Theodore Okonkwo

國(guó)家管轄范圍以外的海洋公域管理

Theodore Okonkwo*

迄今為止，國(guó)際社會(huì)獲取周邊海域的方式都帶有殖民化的色彩，往往以國(guó)家利益的名義獲取新領(lǐng)土。地球上大部分的海洋都位于特定國(guó)家和地區(qū)的海岸或邊界之外，過(guò)去，人類(lèi)對(duì)海洋的認(rèn)識(shí)有限，各國(guó)之間也因此產(chǎn)生了各種沖突。在此背景下，各國(guó)有必要也有法定義務(wù)來(lái)制定國(guó)家管轄范圍以外海洋公域的管理方式和方法。最近，世界各國(guó)政府齊聚紐約，召開(kāi)了第一屆聯(lián)合國(guó)籌備委員會(huì)會(huì)議，討論一項(xiàng)旨在保護(hù)國(guó)家管轄范圍以外海洋生物多樣性的新國(guó)際條約的主要內(nèi)容，并將在2017年將相關(guān)內(nèi)容報(bào)告給聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)。本文將討論公海保護(hù)活動(dòng)中的這一重要進(jìn)展。此外，海洋公域治理中還存在一些關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題，本文希望在提高公眾對(duì)這些問(wèn)題的意識(shí)的同時(shí)，填補(bǔ)海洋公域管理中的一些空白。1982年《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》是一部海洋憲章，本文將研究該公約中有關(guān)海洋管理的規(guī)定。此外，本文還將探討海洋公域與全球公域的構(gòu)成、涉及海洋公域的法律制度、《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》中規(guī)定的爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的作用，并討論國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性的保護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用。

海洋公域 全球公域 生物多樣性 國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域 《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》 可持續(xù)管理 爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制

一、引 言

像本文這種性質(zhì)的文章，通常開(kāi)篇都會(huì)提出這樣一個(gè)問(wèn)題：海洋公域管理為何如此重要，值得重視？《保護(hù)學(xué)通訊》①Bethan C. O’Leary, Marit Winther-Johnson, John M. Bainbridge, Jemma Aitken, Julie P. Hawkins and Callum M. Roberts, Effective Coverage Targets for Ocean Protection, Conservation Letters, 2016, at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12247/pdf, 12 July 2016.雜志發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)新研究回顧了100多項(xiàng)早期研究，并指出30%～40%的海洋需要得到保護(hù)，避免開(kāi)發(fā)和受損，以最好地保護(hù)生物多樣性和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。實(shí)際上，如果不建立公海海洋保護(hù)區(qū)，這一點(diǎn)是不可能實(shí)現(xiàn)的。早在2012年，②The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (the Rio +20 Summit), 2012.世界各國(guó)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人就在考慮是否應(yīng)該磋商簽署一項(xiàng)保護(hù)和保全公海海洋生物的新協(xié)議。③United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio +20, The Future We Want, June 2012, para. 162.2015年6月，聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)邁出了重要一步，大會(huì)通過(guò)了一項(xiàng)決議，決定開(kāi)始就這一重要和急需制定的國(guó)際條約進(jìn)行談判。因此，2016年3月28日到4月8日期間，第一屆聯(lián)合國(guó)籌備委員會(huì)會(huì)議在紐約舉行，會(huì)議旨在確定關(guān)于保護(hù)國(guó)家管轄范圍以外海洋生物多樣性的新國(guó)際條約的制定進(jìn)程。正是因?yàn)槿蚱毡橐庾R(shí)到海洋在人類(lèi)日?；顒?dòng)中占據(jù)了重要的位置，國(guó)際社會(huì)才開(kāi)始關(guān)注并努力制定和確立一個(gè)強(qiáng)大且各國(guó)公認(rèn)的法律框架。

世界各國(guó)都在努力拓展海洋空間，這種澎湃的激情，堪比殖民運(yùn)動(dòng)，因?yàn)樗麄円庾R(shí)到一個(gè)國(guó)家有能力控制海洋公域，便能實(shí)現(xiàn)巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治利益。1982年在蒙特利灣舉辦了第三屆聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法大會(huì)，會(huì)上頒布了《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)“《公約》”），該公約允許各國(guó)在一定海域內(nèi)行使主權(quán)權(quán)利。④Olivier Dubuquoy and Edouard Gaudot, The Ocean: From Colonized Territory to Global Nation, Green European Journal, Vol. 12, 2016, at http://www.greeneuropeanjournal. eu/7945-2/, 24 October 2016.根據(jù)《公約》，各國(guó)可以通過(guò)主張專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)來(lái)占用海洋空間，并在200海里專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)之外延伸其大陸架，最寬可至350海里。因此，各國(guó)通過(guò)主張專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)已經(jīng)瓜分了大部分海洋，專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)現(xiàn)已覆蓋海洋總面積的三分之一。

然而，海洋公域的界限在很大程度上卻被忽視了。傳統(tǒng)的世界化石能源爭(zhēng)奪大戰(zhàn)一般都在陸地上進(jìn)行，而現(xiàn)在全球的目光已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)向海洋這一新戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)。這已經(jīng)引起了沖突和戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，若處理不當(dāng)，沖突將逐步升級(jí)，超出可控范圍。迪比克和戈多⑤Olivier Dubuquoy and Edouard Gaudot, The Ocean: From Colonized Territory to Global Nation, Green European Journal, Vol. 12, 2016, at http://www.greeneuropeanjournal. eu/7945-2/, 24 October 2016.認(rèn)為，海上邊界的延伸導(dǎo)致了爭(zhēng)議區(qū)域的產(chǎn)生。他們指出：

這些新邊界也會(huì)引發(fā)一些原有的反射性作用。如果一條邊界已經(jīng)劃定了主權(quán)區(qū)域，那么就意味著這一領(lǐng)土不能處于幾方的主權(quán)之下。相關(guān)國(guó)家在這一區(qū)域享有專(zhuān)屬開(kāi)發(fā)權(quán)。據(jù)國(guó)際能源署報(bào)道，“對(duì)于主要位于陸上和淺海水域的現(xiàn)有油氣礦藏，其原油產(chǎn)量將在2011至2035年間下降三分之二”。按照國(guó)際能源署的說(shuō)法，只能通過(guò)用新油氣礦藏取代現(xiàn)有油田的方式，下降的原油產(chǎn)量才能得到補(bǔ)償。

上述情況最終會(huì)導(dǎo)致富有石油和天然氣礦藏的爭(zhēng)議區(qū)域出現(xiàn)波動(dòng)和緊張局勢(shì)。公域是受法律制度管制的資源，允許共用和集體管理。本文敦促世界各國(guó)之間相互合作，因?yàn)檫@是應(yīng)對(duì)公域緊張局勢(shì)和爭(zhēng)端的唯一恰當(dāng)方式。海洋公域代表的是國(guó)家管轄范圍以外的公海區(qū)域，位于國(guó)家專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)之外，覆蓋了將近三分之二的海洋表面面積。各國(guó)應(yīng)該開(kāi)展合作，研究出創(chuàng)新辦法，實(shí)現(xiàn)海洋公域資源的有效和可持續(xù)管理，保護(hù)不屬于任何一國(guó)責(zé)任范圍內(nèi)海域的海洋生物多樣性。⑥Birdlife South Africa, Report Workshop on Seabed Bycatch Mitigation in China’s Tuna Longline Fisheries, Shanghai, China, 17 April 2015, at http://www.commonoceans.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/common_oceans/docs/BLI_ChinaWorkshopReport17Apr2015. pdf, 12 July 2016; FAO, Report of the Second Project Steering Committee: Sustainable Management of Tuna Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation in ABNJ, Rome, Italy, 28-30 July 2015, at http://www.commonoceans.org/fleadmin/user_upload/common_oceans/docs/ ABNJ-Tuna-2015-PSC.pdf, 12 July 2016.海洋公域的利用和管理中經(jīng)常存在涉及海洋生物和污染的問(wèn)題。因此，保護(hù)海洋公域，還需要放眼全球公域，對(duì)沿海和陸上活動(dòng)進(jìn)行管理。⑦Boyce Thorne-Miller, The Living Ocean: Understanding and Protecting Marine Biodiversity, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1999; Cyrille de Klemm and Clare Shine, Biological Diversity Conservation and the Law: Legal Mechanism for Conserving Species and Ecosystems, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993; Richard L. Wallace ed., The Marine Mammal Commission Compendium of Selected Treaties, International Agreements and Other Relevant Documents on Marine Resources, Wildlife and Environment, Washington D.C.: Marine Mammal Commission, 1997.

