论大陆国家远泮群岛的法律地位

贾楠*

论大陆国家远泮群岛的法律地位

贾楠*

群岛问题在海洋法中极为重要,群岛制度也在20世纪后半期逐渐形成。但是,迄今国际社会关于群岛制度的讨论只是解决了大陆国家的沿海群岛和构成群岛国的群岛问题,却迟迟没有对大陆国家远洋群岛的法律地位做出明确规定。而在本世纪,大陆国家远洋群岛问题的重要性越来越突出,其引起的海洋争端必须要有相应的法律制度来解决。因此,本文试图研究这一空白地带,在总结梳理国家实践和国际法理论的基础上,主要分析大陆国家远洋群岛的直线基线划定和基线内水域的法律制度这两个问题,并就此提出一些看法。

大陆国家远洋群岛 现状 基线划定 远洋群岛水域制度

20世纪,国际海洋法迅速发展,国际社会围绕各种各样的海洋问题展开讨论,并且制定了众多的法律原则和制度。其中,群岛问题可以说是一个极大的挑战。在相关国家的努力下,沿海群岛和群岛国问题已被妥善解决,但是大陆国家的远洋群岛问题一直是国际海洋法的空白地带。这一问题的不确定性已经引起了不少的国际争端,若不尽快解决,无论对拥有这些远洋群岛的大陆国家,还是其他国家来说,都是极不妥当的。其实,要解决远洋群岛的法律地位问题,主要解决的便是基线的适用和远洋群岛水域的法律制度这两个核心问题。因此,本文主要从这两个角度出发,结合相关的海洋法、国家实践和国际法学说来分析这一制度。

一、群岛的分类和大陆国家远洋群岛的法律地位现状

(一)群岛的分类

“群岛”是指一群岛屿,包括若干岛屿的若干部分、相连的水域或其他自然地形,彼此密切相关,以致这种岛屿、水域和其他自然地形在本质上构成一个地理、经济和政治的实体,或在历史上已被视为这种实体。①United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS),1982,Art 46(b).世界上的群岛多种多样,其地理特征纷繁复杂,因组成岛屿的数目、大小和形状等方面的不同而呈现出不同的特点。有的群岛由众多岛屿构成,如印度尼西亚群岛有约1.3万个岛屿构成;有的袖珍群岛如南太平洋的托克劳群岛只有3个珊瑚环礁组成。群岛形状也是千姿百态,如美国的阿留申群岛大致呈弓形,希腊的基克拉泽斯群岛大致呈圆圈形。此外,各个群岛所处的地理位置也不尽相同。

但是,不论群岛在其数目、大小和形状上有何种差异,它们在地理上基本可以归为两大类型。根据1958年挪威公法学家伊文森为联合国第一次海洋法会议提交的“准备文件”,这两类群岛分别是沿海群岛和洋中群岛。沿海群岛是指离大陆较近可以被看成是大陆的一部分的群岛,它们在某种程度上构成沿海国的海岸线并且领海可以从它们开始测量。②Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.290.其中,最典型的例子便是挪威的被称作是“岩石壁垒”的连续不断的群岛。其它的还有冰岛、格陵兰、芬兰、瑞典、南斯拉夫等国的沿岸群岛。洋中群岛是指位于海洋之中距离海岸很远,基本上可以看成是独立于海岸线的群岛。③Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.290.这类群岛又可细分为两类,即构成群岛国的群岛和大陆国家的远洋群岛。事实上,在第三次联合国海洋法会议之前,这两小类群岛并无区别,只是因为后来的海洋法会议区别了这两类群岛,在某种程度上赋予了它们不同的政治含义。第一类群岛就是组成群岛国的全部或部分领土的群岛,如构成印尼和菲律宾的各群岛;第二类是大陆国家海岸以外的远洋群岛,如丹麦的法罗群岛、厄瓜多尔的加拉帕戈斯群岛、美国的夏威夷群岛、加拿大的北极群岛等。

因此,考虑到地理和政治方面的因素,本文将世界上的群岛主要分为以下三类:第一、大陆国家的沿海群岛;第二、构成群岛国的群岛;第三、大陆国家的远洋群岛。之所以要区分这些群岛是因为在具体划定群岛的基线和水域时,根据群岛类别的不同,要考虑相应的国际法规则。

