force of law and can be enforced through judicial and non-judicial means of dispute settlement, the link between dispute settlement, the ocean commons and Sino-Philippine Arbitration on South China Sea Disputes becomes apparent. This article, therefore, argues expressly that ocean commons is no exception to this trend, with the parties concerned having the right to access to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the “ITLOS” or the “Tribunal”) under certain circumstances. Dispute settlement mechanisms, in this sense, have a role to play in the ocean commons governance. However, the ef f ectiveness of these mechanismsdepends on the willingness of the States to use them in the settlement of ocean commons and maritime disputes.

Dispute settlement mechanisms can also be applied in the management of ocean commons beyond national jurisdiction. This brings us to the dispute settlement provisions as contained in the UNCLOS.①Annex VII & VIII and Parts XI and XV, UNCLOS.The UNCLOS established judicial bodies to be known and called the ITLOS, an arbitral tribunal for the law of the sea and a special arbitral tribunal②Annex VII & VIII and Parts XI and XV, UNCLOS.to adjudicate disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention, which includes disputes related to the ocean commons. The ITLOS has jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS, and over all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal.③Statute of the ITLOS, Article 21.he Tribunal is open to State Parties to the UNCLOS. It is also open to entities other than States Parties, “in any case expressly provided for in Part XI or in any case submitted pursuant to any other agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal which is accepted by all the parties to that case.”④Statute of the ITLOS, Article 20.

Part XV of the UNCLOS creates a comprehensive system for the settlement of disputes which may arise with respect to the interpretation or application of the Convention. It requires States Parties to settle the disputes between them concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention by peaceful means indicated in the Charter of the United Nations.⑤UNCLOS, Article 279.However, if parties to a dispute fail to reach a settlement by peaceful means of their own choice, they should resort to the compulsory dispute settlement procedures entailing binding decisions, subject to limitations and exceptions contained in the Convention. The mechanism established by the Convention provides for four alternative means for the settlement of disputes: the ITLOS, the International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the Convention,⑥PCA Case No. 2013-19: The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China.and a special Arbitral Tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII to the Convention. A State Party is free to choose one or more of these means by a written declaration to be made under Article 287 of the Convention. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same settlement procedure, the dispute may be submitted only toarbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.⑦UNCLOS, Article 287.

In accordance with the relevant stipulations of its Statute, the ITLOS has formed the following chambers: the Chamber of Summary Procedure, the Chamber for Fisheries Disputes, the Chamber for Marine Environment Disputes and the Chamber for Maritime Delimitation Disputes. At the request of the parties, the Tribunal has also formed special chambers to deal with the Case Concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordf i sh Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacif i c Ocean (Chile/European Community) and the Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Cote d’Ivoire).⑧ITLOS, Case Nos. 7 &23.Disputes relating to activities in the international seabed area are submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the Tribunal. Any party to a dispute over which the Seabed Disputes Chamber has jurisdiction may request the Seabed Disputes Chamber to form an ad hoc chamber composed of three members of the Seabed Disputes Chamber.⑨Statute of the ITLOS, Article 36.To date, twelve multilateral agreements, which confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal, have been concluded. Unless the parties otherwise agree, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is mandatory in cases relating to the prompt release of vessels and crews under Article 292 of the Convention and to provisional measures pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal under Article 290(5) of the Convention. The Seabed Disputes Chamber is competent to give advisory opinions on legal questions arising within the scope of the activities of the International Seabed Authority.⑩UNCLOS, Article 191.The Tribunal may also give advisory opinions on legal questions if they are provided for by international agreements related to the purposes of the Convention.①Rules of the ITLOS, Article 138.Disputes before the Tribunal are instituted either by written application or by notifcation of a special agreement. The procedure to be followed for the conduct of cases submitted to the Tribunal is defned in its Statute and Rules.