“全球公域”是指國(guó)家政治范圍以外的資源域。根據(jù)國(guó)際法，共有4個(gè)全球公域：公海、大氣層、南極洲和外層空間。這些全球公域都由人類(lèi)共同繼承財(cái)產(chǎn)原則所支配，在公海上即奉行海洋自由原則（公海對(duì)每個(gè)人開(kāi)放）。盡管個(gè)人、各國(guó)政府、國(guó)際組織都試圖為大部分自然資源設(shè)置產(chǎn)權(quán)或施加其他形式的控制，但全球公域的概念仍是個(gè)例外。正如其他文章所指出的，很難獲取全球公域中的一些資源（除漁業(yè)等少數(shù)資源外），然而，隨著現(xiàn)代科技發(fā)明和科學(xué)的進(jìn)步，獲取全球公域中的資源變得更加容易，進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致在這些資源域內(nèi)的活動(dòng)有所增加。⑧Charles S. Colgan, The Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: An Introduction and Invitation, Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, Vol. 2014, Article 8, December 2014, at http://cbe.miis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=joce, 12 July 2016.令人遺憾的是，其中大部分活動(dòng)都沒(méi)有有效的法律或政策來(lái)管理和規(guī)范。

海洋公域的不可侵犯性必須通過(guò)國(guó)際法得到維護(hù)。國(guó)際法應(yīng)對(duì)開(kāi)展危及海洋公域活動(dòng)的海洋侵入者和實(shí)體實(shí)施系統(tǒng)的刑事起訴，不論該實(shí)體是否合法。我們必須為全人類(lèi)和子孫后代的利益可持續(xù)地管理海洋?？杀氖?，目前并沒(méi)有合適的國(guó)際法框架，可以從整體上保護(hù)海洋公域免受人類(lèi)活動(dòng)的損害，希望聯(lián)合國(guó)正在制定的新條約可以填補(bǔ)這一空白。

在這一點(diǎn)上，應(yīng)當(dāng)指出的是，2016年3月28日至4月8日，第一屆籌備委員會(huì)大會(huì)在紐約聯(lián)合國(guó)總部召開(kāi)，會(huì)議在《公約》的框架下討論了一項(xiàng)旨在保護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性的具有國(guó)際法約束力的文件草案的主要內(nèi)容。在全體會(huì)議和非正式工作組會(huì)議中，籌備委員會(huì)審議了如下事項(xiàng)：具有國(guó)際法約束力的文件范圍，及其與其他文件之間的關(guān)系；指導(dǎo)方針和原則；海洋遺傳資源，包括相關(guān)的利益分享問(wèn)題；基于區(qū)域的管理工具，包括海洋保護(hù)區(qū)；環(huán)境影響評(píng)估；能力建設(shè)和海洋技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓。本屆會(huì)議通過(guò)了第二屆籌備委員會(huì)會(huì)議的結(jié)構(gòu)安排，以及邀請(qǐng)主席作會(huì)議總結(jié)，并列出兩屆會(huì)議間的指示性問(wèn)題清單，以便利第二屆籌備委員會(huì)的順利開(kāi)展。與會(huì)者高度贊揚(yáng)了會(huì)議討論的進(jìn)度、深度及其建設(shè)性意義，這標(biāo)志著制定一項(xiàng)關(guān)于執(zhí)行《公約》深海生物多樣性相關(guān)規(guī)定的新協(xié)定的進(jìn)程正式開(kāi)始。⑨Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), Vol. 25, No. 106, 11 April 2016, at http://www.iisd.ca/ vol25/enb25106e.html, 12 July 2016.

本文首先探討當(dāng)今國(guó)際社會(huì)所面臨的最重要的地緣政治問(wèn)題，接著討論我們應(yīng)如何管理和治理國(guó)家管轄范圍以外的海洋，以便為全人類(lèi)和子孫后代的利益可持續(xù)性地利用海洋，永久地確保其潛能。本文還進(jìn)一步探討了以下問(wèn)題：海洋公域和全球公域的定義；海洋公域的法律制度；爭(zhēng)端解決和海洋公域；南海仲裁案；海洋公域的管理，這也自然而然地引出了保護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用海洋的問(wèn)題；國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域的生物多樣性。

二、海洋公域的法律制度

長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)，海洋公域都是許多國(guó)家的經(jīng)濟(jì)支柱和政治權(quán)力基礎(chǔ)，并通過(guò)決定海洋及其資源的利用和管理塑造了國(guó)家的未來(lái)。⑩A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783, reprint, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1965.歷史上發(fā)生了很多在海洋公域內(nèi)發(fā)生爭(zhēng)端的案例，這在現(xiàn)代已經(jīng)上升到很危險(xiǎn)的境地。①James C. F. Wang, Handbook on Ocean Politics and Law, New York: Greenwood Press, 1992, pp. 107～142.鑒于過(guò)度開(kāi)發(fā)、過(guò)度捕撈的加劇，海洋自然資源的枯竭，以及導(dǎo)致海洋污染和氣候變化的人類(lèi)活動(dòng)的增加，發(fā)生這種被喻為“公地悲劇”的情況并不意外。②Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, Vol. 162, Issue 3859, 1968, pp. 1243～1248.隨著這種情況的出現(xiàn)，各國(guó)現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)意識(shí)到，為和平管理國(guó)家管轄范圍以外的海洋公域，有必要開(kāi)展合作并商議區(qū)域性和國(guó)際性的法律法規(guī)。在起草和協(xié)商眾多管制海洋公域的多邊貿(mào)易條約和國(guó)際協(xié)定以及確保這些條約與協(xié)定得以批準(zhǔn)等方面，聯(lián)合國(guó)及其下屬機(jī)構(gòu)起到了非常關(guān)鍵的作用。③管理海洋公域的主要公約、條約和協(xié)定包括：1982年《公約》、1992年《生物多樣性公約》、1973年《瀕危野生動(dòng)植物種國(guó)際貿(mào)易公約》、1946年《國(guó)際捕鯨公約》、1995年《執(zhí)行1982年12月10日〈聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約〉有關(guān)養(yǎng)護(hù)和管理跨界魚(yú)類(lèi)種群和高度洄游魚(yú)類(lèi)種群之規(guī)定的協(xié)定》、1980年《南極海洋生物資源養(yǎng)護(hù)公約》、1972年《防止傾倒廢物和其他物質(zhì)污染海洋的公約》、《國(guó)際防止船舶造成污染公約》、《關(guān)于持久性有機(jī)污染物的斯德哥爾摩公約》和1995年《保護(hù)海洋環(huán)境免受陸源污染國(guó)家行動(dòng)計(jì)劃》。目前，已經(jīng)存在一些應(yīng)對(duì)海洋公域管理問(wèn)題的法律和制度框架。值得注意的是，《公約》部分內(nèi)容專(zhuān)門(mén)處理了世界海洋和南極各部分的管理問(wèn)題。雖然目前存在一些應(yīng)對(duì)海洋公域中自然資源問(wèn)題的制度和監(jiān)管框架，但還是存在根本性的空白和不一致，這些都需要立即引起注意。首先必須解決的一項(xiàng)重要法律問(wèn)題是，海洋公域治理的法律監(jiān)管框架非常零散。另外一個(gè)問(wèn)題是，沒(méi)有一個(gè)總的組織或機(jī)構(gòu)負(fù)責(zé)制定和協(xié)調(diào)處理與海洋公域自然資源勘探和開(kāi)發(fā)有關(guān)的現(xiàn)有或新問(wèn)題的政策。第三個(gè)問(wèn)題則是缺乏對(duì)新出現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題和活動(dòng)（如生物勘探）的監(jiān)管標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，其中生物勘探活動(dòng)就涉及獲取遺傳資源的權(quán)利和流程，以及資源利用的利益共享問(wèn)題?？紤]到這些問(wèn)題，聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)已設(shè)立了不限成員名額非正式特設(shè)工作組，專(zhuān)門(mén)研究涉及養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域海洋生物多樣性的問(wèn)題。④在2015年1月23日舉行的第69屆聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)上，不限成員名額非正式特設(shè)工作組重申了在《我們想要的未來(lái)》第162段所作出的承諾。該文件是2012年6月20-22日在巴西里約熱內(nèi)盧舉行的聯(lián)合國(guó)可持續(xù)發(fā)展大會(huì)成果文件。2012年7月27日，聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)第66/288號(hào)決議批準(zhǔn)了該文件，各國(guó)元首和政府首腦在決議中承諾在不限成員名額非正式特設(shè)工作組工作的基礎(chǔ)上，立刻解決保護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用國(guó)家管轄范圍以外海洋生物多樣性的問(wèn)題，包括決定根據(jù)《公約》來(lái)制定一份國(guó)際文書(shū)。

過(guò)去一個(gè)世紀(jì)，全球海洋公域的管理采取了2種方式。一種方式是首先關(guān)注與國(guó)際航運(yùn)有關(guān)的法律問(wèn)題。幾個(gè)世紀(jì)以來(lái)，甚至可能幾千年以來(lái)，國(guó)際貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)闹饕緩揭恢笔呛竭\(yùn)。即使是現(xiàn)在，從重量來(lái)看，所有國(guó)際貿(mào)易的95%，或者從體積來(lái)看，所有國(guó)際貿(mào)易的三分之二，都是通過(guò)船舶從海上運(yùn)輸?shù)摹＂軵hilip E. Steinberg, The Social Construction of the Ocean, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 4.由于公海不屬于任何主權(quán)國(guó)家，所以在公海上的行為準(zhǔn)則只能通過(guò)國(guó)際協(xié)定來(lái)實(shí)施。海洋空間治理工作最初涉及海上救撈責(zé)任和權(quán)利問(wèn)題，然后再是公海船舶的援助規(guī)則。隨著時(shí)間的推移，特別是在泰坦尼克號(hào)事件之后，人們?nèi)找骊P(guān)注船上工作人員或乘客的安全，而這些規(guī)則也逐漸演變成協(xié)議，以期提高在船上的安全性。國(guó)際海事組織就是致力于解決這些問(wèn)題的國(guó)際機(jī)構(gòu)。

第二種方式涉及對(duì)海洋資源的關(guān)注。從20世紀(jì)70年代開(kāi)始，隨著國(guó)際社會(huì)日益關(guān)注環(huán)境損害，人們的目光逐漸轉(zhuǎn)向預(yù)防和減輕海洋污染。除了國(guó)際海事組織中現(xiàn)有的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)，與之有所交集的還有《公約》直接創(chuàng)建的機(jī)構(gòu)，以及源于《公約》的國(guó)際法變化所確立的機(jī)構(gòu)。漁業(yè)是另一種重要的海洋資源，但保護(hù)漁業(yè)的集體行動(dòng)從20世紀(jì)中期才真正開(kāi)始。20世紀(jì)80年代掀起了另一波建立漁業(yè)組織的熱潮。在這波熱潮中建立的機(jī)構(gòu)數(shù)量眾多，但關(guān)注的范圍卻很狹隘。雖然這些機(jī)構(gòu)很難防止全球過(guò)度捕撈，但已經(jīng)開(kāi)始解決新出現(xiàn)的治理問(wèn)題。

《公約》是在1973年至1982年召開(kāi)的第三屆聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法大會(huì)上頒布的國(guó)際協(xié)定，并于1994年11月16日生效?！豆s》為世界海洋的利用提供了監(jiān)管框架，尤其是在確保養(yǎng)護(hù)和公平利用資源和海洋環(huán)境，以及確保海洋生物資源的保護(hù)和保全方面?！豆s》還涉及主權(quán)、各海域的使用權(quán)限和航行權(quán)等其他問(wèn)題。⑥截至2016年10月26日，已有168個(gè)國(guó)家批準(zhǔn)、加入或繼承其前身加入《公約》。《公約》全文和狀態(tài)，下載于http://www.un.org/depts/los/，2016年10月26日。《公約》中包含一節(jié)有關(guān)環(huán)境保護(hù)的內(nèi)容，《公約》要求所有國(guó)家“保護(hù)和保全海洋環(huán)境”。⑦UNCLOS, Article 192.

