論大陸國家遠泮群島的法律地位

賈楠*

論大陸國家遠泮群島的法律地位

賈楠*

群島問題在海洋法中極為重要,群島制度也在20世紀后半期逐漸形成。但是,迄今國際社會關于群島制度的討論只是解決了大陸國家的沿海群島和構成群島國的群島問題,卻遲遲沒有對大陸國家遠洋群島的法律地位做出明確規定。而在本世紀,大陸國家遠洋群島問題的重要性越來越突出,其引起的海洋爭端必須要有相應的法律制度來解決。因此,本文試圖研究這一空白地帶,在總結梳理國家實踐和國際法理論的基礎上,主要分析大陸國家遠洋群島的直線基線劃定和基線內水域的法律制度這兩個問題,并就此提出一些看法。

大陸國家遠洋群島 現狀 基線劃定 遠洋群島水域制度

20世紀,國際海洋法迅速發展,國際社會圍繞各種各樣的海洋問題展開討論,并且制定了眾多的法律原則和制度。其中,群島問題可以說是一個極大的挑戰。在相關國家的努力下,沿海群島和群島國問題已被妥善解決,但是大陸國家的遠洋群島問題一直是國際海洋法的空白地帶。這一問題的不確定性已經引起了不少的國際爭端,若不盡快解決,無論對擁有這些遠洋群島的大陸國家,還是其他國家來說,都是極不妥當的。其實,要解決遠洋群島的法律地位問題,主要解決的便是基線的適用和遠洋群島水域的法律制度這兩個核心問題。因此,本文主要從這兩個角度出發,結合相關的海洋法、國家實踐和國際法學說來分析這一制度。

一、群島的分類和大陸國家遠洋群島的法律地位現狀

(一)群島的分類

“群島”是指一群島嶼,包括若干島嶼的若干部分、相連的水域或其他自然地形,彼此密切相關,以致這種島嶼、水域和其他自然地形在本質上構成一個地理、經濟和政治的實體,或在歷史上已被視為這種實體。①United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS),1982,Art 46(b).世界上的群島多種多樣,其地理特征紛繁復雜,因組成島嶼的數目、大小和形狀等方面的不同而呈現出不同的特點。有的群島由眾多島嶼構成,如印度尼西亞群島有約1.3萬個島嶼構成;有的袖珍群島如南太平洋的托克勞群島只有3個珊瑚環礁組成。群島形狀也是千姿百態,如美國的阿留申群島大致呈弓形,希臘的基克拉澤斯群島大致呈圓圈形。此外,各個群島所處的地理位置也不盡相同。

但是,不論群島在其數目、大小和形狀上有何種差異,它們在地理上基本可以歸為兩大類型。根據1958年挪威公法學家伊文森為聯合國第一次海洋法會議提交的“準備文件”,這兩類群島分別是沿海群島和洋中群島。沿海群島是指離大陸較近可以被看成是大陸的一部分的群島,它們在某種程度上構成沿海國的海岸線并且領?？梢詮乃鼈冮_始測量。②Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.290.其中,最典型的例子便是挪威的被稱作是“巖石壁壘”的連續不斷的群島。其它的還有冰島、格陵蘭、芬蘭、瑞典、南斯拉夫等國的沿岸群島。洋中群島是指位于海洋之中距離海岸很遠,基本上可以看成是獨立于海岸線的群島。③Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.290.這類群島又可細分為兩類,即構成群島國的群島和大陸國家的遠洋群島。事實上,在第三次聯合國海洋法會議之前,這兩小類群島并無區別,只是因為后來的海洋法會議區別了這兩類群島,在某種程度上賦予了它們不同的政治含義。第一類群島就是組成群島國的全部或部分領土的群島,如構成印尼和菲律賓的各群島;第二類是大陸國家海岸以外的遠洋群島,如丹麥的法羅群島、厄瓜多爾的加拉帕戈斯群島、美國的夏威夷群島、加拿大的北極群島等。

因此,考慮到地理和政治方面的因素,本文將世界上的群島主要分為以下三類:第一、大陸國家的沿海群島;第二、構成群島國的群島;第三、大陸國家的遠洋群島。之所以要區分這些群島是因為在具體劃定群島的基線和水域時,根據群島類別的不同,要考慮相應的國際法規則。

(二)大陸國家遠洋群島的法律地位現狀

群島的法律制度是從上個世紀才逐漸發展起來的,而且不同種類群島的法律制度也經歷了不同的發展階段。在20世紀之前,國際上討論的熱點是領海問題,直到1889年,挪威法學家奧伯特才提出沿海島嶼的領海劃定問題。④Annuaire de L’Institut,Vol.11,1889,p.139.1927年,國際法學會開始仔細考慮群島的領海制度。1930年的海牙國際法編纂會議雖然對沿海島嶼制定了公約草案,但是都無果而終。這種不確定性一直持續到1951年國際法院對英挪漁業案做出判決為止,法院肯定了挪威對沿岸的“巖石壁壘”所采用的直線基線制度,①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.139.而這一判決的理念也反映在隨后締結的1958年《領海與毗連區公約》的規定中。1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》同1958年的上述公約一樣,規定大陸國家的沿海島嶼可采用直線基線劃定領海,基線內水域為一國的內水。②UNCLOS,Arts 7～8.至此,沿海島嶼的法律制度被確定下來。而構成群島國的群島制度則是在第三次聯合國海洋法會議上確定的。早在20世紀50年代,菲律賓和印尼就提出了群島國的概念,但是第一次和第二次聯合國海洋法會議并沒有解決該問題。在1974年的第三次聯合國海洋法會議上,群島國與海洋大國經過幾番博弈,最終將群島國制度寫入《聯合國海洋法公約》的第四部分,確定了群島基線和群島水域等許多新的海洋法概念。③UNCLOS,Arts 46～54.

令人遺憾的是,在整個海洋法不斷發展的過程中,大陸國家遠洋群島的法律制度卻遲遲沒有確定,在某種意義上可以說是海洋法的空白地帶。但是,此處不能否定國際社會對于制定大陸國家遠洋群島法律制度所做出的努力。早在1928年,應瑞典法學家路特斯科德的要求,國際法學會在研究群島制度時就對沿海群島和遠洋群島做出了區別,并且嘗試著要去解決這個問題,但是最終因各國意見的分歧而放棄。④Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,p. 359.此后,擁有遠洋群島的大陸國家仍在繼續為確定相關制度而努力。尤其是在第三次聯合國海洋法會議第二期會議上,包括大陸國家和群島國在內的9個國家對1973年的四國提案作出修改,取消“僅適用于群島國”的規定,使大陸國家可以將關于群島的規定適用于其遠洋群島。⑤Canada,Chile,Iceland,India,Indonesia,Mauritius,Mexico,New Zealand and Norway: working paper,A/CONF.62/L.4(1974),Article 3,ⅢOff.Rec,pp.81～82.一些國家對此表示支持,指出關于群島的某些規定既適用于群島國,也適用于遠洋群島。但另一些國家,尤其是海洋大國美國和蘇聯,反對將關于群島的規定擴大適用于大陸國家的遠洋群島。隨后在1975年第三期會議上又起草了《單一協商案文》,⑥A/CONF.62/WP.8/PartⅡ(ISNT,1975).Article 117,paragraph 2 and Article 131. UNCLOS-Ⅲ.Off.Rec.Ⅳ,pp.152～168.共有兩個小節,其中,第一小節是關于群島國的條款,第二小節標題為“屬于大陸國家的遠洋群島”,只包括一個條款,規定“第一小節的規定無損于構成一個大陸國家領土一部分的遠洋群島的地位”。⑦S.N.Nandan and S.Rosenne eds.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea-A Com mentary,Vol.Ⅱ,Dordrecht:Nijhoff,1993,pp.402～403.但是,在1976年舉行的第四期會議上,由于一些堅持航行自由的海洋大國的強烈反對,那些聲稱遠洋群島問題應該被合理解決的國家被迫讓步,經過非正式協商而形成的《訂正單一協商案文》①A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev.1/PartⅡ(RSNT,1976),Article 118,UNCLOS-Ⅲ.Off. Rec.V,pp.151～170.將原來的條款刪除了,而最終的《聯合國海洋法公約》也沒有對大陸國家的遠洋群島問題做出明確規定。

