Vasco Becker-Weinberg

海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議:亞太地區(qū)海洋劃界的替代方案

Vasco Becker-Weinberg*

在過去的幾年里,開發(fā)人類近期難以企及的深海資源的技術(shù)可行性,以及擴(kuò)大國家管轄以確保對非生物海洋自然資源之占有的渴望,已經(jīng)使得沿海國對海洋領(lǐng)域尤其是對大陸架領(lǐng)域的主張?jiān)龆唷?/p>

縱觀地球上的不同區(qū)域,亞太地區(qū)就是一個(gè)因?qū)Ｑ笥蜌獾V藏的潛在開發(fā)引發(fā)有關(guān)沿海國家之爭端的明顯例證。事實(shí)上,一方面考慮到現(xiàn)有的爭端以及該區(qū)域已劃定的海洋邊界數(shù)量,另一方面考慮到對能源需求的不斷增長,海洋油氣礦藏的開發(fā)權(quán)對亞太地區(qū)國家而言無疑已成為了一個(gè)關(guān)鍵議題。

雖然當(dāng)代國際公法尤其是海洋法對此類爭端的解決沒有規(guī)定一個(gè)直截了當(dāng)?shù)淖龇?但是國家實(shí)踐以及一些國際判例都就未決的海洋劃界問題考慮了一些臨時(shí)措施。

在某些情況下,例如共同開發(fā)協(xié)議這樣的臨時(shí)方案,已經(jīng)允許對跨界的或在主權(quán)要求重疊區(qū)域發(fā)現(xiàn)的共同海洋資源的共同開發(fā)。在帝汶海、中國東北部海域和泰國灣實(shí)施的共同開發(fā)機(jī)制即是如此。

因此,雖然已知的海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議在法律上存在差異,各自概念和法律性質(zhì)遠(yuǎn)未統(tǒng)一,但是經(jīng)全面分析這些殊異的協(xié)議,提出一個(gè)適合于亞太地區(qū)具體情況并能最終改善該地區(qū)的經(jīng)濟(jì)、政治和社會(huì)狀況的法律解決方案還是可能的。

海洋劃界 海洋油氣礦藏開發(fā) 亞太地區(qū)

一、引 言

(一)海洋劃界和海洋油氣礦藏開發(fā)

海洋油氣礦藏的位置和性質(zhì),尤其是允許它們在巖石間隙自由流動(dòng)這一在底土地質(zhì)層間的流動(dòng)性以及它們不可能停留在特定區(qū)域的性質(zhì),提出了兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上國家共同開發(fā)這一重要且獨(dú)特的法律問題。

根據(jù)當(dāng)前的海洋法,各國行使適用于各自海域的法律制度,尤其是有關(guān)生物海洋與非生物自然資源的開發(fā)法律制度項(xiàng)下的權(quán)利。

就大陸架而言,各國對開發(fā)在此發(fā)現(xiàn)的資源享有專屬且不可剝奪的權(quán)利,無論有無事先宣告或占有這一海域。①Article 77(2)in fine(3)of UNCLOS.See Nguyen Quoc DINH,Patrick DAILLER and Alain PELLET,Droit International Public,7thed.,Paris:Librairie Générale de Doit et de Jurisprudence/E.J.A.,2002,p.1192;Victor PRESCOTT,National rights to hydrocarbon resources of the continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles,in Gerald BLAKE,Martin PRATT,Clive SCHOFIELD and Janet Allison BROWN ed.,Boundaries and Energy: Problems and Prospect s,London/The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.51～52;Philip ALLOTT,Mare Nostrum:a new international Law of the Sea,American Journal of International Law,Vol.4,1992,pp.767～768;René-Jean DUPUY and Daniel VIGNES,A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea,Vol.1,Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp.315～381;Laurent LUCCHINI and Michel VOELCKEL,Droit de la Mer,La Mer et son Droit.Les espaces maritimes(t.1),ed., Paris:Pedone,1990,pp.164～169;Jean COMBACAU,Le Droit de la Mer,ed.,Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,1985,pp.58～67;Charles ROSSEAU,Droit International Public.Les Relations Internationales(t.4),ed.,Paris:Sirey,1980,pp.358～359.然而,就專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)而言,有關(guān)沿海國的權(quán)利取決于該國的事先宣告并應(yīng)被視為純粹的結(jié)果權(quán)利(相比大陸架制度而言),有關(guān)資源開發(fā)的主權(quán)權(quán)利尤其如此。②Article 56 UNCLOS.See International Law Association,Report of the International Committee on the Principles Applicable to Living Resources Occurring Both within and without the Exclusive Economic Zone or in Zones of Overlapping Claims,by Professor Dr.Rainer Lagoni(Cairo Conference 1992),pp.1～32;René-Jean DUPUY and Daniel VIGNES,A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea,Vol.1,Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp.275～307.

根據(jù)《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》,③The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,made in Montego Bay,on December 10th,1982,published at 1833 UNTS 3.距離標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的采納是為了劃分大陸架邊界,也是為了實(shí)現(xiàn)一個(gè)公平的結(jié)果,而非為了順應(yīng)海床的物理特性以及自然延伸(它們被認(rèn)為是無關(guān)的)。①Article 76 of UNCLOS.See ICJ Reports(1984),pp.261～266,pp.312～317,pp.339～344 and(1981),p.88,127;E.D.BROWN,Sea-bed Energy and Minerals:the International Legal Regime.The Continental Shelf,Vol.1,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1992,pp.19～23;L.Dolliver M.NELSON,The roles of equity in the delimitation of maritime boundaries,American Journal of International Law,Vol.84,No.4,1990,p. 846;Shigeru ODA,The Law of the Sea in Our Time-I.New Developments 1966-1975,3 Publications in Ocean Development,Leyden:A.W.Sijthoff,1977,p.254.

在海岸相鄰或相對的情況下,《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》規(guī)定劃界應(yīng)使用一條中間線,為諸如第三國出現(xiàn)等可能證明其修改正當(dāng)?shù)奶厥馇闆r留下余地,盡管海洋法公約在大陸架和專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)劃界上傾向于使用公平原則而非中間線。②Articles 74 and 83 of UNCLOS.See ICJ Reports(1985),pp.41～43,pp.56～57.

第三國對大陸架和對專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)的權(quán)利有著明顯的區(qū)別,盡管這兩種制度在國家對海床和底土的權(quán)利規(guī)定上有許多重合。即便在《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》引進(jìn)專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)制度前,已經(jīng)非常明顯的是,為了確保沿海國對海床的主權(quán)要求與第三國開發(fā)在此發(fā)現(xiàn)的其他資源如漁業(yè)資源的權(quán)利兼容,③Cecil J.B.HURST,Whose is the bed of the Sea?British Yearbook of International Law, Vol.4,1923-24,p.43.這一區(qū)別還是有必要的。

事實(shí)上,雖然兩種制度都包含對海床和底土的規(guī)定,并注重以勘探及開發(fā)自然資源為目的的主權(quán)權(quán)利,但只有大陸架制度下的權(quán)利才具有專屬性。④Articles 56(1),57 and 76(1)of UNCLOS.See Francisco ORREGO VICU?A,La zone économique exclusive dans la législation et la pratique desétats,in Droit de La Mer(v.2) (coord.)Jean COMBACAU/Pierre-Marie DUPUY ed.,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp.44～45; The Exclusive Economic Zone.Regime and Legal Nature under International Law, Cambridge/New York/Port Chester/Melbourne/Sydney:Cambridge University Press, 1989,p.71;Barbara KWIATKOWSKA,The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea,2 Publications on Ocean Development,Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1989,pp.91～92;David Joseph ATTARD,The Exclusive E-conomic Zone in International Law,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1987,pp.192～210;Julio César LUPINACCI,The legal status of the exclusive economic zone in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea,in Francisco ORREGO VICU?A ed.,The Exclusive Economic Zone.A Latin American Perspective,1 Foreign Relations of the Third World,Boulder Colorado:Westview Press,1984,pp.105～111;Hugo CAMINOS,The regime of fisheries on the exclusive economic zone,in Francisco ORREGO VICU?A ed.,The Exclusive Economic Zone.A Latin American Perspective,1 Foreign Relations of the Third World, Boulder Colorado:Westview Press,1984,pp.151～155.在專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)內(nèi),沿海國必須適當(dāng)顧及其他國家的權(quán)利和義務(wù),并且以符合這些權(quán)利、義務(wù)和自由的方式行動(dòng),但在大陸架上,只有沿海國才有權(quán)行使勘探和開發(fā)在此發(fā)現(xiàn)的非生物海洋自然資源及定居物種這一固有的、排他的主權(quán)權(quán)利,只有沿岸國明確表示同意,其他國家才能從事類似行為。這就意味著,如果沿海國選擇不勘探和開發(fā)在大陸架內(nèi)發(fā)現(xiàn)的非生物海洋自然資源及定居物種,其他任何國家未經(jīng)允許都不能這么做。①Articles 55,56 77(2)(4)and 81 of UNCLOS.

沿海國在大陸架的權(quán)利并不具有絕對性,在這個(gè)意義上,他們不知道任何限制?！堵?lián)合國海洋法公約》明確規(guī)定,沿海國對大陸架的權(quán)利不影響上覆水域以及這些水域之上的大氣空間的法律地位,也不影響其他國家諸如鋪設(shè)海底電纜和管道、航行以及開展國際合作促進(jìn)海洋科學(xué)研究活動(dòng)等的權(quán)利與自由。②Articles 58,78,79 and 87(1)(a)and Part XIII of UNCLOS.

專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)保證了這兩種制度之間的兼容性,沿海國在海床和底土上應(yīng)以符合大陸架制度規(guī)定的方式行動(dòng),不統(tǒng)攝這兩個(gè)海洋空間和簡單地補(bǔ)足它們之間的劃界。③Article 56(3)UNCLOS.See David Joseph ATTARD,The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1987,p.139.

在大陸架劃界方面,《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》包括了適用于在對200海里的主張發(fā)生重合的封閉及半封閉海域中具有(延伸的)200海里相鄰邊界或具有相對邊界國家之間劃界的規(guī)則,以及適用于群島國家之間或?qū)υ摵Ｓ虻闹鲝埌l(fā)生重合的情況劃界,且不損害未參與劃界協(xié)議的國家的權(quán)利的規(guī)則。④Article 48,76(10),83 and 134(4)and article 9 of AnnexⅡof UNCLOS.

當(dāng)主權(quán)要求產(chǎn)生重疊而各國未能對劃界達(dá)成協(xié)議時(shí),通常諸如共同開發(fā)協(xié)議這樣的臨時(shí)措施就發(fā)揮著充當(dāng)一個(gè)務(wù)實(shí)的解決辦法的作用,尤其是在開發(fā)歸屬不明的礦藏資源時(shí)。⑤Sun Pyo KIM,Maritime Delimitation and Interim Arrangements in North East Asia, Hague/London/New York:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,p.12;Rodman R. BUNDY,State practice in maritime delimitation,in Gerald H.BLAKE,ed.,World Boundaries.Maritime Boundaries(v.5),London/New York:Routledge,1994,pp.36～40; Mark J.VALENCIA,Joint jurisdiction and development in southeast Asia seas:factors and candidate areas,in Mark J.VALENCIA,ed.,Geology and Hy drocarbon Potential of the South China Sea and Possibilities of Joint Development,New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt:Pergamon Press,1985,p.575.如果油氣礦藏橫跨兩國邊界,可被界線雙方開發(fā),那么這些國家可以采取一種共同開發(fā)的方式開發(fā)共同海洋油氣礦藏。然而,如果它們未能就劃界或合作協(xié)議的達(dá)成一致,沿海國都不能從事任何對共同海洋油氣礦藏產(chǎn)生影響的行為。⑥Article 83(3)UNCLOS in fine.

各國的活動(dòng)不能是為了試圖占有或事實(shí)占有各自海域且必須適當(dāng)顧及第三國的權(quán)利。事實(shí)上,如果兩個(gè)國家同意共同開發(fā)在某一海域發(fā)現(xiàn)的海洋油氣礦藏,而第三國也對此主張權(quán)利,那么若無后者的同意或參與,有關(guān)國家不得實(shí)施該協(xié)議,否則對導(dǎo)致的損失需承擔(dān)國際責(zé)任。①ICJ Reports 1997,p.178,152.See Betsy Baker R?ben,Civil liability as a control mechanism for environmental protection at the international level,in Fred L.Morrison/Rüdiger Wolfrum ed.,International,Regional and National Environmental Law,The Hague/ London/Boston:Kluwer Law International,2000,p.836;Rüdiger WOLFRUM,Means of ensuring compliance with and enforcement of international environmental law,272;The Hague/London/New York:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1998,pp.81～82;International Law Association,Report of the International Com mittee on the Principles Applicable to Living Resources Occurring Both within and without the Exclusive Economic Zone or in Zonesof Overlapping Claims,by Professor Dr.Rainer Lagoni(Cairo Conference 1992), p.24.