在1972年召開(kāi)的聯(lián)合國(guó)環(huán)境與發(fā)展大會(huì)上，成立了環(huán)境和發(fā)展委員會(huì)，該委員會(huì)于1987年出版了《我們共同的未來(lái)》一文，承認(rèn)了海洋保護(hù)的重要性。1992年，各國(guó)政府再次召開(kāi)會(huì)議，討論全球環(huán)境問(wèn)題。會(huì)上通過(guò)了《里約宣言》和《21世紀(jì)議程》，前者規(guī)定了一系列原則，后者則是解決嚴(yán)重的環(huán)境與人類(lèi)發(fā)展問(wèn)題的行動(dòng)計(jì)劃，包括海洋生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的退化。1992年聯(lián)合國(guó)環(huán)境與發(fā)展大會(huì)的成果之一是《生物多樣性公約》，這是一部綜合性條約，致力于處理海洋和陸地生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的相關(guān)問(wèn)題，⑧Boyce Thorne-Miller, The Living Ocean: Understanding and Protecting Marine Biodiversity, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1999.并建立一個(gè)可以保護(hù)生物多樣性的框架。然而，在是否、何時(shí)以及如何執(zhí)行該公約等方面，每個(gè)成員國(guó)都被賦予了很大的自由裁量權(quán)。⑨Cyrille de Klemm and Clare Shine, Biological Diversity, Conserving Species and Ecosystems, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993.

在1992年聯(lián)合國(guó)環(huán)境與發(fā)展大會(huì)召開(kāi)之前，已經(jīng)制定了《瀕危野生動(dòng)植物種國(guó)際貿(mào)易公約》，用以保護(hù)各瀕危物種，包括海洋中發(fā)現(xiàn)的目前仍保護(hù)不力的物種，而保護(hù)不力的主要原因是我們對(duì)這些物種的狀態(tài)知之甚少。在所有規(guī)制國(guó)家管轄范圍以外公域的公約和協(xié)定中，《公約》仍是根本性規(guī)范。一個(gè)公認(rèn)的觀(guān)點(diǎn)是，這些法律協(xié)定有助于形成健康、富有生產(chǎn)力和回彈力的海洋，并獲得可持續(xù)發(fā)展。聯(lián)合國(guó)在“里約＋⑩Jeff Ardon, Elisabeth Druel, Kristina Gjerde, Katherine Houghton, Julien Rochette and Sebastian Unger, Advancing Governance of the High Seas, IASS Policy Brief 1/2013, May 2013.”峰會(huì)《我們想要的未來(lái)》中強(qiáng)調(diào)：

海洋及其資源的養(yǎng)護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展具有重要作用，因?yàn)檫@有利于消除貧窮、實(shí)現(xiàn)持續(xù)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)、保證糧食安全、創(chuàng)造可持續(xù)生計(jì)及體面工作，同時(shí)也保護(hù)生物多樣性和海洋環(huán)境，應(yīng)對(duì)氣候變化的影響。20

如上所述，聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)已經(jīng)采取行動(dòng)，致力于制定一份全球法律文件，以便與《公約》一同督促各國(guó)保護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域的海洋生物多樣性。然而，本文認(rèn)為，盡管?chē)?guó)際社會(huì)采取了相關(guān)行動(dòng)，我們離形成一個(gè)“健康、富有生產(chǎn)力和回彈力的海洋”①At http://en.unesco.org/events/towards-sustainable-development-goal-ocean-healthyproductive-and-resilient-ocean-people, 11 October 2016.的目標(biāo)還很遠(yuǎn)。相關(guān)的法律制度并未在海洋治理方面取得成效，有些國(guó)家未遵守也未充分落實(shí)這些制度，未遵守船旗國(guó)義務(wù)，對(duì)協(xié)同監(jiān)管和執(zhí)行機(jī)制的投資有限，過(guò)分依賴(lài)分業(yè)種方法來(lái)管理資源，公海治理的制度性基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施不足，無(wú)法克服政治障礙，資源分配不公，以及地區(qū)性合作未取得成效。

公海治理框架是指法律規(guī)則、政治程序、以及法律規(guī)則借以適用和執(zhí)行的制度性結(jié)構(gòu)，其基礎(chǔ)是《公約》?！豆s》是一部綜合性的法律文書(shū)，其為所有海洋活動(dòng)的開(kāi)展制定了必須遵守的法律框架，《公約》及其兩個(gè)執(zhí)行協(xié)定是海洋治理的主要法律框架。然而，《公約》也存在很多缺陷：用來(lái)管理人類(lèi)在海洋環(huán)境中的活動(dòng)的分業(yè)種方法，是以規(guī)管特定的行業(yè)和人類(lèi)活動(dòng)為基礎(chǔ)的，如漁業(yè)、航運(yùn)業(yè)和海底采礦業(yè)，這種方法導(dǎo)致“法規(guī)的時(shí)效和效力”存在很大的不一致，因?yàn)橐?guī)管這些行業(yè)活動(dòng)的各種機(jī)構(gòu)之間缺乏互動(dòng)。因此，分業(yè)種方法嚴(yán)重阻礙了對(duì)物種、棲息地和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的保護(hù)，而這些正是生物多樣性的核心部分。在實(shí)施《公約》的過(guò)程中，如涉及人類(lèi)在公海上的活動(dòng)的分業(yè)種管理，透明機(jī)制、問(wèn)責(zé)機(jī)制和遵約匯報(bào)機(jī)制均比較薄弱，只存在為數(shù)不多的幾個(gè)機(jī)制可以用來(lái)評(píng)估或管理行業(yè)活動(dòng)、海洋酸化和氣候變暖對(duì)同一海洋環(huán)境的累積影響?！豆s》并未設(shè)立一個(gè)獨(dú)立的秘書(shū)處，專(zhuān)門(mén)負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督《公約》的執(zhí)行，以及促進(jìn)國(guó)家在實(shí)踐中一貫適用《公約》。此外，《公約》也沒(méi)有內(nèi)置的遵約機(jī)制，負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督各國(guó)履約，以及在必要時(shí)作出制裁，正如《關(guān)于消耗臭氧層物質(zhì)的蒙特利爾議定書(shū)》和《國(guó)際瀕危物種貿(mào)易公約》中規(guī)定的制裁。②《公約》確實(shí)設(shè)立了強(qiáng)制且具有約束力的爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制，但是爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制與遵約是不同的。相反，《公約》設(shè)立了3個(gè)全新的獨(dú)立機(jī)構(gòu)，③《公約》設(shè)立的這3個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)分別是國(guó)際海底管理局、國(guó)際海洋法法庭和大陸架界限委員會(huì)。每個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)都是獨(dú)立的，各自肩負(fù)《公約》規(guī)定的特定與有限責(zé)任。這3個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)分別承擔(dān)執(zhí)行《公約》某些部分的職能?！豆s》中的其他規(guī)定則由各國(guó)單獨(dú)或共同執(zhí)行，或通過(guò)“主管?chē)?guó)際組織”、地區(qū)性或全球性機(jī)構(gòu)和組織來(lái)執(zhí)行。我們認(rèn)為，《公約》的做法造成了主管機(jī)構(gòu)的泛濫，這些機(jī)構(gòu)的職責(zé)范圍經(jīng)常會(huì)有所重疊和沖突，但實(shí)際上他們都缺乏真正的規(guī)管或執(zhí)行權(quán)力。遵守或執(zhí)行海洋利用和管理的現(xiàn)有國(guó)際公約、條約和協(xié)定，一般采取自愿原則，在這種情況下，各國(guó)可以輕易地選擇放棄本國(guó)不同意的事項(xiàng)或措施，卻幾乎不用為此承擔(dān)全球?qū)用娴呢?zé)任。與此同時(shí)，就算存在監(jiān)管某些行業(yè)的機(jī)制，他們的效力也存在很大差異，各行業(yè)中的規(guī)則不統(tǒng)一，適用方式也不一致。④Global Ocean Commission, From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, at http://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOC_report_2015. July_2.pdf, 12 July 2016.