This article asserts that disputes settlement mechanisms are very pivotal in addressing disputes regarding ocean commons. In this area, the ITLOS and other bodies established under UNCLOS for this purpose have done a great deal of work. To understand the rationale behind the establishment of dispute settlement procedures under the UNCLOS, it is pertinent to ask the question whether itsinvolvement in ocean commons management was one of the intendments of the drafters of the Convention. This article answers the question in the affirmative, because by establishing dispute settlement bodies, the UNCLOS could be argued to have manifested an express intention that ocean commons come within its mandate and objective. UNCLOS set out to cure the mischief and conficts created by the signifcant increase in the use of the ocean commons. The incorporation of dispute settlement provisions in the UNCLOS defnes the essence of its intention to prevent unilateral interpretation of the Convention provisions by States Parties.②L. B. Sohn, The Importance of the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in Myron H. Nordquist and John Norton Moore eds., Entry into Force of the Law of the Sea Convention, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995.The point on the necessity for the establishment of dispute settlement provisions in the UNCLOS was made in the following words:

[T]he provision of effective dispute settlement procedures is essential for stabilizing and maintaining the compromises necessary for the attainment of agreement on a convention … [and] dispute settlement procedures will be the pivot upon which the delicate equilibrium of the compromise must be balanced. Otherwise the compromise will disintegrate rapidly and permanently … Ef f ective dispute settlement would also be the guarantee that the substance and intention within the legislative language of the convention will be interpreted both consistently and equitably.③U.N. Document A/CONF.62/WP.9/ADD.1, Memorandum by the President of the Conference on document A/CONF.62/WP.9, 31 March 1976, p. 122.

The dispute settlement provisions in the UNCLOS is therefore, a substantive procedure protecting the rights and freedoms of the parties to the Convention, through ITLOS and other judicial bodies.④Ivan A. Shearer, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Its Potential for Resolving Navigational Disputes, in Donald R. Rothwell and Sam Bateman eds., Navigational Rights and Freedoms and the New Law of the Sea, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000.It could be further argued that the UNCLOS by establishing dispute settlement mechanisms has provided a base for international law and legal arrangements for a global ocean commons management.⑤Lawrence Juda, International Law and Ocean Use Management: The Evolution of Ocean Governance, London: Routledge, 1996.Dispute settlement bodies, acting as institutions in ocean commons gover-nance, hold the ace to control ocean commons governance at international, regional and national levels. According to Miles, at the global level, dispute settlement mechanisms constitute a formidable pillar of ocean commons governance. The impact that dispute settlement mechanisms under UNCLOS could have on the management of ocean commons beyond national jurisdiction could cut across various levels as exemplifed in disputes and cases referred to and settled by the ITLOS since 1997.⑥To date, 25 cases have been submitted to the ITLOS, see https://www.itlos.org/en/cases/listof-cases/ for details.

Provisions under UNCLOS for the effective settlement of disputes remain an integral part of the governance of coastal and marine spaces. It can be inferred from the discussions above that the importance of the role of dispute settlement mechanisms in ocean commons management cannot be ignored. Good ocean commons management is about having the inclusive institutional structures needed to “prevent and adjudicate disputes.”⑦Sue Nichols, David Monahan and Michael Sutherland, Good Governance of Canada’s Offshore and Coastal Zone: Towards an Understanding of the Marine Boundary Issues, Geomatica, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2000, p. 415.This in turn correlates with the basic role of ocean commons management, which includes the maintenance of “substantive ocean governance laws as the foundation for enhanced policy coordination and conflict resolution mechanisms.”⑧At http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/publicomment/novgencomment/fry_ comment.pdf, 18 September 2016.This is not limited to the international level; it also permeates the regional, national and local levels where principles and precedents developed at the international levels are applied to ocean commons management in diverse ways. Disputes and cases settled under the dispute settlement provisions of Part XV of the UNCLOS provide precedents that could shape policy directions of ocean commons management. This article argues that the general provisions under Part XV of UNCLOS on non-compulsory dispute settlement have a vital role to play in ocean commons management and further strengthen the provisions of Section 1, especially Article 280 in this part, which gives full freedom to the parties to a dispute to settle it in any peaceful manner of their choice.⑨UNCLOS, Article 280.