迄今為止,關于大陸國家遠洋群島的法律地位仍然是不確定的,各個國家的實踐多種多樣,公法學家眾說紛紜。但有一點是肯定的,那就是這一問題必須要得到妥善解決。這不僅關系到大陸國家和國際社會,而且對于遠洋群島本身也至關重要。正如印度法學家謝卡爾·戈什所說:“生活在這些遠洋群島上的居民和構成群島國的群島上的居民一樣,他們也依存于這些島嶼和島嶼之間的水域,他們有權利用這些島嶼及其水域的自然資源。此外,遠洋群島安全的重要性并不亞于群島國之群島,尤其是很多國家如印度和厄瓜多爾都是發展中國家,他們在安全方面的要求是相當迫切的?！雹赟hekhar Ghosh,Changing Law in a Changing World:Case of Mid-Ocean Archipelagos,E-conomic and Political Weekly,Vol.22,No.23,6 June 1987,pp.902～908.

在這種沒有條文明確規定的情況下,要確定遠洋群島的法律地位只能依據國家實踐、國際法機構的決議、公法學家的學說以及國際法上的一般法律原則。而這一制度的核心問題總的來說有兩個,即遠洋群島的基線劃定和基線內水域的法律制度,只有對這兩方面的問題仔細加以分析研究才能最終解決這一難題。

二、遠洋群島的基線劃定

根據當今的海洋法,基線是確定領海、毗連區、專屬經濟區等海域的起算線,其重要作用不言而喻。對于大陸國家的遠洋群島問題,首先要解決的便是基線的劃定。與一般情況下國家劃定基線不同,遠洋群島在適用基線時首先要考慮的問題是單獨對構成島嶼劃定基線,還是將所有島嶼看成一個整體劃定基線,然后才可以考慮適用正?；€還是直線基線。

(一)遠洋群島的整體性

1.國際法機構的觀點與國際條約內容

1924年,國際法協會任命智利國際法學家阿爾瓦雷茲教授為“中立委員會”主席來考慮領海問題。他在提交“和平時期海洋管理法”公約草案時向國際法協會提出特殊建議:“群島應該被看作是一個政治、經濟上的整體,并且在劃定它們領海時應被當作一個整體予以考慮,應把距離中心最遠的島嶼作為基點來劃定領海?！雹買nternational Law Association,Report of 33rd Conference,1924,p.266.此處的群島包括大陸國家的遠洋群島,因為在當時是不區分上述三類群島的。但是迫于當時海洋大國的壓力,國際法協會沒有對此做出評論。

1928年,國際法學會在聽取多方意見后認為遠洋群島可以被看作是一個整體,“只要在群島中每一個島嶼與其最近的島嶼之間距離不超過兩倍的領海寬度,則可以從群島的最外緣島嶼起測算領海寬度”。②Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,p. 359.

1930年海牙國際法編纂會議上,德國法學家史卓京在給專家委員會準備的修訂后的公約草案第5條中提到:“在群島中,島嶼應被視為一個整體,領海寬度應從距離群島中心最遠的島嶼起測算”,③League of Nations document C-196,M-70,1927,p.72.第5條適用于沿海群島和洋中群島。對于公約草案,各國政府反應各異。一些國家同意群島應作為一個整體來看待。有些國家提出了反對的意見,認為連接島嶼最外緣的直線基線方法是過分的,各島嶼應該分開劃定領海。于是,各國最終沒有達成一致。

聯合國第一次和第三次海洋法會議締結的1958年《領海與毗連區公約》和1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》規定沿海國家對于沿岸的一系列島嶼可用直線基線連接最外緣的適當基點劃定領海;此外,1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》還允許群島國采用直線群島基線連接最外緣的島嶼劃定群島水域。這些規定實際上是承認了沿海群島和群島國群島的整體性。而對于大陸國家的遠洋群島說法還不明確。

2.國際法學家的觀點

大多數國際公法學家在論述領海的劃定時都會特別提到群島的領海劃定。他們對于群島整體性問題的觀點各異,考慮問題的角度也不一樣。

法國公法學家吉德爾在其著作《國際海洋公法》中對群島的整體性問題進行了細致的研究。他認為沿海群島應當被視為一個整體,但是對于洋中群島(即群島國群島與大陸國遠洋群島),吉德爾則認為應當“符合國際上的習慣做法,分別對各個島嶼進行領海劃定”。④Gidel,The Public International Law of the Sea,Vol.Ⅲ,Paris:Sirey,1934,pp.706～727.

但是,美國公法學家杰西普在其著作《領海和海洋管理法》中則認為:“群島中的島嶼應當被視為一個整體,其領海的劃定應從距離群島中心最遠的島嶼起開始測算”。⑤Jessup,The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction,New York:G.A.Jennings Co.Inc.,1927,p.457.哥倫伯斯在《國際海洋法》中認為:“被公認的規則似乎是組成一個群島的島嶼應當被視為一個整體,其領海寬度應從群島中心算起……一組島嶼是否構成群島不僅取決于地理條件而且在某些情況下也取決于歷史因素?！雹轈.J.Colombos,International Law of the Sea,3rd Edition,London:Longmans Green, 1954,p.110.施瓦曾伯格在其著作《國際法》中也認為“如果島嶼構成群島,則可在法律上被視為一個整體”。①Schwarzenberger,International Law,Vol.I,London:Stevens&Sons Ltd.,1949,p.156.挪威法學家伊文森教授在1957年給第一次聯合國海洋法會議起草的準備文件中建議群島應該被視為一個整體,此處的群島包含了本文中討論的三種群島。②Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.302.奧康奈爾也持此觀點。③D.P.O’Connell,The International Law of the Sea,Vol.I,Oxford:Clarendon,1982,p. 482.