此外,海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議項(xiàng)下共同開發(fā)區(qū)的劃定并不取代海洋劃界,共同開發(fā)區(qū)也不構(gòu)成對海洋邊界的臨時(shí)劃界。共同開發(fā)海洋自然資源和海洋劃界這兩個(gè)議題不應(yīng)被混淆,這兩者之間的關(guān)聯(lián)性也不應(yīng)被認(rèn)為是兩者擇其一的關(guān)系。認(rèn)為劃界是開發(fā)共同海洋自然資源的先前程序或者前提條件的假設(shè)很可能被證明是武斷的,因?yàn)樗鼈兒芸赡芄泊?甚至當(dāng)合作開發(fā)協(xié)議已經(jīng)得以成功實(shí)施,只要各國不必處理共同資源管理這一復(fù)雜而費(fèi)力的問題,從而利于對海洋劃界的解決,各國最終還是會(huì)對海洋劃界達(dá)成一致。在這些情況下,各國均期待一個(gè)允許開發(fā)海洋資源的臨時(shí)措施,海洋邊界爭端最終將不復(fù)存在或不再突顯。

根據(jù)《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第74條第3款和第83條第3款,各國實(shí)施的任何臨時(shí)措施都應(yīng)具有可操作性且不得妨害最終劃界,這必然意味著無論對爭議的海洋劃界采取何種臨時(shí)措施,最終劃界始終取決于國家之間的自愿協(xié)議。此外,第三國在共同開發(fā)區(qū)內(nèi)有權(quán)行使《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第七編規(guī)定的公海自由,盡管有國家控制并管理著這些地區(qū)。

(二)海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的概念

海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議是各國為克服海洋劃界程序和共同資源開發(fā)的障礙探索出來的兼具創(chuàng)造性和實(shí)用性的法律途徑,盡管尋求一個(gè)解決共同海洋油氣礦藏開發(fā)難題的法律方法的創(chuàng)造性和實(shí)用主義往往是經(jīng)濟(jì)驅(qū)動(dòng)的結(jié)果,而非法律驅(qū)動(dòng)的結(jié)果。因此,各國的合作是整合經(jīng)濟(jì)利益和更好更有效開發(fā)自然資源之需的成果。

考慮到現(xiàn)有對海洋劃界僵持不下的爭端數(shù)量,以及尤其考慮到巴林和沙特阿拉伯在五十多年前簽署首份協(xié)議而只有很少的協(xié)議得到實(shí)施,②Bahrain-Saudi Arabia Frontier Agreement,made on February 22nd,1958,published at UNTS 1733(1993),pp.3～13.盡管它們以前也就陸上資源共同開發(fā)考慮過這個(gè)做法,①Agreement between the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic and the Austrian Federal Government concerning the Principles of Geological Co-operation between the Czechoslovak Republic and the Republic of Austria,made in Prague,on January 23rd,1960,published at 495 UNTS 7241(1964),pp.112～122.Agreement between the Government of the Czechoslovak Republic and the Austrian Federal Government Concerning the Working of Common Deposits of Natural Gas and Petroleum,made in Prague,on January 23rd, 1960,published at 495 UNTS 7242(1964),pp.134～140.海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的數(shù)量甚少。

這可能是由于對海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的法律特點(diǎn),以及這些協(xié)議促成一個(gè)可能最終改變某一地區(qū)地緣政治環(huán)境的法律方案的優(yōu)點(diǎn)缺乏了解。在某些情況下,各國由于政治、社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)上的差異,甚至是由于缺乏促進(jìn)必要互依互靠進(jìn)而從雙邊、區(qū)域或多邊層面解決這些爭端的外交關(guān)系,拒絕、反對或不予理會(huì)其他國家解決這類爭端的嘗試。②Douglas M.JOHNSTON and Mark J.VALENCIA,Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems. Status and Solutions,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp. 24～26.在其他場合,國家會(huì)采取不同的有時(shí)是激進(jìn)的解決方案,包括軍事占領(lǐng)巖礁和島嶼以強(qiáng)化各自對爭議海域及周邊區(qū)域的要求,從而確保對在此區(qū)域發(fā)現(xiàn)的海洋自然資源的開發(fā)權(quán)的非法授予,南沙群島的情況即為一例。①Jon M.VAN DYKE,Disputes over islands and maritime boundaries in East Asia,in Seoung-Yong HONG and Jon VAN DYKE ed.,Maritime Boundary Disputes,Settlement Processes,and the Law of the Sea,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2009,pp.62～75;Alex G.Oude ELFERNIK,The Islands in the South China Sea:how does their presence limit the extent of the high seas and the Area and the maritime zones of the mainland coasts? Ocean Development and International Law,Vol.32,No.2,2001,pp.169～191;Monique CHEMILLER-GENDREAU,Sovereignty over the Parcel and Spratly Islands,The Hague/London/Boston:Kluwer Law International,2000,pp.141～143;ZOU Keyuan,The Chinese traditional maritime boundary line in the South China Sea and its legal consequences for the resolution of the dispute over the Spratly Islands,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.14,No.1,1999,pp.27～55;Mark J.VALENCIA and Jon M.VAN DYKE,Comprehensive solutions to the South China Sea disputes:some options,in Gerald BLAKE,Martin PRATT,Clive SCHOFIELD and Janet Allison BROWN ed.,Boundaries and Energy:Problems and Prospects.International Boundary Studies Series,London/The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998;Christopher C.JOYNER,The Spratly Islands dispute:rethinking the interplay of law,diplomacy,and geopolitics in the South China Sea,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.13,No.2,1998,pp.193～236;Lian A.MITO,The Timor Gap treaty as a model for joint development in the Spratly islands,American University International Law Review,Vol.13,No.3,1998,p.752;Daniel J.DZUREK,The Spratly Islands dispute:who’s on first?,Maritime Boundaries,Vol.2,No.1,1996,pp.1～67;Brian K.MURPHY,Dangerous ground:the Spratly islands and international law,Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 1994,pp.187～212;Jon M.VAN DYKEand Dale L.BENNETT,Islands and the delimitation of the Ocean Space in the South China Sea,Ocean Yearbook,Vol.10,1993,pp.54～89;Ted MCDORMAN,The South China Sea islands dispute in the 1990s-a new multilateral process and continuing friction,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.8,No.2,May 1993,pp.272～276;S.p.JAGOTA,Maritime boundary and joint development zones:emerging trends,Ocean Yearbook,Vol.10,1993,pp.126～127;Hungdah CHIU and Choon-Ho PARK,Legal status of the Parcel and Spratly Islands,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.3,No.1,1975,pp.1～28;Mark J.VALENCIA,National marine interests in Southeast Asia,in George KENT/Mark J.VALENCIA ed.,Marine Policy in Southeast Asia,Berkeley/Los Angeles/London:University of California Press,1985,pp.33～57;Jeanette GREENFIELD,China and the Law of the Sea,in James CRAWFORD and Donald R.ROTHWELL ed.,The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1995,pp. 21～40.

海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議還可能包括生物資源的勘探和開發(fā)。事實(shí)上,共同開發(fā)的概念最初即用于國際漁業(yè)管理,之后才用于海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)。

共同開發(fā)這一概念適用于大陸架和專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)。事實(shí)上,有關(guān)專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)和大陸架重疊的爭端并不一定指向海洋劃界,因?yàn)閲铱赡転榱丝碧胶烷_發(fā)各自的海洋自然資源而決定建立合作開發(fā)機(jī)制。各國可以選擇在某一特定法律框架下建立的一個(gè)或多個(gè)共同開發(fā)區(qū)里開發(fā)生物與非生物海洋自然資源,允許各國同時(shí)開發(fā)跨界油氣礦藏并實(shí)施共同的漁業(yè)儲(chǔ)備管理政策。

每個(gè)共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的法律特性都是獨(dú)特的,這使得確定或就其關(guān)鍵條款甚至是海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議這一概念的定義達(dá)成共識(shí)非常困難。

共同開發(fā)協(xié)議已被認(rèn)為是海洋劃界的一種替代選擇,允許各國在平等享有國家主權(quán)要求重疊的特定海域里發(fā)現(xiàn)的資源的同時(shí),共同參與勘探和開發(fā)油氣礦藏。①William T.ONORATO,Promoting foreign investment through international petroleum joint development regimes,ICSID Review,Vol.1,No.1,1986,pp.81～88;ZOU Keyuan, The Chinese traditional maritime boundary line in the South China Sea and its legal consequences for the resolution of the dispute over the Spratly Islands,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.14,No.1,1999,p.157.然而,這種共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的范圍并不包括最終的海洋劃界后以及當(dāng)國家要求不發(fā)生重疊時(shí)實(shí)施的那些協(xié)定。此外,當(dāng)談到建立收入或成本分擔(dān)計(jì)劃時(shí),還沒有可以參考的經(jīng)驗(yàn),因?yàn)閲铱梢愿鶕?jù)自身的利益及這些協(xié)議的實(shí)用性自行定義合作開發(fā)協(xié)議的內(nèi)容。②Mark J.VALENCIA,Joint jurisdiction and development in southeast Asia seas:factors and candidate areas,in Mark J.VALENCIA,ed.,Geology and Hy drocarbon Potential of the South China Sea and Possibilities of Joint Development,New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt:Pergamon Press,1985,p.576.

對共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的另一個(gè)看法是,兩國共同開發(fā)在國家管轄區(qū)域內(nèi)發(fā)現(xiàn)的非生物海洋自然資源的主權(quán)權(quán)利存在重合。③Mark J.VALENCIA,Taming troubled waters:joint development of oil and mineral resources in overlapping claim areas,San Diego Law Review,Vol.23,No.3,1986,p.683; Douglas M.JOHNSTON and Mark J.VALENCIA,Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems. Status and Solutions,Shigeru ODA ed.,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,p.36.Ian TOWNSEND-GAULT and William G.STORMONT,Offshore petroleum joint development arrangements:functional instrument?Compromise?Obligation?In Gerald H.BLAKE,William J.HILDESLEY,Martin A.PRATT,Rebecca J.RIDLEY and Clive H.SCHOFIELD ed.,The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources,London/Dordrecht/Boston:Graham&Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff,1995,p.51.這種觀點(diǎn)從根本上認(rèn)為介入國只能行使共同開發(fā)協(xié)議中的主權(quán)權(quán)利,這種共同開發(fā)行為的范圍只限于開發(fā)非生物海洋自然資源。④David ONG,The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol.31,2000,p.121.然而,從共同開發(fā)海洋油氣礦藏協(xié)議概念而來的共同開發(fā)生物海洋自然資源之撤銷,可能會(huì)被證明無法完全代表國家在海洋自然資源國際化方面的實(shí)踐。⑤On the internationalization of marine natural resources,see Vasco BECKER-WEINBERG, The internationalization of marine natural resources in UNCLOS,in Rainer Lagoni,Peter Ehlers and Marian Paschke ed.,Recent Developments in the Law of the Sea,Berlin/Munster/Vienna/Zurich/London:LIT Verlag,2010,pp.9～54.此外,共同開發(fā)海洋油氣礦藏協(xié)議的設(shè)想不可避免地在后者與有違此種合作的法律環(huán)境的國家主權(quán)權(quán)利之間建立起了聯(lián)系。

在共同開發(fā)海洋油氣礦藏的概念下,包括開發(fā)生物海洋自然資源看來可能令人費(fèi)解。然而,實(shí)踐已經(jīng)證實(shí),國家愿意利用在開發(fā)共同海洋油氣礦藏這一棘手問題上達(dá)成的共識(shí),從而將那些處理共同控制某一特定海域的其他相關(guān)事項(xiàng)的規(guī)定也囊括進(jìn)來。①Treaty between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe on the Joint Development of Petroleum and Other Resources in Respect of Areas of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Two States,made in Abuja,on February 21st,2001,at www.nigeriasaotomejda.com,5 March 2011.此外,各國可能會(huì)擴(kuò)大合作以包括諸如航行安全、海洋科學(xué)研究或海洋環(huán)境保護(hù)等問題。事實(shí)上,共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的現(xiàn)狀表明,它們可能還包括不屬于國家主權(quán)范圍內(nèi)的其他權(quán)利的行使,盡管其中一些協(xié)議未能明確各國同意在共同開發(fā)區(qū)內(nèi)行使的這些權(quán)利的性質(zhì),加強(qiáng)乃至推進(jìn)這些協(xié)議相比于主權(quán)權(quán)利行使在功能與實(shí)用上的意義。②Hazel FOX,Paul MCDADE,Derek Rankin REID,Anastasia STRATI and Peter HUEY ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas:A Model Agreement for States for Joint Development with Explanatory Commentary,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1989,pp.49～50.