Given the above discussions, it is evident that dispute settlement mechanisms play a major role not only in the management of ocean commons beyond national jurisdiction but in maintaining peace and security in the global commons. Specif-cally, dispute settlement mechanisms could, in the long run, positively impact ocean commons management in the following ways: regulating and allocating resources; delimiting maritime boundaries; strengthening regimes and institutions; interpreting and clarifying the law and developing rules; facilitating cooperation; reducing tensions, ironing out problems, maintaining peace and security; ensuring compliance with and enforcing international law; and managing multiple ocean use conficts.⑩Anshuman Chakraborty, Dispute Settlement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Its Role in Oceans Governance (LL.M Thesis), New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington, 2006, pp. 46～73.

This article notes the Philippines v. China Arbitration,①PCA Case No. 2013-19: The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China, an Arbitration before the Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 UNCLOS between the Republic of Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.initiated pursuant to Annex VII to the UNCLOS. Philippines requested the Arbitral Tribunal to invalidate China’s maritime claims.②The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China is a arbitration case concerning the legality of China’s “U-shaped line” claim over the South China Sea under UNCLOS. On October 29, 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case.The Philippines contends that the “U-shaped line” claimed by China is invalid because it violates the UNCLOS provisions about EEZs and territorial seas. It says that because most of the features in the South China Sea, such as most of the Spratly Islands, cannot sustain life, they cannot be given their own continental shelf as defned in the Convention. China refuses to participate in the arbitration, stating that several treaties with the Philippines stipulate that bilateral negotiations should be used to resolve border disputes. It also accuses Philippines of violating the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, voluntarily made in 2002 between ASEAN and China, which also provides bilateral negotiations as the means of resolving border and other disputes. China issued a position paper in December 2014, arguing the dispute was not subject to arbitration because it was ultimately a matter of sovereignty, not exploitation rights. Specifically, China raised two main objections. First, the arbitral subject-matter is not within the scope of “interpretation or application” of UNCLOS. Second, the Philippines violates the duty to negotiate in regard to the subject-matter of this dispute, when it initiated the arbitration.

In its position paper, China avers that:

The unilateral initiation of the present arbitration by the Philippines willnot change the history and fact of China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and the adjacent waters nor will it shake China’s resolve and determination to safeguard its sovereignty and maritime rights and interests; nor will it affect the policy and position of China to resolve the relevant disputes by direct negotiations and work together with other States in the region to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.

However, China’s refusal did not prevent the Arbitral Tribunal from proceeding with the case. On October 29, 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal of the Philippines v. China Arbitration Case ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and found the Philippines’ submissions admissible. Wu Shicun, president and senior researcher of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies described the Tribunal’s decision as “illogical, unfair, and risks escalating tensions in the South China Sea.”③Wu Shicun, The South China Sea Arbitration Case Could Exacerbate Disputes in the South China Sea, at http://nl.china-embassy.org/eng/hldt/t1374516.htm, 18 September 2016.Again, UNCLOS is at the centre of the case and China maintains that the Arbitral Tribunal did not follow the provisions of UNCLOS on “dispute settlement mechanisms, including arbitration, to ensure a fair and effective implementation of the Convention…”④Wu Shicun, The South China Sea Arbitration Case Could Exacerbate Disputes in the South China Sea, at http://nl.china-embassy.org/eng/hldt/t1374516.htm, 18 September 2016.China rejected the ruling and had earlier on submitted a Note Verbale, rejecting the claims made by the Philippines in the Notifcation and Statement of Claim, and calling on the Philippines to resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiations. China insists that the Arbitral Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in the case. China is unlikely to abide by any fnal outcome of the matter.