3.國家實踐

國家實踐比國際法理論要早得多,早在19世紀就已經有國家提出群島的整體性問題。1854年,“夏威夷島嶼之王”便發表聲明,宣布其全部管轄范圍包括所有的通道及其之間的島嶼。④Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone.,1990,p. 359.1921年阿蘭德群島的劃界協定也將群島及其周圍水域看作是一個整體。⑤Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone.,1990,p. 359.1934年和1942年古巴、1952年愛爾蘭在國內立法中都提出了群島構成一個法律上整體的概念。⑥ST/LEG./SER.B/6,pp.7,516.在當代的國家實踐中,大多數擁有遠洋群島的大陸國家都是將群島看成統一整體來劃定基線,如前蘇聯、加拿大、丹麥、法國等。

但是也有部分國家如英國和美國是采用各個島嶼單獨劃定基線的方式,美國的夏威夷群島是最典型的例子。夏威夷群島主要由8個大島嶼和一些小島組成,在整個19世紀,夏威夷王國都聲稱群島為統一整體,但是在1951年,美國聯邦政府否認了這一說法,規定各島必須單獨劃定基線,而且因為美國禁止采用直線基線,這些島嶼只能采用低潮線來劃定海域。盡管當地政府反對,但是由于夏威夷只是美國的一個州,其政策不能違背聯邦的總政策。⑦Jon M.Van Dyke,An Overview of the Jurisdictional Issues Affecting Hawaii’s Ocean Waters,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.11,No.3,1996,p. 363.

從上述的國際法理論和國家實踐中,我們可以看出國際社會對于大陸國遠洋群島的整體性問題還沒有形成統一的認識,但是多數國家和國際法理論是傾向于將其視為一個整體的。畢竟,要世界上所有國家都形成統一看法是困難的。還有學者認為《聯合國海洋法公約》沒有對其做出規定,這個空白就意味著群島的每個島嶼必須各自劃定領海,不能被看作一個整體劃定直線基線。筆者認為這個觀點是不合理的,雖然公約沒有對其做出規定,但也沒有明文禁止,而且考慮到遠洋群島的經濟、安全等方面的利益,尤其是在這種利益已經長期存在時,否認其整體性對遠洋群島本身也是不公平的。

(二)直線基線的適用

既然國際上對于遠洋群島的整體性已經取得普遍認可,那么接下來考慮的問題便是應該用何種基線劃定整個群島的領海。根據現有的國際公約,大陸國家可以采用直線基線劃定沿海群島的領海,群島國可以采用直線群島基線來劃定其群島的海域,而大陸國遠洋群島則沒有規定。這里的問題便是直線基線是否適用遠洋群島,國際法是否明文規定禁止大陸國家采取此種做法。這一點就必須要從確認直線基線合法性的英挪漁業案和當前的國家實踐中尋找線索。

1.英挪漁業案的判決

1951年的英挪漁業案是由于英國不滿挪威政府1935年頒布的漁業法令而向國際法院提起的訴訟。根據該法令,挪威對其沿岸被稱作“巖石壁壘”的一系列島嶼采用連接島嶼外緣的直線基線劃定領海。最后,國際法院認定該法令規定的劃界使用方法和基線本身并不違反國際法。①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.139.雖然這個案件只是涉及到挪威的沿岸島嶼,但是影響極為深遠。后來在解決沿岸群島和群島國群島制度時,相關國家都會援引該判決作為法理依據,而筆者認為該案也為大陸國家遠洋群島的基線制度提供了一定的法律指導。正如挪威法學家伊文森在為1958年海洋法會議撰寫的準備文件中提到:“國際法院制定的標準適用于遠洋群島和沿海群島,法院的概括性聲明體現了國際法在這一領域的基本原則?！雹贓vensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.300.

英國提出的原則是基線必須是低潮線,因為這是各國在實踐中普遍采用的標準。法院承認這一點,但是又指出基線使用的核心問題是地理特點。③Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.128.挪威的沿海島嶼山脈連綿,到處是峽灣和海灣,無數的島嶼、小島和暗礁斷斷續續,采用傳統的低潮線顯然不合理。此外,國際法院還提出了一些適用于領海劃定的基本指導性原則?？偨Y一下,主要有以下幾點:第一,劃定領海時,必須要考慮到水域與陸地的關系,畢竟是陸地賦予一國擁有海域的權利;第二,國家應當被賦予必要的權利使其領海劃定滿足實際的和當地的需要,但是不可以明顯地偏離原來的輪廓;第三,考慮領海劃界時,不能只考慮地理因素,還要考慮到該地區的經濟利益。④Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.133.

以上國際法院所闡釋的基本原則雖然只是針對英挪漁業案,而且該判決對于其他國家沒有法律約束力,但是判決體現的法律理念是適用于大陸國家的遠洋群島的。首先,決定基線適用的最根本原則乃是該區域的地理特征。遠洋群島地理特征復雜,采用正?；€顯然比較困難,可以考慮采用新方法。正如法院的判決所指出的一樣,“在特殊的情況下,規則將消失”。①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.129.其次,國家有選擇劃定領海界限方法的自由。再者,遠洋群島的島嶼之間聯系緊密,應該考慮到經濟等方面的利益。因此,大陸國家遠洋群島適用直線基線連接其最外緣島嶼劃定領海是合理的,并不違背國際上一般的法律規則。

2.國家實踐

世界上有很多擁有遠洋群島的大陸國家,在20世紀,它們紛紛通過國內立法對各自的遠洋群島做出基線規定。因為國際上缺乏對遠洋群島基線適用的共識,每個國家的做法也存在著差異。有的國家如美國對所有領土包括島嶼的領海劃定始終堅持正?；€,反對直線基線制度。而大多數的國家都是采用直線基線制度。以下便是主要的幾個國家的立法實踐:

(1)加拿大

加拿大于1985年頒布法令,規定其控制的北極群島采用直線基線,并以長期行使主權為由,將基線內的水域宣布為內水。②Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

(2)丹麥

1959年丹麥政府頒布法令,宣布法羅群島采用直線基線制度,并于1963年頒布皇家第259號法令,宣布基線內水域為專屬漁業區,但未說明這一水域是否屬于內水或領海。③Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

(3)挪威

根據1920年《斯匹次卑爾根協定》,挪威對其享有絕對主權。1970年劃定直線基線,并將基線以內的水域確定為內水。④Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

(4)厄瓜多爾

根據1938年和1951年的總統法令,厄瓜多爾政府視加拉帕格斯群島為一個整體,用連接群島最外緣島嶼的直線基線來劃定領海。1971年頒布高級法令第959-A號,肯定了上述對于加拉帕格斯群島確定的直線基線,并宣布基線內的海域作為一個特殊區域,禁止國際航行,以保護該群島的生態系統,同時宣布享有領海和大陸架。⑤Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

(5)印度

印度政府認為構成群島國的群島與大陸國家的遠洋群島沒有不同,沿海群島與遠洋群島也不應該區別對待。安達曼—尼科巴群島和拉克沙群島也應享有群島該有的權利。①Summary Records of Plenary Meetings 27th plenary meeting,at http://untreaty.un.org/ cod/diplomaticconferences/lawofthesea-1982/docs/vol_I/a_conf-62_sr-27.pdf.p. 96,15 January 2012.

另外,法國、芬蘭和南斯拉夫等國家也都贊同直線基線制度。②Declarations and statements,Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations,at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm,16 January 2012.