雖然共同開發(fā)協(xié)議還只在雙邊層面實(shí)施,但是對建立多邊合作開發(fā)協(xié)議已有很多嘗試,包括在區(qū)域的框架下解決海洋劃界爭端的嘗試。③On the unsuccessful French proposal for a joint development regime with Spain and Italy as an alternative to maritime boundary delimitation,see Umberto LEANZA,The delimitation of the continental shelf of the Mediterranean Sea,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.8,No.3,1993,p.388.Also see,Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia,the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand Relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Boundaries in the Northern Part of the Strait of Malacca,published at National Legislative Series,UN Doc.No.ST/LEG/SER.B/18,p.429(1976).This agreement provides that a hydrocarbon deposit that should straddle a boundary line will only be developed after consultation between the three States.

因此從一個(gè)更廣的意義上看,共同開發(fā)協(xié)議可以被定義為:兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上的國家為勘探和開發(fā)在海洋土壤和底土中發(fā)現(xiàn)的自然資源而實(shí)施的安排。然而,鑒于當(dāng)前的國家實(shí)踐,對海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議更嚴(yán)格的法律描述將定義后者為:涉及自然資源可能被發(fā)現(xiàn)的海域,主要但不限于規(guī)定勘探和(或)開發(fā)活動(dòng)及共同管理在海床和海洋底土中發(fā)現(xiàn)的油氣礦藏,以及實(shí)施介入國認(rèn)為必要或有關(guān)的所有活動(dòng),且不損害國際法授予的第三國在先的權(quán)利和自由,由兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上有權(quán)(盡管不依賴于介入國主張的此類權(quán)利)國家簽署的、由國際法調(diào)整的、可以自我調(diào)節(jié)的合約性文件。

然而,面對不斷發(fā)展的國家實(shí)踐以及談判及加入國際協(xié)議的國家自由裁量權(quán),這個(gè)定義可能會(huì)被證明是不恰當(dāng)?shù)摹?/p>

二、亞太地區(qū)的國家實(shí)踐

(一)帝汶海

東帝汶和澳大利亞的海岸間距離大概為250海里,①Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation-Legal and Technical Aspects of Political Process,Leiven/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2003,p.358;Henry BURMESTER,Australia and the Law of the Sea,in James CRAWFORD and Donald R.ROTHWELL ed.,The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1994,pp.51～64.這就使得兩國的大陸架會(huì)發(fā)生重疊。

澳大利亞根據(jù)被淹沒的陸地至東帝汶海槽的自然延伸,對距其北部海岸150海里始終堅(jiān)持兩個(gè)大陸架的存在。②Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Spatial allocation of continental shelf rights in the Timor Sea:Reflections on maritime delimitation and joint development,in Estudos em Direito Internacional Público,ed.,Coimbra:Almedina,2004,pp.274～275,277;Victor PRESCOTT,National rights to hydrocarbon resources of the continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles,in Gerald BLAKE,Martin PRATT,Clive SCHOFIELD and Janet Allison BROWN ed.,Boundaries and Energy:Problems and Prospects,London/The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998,pp.71～72;Malcom EVANS,Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989,pp.99～118;John Robert Victor PRESCOTT,Australia’s Maritime Boundaries,Canberra:Department of International Relations/The Australian National University Canberra,1985,pp.115～117; The Political Geography of the Oceans.Problems in Modern Geography,London/Vancouver:David&Charles Newton Abbot,1975,pp.191～192;C.COOK,Filling the gapdelimiting the Australia-Indonesia maritime boundary,Australian Yearbook of International Law,Vol.10,1981-1983,pp.170～171.然而東帝汶認(rèn)為這種主張是無法接受的,正如葡萄牙和印度尼西亞之前認(rèn)為的,雖然時(shí)期不同。

參照國際法院對類似案件的裁決,東帝汶認(rèn)為帝汶海的劃界應(yīng)根據(jù)中間線,當(dāng)面臨其他海床洼地時(shí),不應(yīng)該考慮東帝汶海槽的地質(zhì)特征,因?yàn)檫@些洼地并不代表大陸架的斷裂或錯(cuò)位。①ICJ Reports(1982),p.18,pp.54～58,p.64,and(1985),p.13,pp.34～35.See Masahiro MIYOSHI,Some thoughts on maritime boundary delimitation,in Seoung-Yong HONG and Jon VAN DYKE ed.,Maritime Boundary Disputes,Settlement Processes,and the Law of the Sea,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2009,pp.108～113;Laurent LUCCHINI,La délimitation des frontières maritimes dans la jurisprudence internationale: vue d’ensemble,in Rainer LAGONI and Daniel VIGNES,ed.,Maritime Délimitation,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006,pp.4～5;David ONG,The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law,Vol.31,2000,p.79:William T. ONORATO and Mark J.VALENCIA,The new Timor Gap Treaty:legal and political implications,ICSID Review,Vol.28,2000,p.62;Mark J.VALENCI and Masahiro MIYOSHI,Southeast Asia seas:joint development of hydrocarbons in overlapping claim areas, Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.16,No.3,1986,p.228;E.D. BROWN,The Tunisia-Libya continental shelf case,Marine Policy/International Journal Ocean Affairs,Vol.7,No.3,1983,pp.145～148.此外,對自然延伸標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的采用也不應(yīng)放棄對其他標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的考慮,諸如澳大利亞的主張中沒有提出的劃界平等和劃界公平。②ICJ Reports(1985),pp.40～41.事實(shí)上,如果后者得以被成功主張,已知的帝汶海海床和底土油氣礦藏的大部份將處于澳大利亞的大陸架內(nèi),而適用中間線則將東帝汶置于非常有利的地位,因?yàn)榇蟛糠忠阎挠蜌獾V藏都靠近東帝汶海岸。③Stuart KAYE,Negotiation and dispute resolution:a case study in international boundary making-the Australia-Indonesia boundary,in Alex G.Oude ELFERINK and Donald R. ROTHWELL ed.,Oceans Management in the 21stCentury:Institutional Frameworks and Responses,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.146～147;William T. ONORATO and Mark J.VALENCIA,International cooperation for petroleum development:the Timor Gap Treaty,ICSID Review,Vol.5,No.1,1990,pp.2～3;Jonathan I. CHARNEY,International maritime boundaries for the continental shelf:the relevance of natural prolongation,in Nisuke ANDO,Edward MCWHINNEY and Rüdiger WOLFRUM ed.,Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda(Vol.2),The Hague/London/New York:Kluwer Law International,2002,p.1029;Mark J.VALENCIA and Masahiro MIYOSHI,Southeast Asia seas:joint development of hydrocarbons in overlapping claim areas,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.16,No.3,1986,p.230.在這種情況下,如果海洋劃界問題被提交至國際法院審理,澳大利亞很可能請求重新調(diào)整中間線,上述情況也幾乎肯定會(huì)引發(fā)印度尼西亞的干預(yù)。④ICJ Reports(1990/1992),(1985),pp.41～43,pp.56～57 and(1981),p.21.See David ONG,The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law,Vol. 31,2000,p.117;Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation-Legal and Technical Aspects of Political Process,Leiven/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2003,p.379.

澳大利亞、印度尼西亞和東帝汶對帝汶海的海洋劃界,在不同的場合進(jìn)行了雙邊談判,盡管澳大利亞和印度尼西亞還有其他懸而未決的海洋爭端,它們已簽署了兩份劃界協(xié)定。①Indonesia and Australia have a boundary dispute since 1953 regarding the continental between the two countries in the Sahul Shelf.第一份協(xié)議針對了巴布亞新幾內(nèi)亞和印度尼西亞的海洋劃界,②Agreement between Australia and Indonesia Concerning Certain Boundaries between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia,made in Jakarta,on February 12th,1973,published at 975 UNTS 4(1975).第二份協(xié)議針對了阿拉弗拉海的海洋劃界,設(shè)想從根本上解決海床和底土自然資源勘探和開發(fā)中的國家主權(quán)問題。③Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing Certain Seabed Boundaries,made in Canberra,on May 18th,1971,and entered into force on November 7th,1969,published at 974 UNTS 307(1975).Also see Treaty between Australia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea Concerning Sovereignty and Maritime Boundaries in the area between the Two Countries,including the area known as Torres Strait,and Related Matters,made in Sydney,on December 18th,1978,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-PNG1978TS.PDF,1 February 2011; Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary and Certain Seabed Boundaries, made in Perth,on March 14th,1997,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-IDN1997EEZ.pdf,1 February 2011; Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing Certain Seabed Boundaries in the Area of the Timor and Arafura Seas,Supplementary to the Agreement of 18 May 1971,made in Jakarta,on October 9th,1972,published at 974 UNTS 319(1957).

這兩份協(xié)議都包括自然資源條款,根據(jù)這些條款,如果任何油氣礦藏的延伸橫跨了邊界并因此能全部或部分被邊界的任一方所開采,那么兩國將就最有效開發(fā)這些資源的方式以及公平分配上述開發(fā)取得的利益的制度謀求達(dá)成協(xié)議。④Articles 6 and 7.

確立巴布亞新幾內(nèi)亞和印度尼西亞之間邊界的協(xié)議不包括東帝汶的大陸架,因?yàn)楫?dāng)時(shí)這片領(lǐng)土仍由葡萄牙統(tǒng)治。⑤Article 2 of the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia establishing certain seabed boundaries, made in Canberra,on May 18th,1971.Also see Portuguese Law 7/75,July 17th,1975.只有在1975年12月7日印度尼西亞入侵和占領(lǐng)東帝汶后,這片領(lǐng)土才開始在事實(shí)上受印度尼西亞控制。⑥Resolutions(UN Security Council)384,December 22nd,1975,389,April 22nd,1976,1236, May 7th,1999,1246,June 11th,1999,1262,August 27th,1999,1264,September 15th,1999, and 1272,October 25th,1999.Also see Indonesian Law 7,July 17th,1976,which recognizes the integration of East Timor in the State of Indonesia.This law was revoked on October 20th,1999 by an Act of the Indonesian Popular Assembly.

為了在合理管理、生物海洋資源保持和最佳利用的共同利益,這兩國還進(jìn)一步在合作機(jī)制上達(dá)成協(xié)議。①Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia relating to cooperation in fisheries,made in Jakarta,on April 22nd,1992,published at 1170 UNTS(1994),pp.288～294.Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Australia concerning the Implementation of a Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Arrangement,made in Jakarta,on October 29th,1981,and entered into force on February 1st,1982,published at Kriangsak KITTICH AISAREE,The Law of the Sea and Maritime Boundary Delimitation in South-East Asia,Oxford/New York:Oxford University Press,1987,p.198.Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Regarding the Operations of Indonesian Traditional Fishermen in Areas of the Australian Exclusive Fishing Zone and Continental Shelf,made in Jakarta,on November 7th,1974,and entered into force on February 28th,1975,at http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/apb.html,1 February 2011.在近二十年的談判未果后,澳大利亞和印度尼西亞同意推遲海洋劃界這一分歧問題并在《帝汶溝條約》的法律框架下共同開發(fā)帝汶海的自然資源。②Article 33(1)of the Timor Gap Treaty signed between Australia and Indonesia on December 11th,1989,at www.austlii.edu.au,1 February 2011.On the Timor Gap Treaty,see Masahiro MIYOSHI,The joint development of offshore oil and gas in relation to maritime boundary delimitation,2-5 Maritime Briefing/International Boundaries Research Unit, Vol.2,No.5,1999,pp.17～21;Keith SUTER,Timor Gap treaty:The continuing controversy,Marine Policy:the International Journal of Ocean Affairs,Vol.17,No.4,July 1993,pp.294～302;Francis M.AUBURN and Vivian L.FORBES,The Timor Gap treaty and the Law of the Sea Convention,Ocean Yearbook,Vol.10,1993,pp.40～53;Henry BURMESTER,The zone of co-operation between Australia and Indonesia:a preliminary outline with particular reference to applicable law,in Hazel FOX ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas,VolumeⅡ.The Institute’s Revised Model Agreement.Conference Papers,The Australia/Indonesia Zone of Co-operation Treaty 1989,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1990,pp.128～139;Ernst WILLHEIM,Australia-Indonesia sea-bed boundary negotiations:proposals for a joint development zone in the“Timor Gap”,Natural Resource Journal,Vol.29,1989,pp.821～842; Mochtar KUSUMA-ATMADJA,Joint development of oil and as by neighboring countries,in The Law of the Sea Institute,University of Hawaii,Mochtar KUSUMA-ATMADJA,Thomas A.MENSAH and Bernard H.OXMAN ed.,Sustainable Development and Preservation of the Oceans:The Challenges of UNCLOS and Agenda 21,1983,pp.592～609;John Robert Victor PRESCOTT,Australia’s Maritime Boundaries,Canberra:Department of International Relations,The Australian National University,1985,p.117; Douglas M.JOHNSTON and Mark J.VALENCIA,Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems. Status and Solutions,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp. 70～74.