The link between the Sino-Philippine Arbitration on South China Sea Disputes and ocean commons can be found in policy options such as maritime security. Thousands of vessels, from fishing boats to coastal patrols and naval ships, ply the East and South China Seas. Increased use of the disputed waters by China and its neighbours heightened the risk that miscalculations by sea captains or political leaders could trigger an armed conflict, which the United States could be drawn into through its military commitments to its allies Japan and the Philippines. The South China Sea issue is not just about competing claims, it is also about peace and stability in the region. Both parties involved must ensure strong commitment to safeguarding the region’s security so as to enable maritime and economic activities to flow in the ocean commons of the region. In addition, policy experts believethat a crisis management system for the region is crucial. A range of preventive measures could be put in place to ease regional tensions and de-escalate military confrontation in the South China Sea.

There are other links between the Sino-Philippine Arbitration on South China Sea Disputes and ocean commons within the region. These are economic, diplomatic and resource sharing issues. The disputes have resulted in claimants in the South China Sea and also East China Sea not cooperating on the development of ocean commons resources, which include fisheries, petroleum and gas. A resource sharing agreement could include bilateral patrolling mechanisms, which could deter potential sources of confict like illegal fshing and skirmishes arising from oil and gas exploration. Hence, more diplomatic and economic collaborations between the parties to the dispute could mitigate risk by sharing economic benefts.

IV. Managing the Ocean Commons

The discussions in the foregoing sections of this article show that sustainable management is needed for the earth’s most important common resource, the ocean commons.⑤Leaders, The Tragedy of the High Seas, The Economist, 22 February 2014, pp. 10～12.Sometime in 1968, Garrett Hardin⑥Leaders, The Tragedy of the High Seas, The Economist, 22 February 2014, pp. 10～12.argued that when a resource is held jointly, it is in individuals’ self-interest to deplete it; that is to say, people will tend to undermine their collective long-term interest by over-exploiting rather than protecting that asset. This tragedy propounded by Garrett Hardin is now starring us boldly in the face, resulting in serious and irreversible damage to a resource that covers more than half of the planet.

In order to avoid this tragedy, it is necessary for institutions to formulate rules to balance the selfsh interests of individuals against the long-term interests of all users. There are worrying developments, ranging from the mining of the seabed in the high seas within the ocean commons to the collapse of global marine fsh stocks. It is becoming evident that decades-long damage to the oceans are now spreading to the terrestrial environment. This tragedy has been foretold. The ocean commons will face the “tragedy of the commons” - the depletion of commonly held property by individual users. However, the unrecognized consequence of the tragedy is that the cost of damaging the system of ocean commons is not fully borne by the damage doers. This manifests itself vividly in fshing, where in thecourse of over-exploitation, invasive species of many kinds are moved around the world by human activities and often cause irreversible damage to the oceans each year. In addition, manufacturers and consumers dump harmful and toxic wastes into the oceans, polluting them on the surface and the sea foor. To protect the ocean commons, it is sometimes necessary to assign private property rights over them, thus, giving users a bigger stake in their long term health.⑦This is being tried in coastal and archipelagic States’ EEZs, but it does not apply on the high seas. Under international law, fshing there is open to all and minerals count as “the common heritage of mankind.”

International management of the ocean commons involves generally, the international institutions and the legal framework concerned in the management of the oceans. Such institutions mainly include: the United Nations, UNEP, UNDP, FAO, Office of Legal Affairs, IMO and International Whaling Commission. The relevant international agreements include UNCLOS, the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Convention on Biological Diversity, Regional Seas Conventions,⑧Framework of a legally binding Regional Seas Conventions that aim to protect the marine environment. Also note the UNEP Regional Seas Convention - The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention) 1976.MARPOL,⑨MARPOL 73/78 is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships, 1973 as modifed by the Protocol of 1978. MARPOL is short for marine pollution and 73/78 short for the years 1973 and 1978.International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, UN Fish Stocks Agreement,⑩United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995, came into force in 2001. Its full title is Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995.Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas. Some of these agreements have regulatory connection, while others have only partial connection to the management of the ocean commons. There are also other ocean based institutions with responsibility for managing the ocean commons: Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf, International Seabed Authority, ITLOS and FAO Regional Fishery Bodies.