從以上的國際法理論和國家實踐可以看出,在大陸國家遠洋群島的基線劃定問題上,國際社會多認同將遠洋群島看成是法律上的一個整體,主張整體劃定基線的趨勢很明顯。而直線基線原則適用于大陸國遠洋群島應該是為法律所允許的,與現行的國家實踐和國際法理論并不沖突。至于最后劃定時選擇正?；€還是直線基線則是由大陸國家自主決定。另外,為了使國際社會更容易接受直線基線制度,圍繞遠洋群島的基線就一定要滿足一定的客觀標準,例如基線不可以過長、不可以明顯偏離原來的輪廓等等,這些標準可以比照群島直線基線,此處不再贅述。

三、遠洋群島水域的法律制度

大陸國家遠洋群島法律制度的另一核心問題便是基線內水域的法律地位,這其實也是擁有遠洋群島的大陸國家與推行自由主義的海洋大國之間爭論的焦點之一。大陸國家出于主權、安全等方面因素的考慮通常傾向于嚴格控制遠洋群島水域;而海洋大國則出于航行自由的考慮反對大陸國家對遠洋群島的控制。迄今為止,國際海洋法之所以沒能解決遠洋群島的法律制度問題,原因之一便在于遠洋群島水域的地位。因此,要填補海洋法上的空白,這一問題不能不得到妥善解決。而在此之前,幾乎沒有關于這一問題的國際法理論討論,因此,考慮遠洋群島水域的法律地位就必須從沿海群島水域和群島國群島水域以及現今的國家實踐中尋找線索。

(一)沿海群島和群島國群島水域的法律地位

根據1958年日內瓦《領海與毗連區公約》和1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》,沿海國可對其沿岸的一系列島嶼采用直線基線,“領?；€向陸一面的水域構成國家內水的一部分”。①Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,Art 5(a);UNCLOS,Art 8 (a).也就是說,對于沿海國來說,沿海群島基線內的水域屬于內水性質。但是,如果直線基線使原來并非是內水的區域變成了內水,則此種水域內應享有無害通過權。②Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,Art 5(b);UNCLOS,Art 8 (b).

群島國的群島水域是一個全新的概念,直到第三次聯合國海洋法會議上才被寫入1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》。根據《聯合國海洋法公約》第四部分第49至54條,群島水域既不同于領海,也不同于內水?！叭簫u國的主權及于群島水域的上空、海床和底土,以及其中所包含的資源”,③UNCLOS,Art 49(b).但是,群島水域的主權又受到多方面的限制。首先,群島國要尊重現有協定,尊重相鄰國家在群島水域的傳統捕魚權利以及鋪設海底電纜的權利。其次,群島水域要實行特別的通過制度,即無害通過權和群島海道通過權。這也是美國、蘇聯等海洋大國最關心和討論最激烈的部分。④Plenary Meetings,Sum mary Records and Verbatim Records,as well as Documents of the Conference,Resumed Eleventh Session,Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,Volume XVII,New York,22-24 September 1982.

(二)國家實踐

本文的第二部分在論述直線基線的國家實踐時,已經可以看出各大陸國家對于其遠洋群島水域的制度是不同的。例如,對于一直反對直線基線的美國來說,夏威夷群島采用的是正?；€,即低潮線,基線內的水域當然屬于內水范圍。在這種制度下,可以說是不存在連接各島嶼的遠洋群島水域。加拿大和挪威則宣布直線基線內的水域為內水,國家對其享有絕對的主權。丹麥和厄瓜多爾采取的方法則比較獨特,比其他國家的法律制度要寬松得多。如丹麥將其法羅群島基線內的水域規定為“專屬漁業區”,避免了規定為內水招致海洋大國反對的局面;厄瓜多爾則以保護生態的名義,將加拉帕格斯群島基線內的水域規定為特殊海域,禁止外國船只的自由航行,同時宣稱擁有領海和大陸架。另外,像前蘇聯則于1985年頒布法令,以歷史性水域的名義為其北部海岸包括東北水道的一系列群島劃定直線基線,基線以內的水域為內水。而這些宣稱遠洋群島水域為內水并禁止自由航行的主張通常又遭到美國和英國等海洋大國的強烈反對。

通過上述的國家實踐,再比照沿海群島和群島國群島水域的法律制度,我們可以發現要創設遠洋群島水域的法律制度必須要考慮兩個問題,一是基線內水域的性質,二是遠洋群島水域的歷史性權利,包括通行制度。

首先,必須要明確決定基線內水域性質的標準。這一標準在當代國際法上沒有明文規定,但是從1951年國際法院的判決中可以找到一點指導精神,即海域劃定是以陸地為前提的。①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.133.因此,基線內水域的法律地位應當根據每個群島的不同特點區別對待,要充分考慮陸地與水域之間的關系。如果陸地與水域聯系十分緊密,將基線內的水域視為內水也不是沒有道理的。此外,群島的地理因素在此固然重要,但也應考慮到安全和經濟等因素。遠洋群島的地理特點使當地的安全形勢復雜,政府不能有效地對各個島嶼進行常規的控制,“外國的間諜或者偵查活動在此處較容易開展”,“外國的海軍力量對當地政府的決策會產生極大的威脅”。②Myres Smith McDougal and William T.Burke,Public Order of the Oceans,New Haven: Yale University Press,1962,p.412.同時,這些遠洋群島還面臨著裝載危險物質的船舶的威脅,而當今油輪泄漏的事件也極其常見。最后,遠洋群島的經濟利益也越來越重要,既然英挪漁業案和群島國制度分別肯定了沿岸群島和群島國群島的經濟利益,那么唯獨否定大陸國家遠洋群島的經濟利益是極不公平的。

但是考慮到其他國家的權利和要求,若在基線劃定的水域內存在重要的國際航道,則該部分水域應適用于《聯合國海洋法公約》的國際航道的過境通行權,保證正常的國際航行。盡管每個國家都有權決定采用何種制度來劃定海域,但是這種劃界必須要遵循國際法。確切地說,劃界這一行動由國內法規定,但是劃界的合法性則由國際法決定。這一點在1951年國際法院在英挪漁業案的判決中得到了確認:“海域劃界是一個國際法問題:不能簡單地取決于沿海國的國內立法。盡管劃界這一行動必須要國家單方面進行,因為只有沿海國才有能力這么做,但是對于其他國家來說,劃界的有效性則取決于國際法?！雹跢isheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports 1951,p.132.而且,這一點在國際海洋法的發展過程中也得到了證明。如果一個國家在提倡建立新制度時采取一定限制的自我約束,從而做出比較靈活的規定,那么此項制度往往比較容易為國際社會所接受,在實施的過程中阻力較小,也就不會與其他國家在海洋權益上產生重大紛爭。

四、結 語

綜上所述,國際上對于大陸國家遠洋群島的法律制度還沒有形成特定的規則。事實上,考慮到地理、經濟和歷史因素,形成特定的、統一的國際法規則也是不可取的。統一的規則太過死板,不能完全考慮到每個遠洋群島的特殊之處。但是,這并不意味著一些規則與原則不存在,或者說不應當被制定,畢竟,當今海洋權益的爭端還是要依靠相應的國際法規范來解決。

因此,在綜合分析了國家實踐、國際法院判決和國際法理論的基礎上,我們可以得出以下結論:大陸國家的遠洋群島是可以被視為一個整體并可以采用連接群島最外緣島嶼、小島或巖礁的直線基線來測算領海的。在考慮基線內水域的性質時,水域與陸地的關系是核心。如果聯系的相當緊密,可以視為內水。但是,一定要考慮到他國的利益,采取適當的措施保證國際航行,力避重大沖突的出現?？傊?任何制度的建立都要本著具體情況具體分析的態度,綜合考慮到各方的因素。在受到不同政治、經濟和歷史等方面影響的不同區域,應該要允許多樣性的存在,建立獨特的法律制度來解決當前的問題,這也是現代海洋法的精神內涵。

The 20thcentury witnessed the tremendous development of the international law of the sea.Numerous rules and principles have been established by the international community concerning various maritime issues.Among these issues,archipelagos have always presented a great challenge.Currently,legal regimes of coastal archipelagos and the ones constituting archipelagic States have been formulated;however,the regime concerning outlying archipelagos of continental countries remains unsettled.Such uncertainty has led to many maritime disputes,which could bring detrimental results for both concerned continental countries and other States.In order to properly settle this highly controversial issue,two fundamental problems should be carefully considered: (1)the baseline system;and(2)the legal regime applicable to the outlying archipelagic waters.In this paper,the author attempts to discuss these two as-pects based on relevant state practice and theories of international law.