《帝汶溝條約》是第一個(gè)由國家實(shí)施的廣泛共同開發(fā)海洋油氣礦藏的協(xié)議,并已成為一個(gè)其他國家所效仿的范例,如圣多美和普林西比民主共和國與尼日利亞之間存在的共同開發(fā)協(xié)議。這是一個(gè)復(fù)雜而全面的法律協(xié)議,包括了多條超出作為海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議核心內(nèi)容的規(guī)定,即建立共同開發(fā)區(qū)和負(fù)責(zé)管理在此發(fā)現(xiàn)的自然資源、授予各項(xiàng)開發(fā)權(quán)的實(shí)體,以及建立一個(gè)適用于開發(fā)資源的完全自主的法律協(xié)議。

該協(xié)議的執(zhí)行是為了滿足澳大利亞不斷增長的能源需求,以及使在國際法項(xiàng)下無法實(shí)現(xiàn)的頒發(fā)勘探帝汶海區(qū)域許可證行為合法化,類似于印度尼西亞占領(lǐng)前對于葡萄牙那樣。《帝汶溝條約》創(chuàng)設(shè)了必要的顧及勘探作業(yè)之延續(xù)及運(yùn)營者既得權(quán)利之鞏固的規(guī)范制度。①Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation-Legal and Technical Aspects of Political Process,Leiven/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2003,pp.393～396;William T.ONORATO and Mark J.VALENCIA,The new Timor Gap Treaty:legal and political implications,ICSID Review,Vol.28,2000,p. 61;Douglas M.JOHNSTON and Mark J.VALENCIA,Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems.Status and Solutions,Dordrecht/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991,pp.2～3.

1991年2月22日,《帝汶溝條約》一生效,葡萄牙就在國際法院對澳大利亞提起了訴訟,指責(zé)后者就侵犯葡萄牙在東帝汶的權(quán)利和義務(wù)、東帝汶人民的自決權(quán)向葡萄牙和東帝汶人民承擔(dān)責(zé)任,雖然這在后來未能成功。②ICJ Reports(1995)92.See Pierre-Marie DUPUY,A general stocktaking of the connections between the multilateral dimension of obligations and codification of the law of responsibility,European Journal of International Law,Vol.13,No.5,2002,p.1056; Christine M.CHINKIN,East Timor moves into the World Court,European Journal of International Law,1993,Vol.4,No.2,pp.208～218;Maria Clara MAFFEI,The case of East Timor before the International Court of Justice-some tentative comments,European Journal of International Law,Vol.4,No.2,1993,p.225,p.227,p.231;Stuart KAYE, Negotiation and dispute resolution:a case study in international boundary making-the Australia-Indonesia boundary,in Alex G.Oude ELFERINK and Donald R.ROTHWELL ed.,Oceans Management in the 21stCentury:Institutional Frameworks and Responses, Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.2～3.

隨著印度尼西亞占領(lǐng)的結(jié)束,東帝汶的領(lǐng)土由聯(lián)合國駐東帝汶過渡政府管轄。③United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor,Resolution(UN Security Council)1272,October 25th,1999.后者由聯(lián)合國駐東帝汶特派團(tuán)接續(xù),該特派團(tuán)組織負(fù)責(zé)組織了1999年10月19日開啟了東帝汶獨(dú)立進(jìn)程的廣泛諮商。④United Nations Mission in East Timor,Resolution(UN Security Council)1246,June 11th,1999.東帝汶過渡政府的司法、政治和立法職能包括了代表未來東帝汶這一國利益和經(jīng)濟(jì)活力加入國際協(xié)定的職責(zé)。⑤Secretary-General Report S/1999/1024,35,October 4th,1999.

東帝汶過渡政府和澳大利亞為使《帝汶溝條約》適應(yīng)新的現(xiàn)狀而開始談判,即一個(gè)獨(dú)立的東帝汶,通過國際公認(rèn)的東帝汶人民自決權(quán)以及對國家自然資源的主權(quán),消除了該條約中任何潛在的非法性。①On the principle of peoples’permanent sovereignty over natural resources,see Vasco BECKER-WEINBERG,A nacionaliza??o do petróleo e o princípio do aproveitamento conjunto entre Estados,Estudos de Direito Internacional e Rela??es Internacionais,Lisbon: AAFDL,2008,pp.373～398.這些談判促成了《意見交換書》及隨后于2010年2月10日簽署的關(guān)于修訂的《帝汶溝條約》的《諒解備忘錄》。②Published at David ONG,The legal status of the 1989 Australia-Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty following the end of Indonesian rule in East Timor,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law,Vol.31,2000,p.106.

《帝汶溝條約》的共同開發(fā)模式的維持,意味著保持印度尼西亞相關(guān)立法以及根據(jù)《帝汶溝條約》設(shè)立的部長理事會(huì)和聯(lián)合管理局發(fā)布的決定和指令的效力,并保護(hù)運(yùn)營者與上述聯(lián)合管理局訂立的成果分成協(xié)議項(xiàng)下運(yùn)營者取得的權(quán)利。因此,聯(lián)合國東帝汶過渡政府承擔(dān)了印度尼西亞在《帝汶溝條約》下的一切權(quán)利和義務(wù),除了有違東帝汶人民利益的規(guī)定。③Article 165 of the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of East Timor.這些條款或者被撤銷,或者被修改以適合情勢(當(dāng)這種情況有利時(shí)),如關(guān)于培訓(xùn)東帝汶國民并賦予東帝汶國民合同優(yōu)先權(quán)的義務(wù)。澳大利亞也不得不修改所有與這一新安排相反的國家立法。④Petroleum(Timor Sea Treaty)/(Consequential Amendments)/Act 2003 n.10/2003. The Petroleum(Submerged Lands)Act 1967 and the Continental Shelf(Living Natural Resources)/Amendment Act 1978.

2001年7月5日,聯(lián)合國駐東帝汶過渡政府和澳大利亞簽署了第二份《諒解備忘錄》,再次確認(rèn)了最初采用的共同開發(fā)模式,但不再依據(jù)《帝汶溝條約》,而是2000年2月10日簽署的《諒解備忘錄》中協(xié)議的《帝汶溝條約》的修訂版本,并從那時(shí)起稱之為《帝汶海條約》。⑤Timor Sea Treaty,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-TLS2002TST.PDF,1 February 2011.Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Democratic Republic of East Timor and the Government of Australia Concerning an International Unitization Agreement for the Greater Sunrise field,made in Dili,on May 20th,2002,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-TLS2002SUN.PDF,1 February 2011.Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste Concerning Arrangements for Exploration and Exploitation of Petroleum in an Area of the Timor Sea between Australia And East Timor,Dili,20 May 2002,at www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/AUS-TLS2002EX.PDF,1 February 2011.

(二)中國東北海

中國東北海是一個(gè)在海洋環(huán)境保護(hù)、航海和漁業(yè)合作上具有重要先例的區(qū)域。①Fishery Agreement between the Governments of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea,made on August 3rd,2000.Sino-Japanese Agreement on Fishery,made in November 11th,1997,entered into force on June 1st,2000.Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Russian Federation on Co-operation in the Field of the Environment,made in Moscow,on June 2nd,1994.Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan on Co-operation in the Field of Environmental Protection,made in Seoul,on June 29th,1993. Agreement on Environmental Co-operation between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the People’s Republic of China,made in Beijing,October 28th,1993.Agreement on Fishing between Japan and South Korea,made in Tokyo,on June 22nd,1965.Also see Joint Statement on Sustainable Development among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea and Joint Statement on the Tenth Anniversary of Trilateral Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,both made in Beijing,on October 10th,2009.Action Plan for Promoting Trilateral Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,made in December 13th,2008.The 2005-2006 Progress Report of the Trilateral Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,adopted by the Three-Party Committee,made in Cebu,on January 12th,2007.The Action Strategy on Trilateral Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,made on November 27th,2004.Joint Declaration on the Promotion of Tripartite Cooperation among the People’s Republic of China,Japan and the Republic of Korea,made in Bali,on October 7th,2003.然而,油氣礦藏的存在已經(jīng)被證明是一個(gè)相關(guān)國家間爭議的焦點(diǎn),尤其在有關(guān)海洋劃界方面。②On cooperation in the Northeast and Southeast Asian seas,see Mark J.VALENCIA,Relevance of lessons learned to Northeast Asia,in Mark J.VALENCIA,Maritime Regime Building.Lessons Learned and Their Relevance for Northeast Asia,Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publioshers,2001,p.145;Yoshio OTANI,Les problèmes actuels de la mer du Japon et la coopération future,in La Méditerranée et le Droit de la Meràl’aube du 21esiècle/The Mediterranean and the Law of the Sea at the dawn of the 21stcentury (dir.)Giuseppe CATALDI,Actes du colloque inaugural de la Association Internationale du Droit de la Mer(Naples,22 et 23 Mars 2001)ed.Bruylant(Brussels:2002),p.313; ZOU Keyuan,The establishment of a marine legal system in China,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.13,No.1,1998,pp.44～45.

隨著1968年一份由一群來自日本、韓國、臺(tái)灣和美國的科學(xué)家們起草的、由聯(lián)合國亞洲及遠(yuǎn)東委員會(huì)贊助的報(bào)告的發(fā)布,中國東海巨大的油氣潛力廣為人知。在上述報(bào)告公布后的一年內(nèi),日本、韓國和臺(tái)灣宣稱對發(fā)現(xiàn)油氣礦藏的大陸架的更多部分擁有主權(quán),并且就其開發(fā)迅速與石油公司達(dá)成運(yùn)營協(xié)議。事實(shí)上,早在1968年,韓國已著手劃分日本也宣稱在七個(gè)地塊上擁有主權(quán)的中國東海的一塊區(qū)域,并將開發(fā)權(quán)授予四家公司。作為回報(bào),日本也將對兩國主權(quán)要求重疊的區(qū)域的開發(fā)權(quán)授予韓國。

1970年,在缺少一個(gè)大陸架海洋劃界協(xié)議的情況下,這三個(gè)國家或地區(qū)試圖達(dá)成一個(gè)海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議,擱置海洋劃界爭端。①ZOU Keyuan,The Chinese traditional maritime boundary line in the South China Sea and its legal consequences for the resolution of the dispute over the Spratly Islands,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.14,No.1,1999,pp.161～168;Hong NONG and Wu SHICUN,The energy security of China and oil and gas exploitation in the South China Sea,in Myron H.NORDQUIST,John Norton MOORE and Kuen-chen FU ed.,Recent Developments in the Law of the Sean and China,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006,p.145;Jon M.VAN DYKE,The Republic of Korea’s maritime boundaries,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.18,No.4,2003, pp.509～540;Mark J.VALENCIA,Regional maritime regime building:prospects in northeast and southeast Asia,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol. 31,No.3,2000,pp.223～247;Relevance of lessons learned to Northeast Asia,in Mark J. VALENCIA ed.,Maritime Regime Building:Lessons Learned and Their Relevance for Northeast Asia,The Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publioshers,2001,p.143; Mark J.VALENCIA and Jon M.VAN DYKE,Comprehensive solutions to the South China Sea disputes:some options,Gerald BLAKE,Martin PRATT,Clive SCHOFIELD and Janet Allison BROWN ed.,Boundaries and Energy:Problems and Prospects.London/ The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998,pp.85～115;Jonathan CHARNEY, Central East Asian maritime boundaries and the Law of the Sea,American Journal of International Law,Vol.89,No.4,1995,pp.746～748;Zhiguo GAO,The South China Sea: from conflict to cooperation?Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol. 25,No.3,1994,p.352;Masahiro MIYOSHI,The Japan/South Korea joint development agreement 1974,in Hazel FOX ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas.VolumeⅡ.The Institute’s Revised Model Agreement.Conference Papers.The Australia/Indonesia Zone of Co-operation Treaty 1989,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1990,pp.89～97;Choon-ho PARK,Joint development of mineral resources in disputed waters:the case of Japan and South Korea in the East China Sea,in Mark J.VALENCIA ed.,The South China Sea.Hy drocarbon Potential&Possibilities of Joint Development,Oxford/New York/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt:Pergamon Press,1981,p.1335.