However, the “dysfunctional policies and institutions governing the high seas need radical reform.”①Leaders, The Tragedy of the High Seas, The Economist, 22 February 2014, pp. 10～12.For example, managing and regulating fishing is,undoubtedly, one of the biggest problems in ocean commons management. Overfishing causes more damage to the oceans than other human activities. The World Bank reports that the mismanagement of fsheries costs US $50 billion or more a year.②Coral Triangle, Report: World’s Oceans Continue to Suffer from Overfishing’, at http:// iwlearn.net/iw-projects/3591/news/cti-iw-learn/5d5b48d6fd6fe918c1a6108491089e98, 24 October 2016.Combating illegal fshing poses a challenge for the regional fshery bodies, because they have little or no fnancial capacity to combat illegal fshermen, and little statistics on the number of vessels operating in their waters for the lack of a global register of fshing boats. Also, the rules of these regional fshery bodies are only binding on their members, which means that non-members can decide not to comply with the rules.

Institutions managing the ocean commons are weak and dysfunctional, and lack the human and financial resources to check overfishing. Such institutions are fragmented into fshing, mining and shipping. However, there is no particular organization whose main duty is to manage the oceans as a whole. In this context, it is highly suggested that regional bodies should be fnancially empowered so as to ensure ef f ective enforcement of their rules. Furthermore, an entirely new United Nations body should be set up to govern the ocean commons as a whole. Last but not the least, everyone that is entitled to use the ocean commons should be permitted to have a part to play or have a say in running them.③Humans Are Damaging the High Seas - Now the Oceans Are Doing Harm Back, at http:// www.businessinsider.com/humans-are-damaging-the-high-seas--now-the-oceans-are-doingharm-back-2015-1, 22 September 2016.

Closely linked to the issue of management of the oceans is the question of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of ABNJ, which is increasingly attracting international attention.④59th Session of the General Assembly: In resolution 59/24, the General Assembly established an ad hoc open-ended informal working group to study issues relating to ABNJ conservation and sustainable use, and called upon States and international organizations to take action urgently to address, in accordance with international law, destructive practices that have adverse impacts on marine biodiversity and ecosystems.Scientific information, albeit insufficient, reveals the richness and vulnerability of such biodiversity, particularly in seamounts, hydrothermal vents and of cold-water corals. And concerns grow about the increasing anthropogenic pressure posed by existing and emerging activities, such as fshing and bioprospecting, in the deep sea.

The UNCLOS provides that the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction include:

(i) the high seas, which mean the water column beyond the EEZ, the territorial sea or the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State;⑤UNCLOS, Article 86.and

(ii) the “Area”, meaning the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.⑥UNCLOS, Article 1.

The ABNJ are the common oceans that do not fall under the responsibility of any one country. An ABNJ Program has been designed to achieve efficient and sustainable management of fisheries resources and biodiversity conservation in marine areas that do not fall under the responsibility of any one country. In order to achieve this goal, the Program is divided into four specifc areas:

· Sustainable management of tuna fsheries and biodiversity;

· Sustainable use of deep-sea living resources and biodiversity;

· Ocean partnership for sustainable fsheries and biodiversity conservation;

· Strengthening global capacity to ef f ectively manage ABNJ.⑦At http://www.commonoceans.org/home/en/, 1 November 2016