Ⅰ.Classification and Status Quo of Legal Regimes of Archipelagos

A.Classification of Archipelagos

“Archipelago”means a group of islands,including parts of islands,interconnecting waters and other natural features,which are so closely interrelated that such islands,waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical,economic and political entity,or which historically have been regarded as such.①United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS),1982,Art 46(b).The geographical features of archipelagos in today’s world vary widely due to the number and size of islands and islets,as well as the size and shape of the archipelagos.Some archipelagos are composed of numerous islands,such as the Indonesian Islands,consisting of 13,000 smaller islands.Many islands are much more compact,such as the Tokelau Islands in the southern Pacific with only three coral atolls.Besides,the shapes of archipelagos also vary;Aleutian Islands in America take the shape of a bow,while the Greek Cyclades are circular.Differences also exist in their relative geographical positions.

Despite these geographical differences in number,size and shape,archipelagos can generally be categorized into two basic types.In a report submitted in 1958 by the Norwegian publicist Evensen to the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,two types of archipelagos,coastal and outlying(or mid-ocean),were distinguished.Coastal archipelagos are those situated so closely to a mainland that they may be reasonably considered a part thereof, forming an outer coastline from which it is normal to measure the marginal seas.②Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.290.A common example is the Norwegian“Skjaergaard”,which stretches out almost all along the coast of Norway.Other examples include those in Iceland,Greenland,Finland,Sweden,Yugoslavia,etc.Outlying(mid-ocean)archipelagos are groups of islands situated out in the ocean at such a distance from the coasts of firm land as to be considered an independent whole ratherthan forming part of or outer coastline of the mainland.①Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.290.The latter type can be subdivided into two categories,namely,archipelagos constituting archipelagic States and those belonging to continental countries.There were no actual variations between these two kinds of islands until the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,in which during the sessions different political implications were ascribed to distinguish them.The first type refers to the archipelagos constituting a part or the whole of an archipelagic State,such as those in Indonesia and the Philippines.The second type refers to outlying archipelagos of continental countries,such as the Faeroes of Denmark,Galapagos of Ecuador,Hawaiian Islands of the United States(USA)and Arctic Islands of Canada.

Considering both geographical and political factors,this article classifies archipelagos into three types:(1)coastal archipelagos of continental countries; (2)archipelagos constituting archipelagic States;and(3)outlying(or mid-ocean)archipelagos of continental countries.It is necessary to differentiate these three categories of archipelagos,as specific rules and principles can be applied in determining baselines and delimiting archipelagic waters.

B.Status Quo of the Legal Status of Outlying Archipelagos of Continental Countries

The legal regime of archipelagos did not start to take shape until the last century and different archipelagos have undergone various stages of establishing applicable legal systems.Before the 20thcentury,an international hotspot issue concerned the delimitation of territorial waters.In 1889,the question about the delimitation of coastal islands’territorial sea was brought to attention by the Norwegian jurist Mr.Aubert;②Annuaire de L’Institut,Vol.11,1889,p.139.however,it was not until 1927 that the Institut de Droit International began seriously discussing this issue.The Hague Codification Conference of 1930 drew up a draft convention on the coastal archipelagos,although it led to no substantive results.This uncertainty continued until the 1951 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case in which the International Court of Justice(ICJ)confirmed the legality of straight baselines con-necting the outmost islands of Skjaergaard in its judgment.①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.139.Ideas of the 1951 Judgment were then found in the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone concluded in 1958.The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS)also provides that in the case of coastal archipelagos,straight baselines should be employed to delimit territorial waters and the waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of a State.②UNCLOS,Arts 7～8.Thus,the legal regime concerning coastal archipelagos has been formulated.Regarding the regime of archipelagic States,agreements were achieved in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.In the early 1950s,the Philippines and Indonesia initiated proposals on the concept of“archipelagic States”,but such proposals were ignored in the First and Second United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea.It was in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea that the regime of archipelagic States was codified in Part IV of the 1982 UNCLOS after numerous struggles between archipelagic States and maritime powers.In this way, new concepts,such as archipelagic baselines and archipelagic waters,were brought into being.③UNCLOS,Arts 46～54.

Nevertheless,the legal regime of the outlying archipelagos of continental States remains ambiguous,therefore the blank area of ocean laws left undefined in the development of international law of the sea.However,one cannot deny the efforts made by the international community to establish certain rules in order to address these issues.Early in 1928,based on the amendment proposed by the Swedish jurist Reuterskiold,Institut de Droit International began distinguishing between coastal and mid-ocean archipelagos to attempt to solve this ambiguity.However,this international authority was forced to abandon this issue because of disagreements among States.④Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,p. 359.In the following years,continental countries never ceased efforts to establish relevant legal institutions.Such endeavors were intensive during the second session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in which nine countries,including continental and archipelagic States,proposed an amended draft of the 1973 draft articles relating to archipelagic States.Authors of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea deleted the existing provision that“These ar-ticles apply only to archipelagic States”and recommended application of the draft to mid-ocean archipelagos of continental countries.①Canada,Chile,Iceland,India,Indonesia,Mauritius,Mexico,New Zealand and Norway: working paper,A/CONF.62/L.4(1974),Article 3,ⅢOff.Rec,pp.81～82.Whereas some countries supported this proposal,other nations,especially sea powers like the USA and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(USSR),opposed application of the regime of archipelagic States to outlying islands of continental States.An Informal Single Negotiating Text(ISNT)was drawn up in the third session held in 1975.②A/CONF.62/WP.8/PartⅡ(ISNT,1975).Article 117,paragraph 2 and Article 131. UNCLOS-Ⅲ.Off.Rec.IV,pp.152～168.The text consisted of two sections,one about archipelagic States and the other about the outlying islands of continental countries;providing that the provisions in the first section should be applied without prejudice to mid-ocean archipelagos of continental countries.③S.N.Nandan&S.Rosenne eds.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea-A Commentary,Vol.Ⅱ,Dordrecht:Nijhoff,1993,pp.402～403.However,in the fourth session held in 1976,states advocating that the issue of mid-ocean archipelagos of continental countries should be addressed succumbed to the protests from sea powers preserving the principle of free navigation.Ultimately,the Revised Single Negotiating Text(RSNT)removed the previous article,④A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev.1/PartⅡ(RSNT,1976),Art 118,UNCLOS-Ⅲ.Off.Rec. V,pp.151～170.so eventually the final version of the UNCLOS failed to define the status of outlying archipelagos of continental countries.