總之，目前管理對(duì)海洋產(chǎn)生影響的人類(lèi)活動(dòng)的法律制度尚存在不足，該制度無(wú)法讓海洋實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展，無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)資源的公平分配，也沒(méi)法創(chuàng)造條件使源自海洋的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益最大化。因此，我們建議，在展望與努力制定新國(guó)際條約的同時(shí)，還應(yīng)切實(shí)落實(shí)現(xiàn)有文件，填補(bǔ)執(zhí)法空白，提高守法程度，加大執(zhí)法力度，這將有利于解決目前的難題。付出更大的努力找出把現(xiàn)代的保護(hù)指令納入《公約》現(xiàn)有治理框架的方法，這樣目前的退化路徑就可能得到逆轉(zhuǎn)。

對(duì)于上述問(wèn)題，可行的解決措施還包括改善監(jiān)管情況，加強(qiáng)海軍、漁業(yè)執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)、警察機(jī)關(guān)、軍事和區(qū)域性機(jī)構(gòu)之間的合作，以及共享有關(guān)非軍事威脅的信息。此外，還可以利用衛(wèi)星監(jiān)測(cè)船舶，再綜合利用地面和太空系統(tǒng)提供的船舶自動(dòng)識(shí)別系統(tǒng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)信息。⑤Global Ocean Commission, From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, http://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOC_report_2015.July_2. pdf, 12 July 2016.盡管大家都承認(rèn)，衛(wèi)星有利于監(jiān)控海上的非法活動(dòng)，但是，在多數(shù)情況下，解讀和利用大量的衛(wèi)星數(shù)據(jù)卻十分困難。此外，也沒(méi)有一個(gè)國(guó)家可以單獨(dú)承擔(dān)建設(shè)全球范圍的海上監(jiān)控系統(tǒng)的費(fèi)用。⑥Global Ocean Commission, From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, at http://www.some.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOC_report_2015. July_2.pdf, 12 July 2016.為改善這一普遍情況，相關(guān)機(jī)構(gòu)已經(jīng)提出了很多建議，例如，成立一個(gè)世界海洋組織，負(fù)責(zé)對(duì)全球海洋環(huán)境進(jìn)行管理，并對(duì)海洋資源的獲取進(jìn)行規(guī)管；⑦WBGU, World in Transition: Governing the Marine Heritage, p. 253, at http://www.wbgu. de/fleadmin/templates/dateien/veroef f entlichungen/hauptgutachten/hg2013/wbgu_hg2013_ en.pdf, 24 October 2016.將區(qū)域性漁業(yè)管理組織轉(zhuǎn)變成區(qū)域性海洋管理組織，在一個(gè)洋盆內(nèi)的所有活動(dòng)，如影響海洋生物資源的保育和管理以及海洋環(huán)境的保護(hù)和保全，均由區(qū)域性海洋管理組織負(fù)責(zé)管理。這類(lèi)組織的職能范圍包括在公海上建立海洋保護(hù)區(qū)，以及制定新的法律措施，對(duì)未履行保護(hù)義務(wù)的國(guó)家進(jìn)行制裁。

最后，我們相信海洋公域法律制度的完善將起到重要作用，具體而言，可以幫助逆轉(zhuǎn)全球海洋健康普遍惡化的局勢(shì)，以及打造可持續(xù)發(fā)展的未來(lái)。自覺(jué)執(zhí)行現(xiàn)有的法律和政策文件，提高履約程度，以及嚴(yán)格執(zhí)法，肯定有利于解決不斷出現(xiàn)的挑戰(zhàn)，這些措施因此也是一系列建議的重要組成部分。無(wú)論如何，比較理想的做法是結(jié)合2016年聯(lián)合國(guó)籌備委員會(huì)第一屆會(huì)議上采納的建議，制定一個(gè)新條約。在制定新條約時(shí)必須謹(jǐn)慎，不得打破《公約》下權(quán)利與義務(wù)之間的平衡。在指出這一點(diǎn)以后，還有必要問(wèn)問(wèn)是否需要徹底變革治理方法，以確保在綜合管理全球海洋公域的過(guò)程中將可持續(xù)發(fā)展放在首位？如果答案是肯定的，那么如何做到徹底變革呢？這是一個(gè)開(kāi)放式問(wèn)題，有待繼續(xù)討論。

三、爭(zhēng)端解決與海洋公域

本部分將探討爭(zhēng)端解決與海洋公域，以及這兩者與中菲南海仲裁案的關(guān)系。爭(zhēng)端解決涉及法律、規(guī)范與治理等問(wèn)題。⑧Anshuman Chakraborty, Dispute Settlement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Its Role in Oceans Governance (LL.M Thesis), New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington, 2006.在奧斯特羅姆看來(lái)，沖突解決機(jī)制仍然是“使參與公共池塘資源治理的機(jī)構(gòu)真正發(fā)揮積極職能作用”所需要的重要手段之一。⑨Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 181.歐盟委員會(huì)則認(rèn)為，治理是公共機(jī)構(gòu)的職能，指的是行使權(quán)力，意指執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu)、大會(huì)和司法機(jī)關(guān)所采取的行動(dòng)。⑩European Commission, “What is Governance?”, at http://europa.eu.int/comm./governance/ index_en.htm, 9 September 2016.以此推之，法院、法庭等司法機(jī)關(guān)可以作為解決海洋公域相關(guān)爭(zhēng)端的機(jī)構(gòu)。因?yàn)榻?jīng)過(guò)適當(dāng)磋商與合法執(zhí)行的公約和協(xié)議具有法律效力，并可以通過(guò)解決爭(zhēng)端的司法和非司法途徑執(zhí)行，因此，爭(zhēng)端解決、海洋公域與中菲南海仲裁案之間的聯(lián)系是顯而易見(jiàn)的。所以，本文明確認(rèn)為，海洋公域也不例外，相關(guān)方在某些情況下有權(quán)向國(guó)際海洋法法庭申訴。從這個(gè)意義上說(shuō)，爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制可以在海洋公域治理中發(fā)揮作用，但是，成效如何將取決于各國(guó)是否愿意使用這些機(jī)制來(lái)解決海洋公域和海事?tīng)?zhēng)端。

爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制同樣也可用于管理國(guó)家管轄范圍外的海洋公域。在此，我們有必要回顧一下《公約》中有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端解決的條款。①Annex VII & VIII and Parts XI and XV, UNCLOS.《公約》設(shè)立了國(guó)際海洋法法庭、海洋法仲裁法庭和特別仲裁法庭等司法機(jī)構(gòu)，②A(yíng)nnex VII & VIII and Parts XI and XV, UNCLOS.專(zhuān)門(mén)負(fù)責(zé)裁定有關(guān)《公約》解釋和適用的爭(zhēng)端，其中包括有關(guān)海洋公域的爭(zhēng)端。國(guó)際海洋法法庭對(duì)下述事宜具有管轄權(quán)：有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的任何爭(zhēng)端，以及將管轄權(quán)授予國(guó)際海洋法法庭的任何其他協(xié)議中具體規(guī)定的所有事項(xiàng)。③Statute of the ITLOS, Article 21.國(guó)際海洋法法庭應(yīng)對(duì)各締約國(guó)開(kāi)放。對(duì)于《公約》“第十一部分明文規(guī)定的任何案件，或按照案件當(dāng)事所有各方接受的將管轄權(quán)授予法庭的任何其他協(xié)定提交的任何案件”，國(guó)際海洋法法庭還對(duì)締約國(guó)以外的實(shí)體開(kāi)放。④Statute of the ITLOS, Article 20.

《公約》第十五部分為有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的爭(zhēng)端創(chuàng)建了一個(gè)全面的解決制度。《公約》規(guī)定，各締約國(guó)應(yīng)按照《聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章》所指的和平方法解決他們之間有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的任何爭(zhēng)端。⑤UNCLOS, Article 279.但是，如果爭(zhēng)端各方采用自行選擇的和平方法未解決爭(zhēng)端，則其應(yīng)該將爭(zhēng)端提交導(dǎo)致有拘束力裁判的強(qiáng)制解決程序，但必須遵守《公約》中規(guī)定的限制和例外?！豆s》確立的爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制包括4種方法：國(guó)際海洋法法庭、國(guó)際法院、按照附件七組成的仲裁法庭⑥PCA Case No. 2013-19: The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China.和按照附件八組成的特別仲裁法庭。締約國(guó)有自由根據(jù)《公約》第287條作出的書(shū)面聲明，選擇上述一個(gè)或一個(gè)以上方法。如果爭(zhēng)端各方未接受同一程序以解決這項(xiàng)爭(zhēng)端，除各方另有協(xié)議外，爭(zhēng)端僅可提交附件七所規(guī)定的仲裁。⑦UNCLOS, Article 287.

依照《國(guó)際海洋法法庭規(guī)約》的相關(guān)規(guī)定，海洋法法庭設(shè)立了下述分庭：簡(jiǎn)易程序分庭、漁業(yè)爭(zhēng)端分庭、海洋環(huán)境爭(zhēng)端分庭和海洋劃界爭(zhēng)端分庭。應(yīng)爭(zhēng)端當(dāng)事方要求，海洋法法庭還組建了兩個(gè)特別分庭，分別負(fù)責(zé)處理“關(guān)于在太平洋東南部保護(hù)和可持續(xù)開(kāi)發(fā)旗魚(yú)種群的案件（智利訴歐洲共同體）”和“關(guān)于劃定加納和科特迪瓦在大西洋的海上邊界爭(zhēng)端（加納訴科特迪瓦）”。⑧ITLOS, Case Nos. 7 & 23.與國(guó)際海底區(qū)域中的活動(dòng)有關(guān)的爭(zhēng)端應(yīng)提交給海洋法法庭的海底爭(zhēng)端分庭處理。對(duì)于海底爭(zhēng)端分庭管轄范圍內(nèi)的任何爭(zhēng)端，爭(zhēng)端一方可請(qǐng)求海洋爭(zhēng)端分庭成立專(zhuān)案分庭，專(zhuān)案分庭由海洋爭(zhēng)端分庭的3名法官組成。⑨Statute of the ITLOS, Article 36.到目前為止，已簽有12項(xiàng)多邊協(xié)議將管轄權(quán)授予海洋法法庭。除非爭(zhēng)端各方另有約定，在與根據(jù)《公約》第292條迅速釋放船只和船員有關(guān)的案件中，以及與根據(jù)《公約》第290條第5款在仲裁庭組成以前采取臨時(shí)措施有關(guān)的案件中，法庭的管轄權(quán)具有強(qiáng)制性。海底爭(zhēng)端分庭負(fù)責(zé)對(duì)國(guó)際海底管理局活動(dòng)范圍內(nèi)發(fā)生的法律問(wèn)題提供咨詢(xún)意見(jiàn)。⑩UNCLOS, Article 191.法庭還可以就與《公約》目的有關(guān)的國(guó)際協(xié)定所規(guī)定的法律問(wèn)題提供咨詢(xún)意見(jiàn)。①Rules of the ITLOS, Article 138.可通過(guò)書(shū)面申請(qǐng)或者特殊協(xié)定通知的方式向海洋法法庭提交爭(zhēng)端。提交海洋法法庭的案件的審理程序在法庭《規(guī)約》及《細(xì)則》中做了規(guī)定。