(二)大陆国家远洋群岛的法律地位现状

群岛的法律制度是从上个世纪才逐渐发展起来的,而且不同种类群岛的法律制度也经历了不同的发展阶段。在20世纪之前,国际上讨论的热点是领海问题,直到1889年,挪威法学家奥伯特才提出沿海岛屿的领海划定问题。④Annuaire de L’Institut,Vol.11,1889,p.139.1927年,国际法学会开始仔细考虑群岛的领海制度。1930年的海牙国际法编纂会议虽然对沿海岛屿制定了公约草案,但是都无果而终。这种不确定性一直持续到1951年国际法院对英挪渔业案做出判决为止,法院肯定了挪威对沿岸的“岩石壁垒”所采用的直线基线制度,①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.139.而这一判决的理念也反映在随后缔结的1958年《领海与毗连区公约》的规定中。1982年《联合国海洋法公约》同1958年的上述公约一样,规定大陆国家的沿海岛屿可采用直线基线划定领海,基线内水域为一国的内水。②UNCLOS,Arts 7～8.至此,沿海岛屿的法律制度被确定下来。而构成群岛国的群岛制度则是在第三次联合国海洋法会议上确定的。早在20世纪50年代,菲律宾和印尼就提出了群岛国的概念,但是第一次和第二次联合国海洋法会议并没有解决该问题。在1974年的第三次联合国海洋法会议上,群岛国与海洋大国经过几番博弈,最终将群岛国制度写入《联合国海洋法公约》的第四部分,确定了群岛基线和群岛水域等许多新的海洋法概念。③UNCLOS,Arts 46～54.

令人遗憾的是,在整个海洋法不断发展的过程中,大陆国家远洋群岛的法律制度却迟迟没有确定,在某种意义上可以说是海洋法的空白地带。但是,此处不能否定国际社会对于制定大陆国家远洋群岛法律制度所做出的努力。早在1928年,应瑞典法学家路特斯科德的要求,国际法学会在研究群岛制度时就对沿海群岛和远洋群岛做出了区别,并且尝试着要去解决这个问题,但是最终因各国意见的分歧而放弃。④Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,p. 359.此后,拥有远洋群岛的大陆国家仍在继续为确定相关制度而努力。尤其是在第三次联合国海洋法会议第二期会议上,包括大陆国家和群岛国在内的9个国家对1973年的四国提案作出修改,取消“仅适用于群岛国”的规定,使大陆国家可以将关于群岛的规定适用于其远洋群岛。⑤Canada,Chile,Iceland,India,Indonesia,Mauritius,Mexico,New Zealand and Norway: working paper,A/CONF.62/L.4(1974),Article 3,ⅢOff.Rec,pp.81～82.一些国家对此表示支持,指出关于群岛的某些规定既适用于群岛国,也适用于远洋群岛。但另一些国家,尤其是海洋大国美国和苏联,反对将关于群岛的规定扩大适用于大陆国家的远洋群岛。随后在1975年第三期会议上又起草了《单一协商案文》,⑥A/CONF.62/WP.8/PartⅡ(ISNT,1975).Article 117,paragraph 2 and Article 131. UNCLOS-Ⅲ.Off.Rec.Ⅳ,pp.152～168.共有两个小节,其中,第一小节是关于群岛国的条款,第二小节标题为“属于大陆国家的远洋群岛”,只包括一个条款,规定“第一小节的规定无损于构成一个大陆国家领土一部分的远洋群岛的地位”。⑦S.N.Nandan and S.Rosenne eds.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea-A Com mentary,Vol.Ⅱ,Dordrecht:Nijhoff,1993,pp.402～403.但是,在1976年举行的第四期会议上,由于一些坚持航行自由的海洋大国的强烈反对,那些声称远洋群岛问题应该被合理解决的国家被迫让步,经过非正式协商而形成的《订正单一协商案文》①A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev.1/PartⅡ(RSNT,1976),Article 118,UNCLOS-Ⅲ.Off. Rec.V,pp.151～170.将原来的条款删除了,而最终的《联合国海洋法公约》也没有对大陆国家的远洋群岛问题做出明确规定。

迄今为止,关于大陆国家远洋群岛的法律地位仍然是不确定的,各个国家的实践多种多样,公法学家众说纷纭。但有一点是肯定的,那就是这一问题必须要得到妥善解决。这不仅关系到大陆国家和国际社会,而且对于远洋群岛本身也至关重要。正如印度法学家谢卡尔·戈什所说:“生活在这些远洋群岛上的居民和构成群岛国的群岛上的居民一样,他们也依存于这些岛屿和岛屿之间的水域,他们有权利用这些岛屿及其水域的自然资源。此外,远洋群岛安全的重要性并不亚于群岛国之群岛,尤其是很多国家如印度和厄瓜多尔都是发展中国家,他们在安全方面的要求是相当迫切的。”②Shekhar Ghosh,Changing Law in a Changing World:Case of Mid-Ocean Archipelagos,E-conomic and Political Weekly,Vol.22,No.23,6 June 1987,pp.902～908.

在这种没有条文明确规定的情况下,要确定远洋群岛的法律地位只能依据国家实践、国际法机构的决议、公法学家的学说以及国际法上的一般法律原则。而这一制度的核心问题总的来说有两个,即远洋群岛的基线划定和基线内水域的法律制度,只有对这两方面的问题仔细加以分析研究才能最终解决这一难题。

二、远洋群岛的基线划定

根据当今的海洋法,基线是确定领海、毗连区、专属经济区等海域的起算线,其重要作用不言而喻。对于大陆国家的远洋群岛问题,首先要解决的便是基线的划定。与一般情况下国家划定基线不同,远洋群岛在适用基线时首先要考虑的问题是单独对构成岛屿划定基线,还是将所有岛屿看成一个整体划定基线,然后才可以考虑适用正常基线还是直线基线。