This uncertainty continues to this day,due to diverging state practices and various theories of publicists.However,it is imperative this uncertainty be stopped,as it greatly affects the individual continental countries,as well as the international community as a whole.Just as Shekhar Ghosh,an Indian legalist, claims,“After all,the inhabitants of outlying archipelagoes of continental States have the same dependence on the resources of the waters between and around their islands as is the case with the mid-ocean archipelagoes.Likewise, security and allied problems in such outlying archipelagoes are no less real for the concerned continental States than they are for the archipelagic States.Appreciation of the interests of the archipelagic States,especially when many of them(including India and Ecuador)are developing countries,would be a welcome development.”⑤Shekhar Ghosh,Changing Law in a Changing World:Case of Mid-Ocean Archipelagos,E-conomic and Political Weekly,Vol.22,No.23,6 June 1987,pp.902～908.

Due to the fact there are no definitive rules and/or standards relative to the legal status of this type of archipelagos,one must draw inferences from state practices,agreements of international bodies,studies of publicists and generally accepted principles of international law.Summarily,two factors, choice of baselines and regime of archipelagic waters,should be discussed before solving this complex issue.

Ⅱ.Baselines of Outlying Archipelagos of Continental Countries

In today’s law of the sea,the baseline is the starting point for delimiting a coastal State’s maritime zones,such as territorial waters,contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone.Thus,the first component to define the regime of mid-ocean archipelagos of continental States rests on the choice of baselines. However,this presents a unique situation as the unity of this type of archipelagos has always been in question.Before making a determination of baselines, one must conclude whether to delimit this cluster of islands as a whole,or individually.

A.Unity of Outlying Archipelagos of Continental Countries

1.International Agreements and Studies of International Bodies

In 1924,the International Law Association appointed the Chilean Professor Alvarez as Chairman of the“Neutrality Committee”to consider the problem of territorial waters.In the presented draft convention on“The Laws of Maritime Jurisdiction in Time of Peace”,Professor Alvarez proposed a special recommendation to the International Law Association,stating,“Where there are archipelagos the islands thereof shall be considered a whole,and the extent of the territorial waters laid down in article 4 shall be measured from the islands situated most distant from the centre of the archipelago”.①International Law Association,Report of 33rd Conference,1924,p.266.In this recommendation,the archipelagos include those of continental States,as there was no existing distinction between the three types of archipelagos.However,the International Law Association did not comment on this proposal as a result of protests from maritime powers.

In 1928,after gathering various opinions,the Institut de Droit International reached a final resolution,stating“Where archipelagos are concerned,the extent of marginal sea shall be measured from the outermost islands or islets provided that the archipelago is composed of islands and islets not further apart from each other than twice the breadth of the marginal sea”.①Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,p. 359.

During the Hague Codification Conference of 1930,the German jurist Schuching prepared an amended draft convention for the Conference’s Committee of Experts,including in article 5:“In the case of archipelagos,the constituent islands are considered as forming a whole and the width of the territorial sea shall be measured from the islands most distant from the center of the archipelago”.②League of Nations document C-196,M-70,1927,p.72.This article 5 was applicable to both coastal archipelagos and outlying archipelagos.This recommendation gave rise to different responses. Some States rejected the idea that archipelagos should be considered as a single unit and insisted that each island possess its own territorial waters.Other governments endorsed this article,contending that a single belt of territorial waters could be drawn around archipelagos if the islands and islets of the archipelago were not further apart than a certain maximum.In the end,this conference failed to reach a consensus due to these divergent positions.

The First and Third United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea made great progress in the legal regime of archipelagos and brought two new conventions into being,the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982.According to these two conventions,States are allowed to adopt straight archipelagic baselines adjoining the outermost points of the coastal archipelagos.In addition,the 1982 UNCLOS also permits archipelagic States to employ straight archipelagic baselines to delimit archipelagic waters.These provisions confirm the unity of coastal archipelagos and those composing archipelagic States.However,it remains unclear as to the unity of mid-ocean archipelagos of continental countries.

2.Views of Publicists

When considering the delimitation of territorial waters,most international law publicists would address archipelagos.However,their views concerning the unity of archipelagos commonly vary as every publicist sees the problemfrom their respective perspectives.

The French jurist Gidel,in his famous work Le Droit International Public de la Mer(The Public International Law of the Sea),has carefully examined the unity of archipelagos.For Gidel,coastal archipelagos shall be treated as a unit.However,he insists:“In the case of an archipelago situated far from land (mid-ocean archipelago)the measuring of territorial waters must be made in conformity with the ordinary rules,individually around each island”.①Gidel,The Public International Law of the Sea,Vol.Ⅲ,Paris:Sirey,1934,pp.706～727.

Alternatively,the American publicist Jessup,in his book The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction,claims:“In the case of archipelagos the constituent islands are considered as forming a unit and the extent of territorial waters is measured from theislands farthest from the center of the archipelagos”.②Jessup,The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction,New York:G.A.Jennings Co.Inc.,1927,p.457.Colombos,in International Law of the Sea,states:“The generally recognized rule appears to be that a group of islands forming part of an archipelago shall be considered as a unit and the extent of territorial waters measured from the centre of the archipelago…Whether a group of islands forms or not an archipelago is determined by geographical conditions but it also depends in some cases on historic and prescriptive grounds”.③C.J.Colombos,International Law of the Sea,3rd ed.,London:Longmans Green,1954, p.110.In International Law, Schwarzenberger expresses a substantially similar idea:“If islands form an archipelago they may in certain circumstances be regarded as a unit in law”.④Schwarzenberger,International Law,Vol.I,London:Stevens&Sons Ltd.,1949,p.156.Evensen,the famous Norwegian jurist,likewise suggests to the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in his preparatory report that archipelagos,no matter coastal or mid-ocean,should be viewed as a unit as long as they have close geographical links.⑤Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.302.O’Connell holds the same view.⑥D.P.O’Connell,The International Law of the Sea,Vol.I,Oxford:Clarendon,1982,p. 482.

3.State Practice

Early in the 19thcentury,the unity of archipelagos was addressed.In 1854,the King of the Hawaiian Islands made an announcement claiming thatall the channels and the waters within islands fell into Hawaiian jurisdiction.①Lucchini&Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,p. 359.In 1921,Finland assessed the Aland Archipelago as a whole when delimiting surrounding waters.②Lucchini&Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,p. 359.Cuba and Ireland defined the concept of an archipelago as a unit through domestic legislation in 1934 and 1942,respectively.③ST/LEG./SER.B/6,pp.7,516.Among various state practices,most of countries with outlying archipelagos,such as the USSR,Canada,Denmark and France,tend to acknowledge an archipelago as a whole when delimiting maritime waters.

However,some countries,like the United Kingdom(UK)and the USA, preserve the principle of delimiting each island individually.The common example is the Hawaiian Islands,which consist of eight main islands plus a chain of much smaller islets.Throughout the 19thcentury,the Kingdom of Hawaii maintained this cluster of islands should be viewed as a whole.However,in 1951,the American federal government rejected this application and provided that every single island should be delimited separately and the baselines adopted should be the low-water mark.Due to the fact Hawaii is a State under the federal government,it is compelled to follow the federal mandate,despite local protests.④Dyke,John M.Van,An Overview of the Jurisdictional Issues Affecting Hawaii’s Ocean Waters,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.11,No.3,1996, p.363.