本文認(rèn)為，爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制可以對(duì)海洋公域爭(zhēng)端的解決起到關(guān)鍵作用，而在這一方面，國(guó)際海洋法法庭和《公約》為此目的設(shè)立的其他機(jī)構(gòu)已經(jīng)做了很多工作。欲了解《公約》確立爭(zhēng)端解決程序背后的邏輯，有必要思考《公約》起草者當(dāng)初是否有意將爭(zhēng)端解決程序用于管理海洋公域。本文認(rèn)為答案是肯定的，因?yàn)橥ㄟ^(guò)設(shè)立爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)，《公約》明確有意將海洋公域納入其規(guī)管和宗旨范圍內(nèi)?！豆s》著手解決因海洋公域利用的急劇增長(zhǎng)而造成的事端和沖突。《公約》吸納了有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端解決的條文，這恰恰表明了其有意防止締約國(guó)單方面解釋《公約》。②L. B. Sohn, The Importance of the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in Myron H. Nordquist and John Norton Moore eds., Entry into Force of the Law of the Sea Convention, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995.下述文字解釋了在《公約》中加入有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端解決的條款的必要性：

為了就公約達(dá)成一致，各方有必要作出妥協(xié)，而有關(guān)有效解決爭(zhēng)端之程序的條款對(duì)于穩(wěn)定和保持妥協(xié)至關(guān)重要……爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制相當(dāng)于一個(gè)支點(diǎn)，支撐通過(guò)妥協(xié)達(dá)成的微妙平衡。否則，各方之間的妥協(xié)就會(huì)迅速土崩瓦解，永無(wú)恢復(fù)之日……有效的爭(zhēng)端解決還可以確保公約法律文本的實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容和意圖能夠得到一致、公正的解釋。③U.N. Document A/CONF.62/WP.9/ADD.1, Memorandum by the President of the Conference on document A/CONF.62/WP.9, 31 March 1976, p. 122.

因此，《公約》中有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端解決的條款構(gòu)成了一個(gè)實(shí)質(zhì)性的程序，可以通過(guò)國(guó)際海洋法法庭等司法機(jī)構(gòu)保護(hù)《公約》締約國(guó)的權(quán)利和自由。④Ivan A. Shearer, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Its Potential for Resolving Navigational Disputes, in Donald R. Rothwell and Sam Bateman eds., Navigational Rights and Freedoms and the New Law of the Sea, The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000.我們還可以進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為，通過(guò)設(shè)立爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制，《公約》為全球海洋公域管理奠定了國(guó)際法和法律協(xié)定基礎(chǔ)。⑤Lawrence Juda, International Law and Ocean Use Management: The Evolution of Ocean Governance, London: Routledge, 1996.爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)，作為海洋公域的治理機(jī)構(gòu)，掌握控制海洋公域治理的生殺大權(quán)，無(wú)論是國(guó)際層面，還是區(qū)域和國(guó)家層面的。據(jù)邁爾斯認(rèn)為，在國(guó)際層面，爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制構(gòu)成了海洋公域治理的強(qiáng)大支柱。《公約》的爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制可以對(duì)國(guó)家管轄范圍之外海洋公域的管理帶來(lái)各種層面的影響，1997年以后提交國(guó)際海洋法法庭并經(jīng)其處理的爭(zhēng)端與案件便是典型案例。⑥截至目前，向海洋法法庭提交的案件共有25起，詳情請(qǐng)參見(jiàn)https://www.itlos.org/en/ cases/list-of-cases/。

《公約》中關(guān)于有效處理爭(zhēng)端的條款仍是海岸與海洋空間治理的主要部分。從上述論述可以推知，爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制對(duì)海洋公域管理的作用不容忽視。良好的海洋公域管理，具有“預(yù)防和審理爭(zhēng)端”⑦Sue Nichols, David Monahan and Michael Sutherland, Good Governance of Canada’s Offshore and Coastal Zone: Towards an Understanding of the Marine Boundary Issues, Geomatica, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2000, p. 415.所需要的包容性制度結(jié)構(gòu)。這反過(guò)來(lái)也與海洋公域管理的基本作用相互關(guān)聯(lián)，其中包括“維護(hù)有關(guān)海洋治理的實(shí)體法，以此作為強(qiáng)化政策協(xié)調(diào)和沖突解決機(jī)制的基礎(chǔ)?！雹郃t http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/publicomment/novgencomment/fry_ comment.pdf, 18 September 2016.這不僅局限于國(guó)際層面，還會(huì)全面影響地區(qū)、國(guó)家和地方層面，國(guó)際層面形成的原則和先例也可以各種方式適用于地區(qū)、國(guó)家和地方層面的海洋公域管理。按照《公約》第十五部分規(guī)定的爭(zhēng)端解決條文所處理的爭(zhēng)端和案例構(gòu)成了相關(guān)先例，可以為海洋公域管理政策指定方向。本文認(rèn)為，《公約》第十五部分中有關(guān)非強(qiáng)制性爭(zhēng)端解決的一般規(guī)定，可以在海洋公域管理中發(fā)揮重要作用，并進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)第十五部分第1節(jié)，特別是第280條的規(guī)定，這也給予爭(zhēng)端當(dāng)事方充分的自由，讓他們自行選擇和平方式解決爭(zhēng)端。⑨UNCLOS, Article 280.

通過(guò)上述討論可見(jiàn)，爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制不僅在國(guó)家管轄范圍之外的海洋公域管理中起到重要作用，而且還對(duì)維護(hù)全球公域的和平與安全至關(guān)重要。具體而言，爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制最終可以在下述方面對(duì)海洋公域的管理產(chǎn)生積極影響：管理和分配資源；劃定海洋邊界；鞏固制度和機(jī)構(gòu)；解釋和闡釋法律，制定法規(guī)；促進(jìn)合作；緩解緊張局勢(shì)，解決問(wèn)題，保持和平與安全；確保國(guó)際法的遵守和執(zhí)行；管理海洋利用方面的沖突。⑩Anshuman Chakraborty, Dispute Settlement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Its Role in Oceans Governance (LL.M Thesis), New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington, 2006, pp. 46～73.

在此，有必要提及菲律賓根據(jù)《公約》附件七提起的南海仲裁案。①PCA Case No. 2013-19: The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China, an Arbitration before the Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Conventions on Law of the Sea between the Republic of Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.菲律賓要求仲裁庭宣布中國(guó)的海洋主張無(wú)效。②中菲南海仲裁案涉及中國(guó)在南海的“U形線(xiàn)”主張?jiān)凇豆s》下的合法性問(wèn)題。2015年10月29日，仲裁庭作出裁決，認(rèn)定其具有審理該案的管轄權(quán)。菲律賓認(rèn)為，中國(guó)主張的“U形線(xiàn)”無(wú)效，因?yàn)槠溥`反了《公約》中有關(guān)專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)和領(lǐng)海的規(guī)定。菲方指出，大部分南海島礁，如南沙群島的多數(shù)島礁，都無(wú)法維持生命，因而無(wú)法擁有《公約》中規(guī)定的大陸架。中國(guó)拒絕參加仲裁，認(rèn)為其與菲律賓簽署的幾項(xiàng)條約都明確規(guī)定應(yīng)通過(guò)談判解決邊界爭(zhēng)端。中方還指控菲律賓違反了東盟與中國(guó)在2002年自愿簽署的《南海各方行為宣言》，該宣言也規(guī)定應(yīng)通過(guò)雙邊談判解決邊界與其他爭(zhēng)端。中國(guó)在2014年12月發(fā)布了一份立場(chǎng)文件，認(rèn)為中菲爭(zhēng)端最終屬于主權(quán)問(wèn)題，而非開(kāi)發(fā)權(quán)利問(wèn)題，因此不能通過(guò)仲裁解決。具體而言，中國(guó)提出了兩大反對(duì)意見(jiàn)：一、仲裁事項(xiàng)超出《公約》的調(diào)整范圍，不涉及《公約》的“解釋或適用”；二、菲律賓提交仲裁時(shí)，未履行就爭(zhēng)端事項(xiàng)進(jìn)行談判的義務(wù)。

在上述立場(chǎng)文件中，中國(guó)主張：

菲律賓單方面提起仲裁的做法，不會(huì)改變中國(guó)對(duì)南海諸島及其附近海域擁有主權(quán)的歷史和事實(shí)，不會(huì)動(dòng)搖中國(guó)維護(hù)主權(quán)和海洋權(quán)益的決心和意志，不會(huì)影響中國(guó)通過(guò)直接談判解決有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議以及與本地區(qū)國(guó)家共同維護(hù)南海和平穩(wěn)定的政策和立場(chǎng)。