由于上述共同開發(fā)協(xié)議包括了中國主張主權(quán)的部分大陸架,此舉遭到了中國的反對,這反過來又導(dǎo)致美國要努力保護(hù)其已與日本、韓國和臺(tái)灣簽訂運(yùn)營協(xié)議的石油公司的權(quán)利。結(jié)果,臺(tái)灣最終退出了這一共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的三方模式,使得日本和韓國就雙邊共同開發(fā)協(xié)議進(jìn)行談判。②Paul C.YUAN,China’s offshore oil development policy and legislation:an overall analysis,The International Journal of Estuary and Coastal Law,Vol.3,No.2,1988,pp.101～137.

經(jīng)過近三年的劃界磋商和對有關(guān)沖繩灣問題二十多年的劃界分歧后,在1974年,日本和韓國簽署了兩項(xiàng)協(xié)議,結(jié)束了兩國在中國東海大陸架劃界上的海洋爭端。①Seo-Hang LEE,Korea’s claims to maritime jurisdiction,Korean Journal of Comparative Law,Vol.18 1990,p.70;Choon-h PARK,East Asia and the Law of the Sea,4thed,Seoul: Seoul National University Press,1988,pp.131～132.韓國認(rèn)為,日本在中國東海的大陸架應(yīng)該止于海灣,后者邊界的一部分應(yīng)劃于韓國和中國之間。但日本認(rèn)為,應(yīng)按照1958年《日內(nèi)瓦大陸架公約》規(guī)定的等距離原則,不應(yīng)把沖繩灣作為劃界的一個(gè)決定性因素。②Convention on the Continental Shelf,made in Geneva,on April 29th,1958,published at 499 UNTS(1964),p.311.

這兩項(xiàng)協(xié)議是各國在區(qū)分對待海洋劃界和海洋自然資源開發(fā)上達(dá)到的結(jié)果,使得能夠在國家主張沒有重疊的區(qū)域就海洋劃界、在主權(quán)宣稱重疊的地區(qū)對已發(fā)現(xiàn)的海洋油氣礦藏實(shí)施共同開發(fā)達(dá)成協(xié)議,盡管中國反對這一合作。③Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Establishment of Boundary in the Northern Part of the Continental Shelf Adjacent to the Two Countries, made in Seoul,on February 5th,1974,published at 1225 UNTS(1981),pp.104～105.A-greement between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning Joint Development of the Southern Part of the Continental Shelf Adjacent to the Two Countries,made in Seoul,on January 30th,1974,published at 1225 UNTS(1981),pp.114～126.See Masahiro MIYOSHI,The Japan-South Korea agreement on joint development of the continental shelf,in Mark J.VALENCIA ed.,Geology and Hydrocarbon of the South China Sea and Possibilities of Joint Development,Proceedings of the Second EAPI/CCOP Workshop.East-West Center,Honolulu,Hawaii,22-26 August 1983,New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt:Pergamon Press,1985,pp.551～552.此外,兩國同意不將最初宣稱的把日本海內(nèi)的竹島考慮在海洋劃界內(nèi),同時(shí)大陸架劃界協(xié)定不影響上覆水域和大氣空間的法律地位。④Article 3 of the 1974 Maritime Delimitation Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea.這份協(xié)議也包括一個(gè)自然資源條款,根據(jù)該條款,各國將努力就跨界油氣礦藏開發(fā)達(dá)成協(xié)議,在協(xié)議未能達(dá)成的情況下,根據(jù)任一國的要求,受命的仲裁員將對最有效開發(fā)上述油氣礦藏的方法做出裁決。⑤Article 2 of the 1974 Maritime Delimitation Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

由于日本需要修改其國內(nèi)立法以適應(yīng)協(xié)議規(guī)定的義務(wù),同時(shí)各國擔(dān)憂在共同開發(fā)區(qū)內(nèi)的傳統(tǒng)漁業(yè)的保護(hù)問題以及后者位于臺(tái)風(fēng)和熱帶氣旋易發(fā)生區(qū)域這一事實(shí),海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的實(shí)施被推遲了。⑥South Korea ratified the agreement on December 1974,while Japan only in June 1978. The joint development agreement entered into force on June 22nd,1978 and the first development operation took place only in May 1979.See Masahiro MIYOSHI,The Japan/ South Korea joint development agreement 1974,in Hazel FOX ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas.VolumeⅡ.The Institute’s Revised Model Agreement.Conference Papers.The Australia/Indonesia Zone of Co-operation Treaty 1989,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1990,pp.545,549～550.

日本和韓國在朝鮮海峽的界線各自劃定后,雙方簽署的海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議立即在兩國大陸架南部創(chuàng)建了一個(gè)共同開發(fā)區(qū)。

為便日本和韓國授權(quán)的特許運(yùn)營者的勘探和開發(fā)活動(dòng),共同開發(fā)區(qū)可能被劃分為亞區(qū)。特許運(yùn)營者們經(jīng)國家批準(zhǔn)依次加入運(yùn)營協(xié)議,以便共同開展這些活動(dòng),有權(quán)平等分享共同開發(fā)區(qū)內(nèi)提取的自然資源,并按相同比例承擔(dān)各項(xiàng)費(fèi)用。在這種情況下,這些資源被認(rèn)為是在特許運(yùn)營者本國大陸架提取的,為了譬如稅收的目的,適用的法律為該國法律。

與這樣的運(yùn)營協(xié)議有關(guān)的一個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)是,特許運(yùn)營者不得不同意一個(gè)爭端解決機(jī)制,并調(diào)整勘探和開發(fā)活動(dòng)以適應(yīng)漁業(yè)利益。在這種情況下,為保證這樣的爭議不會(huì)持久并且最終不會(huì)對勘探和開發(fā)活動(dòng)產(chǎn)生影響,各國達(dá)成一種強(qiáng)制性機(jī)制是更有利的。

該協(xié)議在國家和由后者授權(quán)的特許運(yùn)營者間建立了直接的關(guān)系,適用該國可以適用的國內(nèi)法。例如一國可能依照其法律法規(guī)并與其他國家協(xié)商取締特許運(yùn)營者的勘探或開發(fā)權(quán)。為處理好各自勘探和開發(fā)活動(dòng)的一切運(yùn)作,特許運(yùn)營者應(yīng)根據(jù)各自的運(yùn)營協(xié)議中指定操作人員。

根據(jù)共同開發(fā)協(xié)議設(shè)立的日本—大韓民國聯(lián)合委員會(huì)只是充任兩國在履行該協(xié)議上的咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)。該機(jī)構(gòu)每年召開一次會(huì)議,其建議對各國不具有約束力。

日本和韓國并沒有規(guī)定一個(gè)適用于海洋環(huán)境保護(hù)的共同協(xié)議,只是規(guī)定兩國同意采取措施防止海洋碰撞及防止和消除共同開發(fā)區(qū)的勘探和開發(fā)活動(dòng)造成的海洋污染。在海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議后簽署的意見交換書提及的措施是僅有的共同措施。

該協(xié)議還包括一個(gè)自然資源條款,規(guī)定特許運(yùn)營者們應(yīng)通過協(xié)商并經(jīng)國家批準(zhǔn),就最有效開發(fā)可能超過共同開發(fā)區(qū)邊界的油氣礦藏的方法謀求達(dá)成一項(xiàng)協(xié)議。如果特許運(yùn)營者們不能達(dá)成協(xié)議,兩國在必要的協(xié)商后提出一個(gè)共同的建議。

其他東北亞國家關(guān)心的一個(gè)問題是,據(jù)報(bào)告,中國和朝鮮已同意在黃海實(shí)施海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議。此外,中國和日本就共同開發(fā)中國東海海洋油氣礦藏尚未達(dá)成一致意見,盡管兩國長期認(rèn)可只有合作才有可能為現(xiàn)有海洋劃界爭端提供一個(gè)解決辦法。①GAO Jianjun,A note on the 2008 cooperation consensus between China and Japan in the East China Sea,in Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.40.2009, pp.291～296;ZOU Keyuan,Implementing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in East Asia:issues and trends,Singapore Year Book of International Law,Vol. 9,2005,p.6;DENG Xiaoping,Speech at the third plenary session of the Central Advisory Commission of the Communist Party of China,October 22,1984,in 3 Selected Works of DENG Xiaoping,Beijing:Foreign Languages Press,1984.Also see Communiquéby the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China“China’s Path of Peaceful Development and Its View of Regional Security”,Speech by Ambassador Zhang Junsai,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zwjg/zwbd/t520658.htm,1 March 2011.

1997年,中國和日本簽署了一份適用于兩國專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)內(nèi)合作捕魚的新協(xié)議,據(jù)此每個(gè)國家簽發(fā)許可證允許對方國家的漁船在各自專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)開展捕魚活動(dòng)。根據(jù)這項(xiàng)協(xié)議,兩國應(yīng)在根據(jù)漁業(yè)協(xié)定設(shè)立的日中聯(lián)合漁業(yè)委員會(huì)上進(jìn)行協(xié)商,以確定許可證的簽發(fā)的條件。這項(xiàng)協(xié)議進(jìn)一步規(guī)定,每個(gè)國家應(yīng)采納并告知對方國家適用于各自專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)的保護(hù)措施。此外,各國合作開展?jié)O業(yè)和海洋生物資源保護(hù)科學(xué)研究,以及在一國國民或漁船在對方國家專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)內(nèi)遭受海難時(shí)盡可能提供援助和保護(hù)。

該協(xié)議還在專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)內(nèi)國家主張重疊以及沒有最終達(dá)成劃界協(xié)議的地方建立一個(gè)臨時(shí)措施區(qū)。①On cooperative fishing agreements between China and Japan,see Park Hee KWON,The Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia,The Hague/London/Boston:Kluwer Law International,2000,pp.51～57.An unofficial translation of the text of the agreement is published at pp.208～213.在這種情況下,由于協(xié)議只對中國和日本有強(qiáng)制力,也在該區(qū)域開展捕魚活動(dòng)的韓國國民和漁船將不適用漁業(yè)協(xié)定的規(guī)定,引發(fā)對生物資源利用的擔(dān)心。

次年,韓國和日本簽署了適用于兩國專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)但不包括待劃界的以及與1974年共同開發(fā)區(qū)部分重疊的海域的第二項(xiàng)漁業(yè)協(xié)議。

為讓各國了解可捕的物種、捕撈的配額、可捕魚的區(qū)域以及其他適用于一國國民和漁船在對方專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)的情況,此漁業(yè)協(xié)定還建立了韓日聯(lián)合漁業(yè)委員會(huì)。各國應(yīng)進(jìn)一步合作保護(hù)海洋生物資源。②On cooperative fishing agreement between South Korea and Japan,see Park Hee KWON, The Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia,The Hague/London/Boston:Kluwer Law International,2000,pp.57～66.An unofficial translation of the text of the agreement is published at pp.215～223.

此外,在同一年,中國和韓國簽署了一個(gè)適用于兩國在黃海專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)以及臨時(shí)措施區(qū)和過渡區(qū)的新漁業(yè)協(xié)定。此漁業(yè)協(xié)議規(guī)定,一國的國民和漁船在對方專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)開展捕魚活動(dòng),要遵循后者簽發(fā)的許可證和由該協(xié)議建立的中韓聯(lián)合漁業(yè)委員會(huì)提出的建議。③On cooperative fishing between China and South Korea,see Park Hee KWON,The Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia,The Hague/London/Boston:Kluwer Law International, 2000,pp.66～72.