From the theories of international law and state practice mentioned above, one can conclude that there is no consensus on the unity of these outlying archipelagos,but that most countries tend to consider them a single unit.After all,it is not possible or even necessary to require the whole international community to hold uniform opinions.There are some scholars who claim that every single island should be delimited individually as there is no recognized provision in the UNCLOS confirming the unity of outlying archipelagos.Such claims,in the writer’s opinion,however,are not persuasive.Indeed,the UNCLOS never mentions the unity of these types of islands,but it does not follow that unity is contrary to the law of the sea.Rather,it is unfair for mid-ocean archipelagos of continental countries facing denial of recognition of the interconnectedness of these islands,considering the long-standing economic and se-curity factors involved.

B.Application of Straight Baselines

Due to the fact that most States currently recognize the unity of outlying archipelagos of continental countries,the next question to consider is the choice of baselines.According to existing international conventions,coastal archipelagos can be delimited with straight baselines,while archipelagic States are allowed to employ straight archipelagic baselines to delimit territorial waters. With regard to outlying archipelagos of continental countries,no definitive provision exists.Prior to determining whether we can adopt straight baselines in delimitation,it must be made clear whether international law of the sea forbids such a course of action.Insight and guidance can be found in the 1951 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case,which confirmed the legality of straight baselines and in current state practices.

1.Judgment of Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case

The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case was filed in 1949 by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland before the International Court of Justice against the Kingdom of Norway.The subject of the proceedings concerned the validity of the lines of delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone laid down by the Royal Decree of 1935(hereinafter the Decree). According to the Decree,Norway adopted the straight lines connecting the outermost islands of Skjaergard(rock rampart)to delimit the territorial sea.In 1951,the Court declared that neither the method employed for the delimitation by the Decree,nor the lines themselves fixed by the said Decree,were contrary to international law.①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.139.Although this case addresses only the coastal islands of Norway,its impact should not be undervalued.In the following discussions about the regimes of coastal archipelagoes and archipelagic States,the Judgment has often been cited as jurisprudential basis.To some extent,this Judgment provides some general guiding principles for the baselines adopted in mid-ocean archipelagos.Just as Evensen mentioned in his preparatory report for the 1958 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea:“The criteria here laid down by the Court are equally applicable to outlying archipelagos and coastal archipelagos and the statements thus made are couched in general terms expressingbasic principles of international law in this field”.①Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.300.

The principle put forward by the United Kingdom is that the baseline should be the low-water mark,since this method is the generally-adopted practice of States.The Court acknowledged this method,but at the same time stated that the core of choice of baselines was based upon geographical realities.②Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.128.The coastal zone of Norway is of a distinctive configuration,very broken by fjords and bays,dotted with countless islands,islets and reefs,which render the traditional low-water mark unsuitable for the delimitation.Furthermore,the Court also recommended other guiding principles concerning the delimitation of territorial waters.First,considerations should be made regarding the dependence of the territorial sea upon the land domain.It is,after all,the land that confers upon the coastal State a right to the waters off its coast.Second,while States must be allowed latitude necessary in order to adapt its delimitation to practical needs and local requirements,drawing of baselines must not depart from the general direction of the coast to any appreciable extent.In addition, when considering the territorial delimitation,certain economic interests peculiar to that region should also be included,as well as the geographical factors.③Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.133.

The above principles illustrated by the Court were derived from the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case and the Court’s decisions are not binding on other countries,but the precedent of the Court’s Judgment can be applicable to outlying archipelagos of continental countries.First,the fundamental principle of choosing baselines rests on the geographical characteristics of the specific region.New methods should be allowed,as the complex geography makes it difficult to adopt the traditional low-water mark.Just as the Court points out,“The rule would disappear under the exceptions”.④Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.129.Second,States have the sovereign right to delimit their territorial waters.In addition,the islands of these mid-ocean archipelagos are closely interconnected and economic interests should be taken into consideration.Hence,it would be safe to draw the conclusion that under certain circumstances,the method of drawing straight baselines connecting the outermost islands of outlying archipelagos is not contrary to the general principle of international law of the sea.

2.State Practice

In the 20thcentury,several countries with outlying archipelagos began to delimit territorial waters surrounding these islands through national legislation.As there is no consensus on the application of baselines,state practices are divergent.Whereas some countries,like the USA,never halt efforts to endorse low-water mark as baselines for all its islands,most continental countries with mid-ocean islands embrace the application of straight baselines.The practices of some countries are presented as follows:

a.Canada

In 1985,the Canadian Government enacted a decree providing that the Arctic Islands shall adopt straight baselines and the waters enclosed by the baselines shall be internal waters for the long-standing exercise of sovereignty.①Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

b.Denmark

In 1959,Denmark announced that the Faeroes Islands shall apply straight baselines through domestic legislation,and in 1963,the Government passed Royal Decree No.259 declaring the waters enclosed to be exclusive fishery zone,without clearly defining the nature of the encircled waters.②Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

c.Norway

According to the Spitzbergen Treaty of 1920,Norway has absolute sovereignty over the Svalbard Archipelago.And in 1970,the Norwegian authorities began to draw straight baselines around the archipelago for delimitation and declared the enclosed waters as internal waters.③Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

d.Ecuador

According to Presidential Decrees of 1938 and 1951,Ecuador considered the Galapagos as a unit and delimited its territorial waters by applying straight baselines connecting the outermost islands of this archipelago.Supreme Decree No.959-A,published on June 28,1971 in Official Register No.265 of July 13, 1971,affirmed the said lines in the Galapagos Archipelago and the need to establish an exclusive marine reserve.The enclosed waters were announced to be a special region forbidding international navigation for the sake of protectingthe ecological system of these islands.At the same time,the Government claimed rights over territorial waters and the continental shelf.①Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

e.India

The Indian Government consistently holds the view that there is no substantive difference between the archipelagos constituting archipelagic States and outlying archipelagos of continental countries and these two types should not be treated differently.The Andaman-Nicobar and Lakshadweep Islands should have the same legal rights which are granted to those forming the archipelagic States.②Summary Records of Plenary Meetings 27th plenary meeting,at http://untreaty.un.org/ cod/diplomaticconferences/lawofthesea-1982/docs/vol_I/a_conf-62_sr-27.pdf.p. 96,15 January 2012.

In addition,countries such as France,Finland and Yugoslavia also support the application of straight baselines.③Declarations and statements,Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations,at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm,16 January 2012.

From the outline above,a conclusion can be drawn that in addressing the question of delimiting outlying archipelagos of continental States,most countries are inclined to acknowledge these islands as a whole.Moreover,straight baselines adopted in these islands are not contrary to the current international law of sea.It is the concerned continental States that choose normal baselines or straight baselines for delimitation.Of course,in order for the straight baseline system to be accepted by other countries,several limitations should be set up,including but not limited to:(1)the baselines should not be too long;(2) the drawing of such baselines should not depart from the general configuration of the archipelago to any appreciable extent;and so on.

Ⅲ.Legal Regime of Archipelagic Waters of Continental States

Another critical issue of defining the legal status of outlying archipelagos of continental States concerns the nature of the enclosed waters,another point of debate between continental countries and sea powers that promote the freedom of navigation.Whereas continental States intend to maintain strict controlof their mid-ocean islands for purposes of sovereignty and security,maritime powers incessantly oppose such strict control,which might hinder free navigation.Due to these conflicts,the international community considers it extremely important to establish relevant standards for mid-ocean archipelagos.Thus,in order to fill the gap in this regime,laws concerning archipelagic waters of continental States must be amended.Lacking legal and practical clarity,the international community must search for answers by analyzing the legal regimes of archipelagic waters of coastal and archipelagic States.