然而，中國(guó)拒絕參與仲裁，并未阻止仲裁庭推進(jìn)仲裁。2015年10月29日，中菲南海仲裁案仲裁庭作出裁決，認(rèn)定其具有審理該案的管轄權(quán)，并認(rèn)為菲律賓的訴求具有可受理性。中國(guó)南海研究院院長(zhǎng)、高級(jí)研究員吳士存指出，仲裁庭的這一裁決“毫無(wú)邏輯、不公平，可能導(dǎo)致南海緊張局勢(shì)升級(jí)”。③Wu Shicun, The South China Sea Arbitration Case Could Exacerbate Disputes in the South China Sea, at http://nl.china-embassy.org/eng/hldt/t1374516.htm, 18 September 2016.此外，《公約》是該案的關(guān)鍵，中國(guó)主張，為確保公平、有效執(zhí)行《公約》，《公約》創(chuàng)建了爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制，包括仲裁，但仲裁庭未遵守相關(guān)規(guī)定。④Wu Shicun, The South China Sea Arbitration Case Could Exacerbate Disputes in the South China Sea, at http://nl.china-embassy.org/eng/hldt/t1374516.htm, 18 September 2016.中國(guó)拒絕接受這一裁決，并在此前向菲律賓提交了外交照會(huì)，反對(duì)菲律賓在《通知及權(quán)利聲明》中提出的主張，呼吁菲律賓通過(guò)雙邊談判解決相關(guān)爭(zhēng)端。中國(guó)堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，仲裁庭缺乏審理該案的管轄權(quán)。中國(guó)不可能遵守相關(guān)爭(zhēng)端的任何最終裁決。

在一些政策選擇中，就可以看出中菲南海仲裁案與海洋公域之間的聯(lián)系，如海上安全。在東海與南海海面，漁船、沿海巡邏船、軍艦等眾多船舶穿梭如織。中國(guó)及其鄰國(guó)在爭(zhēng)議水域的活動(dòng)日益增多，增加了船長(zhǎng)或政治領(lǐng)袖因誤判而引發(fā)武裝沖突的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，而美國(guó)也會(huì)因其對(duì)盟友日本和菲律賓的軍事承諾而卷入沖突。南海問(wèn)題不僅僅是相關(guān)國(guó)家的主張沖突，還關(guān)系到該地區(qū)的和平與穩(wěn)定。爭(zhēng)端雙方應(yīng)確保堅(jiān)守承諾，維護(hù)地區(qū)安全，促使海事與經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)能在該地區(qū)的海洋公域自由開(kāi)展。此外，政策專(zhuān)家認(rèn)為，還有必要針對(duì)南海地區(qū)設(shè)立一個(gè)危機(jī)管理體系，制定一系列預(yù)防措施來(lái)緩解地區(qū)緊張局勢(shì)，將南海地區(qū)的軍事沖突降級(jí)，這一點(diǎn)至關(guān)重要。

中菲南海仲裁案與南海地區(qū)的海洋公域還存在其他聯(lián)系。這涉及到經(jīng)濟(jì)、外交和資源共享問(wèn)題。爭(zhēng)端導(dǎo)致南海和東海地區(qū)的申索國(guó)不在海洋公域資源開(kāi)發(fā)方面進(jìn)行合作，其中包括漁業(yè)和油氣資源開(kāi)發(fā)。相關(guān)的資源共享協(xié)議應(yīng)包含雙邊聯(lián)合巡邏機(jī)制，抑制可能引發(fā)沖突的來(lái)源，如非法捕魚(yú)和油氣勘探導(dǎo)致的小沖突。因此，爭(zhēng)端當(dāng)事方開(kāi)展更多的外交與經(jīng)濟(jì)合作，共享經(jīng)濟(jì)惠益，可以降低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

四、海洋公域管理

上述討論表明，地球上最重要的公共資源——海洋公域需要可持續(xù)性管理。⑤Leaders, The Tragedy of the High Seas, The Economist, 22 February 2014, pp. 10～12.1968年，加勒特·哈?、轑eaders, The Tragedy of the High Seas, The Economist, 22 February 2014, pp. 10～12.就提出，當(dāng)多個(gè)個(gè)體共同擁有一項(xiàng)資源時(shí)，個(gè)人出于自身利益，往往會(huì)造成公共資源枯竭，也就是說(shuō)，人們往往會(huì)過(guò)度利用公共財(cái)產(chǎn)而非予以保護(hù)，最終會(huì)損壞集體的長(zhǎng)期利益?，F(xiàn)在，加勒特·哈丁指出的“悲劇”就赤裸裸地?cái)[在我們面前，給覆蓋地球表面超過(guò)一半的海洋資源造成嚴(yán)重與不可逆的毀壞。

為了避免悲劇的發(fā)生，有關(guān)機(jī)構(gòu)有必要制定規(guī)則，平衡個(gè)體的私利和所有使用者的長(zhǎng)期利益。從海洋公域中的公海海底采礦到全球海洋魚(yú)類(lèi)資源的枯竭，事態(tài)的發(fā)展有些令人擔(dān)憂(yōu)。顯然，幾十年來(lái)對(duì)海洋的破壞，現(xiàn)在正蔓延到陸地壞境。人們已經(jīng)預(yù)料到這一悲劇。海洋公域會(huì)面臨“公地悲劇”，即個(gè)體使用者使公共財(cái)產(chǎn)遭到枯竭。然而，人們尚未普遍意識(shí)到，悲劇造成的后果還包括破壞公域系統(tǒng)的代價(jià)并非全部由破壞者承擔(dān)。在這一方面，漁業(yè)就是鮮明的例子。在過(guò)度捕撈的過(guò)程中，多種入侵物種因人類(lèi)活動(dòng)而在世界各地流動(dòng)，往往每年都給海洋帶來(lái)不可逆的破壞。此外，制造商與消費(fèi)者將有害和有毒廢品倒入海洋，污染海面和海底。因此，為保護(hù)海洋公域，有時(shí)候需要把海洋當(dāng)成私有財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)進(jìn)行分配，使海洋使用者與海洋的長(zhǎng)期健康之間更息息相關(guān)。⑦這一做法已經(jīng)在沿海國(guó)和群島國(guó)的專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)進(jìn)行嘗試，但卻未在公海施行。根據(jù)國(guó)際法，公海魚(yú)類(lèi)是面向所有國(guó)家開(kāi)放的，其中的礦物屬于“人類(lèi)共同繼承財(cái)產(chǎn)”。

海洋公域的國(guó)際管理一般涉及參與海洋管理的國(guó)際機(jī)構(gòu)及相關(guān)的法律框架。此類(lèi)國(guó)際機(jī)構(gòu)主要有：聯(lián)合國(guó)、聯(lián)合國(guó)環(huán)境規(guī)劃署、聯(lián)合國(guó)開(kāi)發(fā)計(jì)劃署、聯(lián)合國(guó)糧食與農(nóng)業(yè)組織、聯(lián)合國(guó)法律事務(wù)廳、國(guó)際海事組織以及國(guó)際捕鯨委員會(huì)。相關(guān)的國(guó)際協(xié)議包括《公約》、1972年《防止傾倒廢物及其他物質(zhì)污染海洋的公約》、《保護(hù)遷徙野生動(dòng)物物種公約》、《生物多樣性公約》、區(qū)域海洋公約、⑧旨在保護(hù)海洋環(huán)境的具有法律約束力的區(qū)域海洋公約框架。同時(shí)參見(jiàn)聯(lián)合國(guó)環(huán)境規(guī)劃署簽署的區(qū)域海洋公約——1976年《保護(hù)地中海海洋環(huán)境和沿海地區(qū)公約》（《巴塞羅那公約》）。《防止船舶污染國(guó)際公約》、⑨《防止船舶污染國(guó)際公約》，英文簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)為“MARPOL 73/78”，全稱(chēng)為《關(guān)于1973年防止船舶污染國(guó)際公約之1978年議定書(shū)》?！秶?guó)際海上人命安全公約》、《聯(lián)合國(guó)魚(yú)類(lèi)種群協(xié)定》、⑩1995年《聯(lián)合國(guó)魚(yú)類(lèi)種群協(xié)定》于2001年生效，全稱(chēng)為1995年《執(zhí)行1982年12月10日〈聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約〉有關(guān)養(yǎng)護(hù)和管理跨界魚(yú)類(lèi)種群和高度洄游魚(yú)類(lèi)種群之規(guī)定的協(xié)定》?！敦?fù)責(zé)任漁業(yè)行為守則》，以及1993年糧農(nóng)組織《促進(jìn)公海漁船遵守國(guó)際養(yǎng)護(hù)與管理措施的協(xié)定》。這些協(xié)定中有些負(fù)責(zé)規(guī)管海洋公域，另外一些則與公域管理只有部分聯(lián)系。此外，還有其他一些具有管理海洋公域職責(zé)的涉海機(jī)構(gòu)，其中包括大陸架界限委員會(huì)、國(guó)際海底管理局、國(guó)際海洋法法庭與糧農(nóng)組織區(qū)域漁業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)等。

然而，有些公海管理政策和機(jī)構(gòu)已經(jīng)不起作用了，必須得到徹底變革。①Leaders, The Tragedy of the High Seas, The Economist, 22 February 2014, pp. 10～12.例如，在海洋公域管理中，漁業(yè)管理無(wú)疑是一項(xiàng)重大問(wèn)題。過(guò)度捕撈給海洋造成的傷害比其他人類(lèi)活動(dòng)都要嚴(yán)重。據(jù)世界銀行報(bào)道，漁業(yè)的管理不善每年造成了多達(dá)500億美元的損失。②Coral Triangle, Report: World’s Oceans Continue to Suffer from Overfishing’, at http:// iwlearn.net/iw-projects/3591/news/cti-iw-learn/5d5b48d6fd6fe918c1a6108491089e98, 24 October 2016.打擊非法捕魚(yú)是地區(qū)漁業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)的一大難題，因?yàn)檫@些機(jī)構(gòu)沒(méi)有打擊非法漁民的經(jīng)濟(jì)能力。此外，因缺乏全球漁船登記資料，這些機(jī)構(gòu)也沒(méi)有掌握在其管轄水域內(nèi)運(yùn)行的漁船數(shù)量。再者，這些地區(qū)漁業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)制定的規(guī)則只對(duì)其成員國(guó)有約束力，也就意味著非成員國(guó)可以選擇不遵守這些規(guī)則。

管理海洋公域的機(jī)構(gòu)薄弱，職能失調(diào)，并缺乏制止過(guò)度捕撈所需要的人力和財(cái)力。這些機(jī)構(gòu)被分割成漁業(yè)、采礦和海運(yùn)等部門(mén)，卻沒(méi)有一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)是專(zhuān)門(mén)統(tǒng)籌管理海洋的。因此，應(yīng)該給予這些區(qū)域機(jī)構(gòu)財(cái)政支持，讓他們具備足夠的財(cái)力，確保有效執(zhí)行相關(guān)規(guī)則。此外，還應(yīng)該設(shè)立一個(gè)新的聯(lián)合國(guó)機(jī)構(gòu)，負(fù)責(zé)統(tǒng)籌管理整個(gè)海洋公域。最后，應(yīng)該讓有權(quán)使用海洋公域的每個(gè)人都參與海洋公域事務(wù)管理，讓他們享有發(fā)言權(quán)。③Humans Are Damaging the High Seas - Now the Oceans Are Doing Harm Back, at http:// www.businessinsider.com/humans-are-damaging-the-high-seas--now-the-oceans-are-doingharm-back-2015-1, 22 September 2016.