(三)泰國灣

1979年,泰國和馬來西亞簽署了一項(xiàng)《諒解備忘錄》,為開發(fā)國家主權(quán)要求重疊的泰國灣大陸架海床資源建立了一個(gè)聯(lián)合管理局。①M(fèi)emorandum of Understanding between the Kingdom of Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority for the Exploitation of the Resources of the Sea-bed in a defined Area of the Continental Shelf of the Two Countries in the Gulf of Thailand, made in Chiang Mai,on February 21st,1979,published at Phiphat TANGSUBKUL, ASEAN and the Law of the Sea,Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,1982, pp.130～133.See Clive SCHOFIELD and May TAN-MULLINS,Maritime claims,conflicts and cooperation in the Gulf of Thailand,Ocean Yearbook,Vol.22,2008,pp.75～116; David ONG,Thailand/Malaysia.Joint development agreement 1990,The International Journal of Estuary and Coastal Law,Vol.6,No.1,1991,pp.61～63;Ian TOWNSENDGAULT,The Malaysia/Thailand Joint Development Arrangement,in Hazel FOX ed., Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas.VolumeⅡ.The Institute’s Revised Model Agreement.Conference Papers.The Australia/Indonesia Zone of Co-operation Treaty 1989,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1990,pp.102～107.The joint development area established under this Mo U has been duly considered when establishing the maritime boundaries between Thailand and Vietnam.See Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between the Two Countries in the Gulf of Thailand,made in Bangkok,on August 9th,1997,published at Jonathan I.CHARNEY and Robert W.SMITH,The American Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.4),The Hague/London/New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2002,pp.2692～2694.同時(shí),兩國根據(jù)1978年2月27日至3月1日召開的“泰國灣和中國南海大陸架馬泰劃界會(huì)議”通過的指導(dǎo)方針,就上述《諒解備忘錄》項(xiàng)下的共同開發(fā)區(qū)大陸架劃界展開談判。②R.HALLER-TROST,The Contested Maritime and Territorial Boundaries of Malaysia.An International Law Perspective,London/The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998,pp.350～359;Ted MCDORMAN,Malaysia-Vietnam,in Jonathan I. CHARNEY and Lewis M.ALEXANDER,The American Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.3),Report Number 5-19,The Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.2335～2344.

同年,兩國簽署了第二份《諒解備忘錄》,在進(jìn)一步承諾繼續(xù)談判達(dá)成最終劃界的同時(shí),確定了兩國在泰國灣大陸架劃界上還需要考慮的問題。③Articles 1 and 3 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Kingdom of Thailand and Malaysia on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Boundary between the Two Countries in the Gulf of Thailand,made in Kuala Lumpur,on October 24th,1979,at www. un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/THAMYS1979CS.PDF,1 March 2011.第二份《諒解備忘錄》還包括一個(gè)自然資源條款,規(guī)定這兩國應(yīng)合尋求達(dá)成有效開發(fā)可能跨界的油氣礦藏協(xié)議,公平分擔(dān)一切招致的費(fèi)用和收益。④Article 4 of the 1979 MoU between Thailand and Malaysia on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Boundary.

設(shè)立的聯(lián)合管理局的《諒解備忘錄》規(guī)定,如果各國在其期限屆滿之前就泰國灣大陸架的劃界達(dá)成協(xié)議,這個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)將終止,其收益和資產(chǎn)以及其虧損和債務(wù)由兩國均分。如果各國不能就劃界達(dá)成一致,合作開發(fā)協(xié)議將自動(dòng)接續(xù)相同期限,如果《諒解備忘錄》中沒有另行規(guī)定。①Article 6(2)of the 1979 Mo U between Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority.

此外,該《諒解備忘錄》規(guī)定,如果資源的共同開發(fā)表明將更具成本效益,各國可能最終同意重新談判并訂立一個(gè)新的共同開發(fā)協(xié)議,而非各自開展近岸開發(fā)活動(dòng),尤其考慮到油氣礦藏跨界這一可能。②Article 6(1)of the 1979 Mo U between Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority.

然而,由于泰國在實(shí)施合作開發(fā)協(xié)議上經(jīng)驗(yàn)不足以及兩國在協(xié)調(diào)有關(guān)國內(nèi)油立法、共同開發(fā)區(qū)的開發(fā)權(quán)應(yīng)當(dāng)如何授予運(yùn)營者上的困難,各國未能就聯(lián)合管理局的自治程度達(dá)成一致。③D.H.ARIFFIN,The Malaysian philosophy of joint development,in Mark J.VALENCIA ed.,Geology and Hy drocarbon of the South China Sea and Possibilities of Joint Development,Proceedings of the Second EAPI/CCOP Workshop,East-West Center,Honolulu,Hawaii,August 22ndto 26th,1983,New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfort:Pergamon Press,1985,p.534.泰國為此提議運(yùn)用傳統(tǒng)的特許運(yùn)營模式,但馬來西亞鑒于其海洋石油開發(fā)上已獲得的經(jīng)驗(yàn)則認(rèn)為成果分成協(xié)議更加適合。④David ONG,The 1979 and 1990 Malaysia-Thailand joint development agreements:a model for international legal co-operation in common offshore petroleum deposits?The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.14,No.2,May 1999,pp.228～230;Zhiguo GAO,International Petroleum Contracts.Current Trends and New Directions,London:Grahm&Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff,1994,pp.23～57.

隨著啟動(dòng)并詳細(xì)規(guī)定了聯(lián)合管理局權(quán)力的第二個(gè)共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的實(shí)施,這些國家在1990年將只在這個(gè)問題上達(dá)成協(xié)議,但各國選擇對第一份《諒解備忘錄》授予這個(gè)實(shí)體的權(quán)力和自治權(quán)進(jìn)行限制,使得后者成為一個(gè)只具有象征性而非執(zhí)行性的角色。⑤Agreement between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand on the Constitution and Other Matters Relating to the Establishment of the Malaysia-Thailand Joint Authority,made in Kuala Lumpur,on May 30th,1990,published at Jonathan I.CHARNEY and Lewis M.ALEXANDER,The American Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.1),Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1993,pp.1111～1123.事實(shí)上,雖然最初的聯(lián)合管理局具有必要之職權(quán)以采取必要之最大化共同開發(fā)區(qū)收益的行動(dòng),但是根據(jù)第二個(gè)《諒解備忘錄》,只尋求授予聯(lián)合管理局管理勘探和開發(fā)共同開發(fā)區(qū)非生物自然資源活動(dòng)的權(quán)力,這可能是各國擔(dān)憂聯(lián)合管理局行政色彩過濃的結(jié)果。⑥Article 3(2)of the 1979 Mo U between Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority.

泰國和馬來西亞在第二份《諒解備忘錄》中就授予運(yùn)營者在共同開發(fā)區(qū)的勘探和開發(fā)權(quán)采用成果分成合同,及采用的稅收和財(cái)政法規(guī)達(dá)成了協(xié)議。⑦Articles 8,9 to 12,16,17 of the 1979 MoU between Thailand and Malaysia in the Establishment of a Joint Authority.

1992年,馬來西亞和越南簽署了一項(xiàng)《諒解備忘錄》,就共同開發(fā)《諒解備忘錄》中相應(yīng)確認(rèn)的在泰國灣大陸架指定區(qū)域發(fā)現(xiàn)的海洋油氣礦藏確立了一個(gè)簡單的安排。①M(fèi)emorandum of Understanding between Malaysia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for the Exploration and Exploitation of Petroleum in a Defined Area of the Continental Shelf Involving the Two Countries,made in Kuala Lumpur,June 5th,1992,published at Jonathan I.CHARNEY and Lewis M.ALEXANDER ed.,The American Society of International Law,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.3),The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.2341～2344.根據(jù)這一《諒解備忘錄》,兩國同意各國的石油公司在指定區(qū)域合作從事勘探和開發(fā)活動(dòng),產(chǎn)生的一切費(fèi)用及獲得的一切收益由兩國平等承擔(dān)和分享。此外,上述《諒解備忘錄》進(jìn)一步規(guī)定,如果一個(gè)油田部分位于指定區(qū)域、部分位于馬來西亞或越南的大陸架,那么這些國家將達(dá)成雙方都能接受的開發(fā)這些資源的條款。②Articles 2,3 and 8(d)(e)of the Mo U between Malaysia and Vietnam.

2001年,柬埔寨和泰國就主張重疊的泰國灣大陸架海域簽署了一項(xiàng)《諒解備忘錄》,③Memorandum of Understanding between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the Royal Thai Government regarding the Area of Their Overlapping Maritime Claims to the Continental Shelf,made in Phnom Penh,on June 18th,2001,published at David A.COLSON and Robert W.SMITH,The American Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.5),Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2005,pp. 3745～3746.然而兩國后來就共同開發(fā)此區(qū)域發(fā)現(xiàn)的海洋油氣礦藏以及《諒解備忘錄》中確定的領(lǐng)海、大陸架、專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)海域劃界達(dá)成協(xié)議。④1 and 2 of the Mo U between Cambodia and Thailand.為了起草實(shí)施合作開發(fā)協(xié)議以及解決上述海域劃界問題,這些國家進(jìn)一步同意建立一個(gè)聯(lián)合技術(shù)委員會(huì)。⑤3 of the Mo U between Cambodia and Thailand.

最后,還應(yīng)提到的是,柬埔寨和越南簽署了協(xié)議建立共同的歷史性水域,兩國借此同意共同開發(fā)區(qū)歷史水域中發(fā)現(xiàn)的自然資源的開發(fā)由共同協(xié)議確定。⑥Agreement on Historic Waters of Vietnam and Kampuchea,made in Ho Chi Minh City,on July 7th,1982,published at Jonathan I.CHARNEY and Lewis M.ALEXANDER,The A-merican Society of International Law ed.,International Maritime Boundaries(Vol.3), The Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2004,pp.2364～2365.

三、海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的前提和原則

在前面提到的這三個(gè)地區(qū),我們可以確定導(dǎo)致各國通過和實(shí)施海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的各種情況。認(rèn)識(shí)這些情況與了解各國在共同開發(fā)區(qū)的權(quán)利性質(zhì)以及確定海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)這一概念的法律性質(zhì)及其在國際法下的意義密切相關(guān),特別是在主張重疊的情況下。

亞太地區(qū)海洋劃界的不同爭端,除了與島嶼和其他以沿海國對各自海域主張主權(quán)權(quán)利為特征的領(lǐng)土爭端,大多與基于地貌和地質(zhì)方面的重疊主張有關(guān)。事實(shí)上,各國傾向在上述區(qū)域?qū)?shí)施共同開發(fā)協(xié)議作為超越?jīng)_突的海洋主張和領(lǐng)土爭端之存在而導(dǎo)致的僵局的辦法,尤其考慮到這些爭端解決可以通過談判以及最終通過第三國的同意或介入,將最終導(dǎo)致與具有能源野心的國家(至少)長期不容的過程。此外,有關(guān)國家需要建立一個(gè)法律框架解決運(yùn)營權(quán)的非法授予這一事實(shí),使得沿海國無需根據(jù)國際法就有權(quán)這樣做。

大陸架的固有性和專屬性是“土地主導(dǎo)海洋”①ICJ Reports(1978)37,86.這種認(rèn)識(shí)的結(jié)果,只要沿海國與其他國家在適用于大陸架劃界的距離標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的主張不相悖或是相符的,一國開發(fā)與勘探大陸架自然資源的主權(quán)權(quán)利與其在陸地上的權(quán)利明顯相關(guān)聯(lián)。如果重疊的主張?jiān)从?例如大陸架相對或相鄰各國可能無法勘探底土和海底區(qū)域,也不能為此授予鉆探權(quán)。②Article 81 of UNCLOS.