An implementation agreement is necessary to help address these problems by providing a mechanism to augment, elaborate, and make operational, general provisions of UNCLOS in relation to ABNJ; improve cooperation amongst existing institutions, and co-ordinate ecosystem-based governance for the conservation and sustainable use of resources and biodiversity in these areas.⑧Sharelle Hart, Element of a Possible Implementation Agreement to UNCLOS for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2008, at https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_ marine_paper_4.pdf, 12 July 2016.The existing ABNJ management framework is mainly sectoral and implemented by dif f erent global and regional institutions, which highlights the “urgent need for immediate intervention for integrated, ecosystem-based management of ABNJ to protect marine ecosystems and biodiversity and to sustainably utilize resources of the ocean commons to achieve socio-economic benefts while avoiding adverse environmental impacts.”⑨At https://globaloceanforum.com/areas-of-focus/areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction/, 12 July 2016.In this sense, improved governance and management of oceans beyond national jurisdictions includes ways and means for improved implementation of existing instruments and addressing equity concerns.⑩MarjoVierros, Governance of Marine Area Beyond National Jurisdictions, at http://ourworl d.unu.edu/en/governance-of-marine-areas-beyond-national-jurisdictions, 12 July 2016.

In order to protect our marine resources, there must be a move towards anecosystem-based management approach to oceans and fisheries management.①Arlo H. Hemphill and George Shillinger, Casting the Net Broadly: Ecosystem-based Management Beyond National Jurisdiction, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Fall 2006, pp. 56～59.Several articles have captured the global diminishing of the ocean commons resources - large ocean predators such as tunas, billfsh, sharks and sea turtles;②Ransom A. Myers and Boris Worm, Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities, Nature, Vol. 423, No. 6937, 2003, pp. 208～283; James R. Spotila, Richard D. Reina, Anthony C. Steyermark, Pamela T, Plotkin and Frank V. Paladino, Pacific Leatherback Turtles Face Extinction, Nature, Vol. 405, No. 6786, 2000, pp. 529～530.decline of predator diversity;③Boris Worm, Marcel Sandow, Andreas Oschlies, Heike K. Lotze and Ransom A. Myers, Global Patterns of Predator Diversity in the Open Oceans, Science, Vol. 309, Issue 5739, 2005, pp. 1365～1369.critically endangered species of deep sea fshes;④Jennifer A. Devine, Krista D. Baker and Richard L. Haedrich, Fisheries: Deep-sea Fishes Quality as Endangered, Nature, Vol. 439, No. 7072, 2006, p. 29.overexploitation and depletion of fish resources;⑤Jean-Jacques Maguire, Michael Sissenwine, Jorge Csirke and Richard Grainger, The State of the World Highly Migratory, Straddling and Other High Seas Fishery Fish Stocks and Associated Species, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 495, 2006, at http://www.fao.org/ newsroom/common/ecg/1000302/en/paper.pdf, 12 July 2016.and destruction of seamount and coral ecosystems.⑥Henry Nicholls, Marine Conservation: Sink or Swim, Nature, Vol. 432, No. 7013, 2004,pp. 12～14.While routing for the move towards an ecosystem-based approach in the management of ocean commons, it is saddening that the ABNJ are subject to fragmented and inconsistent management relying mostly on sector-based and single-species approaches, which have proven inef f ective in ensuring the health and integrity of marine ecosystems. As a result of this, vulnerable ecosystems beyond national jurisdiction remain unprotected to the point that several are now over-exploited or depleted. Recent global and regional assessments of the marine environment, such as reports prepared by the Pew Oceans Commission,⑦Pew Oceans Commission, America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2003/06/02/americas-livingoceans-charting-a-course-for-sea-change,12 July 2016.the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy⑧U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, at http:// govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report. pdf, 12 July 2016.and the U.K. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,⑨Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Turning the Tide: Addressing the Impact of Fisheries on the Marine Environment, at http://www.rcep.org.uk/fsheries/Turningthetide. pdf, 12 July 2016.have all taken note of these trends. These reports have recommended the ecosystem-based management approach “to address the full range of oceanuses, inclusive of fsheries.”⑩Linda Glover and Sylvia Earle eds., Defying Ocean’ End: An Agenda for Action, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2004.