與海洋管理問(wèn)題密切相關(guān)的另一個(gè)問(wèn)題是國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域生物多樣性的保護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用，該問(wèn)題受到了國(guó)際社會(huì)越來(lái)越多的關(guān)注。④第59屆聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)：在其第59/24號(hào)決議中，聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)設(shè)立了一個(gè)不限成員名額非正式特設(shè)工作組，研究保護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用國(guó)家管轄范圍以外海洋生物多樣性的問(wèn)題，并呼吁各國(guó)和國(guó)際組織立即采取行動(dòng)，依據(jù)國(guó)際法，處理對(duì)海洋生物多樣性和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)造成不利影響的破壞性做法?？茖W(xué)數(shù)據(jù)盡管尚不充足，但卻體現(xiàn)了該地區(qū)生物多樣性的豐富和脆弱，特別是海山、深海熱泉生物，以及冷水珊瑚。國(guó)際社會(huì)也越發(fā)關(guān)注現(xiàn)有和新出現(xiàn)的深?；顒?dòng)給生物多樣性帶來(lái)的人為壓力，如捕魚(yú)和生物勘探。

《公約》規(guī)定，國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域包含：

(i)公海，即專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)、領(lǐng)?；蛉簫u國(guó)群島水域之外的水體；⑤UNCLOS, Article 86.

(ii)“區(qū)域”，即國(guó)家管轄范圍以外的海床和洋底及其底土。⑥UNCLOS, Article 1.

國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域是不歸任何一個(gè)國(guó)家管制的公共海域。已設(shè)計(jì)出一項(xiàng)國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域的計(jì)劃，旨在使國(guó)家管轄范圍之外海域中的漁業(yè)資源得到有效、可持續(xù)性管理，并使該片海域的生物多樣性得到保護(hù)。為達(dá)到這一目標(biāo)，該計(jì)劃分為4個(gè)具體的方面：

· 金槍魚(yú)漁業(yè)與生物多樣性的可持續(xù)管理；

· 深海生物資源與生物多樣性的可持續(xù)利用；

· 有關(guān)可持續(xù)漁業(yè)與生物多樣性保護(hù)的海洋合作關(guān)系；

· 加強(qiáng)有效管理國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域的全球能力。⑦At http://www.commonoceans.org/home/en/, 1 November 2016.

在這一方面，需要簽訂一項(xiàng)執(zhí)行協(xié)定來(lái)幫助解決上述問(wèn)題，具體做法是提供一項(xiàng)機(jī)制，增加及詳細(xì)闡述《公約》中有關(guān)國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域的一般性條款，并使這些條款具有可操作性；改善現(xiàn)有機(jī)構(gòu)之間的合作；為保護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用這些區(qū)域中的資源和生物多樣性，協(xié)調(diào)基于生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的治理。⑧Sharelle Hart, Element of a Possible Implementation Agreement to UNCLOS for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2008, at https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_ marine_paper_4.pdf, 12 July 2016.現(xiàn)有的國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域管理框架以分業(yè)種管理為主，由不同的國(guó)際和區(qū)域機(jī)構(gòu)實(shí)施，“急需相關(guān)部門(mén)立即進(jìn)行干預(yù)，對(duì)國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域開(kāi)展基于生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的綜合管理，保護(hù)海洋生態(tài)系統(tǒng)和生物多樣性，可持續(xù)性利用海洋公域資源，在獲得社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)惠益的同時(shí)，避免給環(huán)境帶來(lái)不利影響?！雹酇t https://globaloceanforum.com/areas-of-focus/areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction/, 12 July 2016.從這個(gè)意義上說(shuō)，國(guó)家管轄范圍之外海洋治理和管理的改善，涉及更好地執(zhí)行現(xiàn)有文件和解決衡平問(wèn)題的方式方法。⑩Marjo Vierros, Governance of Marine Area Beyond National Jurisdictions, at http://ourworl d.unu.edu/en/governance-of-marine-areas-beyond-national-jurisdictions, 12 July 2016.

為保護(hù)海洋資源，必須采取基于生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的方法來(lái)管理海洋與漁業(yè)。①Arlo H. Hemphill and George Shillinger, Casting the Net Broadly: Ecosystem-based Management Beyond National Jurisdiction, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Fall 2006, pp. 56～59.有幾篇論文已經(jīng)注意到下述問(wèn)題：全球海洋公域資源的衰減，如鮪魚(yú)、長(zhǎng)嘴魚(yú)、鯊魚(yú)和海龜?shù)却笮秃Ｑ蟛妒痴?；②Ransom A. Myers and Boris Worm, Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities, Nature, Vol. 423, No. 6937, 2003, pp. 208～283; James R. Spotila, Richard D. Reina, Anthony C. Steyermark, Pamela T, Plotkin and Frank V. Paladino, Pacific Leatherback Turtles Face Extinction, Nature, Vol. 405, No. 6786, 2000, pp. 529～530.捕食者多樣性的減少；③Boris Worm, Marcel Sandow, Andreas Oschlies, Heike K. Lotze and Ransom A. Myers, Global Patterns of Predator Diversity in the Open Oceans, Science, Vol. 309, Issue 5739, 2005, pp. 1365～1369.深海極危魚(yú)類(lèi)物種；④Jennifer A. Devine, Krista D. Baker and Richard L. Haedrich, Fisheries: Deep-sea Fishes Quality as Endangered, Nature, Vol. 439, No. 7072, 2006, p. 29.魚(yú)類(lèi)資源的過(guò)度捕撈和衰竭；⑤Jean-Jacques Maguire, Michael Sissenwine, Jorge Csirke and Richard Grainger, The State of the World Highly Migratory, Straddling and Other High Seas Fishery Fish Stocks and Associated Species, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 495, 2006, at http://www.fao.org/ newsroom/common/ecg/1000302/en/paper.pdf, 12 July 2016.海山與珊瑚礁生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的破壞。⑥Henry Nicholls, Marine Conservation: Sink or Swim, Nature, Vol. 432, No. 7013, 2004, pp. 12～14.在探尋基于生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的海洋公域管理方式時(shí)，我們悲傷地發(fā)現(xiàn)，國(guó)家管轄范圍以外區(qū)域的管理仍以分業(yè)種、單物種管理方式為主，管理機(jī)構(gòu)各自為政，沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一、一致的管理，這種傳統(tǒng)的管理方式已經(jīng)被證實(shí)無(wú)法有效確保海洋生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的健康和完整。因此，國(guó)家管轄范圍以外的脆弱生態(tài)系統(tǒng)仍未得到保護(hù)，以至于幾個(gè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)現(xiàn)在都遭到過(guò)度利用或衰竭。近期發(fā)布的一些全球和地區(qū)性海洋環(huán)境評(píng)測(cè)報(bào)告都注意到了這些趨勢(shì)，如皮尤海洋委員會(huì)、⑦Pew Oceans Commission, America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2003/06/02/americas-livingoceans-charting-a-course-for-sea-change, 12 July 2016.美國(guó)海洋政策委員會(huì)⑧U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, at http:// govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report. pdf, 12 July 2016.和英國(guó)皇家環(huán)境污染委員會(huì)⑨Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Turning the Tide: Addressing the Impact of Fisheries on the Marine Environment, at http://www.rcep.org.uk/fsheries/Turningthetide. pdf, 12 July 2016.發(fā)布的報(bào)告。這些報(bào)告均建議采用基于生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的管理方式來(lái)“處理海洋利用中方方面面的問(wèn)題，包括漁業(yè)問(wèn)題?！雹釲inda Glover and Sylvia Earle eds., Defying Ocean’ End: An Agenda for Action, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2004.