A.Legal Status of the Other Two Types of Archipelagic Waters

In accordance with the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1958 and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982,States are permitted to draw straight baselines around coastal archipelagos,and“waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the State”.①Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,Art 5(a);UNCLOS,Art 8 (a).In other words,the enclosed waters of coastal archipelagos are deemed internal waters.Nevertheless,if straight baselines enclose internal waters areas,which had not previously been considered as such,a right of innocent passage should be acknowledged and permitted in such waters.②Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,Art 5(b);UNCLOS,Art 8 (b).

The concept of archipelagic waters of archipelagic States had not been introduced until the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. According to articles 49 to 54 of the 1982 Convention,this type of archipelagic waters is different from territorial waters and internal waters.“This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters,as well as to their bed and subsoil,and the resources contained therein”;③UNCLOS,Art 49(b).however,sovereign rights are limited in many aspects.Firstly,an archipelagic State should respect existing agreements with other States and recognize traditional fishing rights and the rights of laying undersea cables.Secondly,archipelagic waters shall allow special passage rights,that is,right of innocent passage and right of archipelagic sea-lanes passage.Such innocent passage rights are also the part seapowers most cared about and heatedly debated,especially by the USA and the USSR.①Plenary Meetings,Sum mary Records and Verbatim Records,as well as Documents of the Conference,Resumed Eleventh Session,Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,Volume XVII,New York,22-24 September 1982.

B.State Practice

From the discussion in partⅡabove,there is great divergence in legal regimes of outlying archipelagos of continental States.For example,the waters enclosed by the low-water lines(baselines insisted by the United States Government)around the Hawaiian Islands are clearly prescribed as internal waters.In Hawaii,archipelagic waters that connect every island actually do not exist.Unlike the USA,Canada and Norway declare that the archipelagic waters enclosed by straight baselines are internal waters and they have full and absolute sovereignty on these waters.The methods adopted by both Denmark and Ecuador are rather unique and flexible.In the case of Faeroes,the Danish Government declares the archipelagic waters as an exclusive fishery zone so as to avoid strong protests from sea powers.Ecuador announced that waters around the Galapagos shall be a special area in which foreign ships are not allowed for the purpose of protecting the ecosystem.In addition,the USSR drew straight baselines along its northern coast(including Northeast Waterways) based on claims of historical waters,and declared the enclosed waters as internal waters.However,sea powers,like the UK and the USA,have consistently objected to all claims that archipelagic waters of continental States should be internal waters which forbid free navigation.

From the above state practices of continental countries and the established regimes of the two other types of archipelagic waters,in order to formulate a system for archipelagic waters of continental States,the nature of these archipelagic waters and historic rights(including passage regime)should be seriously taken into account.

To begin with,the criteria defining the nature of enclosed waters must be clarified.Standards are yet to be formally codified in the international law of the sea,but some guiding principle can be traced from the 1951 Judgment of the International Court of Justice,namely the close dependence of the territorial sea upon the land domain.②Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.133.In other words,the legal status of the enclosedwaters of continental States should be treated on their individual characteristics by fully considering the relationship between waters and land domain.Should waters and land be so closely linked,it would be reasonable to regard the enclosed area as internal waters.Along with the geographical factors,security and economic interests also play important roles.As widely known,local security issues are complicated by geography and a government may hardly maintain a regular watch over various islands.“Espionage and surveillance are made less difficult”and“foreign naval strength may be a peculiarly potent threat to local decision processes”.①Myres Smith McDougal and William T.Burke,Public Order of the Oceans,New Haven: Yale University Press,1962,p.412.These outlying archipelagoes are also facing dangers from ships carrying noxious and dangerous cargoes and an increasing number of occurrences of oil-spills from tankers.Finally,economic interests of outlying archipelagoes are equally important and it is an unjustified discrimination as the international community has previously acknowledged economic interests of coastal archipelagoes and the ones forming archipelagic States.

However,the exclusive interests of these mid-ocean archipelagoes should be reconciled with the interests of other States.For instance,if an important international waterway exists in the archipelagic waters enclosed by the straight baselines,rights of transit passage should be permitted to other States in accordance with the UNCLOS,to ensure unimpeded international navigation.Although every sovereign State is entitled to choose which regime to delimit their territorial waters,such delimitation has to be in accordance with the international law.This principle was clearly illustrated in the Judgment of 1951 Fisheries Case:“The delimitation of sea areas has always an international aspect;it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal State as expressed in its municipal law.Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act,because only the coastal State is competent to undertake it,the validity of the delimitation with regard to other States depends upon international law.”②Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports 1951,p.132.The formulation process of the international law of the sea has also substantiated this principle.In the establishment of a new regime,with restriction of claims and proposals of flexible rules,it would be much easier for this new regime to be accepted by the international community.Furthermore,such principles would present less resistance in the implementation process and fewer disputes would arise from conflicting maritime in-terests.

Ⅳ.Conclusion

In summary,the international community has yet to reach consensus for an unambiguous and explicit legal regime concerning the outlying archipelagos of continental countries.It would be inadvisable to establish a uniform legal system to regulate this type of archipelagos when taking into account various geographical,economic and historical factors,for unified rules cannot allow for distinct features of individual archipelagoes.Nevertheless,it does not follow that certain rules and principles fail to exist or that they should not be established.After all,it is necessary to rely on related rules and standards to resolve current maritime disputes.

Thus,based on the state practices,the Judgment of the ICJand theories of international law,the following conclusions may be reasonably drawn:(1)outlying archipelagos of continental States can be viewed as a whole for the delimitation of territorial waters by drawing straight baselines from the outermost points of the islands,islets and rocks;and(2)in deciding the nature of waters enclosed by the baselines,the close dependence of the territorial sea upon the land domain will always be the essential principle.It would be justifiable to regard the waters as internal waters as long as the connections between these islands could be proven to be reasonable,whether in geographic,economic,historical respects or all of the above.However,navigation and passage rights of other nations should be considered and proper measures should be taken to ensure the normal international navigation.In conclusion,the establishment of any regime should be based on case-by-case analysis,taking into consideration all the relevant aspects.Archipelagos exist in different regions of the world, and thus are influenced by distinctive political,economic and historical forces, the applicable facts should be taken into account and the delimitation must be adapted to the specific conditions presented.This method of addressing controversies embodies the core spirit of the international law of the sea.

On the Outlying Archipelagos of Continental States

JIA Nan*

Archipelagos are one of the most important issues in maritime affairs.With the gradual development of the archipelagic regime in the latter part of the 20thcentury,the disputes caused by coastal archipelagos and archipelagic States have been well addressed.However,the regime concerning outlying archipelagos of continental countries remains unsettled.Due to this uncertainty,a number of disputes have arisen,making it necessary to solve this problem.Based on the analysis of state practice and international legal theories,this paper intends to clarify this issue by analyzing the baseline system and the legal regime applicable to the outlying archipelagic waters.

Outlying archipelagos;Status quo;Baselines;Archipelagic waters

*賈楠,武漢大學國際問題研究院。電子郵箱:jslyg19891209@163.com。

*JIA Nan,Wuhan University Institute for International Studies.Email:jslyg19891209@ 163.com.