The author asserts that ef f ective protection of the ocean commons environment is required in order to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of its resources. This involves an integrated governance structure which effectively protects not only the interests of individual users but also of the international community as a whole. However, currently, ocean commons management is fragmented among a number of sectoral and geographically based organizations. This situation creates a number of difficulties and gaps, which include those arising from the lack of participation in and implementation of relevant legal regimes. Regulatory gaps are noticeable in the inadequate coverage of high seas in RFMOs and regional conventions on high seas and the lack of coordination and cooperation between the fsheries and environmental sectors. There are also substantive gaps due to the non-applicability of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement to certain high seas fsh stocks.①Rosemary Rayfuse and Robin M. Warner, Securing a Sustainable Future for the Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction: The Legal Basis for an Integrated Cross-sectoral Regime for High Seas Governance for the 21st Century, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2008, pp. 399～421.In addition, no regulatory regime exists for the laying of cables and pipelines, military activities, and deep sea tourism.②Rosemary Rayfuse and Robin M. Warner, Securing a Sustainable Future for the Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction: The Legal Basis for an Integrated Cross-sectoral Regime for High Seas Governance for the 21st Century, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2008, pp. 399～421.All these gaps impede the attainment of integrated ecosystem-based governance on the ocean commons, since they compromise the ability of the oceans to continue providing vital ecosystem services and essential food resources. This calls for immediate actions.

V. Conclusions

The study of the management aspects of the ocean commons beyond national jurisdiction has a lineage that connects to a number of topics. The oceans have a role in the shaping of nations, economies, and cultures. In the words of Braudel, the Mediterranean Sea shaped the renaissance in Europe, opened the way for wide exploration of oceans③Charles S. Colgan, The Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: An Introduction and Invitation, Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, Vol. 2014, Article 8, December 2014, p. 3, at http://cbe.miis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=joce, 12 July 2016.and af f ected people’s perception and acknowledgment ofthe economic and political power associated with the seas.

The relationship between human beings and the oceans has come to impact on the economic and political yearnings of the countries in the world. In this context, discussions emerged at both national and international levels on how international law should be used to protect and manage the oceans. The law of the sea had primarily been a subject of national and customary law, until the United Nations created a new global forum under which a codified international law of the sea could be established.

As discussed previously, the need to think about the seas and ocean resources gained momentum, leading to several international actions. This article has reviewed the issues relating to the management of ocean commons. Bearing in mind the national, regional and international conficts resulting from such issues, the article outlined the path which the international community has taken to address the relevant deepening problems. Certainly, the most important issue facing the management of ocean commons remains on who controls the natural resources and the maritime space beyond national jurisdiction. Another issue is about who exercises the military powers over the oceans beyond national jurisdiction. Questions of national and international jurisdictions, the issue of property rights for mobile resources such as fsheries and transportation routes, and the issue relating to the exploitation of fshery and fossil fuel resources remain the leading ones that will be revisited. By discussing the problems and challenges related to the ocean commons management, the article aims to raise public awareness of the importance of the oceans, and therefore, calls on all countries to incorporate the management of the ocean commons into their national policies. Ultimately, underlying the study of the ocean is the desire to better understand the nature of the socio-ecological systems involved, as the ecological health of the oceans is assumed to be coupled with the health of the regional or national economies.

A cursory survey of the focus of this article shows that it is difficult to defne the precise boundaries of inquiry and subject matter appropriate to a topic of this nature. However, even if the precise boundaries cannot be established, this article has attempted to discuss and defne the geography of ocean commons and global commons.