筆者認(rèn)為需要有效保護(hù)海洋公域環(huán)境，確保公域資源的保護(hù)和可持續(xù)利用。這涉及到一個(gè)綜合的治理結(jié)構(gòu)，不僅可以有效保護(hù)個(gè)體使用者的利益，還可以保護(hù)國(guó)際社會(huì)的整體利益。然而，海洋公域的管理現(xiàn)狀是，分業(yè)種的管理組織和按地理位置劃分的管理組織各自為政。這一情況導(dǎo)致了一系列難題和缺漏，包括相關(guān)國(guó)家未參加和執(zhí)行有關(guān)法律制度所引起的問(wèn)題。其中，規(guī)管空白體現(xiàn)在區(qū)域性漁業(yè)管理組織和區(qū)域性公海公約中涉及公海的規(guī)定不足，漁業(yè)部門(mén)和環(huán)保部門(mén)缺乏協(xié)調(diào)與合作?！堵?lián)合國(guó)魚(yú)類(lèi)種群協(xié)定》無(wú)法適用于某些公海魚(yú)種，因此也產(chǎn)生了巨大的規(guī)管空白。①Rosemary Rayfuse and Robin M. Warner, Securing a Sustainable Future for the Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction: The Legal Basis for an Integrated Cross-sectoral Regime for High Seas Governance for the 21st Century, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2008, pp. 399～421.此外，尚沒(méi)有相關(guān)制度規(guī)管電纜和管道鋪設(shè)、軍事活動(dòng)和深海旅游等活動(dòng)。②Rosemary Rayfuse and Robin M. Warner, Securing a Sustainable Future for the Oceans Beyond National Jurisdiction: The Legal Basis for an Integrated Cross-sectoral Regime for High Seas Governance for the 21st Century, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2008, pp. 399～421.這些缺漏或空白影響了海洋繼續(xù)提供重要的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)和食物資源的能力，因而阻礙海洋公域?qū)崿F(xiàn)基于生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的綜合治理。這要求相關(guān)部門(mén)立即采取行動(dòng)。

五、結(jié) 語(yǔ)

國(guó)家管轄范圍以外的海洋公域管理研究涉及許多問(wèn)題。海洋對(duì)民族、經(jīng)濟(jì)和文化塑造均有一定的作用。在法國(guó)歷史學(xué)家布羅代爾看來(lái)，地中海就有力塑造了歐洲的文藝復(fù)興，為歐洲探索海洋的方方面面開(kāi)辟了道路，③Charles S. Colgan, The Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics: An Introduction and Invitation, Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, Vol. 2014, Article 8, December 2014, p. 3, at http://cbe.miis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=joce, 12 July 2016.影響了人們對(duì)與海洋相關(guān)的經(jīng)濟(jì)與政治力量的認(rèn)知。

人類(lèi)與海洋之間的關(guān)系對(duì)世界各國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)與政治訴求都產(chǎn)生了影響。在此背景下，國(guó)家層面和國(guó)際層面都展開(kāi)了討論，探討應(yīng)該如何運(yùn)用國(guó)際法來(lái)保護(hù)和管理海洋。在聯(lián)合國(guó)創(chuàng)建了一個(gè)可以制定國(guó)際海洋法成文法的新國(guó)際論壇之前，海洋法主要屬于國(guó)內(nèi)法和習(xí)慣法的范疇。

如前文所述，思考海洋和海洋資源問(wèn)題的需要日漸急迫，促使國(guó)際社會(huì)采取了幾項(xiàng)行動(dòng)。本文檢視了與海洋公域管理有關(guān)的問(wèn)題，在顧及因此產(chǎn)生的國(guó)家、地區(qū)和國(guó)際沖突的同時(shí)，勾勒出國(guó)際社會(huì)處理這些日益嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題的路徑。當(dāng)然，海洋公域管理方面最重要的問(wèn)題還是在于誰(shuí)控制自然資源及國(guó)家管轄范圍之外的海洋空間。另一個(gè)問(wèn)題是誰(shuí)對(duì)國(guó)家管轄范圍以外海域行使軍事權(quán)力。國(guó)家管轄權(quán)和國(guó)際管轄權(quán)問(wèn)題，可移動(dòng)資源的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)問(wèn)題，如漁業(yè)和運(yùn)輸路線(xiàn)問(wèn)題，以及漁業(yè)和化石燃料資源的開(kāi)發(fā)問(wèn)題，仍是需要繼續(xù)討論的主要問(wèn)題。通過(guò)探討海洋公域管理方面的問(wèn)題和挑戰(zhàn)，本文旨在提高公眾對(duì)海洋重要性的意識(shí)，并因此呼吁所有國(guó)家將海洋公域管理納入國(guó)家政策。最后，研究海洋是希望能夠更好地了解相關(guān)的社會(huì)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的性質(zhì)，因?yàn)楹Ｑ蟮纳鷳B(tài)健康與地區(qū)或國(guó)家經(jīng)濟(jì)健康緊密相連。

粗略地回顧本文的討論重點(diǎn)，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)很難精確地界定此類(lèi)研究課題的探討范疇。然而，雖然無(wú)法精確界定探討范疇，本文還是嘗試討論并界定了海洋公域和全球公域的地理范圍。

目前，海洋公域由一系列國(guó)際性、區(qū)域性和行業(yè)協(xié)定和條約規(guī)制，這些協(xié)定和條約有些時(shí)候還會(huì)產(chǎn)生重疊，進(jìn)而引發(fā)一些復(fù)雜而難解的問(wèn)題。在某些地方還存在規(guī)管空白，無(wú)人擁有全權(quán)采取行動(dòng)。典型的例子是，盡管有些地區(qū)性海洋公約可以設(shè)立海洋保護(hù)區(qū)，但公約中卻沒(méi)有對(duì)捕魚(yú)和海底采礦等活動(dòng)施加限制，僅僅因?yàn)檫@些活動(dòng)歸其他組織管理。也因此，保護(hù)區(qū)無(wú)法阻止嚴(yán)重危及海洋生物的活動(dòng)。除了管理南冰洋的國(guó)際委員會(huì)外，并沒(méi)有在公海設(shè)立“完全海洋保護(hù)區(qū)”的機(jī)制。沒(méi)有一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的新條約，人類(lèi)活動(dòng)將繼續(xù)威脅或危害海洋和地球。通過(guò)及時(shí)制定新條約，我們就可以為子孫后代保護(hù)海洋公域的生物多樣性。聯(lián)合國(guó)已采取措施，準(zhǔn)備制定一項(xiàng)新條約，但是仍有許多工作有待完成。剛剛結(jié)束的第一屆聯(lián)合國(guó)籌備委員會(huì)會(huì)議標(biāo)志著海洋的未來(lái)已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)。時(shí)間是成敗的關(guān)鍵，相關(guān)談判必須本著合作的精神進(jìn)行。希望在2018年前可以出臺(tái)一份各國(guó)普遍接受、可執(zhí)行的新法律文件，以保護(hù)我們的海洋母親。

海洋公域的管理難度大。這片廣袤無(wú)邊的海域，不歸任何國(guó)家所有，還經(jīng)常對(duì)人類(lèi)不大友善，因此很難監(jiān)管。有鑒于此，管理海洋事務(wù)的國(guó)際機(jī)構(gòu)極力變更造船方式和船舶運(yùn)行方式，在這方面的工作也頗有成效。國(guó)際海事組織出臺(tái)了一系列國(guó)際協(xié)定，在提高船舶安全性的同時(shí)，又減少了船源污染。盡管依據(jù)海洋法設(shè)立的很多組織才成立不久，還處于發(fā)展階段，但是，對(duì)于接受其管轄的國(guó)家而言，這些組織已經(jīng)顯示出治理成效，他們至少改變了國(guó)際層面的海洋治理方式。隨著時(shí)間的推移，這些組織會(huì)如何發(fā)展，《公約》能否幫助解決海洋治理方面的困難，還有待觀(guān)察。

考慮到目前的海洋治理制度，以及國(guó)家管轄范圍以外海洋生物多樣性面臨的威脅，本文認(rèn)為，地球的可持續(xù)性發(fā)展有賴(lài)于卓有成效的海洋管理方法。首先需要給海洋公域管理分配充足的人力和財(cái)力資源；其次，應(yīng)該推進(jìn)《公約》的相關(guān)規(guī)定，特別是涉及海洋環(huán)境保護(hù)的部分。最后，應(yīng)該基于國(guó)際合作，采用整體性治理方法。就國(guó)家管轄范圍之外的海洋公域而言，采取聚合力強(qiáng)的國(guó)際行動(dòng)無(wú)比重要。保護(hù)海洋，不應(yīng)只停留在頻繁地召開(kāi)國(guó)際會(huì)議，作出相關(guān)決議，相反，國(guó)際社會(huì)應(yīng)該擔(dān)負(fù)起自己的責(zé)任，制定可持續(xù)性的保護(hù)制度，切實(shí)解決海洋管理方面遇到的難題。

中譯：謝紅月

I. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Legal Regime of Ocean Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Dispute Settlement and Ocean Commons

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

Dispute settlement mechanisms can also be applied in the management of ocean commons beyond national jurisdiction. This brings us to the dispute settlement provisions as contained in the UNCLOS.①Annex VII & VIII and Parts XI and XV, UNCLOS.The UNCLOS established judicial bodies to be known and called the ITLOS, an arbitral tribunal for the law of the sea and a special arbitral tribunal②A(yíng)nnex VII & VIII and Parts XI and XV, UNCLOS.to adjudicate disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention, which includes disputes related to the ocean commons. The ITLOS has jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS, and over all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal.③Statute of the ITLOS, Article 21.he Tribunal is open to State Parties to the UNCLOS. It is also open to entities other than States Parties, “in any case expressly provided for in Part XI or in any case submitted pursuant to any other agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal which is accepted by all the parties to that case.”④Statute of the ITLOS, Article 20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In its position paper, China avers that:

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

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

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

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

IV. Managing the Ocean Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Sustainable management of tuna fsheries and biodiversity;

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

· Ocean partnership for sustainable fsheries and biodiversity conservation;

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

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

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

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

V. Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managing the Ocean Commons Beyond National Jurisdiction

Theodore Okonkwo*

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

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

* Theodore Okonkwo，環(huán)境法博士，尼日利亞哈考特港大學(xué)法學(xué)院國(guó)際公法系主任和高級(jí)講師。電子郵箱：t161962@gmail.com或theodore.okonkwo@uniport.edu.ng。

? THE AUTHOR AND CHINA OCEANS LAW REVIEW

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

? THE AUTHOR AND CHINA OCEANS LAW REVIEW