當(dāng)考慮到導(dǎo)致各國訂立海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的不同情況,一個(gè)必然的結(jié)論是,各國需共同努力加強(qiáng)合作,因?yàn)楹献魇且环N需要而不是義務(wù),也沒有第三方迫使國家這樣做。此外,各國根據(jù)他們的自由裁量權(quán),而非對《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第74(3)和83(3)的某種解釋假設(shè)的訂立臨時(shí)協(xié)議的責(zé)任,進(jìn)行談判并就這些協(xié)議的內(nèi)容達(dá)成一致。

實(shí)施共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的國家間合作先例的存在不應(yīng)該被視為確立了一項(xiàng)以共同開發(fā)協(xié)議形式規(guī)定的合作義務(wù),也不應(yīng)該被視為一個(gè)為此決定后者成功與否的因素。存在共同開發(fā)協(xié)議在沒有任何合作先例的情況下得以成功實(shí)施的例子,也存在共同開發(fā)協(xié)議在有這樣的先例無法成功實(shí)施的例子,即有生物海洋自然資源的共同管理的先例,各國也未能實(shí)施海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議。

然而,兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上國家或在《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》中許多條款規(guī)定的區(qū)域框架內(nèi)的合作的存在,必然提供了國家間互動(dòng)并愿意建立可能最終擱置海洋劃界爭端的解決路徑。③Articles 63(3),64(1),65,66(2)(4),69(3),74(3),83(3),100,117,118,119,123,194(1), 197,200,242,266,270 and 273 of UNCLOS.然而,并沒有共同非生物自然資源開發(fā)的義務(wù),在海洋劃界發(fā)生爭端的情況下尤其如此。④ICJ Reports 1982,Judge Evensen’s Dissenting Opinion,320～321.See Vasco BECKERWEINBERG,The internationalization of marine natural resources in UNCLOS,in Rainer Lagoni,Peter Ehlers and Marian Paschke ed.,Recent Developments in the Law of the Sea,Berlin/Munster/Vienna/Zurich/London:LIT Verlag,2010,pp.29～40.事實(shí)上,盡管很多海洋邊界懸而未決,很多共同開發(fā)協(xié)議已經(jīng)被實(shí)施了,很多國家在合作開發(fā)協(xié)議的保障下進(jìn)行海洋開發(fā)活動(dòng)的同時(shí)試圖解決海洋劃界爭端。①In a different view,see Zhiguo GAO,The legal concept and aspects of joint development in international law,in Ocean Yearbook,Vol.13,1998,pp.112～113;Legal aspects of joint development in international law,in Mochtar KUSUMA-ATMADJA,Thomas A.MENSAH and Bernard H.OXMAN,ed.Sustainable Development and Preservation of the O-ceans:The Challenges of UNCLOS and Agenda 21,The Law of the Sea Institute,University of Hawaii,1983,p.633.

共同開發(fā)海洋油氣礦藏和海洋劃界的差異也由這一事實(shí)佐證:后者并不確立國家在油氣礦藏橫跨界限時(shí)有訂立共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的義務(wù),也不確立國家有訂立包括自然資源條款的海洋劃界協(xié)議的義務(wù)。

與國家之間締結(jié)的任何其他國際協(xié)定類似,海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議要求各國按照一般的條約法采取行動(dòng),踐行可適用的國際法原則,如條約必須遵守,合作和善意等原則。國際法理論一般認(rèn)為,在這種情況下,合作原則對于兩個(gè)沿海鄰國的要求具體為共享共同資源的存在信息,包括當(dāng)開發(fā)某種資源的活動(dòng)可能會(huì)影響對方國家的利益時(shí),有義務(wù)告知此類開發(fā)活動(dòng)的意圖。②Mark J.Valencia,Regional maritime regime building:prospects in northeast and southeast Asia,Ocean Development and International Law,Vol.31,No.3,2000,p.224;Rodman R. Bundy,Natural resource development(oil and gas)and boundary disputes,in Gerald H. Blake,William J.Hildesley,Martin A.Pratt,Rebecca J.Ridley and Clive H.Schofield ed., The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources,London/Dordrecht/Boston:Graham&Trotman,1995,pp.36,39;ICJ Reports 1974,pp.35～36.因此,在沒有規(guī)定各國談判及和平解決爭端的義務(wù)的情況下,合作原則并不是一國通過并實(shí)施共同油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議之義務(wù)的法律淵源。③Articles 279 and 299 UNCLOS.See ICJ Reports 1974,p.33,74 and 75,pp.35～36.事實(shí)上,雖然《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》沒有規(guī)定締約義務(wù),但是它規(guī)定了談判義務(wù),其范圍可概括如下:國家必須秉持善意參與談判直至達(dá)成協(xié)議。④Articles 63(1),74(3),83(3),117,118 and 123 of UNCLOS.See Rainer Lagoni,Report of the International Committee on the EEZ,in International Law Association ed.,Report of the Sixty-Fifth Conference:Cairo(1992),p.5.

在善意原則之下,各國必須秉持善意采取行動(dòng)和參與談判,以達(dá)成一個(gè)可以接受的結(jié)果,在非為執(zhí)行一項(xiàng)協(xié)議的情況下,進(jìn)行國際法項(xiàng)下有意義而合法的談判。①Article 2(2)of the Charter of the United Nations.Articles 74(3)and 83(3)of UNCLOS.See,ICJ Reports 1982,Judge Gros’Dissenting Opinion,3 and 4;ICJ Reports 1974,pp.35～36 and 1969,48 and 85;ICJ Reports 1969,48 and Judge Jessup’Separate Opinion,80.Also see Peter D.Cameron,The rules of engagement:developing cross-border petroleum deposits in the North Sea and the Caribbean,International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Vol.55,2006,p.567;Jon M.Van Dyke,Sharing Ocean Resources:In a Time or Scarcity and Selfishness,in Harry N.Scheiber ed.,Law of the Sea:The Common Heritage and Emerging Challenges,The Hague/London/Boston 2000,pp.26～35; E.D.Brown,The International Law of the Sea,V.1 Introductory Manual,Aldershot/ Brookfield USA/Singapore/Sydney:Dartmouth Publishing Company,1994,pp.158～159; René-Jean DUPUY and Daniel VIGNES,A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea,Vol. 1,Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1991,pp.477～486;Rainer Lagoni,Interim measures pending maritime delimitation agreements,American Journal of International Law,Vol.78,No.2,1984,pp.355～358;also see International Law Association,Report of the International Com mittee on the Principles Ap plicable to Living Resources Occurring Both within and without the Exclusive Economic Zone or in Zones of Overlapping Claims,by Professor Dr.Rainer Lagoni(Cairo Conference 1992),p.29.

各國進(jìn)一步承擔(dān)著相互制約的義務(wù),這意味著不得實(shí)施或放棄實(shí)施任何可能破壞或使任何開發(fā)此類資源的解決方案不可能、不得實(shí)施或放棄實(shí)施任何可能破壞或使選定達(dá)成一個(gè)具體解決方案之方法不可能的責(zé)任。②Juraj Andrassy,Les relations internationales de voisinage,79 Recueil des Cours(1951-Ⅱ),p.110.因此,未經(jīng)所有有關(guān)國家同意,各國不得在談判期間繼續(xù)或從事共有油氣礦藏開發(fā)。

適用善意原則另一個(gè)需要考慮的方面是,每個(gè)國家都有權(quán)被告知在后者主權(quán)或管轄權(quán)或主張重疊的區(qū)域可能發(fā)現(xiàn)的資源的存在和位置,當(dāng)然秘密信息除外。③Article 302 of UNCLOS.See Rainer Lagoni,Oil and gas deposits across national frontiers,American Journal of International Law,Vol.73,No.1,1979,p.237.比例原則的主要原因不言自明。如果這樣的義務(wù)不存在,這對不了解上述信息的國家來說將非常不利,使得談判結(jié)果不公平。

四、海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議在亞太地區(qū)的的前景

國際法就共同油氣礦藏開發(fā)沒有規(guī)定可行的解決方案,也沒有指明特定的后果,而是在前面所述的條款中規(guī)定了合作的一般義務(wù)。因此,在尋求一個(gè)可能最終會(huì)實(shí)現(xiàn)理性繁榮的明智而務(wù)實(shí)的成果更可取的情況下,它將始終取決于國家雙邊、多邊或區(qū)域?qū)用鎸で蟛喬貐^(qū)海床和底土的海洋財(cái)富共同開發(fā)達(dá)成一致這一法律解決方案,而不是堅(jiān)持分裂的立場,并用不切實(shí)際的獨(dú)占來延續(xù)僵局。

考慮到亞太地區(qū)大部分的海洋劃界都很困難,也許是一個(gè)無法完成的任務(wù),海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議可以規(guī)定必要的法律框架,借此在堅(jiān)持尊重這一地區(qū)所有國家的獨(dú)立和領(lǐng)土完整的同時(shí),國家可以從油氣礦藏開發(fā)中獲益,又不損害各自的主權(quán)要求。①On the difficulties facing maritime delimitation in the South China Sea and in particular regarding the delimitation of boundaries between South Pacific States and between East Asian States,see Steven Kuan-Tsyh YU,The law of EEZ/Shelf boundary delimitation:the practice of States in the South China Sea,in Chinese Society of International Law ed.,Proceedings of the International Law Association(ILA)First Asian-Pacific Regional Conference,1996,pp.45～48;Donald R.ROTHWELL,The law of the sea in the Asian-Pacific region:an overview of trends and developments,in Chinese Society of International Law ed.,Proceedings of the International Law Association(ILA)First Asian-Pacific Regional Conference,1996,p.58.Both these Authors recognize the innovative character of joint development agreements regarding maritime delimitation disputes.Also see Victor PRESCOTT and Clive SCHOFIELD,Undelimited maritime boundaries of the Asian Rim in the Pacific Ocean,Maritime Boundaries,Vol.3,No.1,2001,pp.1～68.

東盟是此種區(qū)域努力的必要示范,東南亞地區(qū)越來越多的人意識(shí)到海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的好處,建立可以進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)東帝汶與該組織的聯(lián)系的國家間高層次互動(dòng),從而增加了富有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的國家數(shù)量,增強(qiáng)了對以非生物海洋自然資源國際化這種形式為代表的優(yōu)勢的理解。事實(shí)上,建立一個(gè)東盟共同發(fā)展合作委員會(huì)或開發(fā)共同的海洋油氣礦藏的政府間組織,可能會(huì)促進(jìn)自我約束并因此帶來資源開發(fā)地區(qū)的穩(wěn)定,②The ASEAN Charter;The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, made on November 4th,2002.The Philippines Proposal dated August 16th,1999 of the ASEAN-China Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.The Joint Statement of the Meeting of Heads of State/Government of the Member States of ASEAN and the President of the People’s Republic of China,made on December 16th,1997.The Joint Declaration by the Republic of the Philippines-Peoples Republic of China Consultations on the South China Sea and on Other Areas of Cooperation and the Joint Declaration on the Fourth Annual Bilateral Consultations between the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of Philippines,both made on August 10th,1995.The ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea,made on July 22nd,1992.The Manila Declaration on the South China Sea,made on July 1992.The Principles of Bandung of 1991.The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia,made on February 24th,1976.The Declaration of Bangkok,made on August 8th,1967.這與1967年12月建立的東南亞漁業(yè)發(fā)展中心促進(jìn)亞太地區(qū)漁業(yè)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展如出一轍。③On the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center,at www.seafdec.org,1 February 2011.

在雙邊層面,中國和越南在北部灣①Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China“Chinese Premier Meets with His Vietnamese Counterpart”,made on April 17th,2009,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg/yzs/gjlb/2792/2794/t558266.htm,1 March 2011.China-Viet Nam Joint Statement,made on October 25th,2008,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/ 2649/t520438.htm,1 March 2011.Joint Communiquébetween the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,made on October 8th,2004,at www.fmprc. gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t163759.htm,1 March 2011.以及前者和菲律賓在中國南海②“China will uphold the principle of shelving disputes and seeking joint development, continue to step up cooperation in the South China Sea with the Philippines and other pertinent parties”in Communiquéby the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China“Ambassador Liu Jianchao pays Courtesy call on Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Romulo”,made on March 13th,2009,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/ zwjg/zwbd/t542281.htm,1 March 2011.引入共同開發(fā)所做出的努力,應(yīng)被理所當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為是中國接受臨時(shí)措施解決海洋劃界的例子。

在東北亞地區(qū),由于最近朝鮮半島軍事升級(jí),我們不應(yīng)該期望在黃海上的合作增加,盡管中韓就海洋劃界最近也作出了努力。③China-ROK Joint Communiqué,made on September 17th,2008,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/ eng/wjdt/2649/t513632.htm,1 March 2011.China-ROK Joint Statement,made on May 26th,2008,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t469103.htm,1 March 2011.Also see Mark J.VALENCIA,Conclusions and the way forward,Marine Policy:International Journal Ocean Affairs,Vol.29,No.2,2005,pp.185～187;Conclusions,regime building and the way forward,Marine Policy:International Journal Ocean Affairs,Vol.28,No.1, 2004,pp.89～96;Regime building in the East China Sea,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.34,No.1,2003,p.199;Yann-huei SONG and ZOU Keyuan, Maritime legislation of mainland China and Taiwan:developments,comparison,implications,and potential challenges for the United States,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.31,No.4,2000,pp.303～345.然而,通過承認(rèn)區(qū)域合作的好處和必要性,各國過去幾年已在中國東海取得了顯著進(jìn)展。④China-Japan Joint Statement on All-round Promotion of Strategic Relationship of Mutual Benefit May 22nd,2008 at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t458431.htm,1 March 2011.此外,中國和日本已經(jīng)達(dá)成了可能會(huì)在中國東海實(shí)施合作開發(fā)的諒解。⑤Communiquéby the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China,“China’s Path of Peaceful Development and Its View of Regional Security”,Speech by Ambassador Zhang Junsai,at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zwjg/zwbd/t520658.htm,1 March 2011.Also see GAO Jianjun,A note on the 2008 cooperation consensus between China and Japan in the East China Sea,in Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.40.2009,pp.291～294.