Presently, the ocean commons are governed by a patchwork of international, regional and sectoral agreements and treaties which, in some cases, overlap and create complicated and complex issues. In some places regulatory gaps exist where no one has full authority to act. A typical case in point is the one where someregional seas conventions can establish MPAs, but fail to impose limits on activities such as fshing and seabed mining, only because other organizations are responsible for managing them. Given this fact, these protected areas cannot exclude activities that pose some of the most signifcant risks to marine life. Except the international commission which governs the Southern Ocean, there is no mechanism in existence to establish fully protected marine reserves in the high seas. Without a strong new treaty, human activities will continue to imperil or threaten the ocean and the earth. By timely developing a treaty, we can protect the biodiversity of the ocean commons for generations yet unborn. The United Nations has taken a step toward a new treaty, but much work remains to be done. The just-concluded First Session of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction marks that a turning point has been reached in relation to the future of the oceans. Time is of the essence, and negotiations should be conducted in a spirit of cooperation. It is hoped that by 2018 a new legal instrument should have been created and universally acceptable and implementable to preserve our mother sea.

The ocean commons is particularly difficult to manage. It is hard to monitor what is done in this vast and often unfriendly space, owned by no State and far from view. Given this difficulty, international institutions managing maritime issues have done a surprisingly effective job in changing the way ships are built and operated. The IMO has developed a wide range of international agreements that have led to increased safety of and decreased pollution from ships. Many of the institutions created under the law of the sea are still recent and evolving, but have, for those States that accept their mandates, shown sign of effective governance. At minimum, they have changed the way the oceans are governed internationally. How well they fare over time, and whether UNCLOS can help remedy some of the difficulties with maritime governance, remains to be seen.

In consideration of current ocean governance regimes and threats to marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, this article is convinced that sustainable development of our earth depends on remarkable approach to the management of the oceans. Firstly, sufficient human and fnancial resources should be allocated to oceans commons management. Secondly, the UNCLOS provisions, especially those relating to marine environment, should be advanced. Thirdly, a holistic approach should be adopted, based on international cooperation, to ocean governance. Cohesive international action is paramount when it comes to the management of the ocean commons beyond national jurisdiction. Preserving the oceans should go beyond mere rhetoric and frenzied international conferences and resolutions. The

international community of nations must wake up to its responsibility to provide sustainable mechanisms in tackling the challenges of oceans management.

Managing the Ocean Commons Beyond National Jurisdiction

Theodore Okonkwo*

The approach of the international community to the surrounding waters has so far been inscribed in a logic of colonization and acquiring new territories in the name of national interest. The greater number of the earth’s oceans are situated beyond the seashore or border of particular States and territories and the paucity of information concerning the oceans in the past has generated conficts among States. In this context, there is a necessity and legal burden on States to fashion out ways and means of managing the ocean commons beyond national jurisdiction. Recently, world governments met in New York for the First Session of the United Nations Preparatory Committee to discuss the elements of a new international treaty to protect biodiversity in oceans beyond national jurisdiction and report back in 2017 to the United Nations General Assembly. Discussing this momentous process to protect the high seas, this article hopes to address some of the gaps in the management of the ocean commons and raise public awareness of some critical issues facing the ocean commons governance. Since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, is the constitution of the seas, this article examines the UNCLOS provisions related to ocean management. The focus also shifts to what constitutes ocean and global commons; the legal regime of ocean commons and the role of dispute settlement mechanisms articulated under UNCLOS, with a discussion on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in the areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ).

Ocean commons; Global commons; Biodiversity; Areas beyond national jurisdiction; UNCLOS; Sustainable management; Dispute settlement mechanism

* Theodore Okonkwo，环境法博士，尼日利亚哈考特港大学法学院国际公法系主任和高级讲师。电子邮箱：t161962@gmail.com或theodore.okonkwo@uniport.edu.ng。

© THE AUTHOR AND CHINA OCEANS LAW REVIEW

* Theodore Okonkwo, Senior Lecturer and Head of Department, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Port-Harcourt, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria, Ph.D (Environmental Law). E-mail: t161962@gmail.com, theodore.okonkwo@uniport.edu.ng.

© THE AUTHOR AND CHINA OCEANS LAW REVIEW