主要目標(biāo)不應(yīng)是強(qiáng)迫或強(qiáng)行要求新興國家的實(shí)踐構(gòu)成必要的法律習(xí)慣規(guī)則履行共同開發(fā)共同海洋油氣礦藏的義務(wù),而是應(yīng)該強(qiáng)調(diào)實(shí)施這樣的法律協(xié)議所帶來的好處。事實(shí)上,并沒有區(qū)域或全球?qū)用娴淖C據(jù)表明這種義務(wù)已經(jīng)形成或鑒于現(xiàn)今國家實(shí)踐是緊急的。這也是亞太地區(qū)的情況。

在這個(gè)問題上,有學(xué)者認(rèn)為,在與可以為適用共同開發(fā)協(xié)議提供一個(gè)良好基礎(chǔ)的封閉或半封閉海接壤的國家之間存在合作協(xié)議先例的區(qū)域,區(qū)域性習(xí)慣規(guī)則有可能形成,這可以為模式的適用提供一個(gè)良好的組成部分,為海洋劃界和非生物資源開發(fā)困境規(guī)定一個(gè)解決方案。這些地區(qū)包括了北海、波斯灣、中國東海和中國南海。①David ONG,Joint development of common offshore oil and gas deposits:“mere”state practice or customary International Law?American Journal of International Law,Vol. 93,No.4,1999,p.795,p.804.

這樣一個(gè)適用于國家主權(quán)要求重疊的封閉海或半封閉海的區(qū)域的習(xí)慣的存在,將有利于克服《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第123條確立的合作原則與《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第56條規(guī)定的國家權(quán)利之間的兼容問題,而不修改現(xiàn)行的海洋法律。然而,各國在《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第123條項(xiàng)下的合作義務(wù),不應(yīng)被理解為一種結(jié)果性的義務(wù),尤其是當(dāng)考慮到沿海國在不同海洋區(qū)域的權(quán)利時(shí),而應(yīng)被理解為與封閉?；虬敕忾]海洋接壤國家這一特定情況下的一種手段性的義務(wù)。事實(shí)上,雖然《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》推動(dòng)了各國在封閉和半封閉海上的合作,但是沒有規(guī)定各國在這些海洋空間上的權(quán)利。因此,除非各國同意將這種權(quán)利授予一個(gè)區(qū)域?qū)嶓w,否則《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第123條對區(qū)域合作將會(huì)是一個(gè)障礙。②VALENCIA,Regional maritime regime building:prospects in northeast and southeast A-sia,Ocean Development and International Law Journal,Vol.31,No.3,2000,p.237.此外,《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第123條沒有提及非生物海洋自然資源。

如果這些區(qū)域義務(wù)存在,那么我們將幾乎不可能確定每種實(shí)施海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的強(qiáng)制性義務(wù)情況應(yīng)該考慮的情形以及這樣的共同開發(fā)法律框架應(yīng)該如何(如果沒有可以任意適用的協(xié)議模式)。

從本質(zhì)上講,國家仍然可以就共同油氣礦藏的開發(fā)自由做出雙邊或多邊的努力,其中可能包括建立一個(gè)合作開發(fā)機(jī)制,或任何其他海洋自然資源國際化的形式,諸如加入?yún)^(qū)域組織并通過如國家間就共同油氣礦藏的存在和位置或采取符合國際法的跨界污染預(yù)防和合作措施進(jìn)行信息交流的行為規(guī)則。③Resolutions UN(GA)2996(XXVII),2997(XXVII)and 2295(XXVII),all dated December 15th,1972,and specially Resolution UN(GA)3129(XXVIII),December 13th, 1973 regarding environmental cooperation on joint development of natural resources;UNEP Doc.GC.6/CRP.2 May 19th,1978.See Charles Robson,Transboundary petroleum reservoirs:legal issues and solutions,in Gerald H.Blake,William J.Hildesley,Martin A. Pratt,Rebecca J.Ridley and Clive H.Schofield ed.,The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources,London/Dordrecht/Boston:Trotman&Martinus Nijhoff,1995,pp.3～4.

五、海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議規(guī)定

已在亞太地區(qū)實(shí)施的海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議規(guī)定了不同的法律框架,并包含不同的法律規(guī)定。這不僅是這些協(xié)定的共同特點(diǎn),而且也是過去50年其他已在世界不同地區(qū)履行的海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的共同特點(diǎn)。

那些已知的海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的內(nèi)容之間的差異,是每個(gè)協(xié)議由于關(guān)國家關(guān)注不同、期待不一帶來的特定、漫長而復(fù)雜的談判導(dǎo)致之結(jié)果。

最全面的海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議是那些通過設(shè)立一個(gè)這些國家在各自管理資源開發(fā)協(xié)議規(guī)定授予權(quán)限及自治(包括授予運(yùn)營者以必要的開發(fā)權(quán)、征稅和爭端解決等的職權(quán))的國家法項(xiàng)下的實(shí)體,建立了在資源管理上相當(dāng)程度上免受各國直接干預(yù)的法律制度的協(xié)議。在這些情況下,各國建立必要的機(jī)制控制這些實(shí)體的活動(dòng),例如,通過創(chuàng)建一個(gè)委員會(huì)或機(jī)構(gòu)(其等級(jí)高于代表國家而受指派委員會(huì)或機(jī)構(gòu)成員或者通過預(yù)算的委員會(huì)或機(jī)構(gòu))。①Timor Gap Treaty and Timor Sea Treaty.另外,國家可能通過訴諸有關(guān)國家主管部門或國有公司以管理或開發(fā)在各協(xié)議創(chuàng)建的共同開發(fā)區(qū)里發(fā)現(xiàn)的資源而選擇扮演一個(gè)積極的角色。②MoU between Malaysia and Vietnam.

在海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的保障下,各國可能會(huì)建立不同層級(jí)的法律互動(dòng)。這些包括國家間的、國家和運(yùn)營者或由有關(guān)國家和運(yùn)營者創(chuàng)造的實(shí)體之間的權(quán)利和義務(wù),以及當(dāng)兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上的運(yùn)營者可能開發(fā)同一共同的油氣礦藏時(shí)不同運(yùn)營者之間的權(quán)利和義務(wù)。它可能是這種情況,例如,兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上的運(yùn)營商為確保有效開發(fā)而要求共同油氣礦藏實(shí)施了一個(gè)聯(lián)合開發(fā)機(jī)制。③Unitization may be characterized as a coordinated effort by two or more parties to develop a common hydrocarbon deposit as if it was one single unit,regardless of overlapping claims or of international boundaries that they cross,while preserving its geological characteristics combined with the purpose to retrieve as much of its content as possible.

一個(gè)具體的共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的復(fù)雜性取決于介入國之間的信任程度和其對將被列入事項(xiàng)的接受程度,以及后者對實(shí)施一個(gè)比較全面的、可規(guī)制介入國和第三國對共同開發(fā)區(qū)如防止污染和保護(hù)海洋環(huán)境或規(guī)定管道和海底電纜的鋪設(shè)路線之使用的法律協(xié)議的承諾。

傳統(tǒng)上,盡管已知的海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議和各國的自由裁量權(quán)千差萬別,一些法律規(guī)定被認(rèn)為是代表了海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的必要內(nèi)容。這些規(guī)定有共同開發(fā)區(qū)的指定,待開發(fā)自然資源的確定,適用于共同開發(fā)區(qū)的司法和法律框架的建立以及未來運(yùn)營項(xiàng)下的規(guī)定,包括對運(yùn)營許可和選定授予運(yùn)營權(quán)的方法的規(guī)定。①Rainer LAGONI,Festlandsockel und Ausschlieβliche Wirtschaftszone,in Wolfgang Graf VITZTHUM(colabs.)Gerhard HAFNER,Wolff Heintschel VON HEINEGG,Rainer LAGONI,Alexander PROELβ,Wolfgang Graf VITZTHUM and Rüdiger WOFRUM ed., Handbuch des Seerechts,Verlag Munich:C.H.Beck,2006,p.281;Hazel FOX,Paul MCDADE,Derek Rankin REID,Anastasia STRATI and Peter HUEY ed.,Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas.A Model Agreement for States for Joint Development with Explanatory Commentary,London:The British Institute of International and Comparative Law,1989,pp.333～372;Nuno MARQUES ANTUNES,Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation-Legal and Technical Aspects of Political Process,Leiven/ Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2003,pp.292～293.

然而,由于各國日益認(rèn)識(shí)到海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議表明在規(guī)定相當(dāng)長時(shí)期內(nèi)共同開發(fā)區(qū)的控制和管理上的潛力,各國在近來的協(xié)議中包括了其他對諸如開發(fā)生物海洋自然資源,執(zhí)行健康、安全和就業(yè)法規(guī),或批準(zhǔn)適用于共同開發(fā)區(qū)內(nèi)開發(fā)活動(dòng)的共同稅制等事項(xiàng)規(guī)定。

六、結(jié) 論

《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》的生效并沒有就兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上國家共享的或在主權(quán)要求重疊的地區(qū)發(fā)現(xiàn)的海洋油氣礦藏的開發(fā)規(guī)定一個(gè)答案或指導(dǎo)方針?！堵?lián)合國海洋法公約》僅規(guī)定了一個(gè)國際法項(xiàng)下確立的合作原則而來的強(qiáng)化的義務(wù),包括各國為海洋劃界達(dá)成諒解或采取臨時(shí)措施(當(dāng)各國未能就海洋劃界達(dá)成共識(shí))而做出富有意義的努力。然而,這種強(qiáng)化的義務(wù)并不意味著各國應(yīng)在非生物海洋自然資源的保護(hù)和管理或訂立海洋劃界協(xié)定或采取如海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議這樣的臨時(shí)措施上進(jìn)行合作。

考慮到海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議有在海洋邊界劃界之前、之后以及之中實(shí)施的情況,這些協(xié)議和海洋劃界之間是沒有相關(guān)性的,前者也不應(yīng)被視為后者的替代選擇或后者的取代方案。

海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議的目的并非為了實(shí)現(xiàn)海洋區(qū)域國際化,或改變適用于不同海洋空間、最終確定各國在各自海域的權(quán)利義務(wù)之法律性質(zhì)和內(nèi)容的法律協(xié)議。事實(shí)上,一旦訂立海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)定,各國主要考慮的是各自的國家利益,而不是任何與歷史上開發(fā)非生物海洋自然資源的辦法謀求一致的、集體的或共同的福利。

盡管如此,沒有一個(gè)由兩個(gè)或兩個(gè)以上國家共享或在主權(quán)要求重疊的區(qū)域發(fā)現(xiàn)的海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)的義務(wù),并不意味著國家不承擔(dān)一些國際法項(xiàng)下就這些資源規(guī)定的義務(wù)。這些義務(wù)主要包括告知有關(guān)國家共享的海洋油氣礦藏、不實(shí)施或放棄實(shí)施任何可能破壞或使任何開發(fā)此類資源的解決方案不可能、不實(shí)施或放棄實(shí)施任何可能破壞或使選定達(dá)成一個(gè)具體解決方案之方法不可能的責(zé)任。

海洋油氣礦藏的存在一直是并將繼續(xù)是對亞太地區(qū)海洋劃界的一個(gè)障礙和有關(guān)國家沖突的重要根源。對海洋油氣礦藏共同開發(fā)協(xié)議作為克服這種僵局的一個(gè)務(wù)實(shí)可靠的法律選擇,加強(qiáng)區(qū)域努力、不斷增強(qiáng)認(rèn)識(shí)其優(yōu)點(diǎn)可能是開啟一個(gè)合作時(shí)代并最終促進(jìn)亞太地區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)、政治和社會(huì)進(jìn)步的關(guān)鍵。

(中譯:余芮,黃海奇:責(zé)任編輯:黃海奇)

*Vasco Becker-Weinberg,國際馬克斯·普朗克海洋事務(wù)研究所研究員。電子郵箱:weinberg@mpipriv.de。