(一)远洋群岛的整体性

1.国际法机构的观点与国际条约内容

1924年,国际法协会任命智利国际法学家阿尔瓦雷兹教授为“中立委员会”主席来考虑领海问题。他在提交“和平时期海洋管理法”公约草案时向国际法协会提出特殊建议:“群岛应该被看作是一个政治、经济上的整体,并且在划定它们领海时应被当作一个整体予以考虑,应把距离中心最远的岛屿作为基点来划定领海。”①International Law Association,Report of 33rd Conference,1924,p.266.此处的群岛包括大陆国家的远洋群岛,因为在当时是不区分上述三类群岛的。但是迫于当时海洋大国的压力,国际法协会没有对此做出评论。

1928年,国际法学会在听取多方意见后认为远洋群岛可以被看作是一个整体,“只要在群岛中每一个岛屿与其最近的岛屿之间距离不超过两倍的领海宽度,则可以从群岛的最外缘岛屿起测算领海宽度”。②Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,p. 359.

1930年海牙国际法编纂会议上,德国法学家史卓京在给专家委员会准备的修订后的公约草案第5条中提到:“在群岛中,岛屿应被视为一个整体,领海宽度应从距离群岛中心最远的岛屿起测算”,③League of Nations document C-196,M-70,1927,p.72.第5条适用于沿海群岛和洋中群岛。对于公约草案,各国政府反应各异。一些国家同意群岛应作为一个整体来看待。有些国家提出了反对的意见,认为连接岛屿最外缘的直线基线方法是过分的,各岛屿应该分开划定领海。于是,各国最终没有达成一致。

联合国第一次和第三次海洋法会议缔结的1958年《领海与毗连区公约》和1982年《联合国海洋法公约》规定沿海国家对于沿岸的一系列岛屿可用直线基线连接最外缘的适当基点划定领海;此外,1982年《联合国海洋法公约》还允许群岛国采用直线群岛基线连接最外缘的岛屿划定群岛水域。这些规定实际上是承认了沿海群岛和群岛国群岛的整体性。而对于大陆国家的远洋群岛说法还不明确。

2.国际法学家的观点

大多数国际公法学家在论述领海的划定时都会特别提到群岛的领海划定。他们对于群岛整体性问题的观点各异,考虑问题的角度也不一样。

法国公法学家吉德尔在其著作《国际海洋公法》中对群岛的整体性问题进行了细致的研究。他认为沿海群岛应当被视为一个整体,但是对于洋中群岛(即群岛国群岛与大陆国远洋群岛),吉德尔则认为应当“符合国际上的习惯做法,分别对各个岛屿进行领海划定”。④Gidel,The Public International Law of the Sea,Vol.Ⅲ,Paris:Sirey,1934,pp.706～727.

但是,美国公法学家杰西普在其著作《领海和海洋管理法》中则认为:“群岛中的岛屿应当被视为一个整体,其领海的划定应从距离群岛中心最远的岛屿起开始测算”。⑤Jessup,The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction,New York:G.A.Jennings Co.Inc.,1927,p.457.哥伦伯斯在《国际海洋法》中认为:“被公认的规则似乎是组成一个群岛的岛屿应当被视为一个整体,其领海宽度应从群岛中心算起……一组岛屿是否构成群岛不仅取决于地理条件而且在某些情况下也取决于历史因素。”⑥C.J.Colombos,International Law of the Sea,3rd Edition,London:Longmans Green, 1954,p.110.施瓦曾伯格在其著作《国际法》中也认为“如果岛屿构成群岛,则可在法律上被视为一个整体”。①Schwarzenberger,International Law,Vol.I,London:Stevens&Sons Ltd.,1949,p.156.挪威法学家伊文森教授在1957年给第一次联合国海洋法会议起草的准备文件中建议群岛应该被视为一个整体,此处的群岛包含了本文中讨论的三种群岛。②Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.302.奥康奈尔也持此观点。③D.P.O’Connell,The International Law of the Sea,Vol.I,Oxford:Clarendon,1982,p. 482.

3.国家实践

国家实践比国际法理论要早得多,早在19世纪就已经有国家提出群岛的整体性问题。1854年,“夏威夷岛屿之王”便发表声明,宣布其全部管辖范围包括所有的通道及其之间的岛屿。④Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone.,1990,p. 359.1921年阿兰德群岛的划界协定也将群岛及其周围水域看作是一个整体。⑤Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone.,1990,p. 359.1934年和1942年古巴、1952年爱尔兰在国内立法中都提出了群岛构成一个法律上整体的概念。⑥ST/LEG./SER.B/6,pp.7,516.在当代的国家实践中,大多数拥有远洋群岛的大陆国家都是将群岛看成统一整体来划定基线,如前苏联、加拿大、丹麦、法国等。

但是也有部分国家如英国和美国是采用各个岛屿单独划定基线的方式,美国的夏威夷群岛是最典型的例子。夏威夷群岛主要由8个大岛屿和一些小岛组成,在整个19世纪,夏威夷王国都声称群岛为统一整体,但是在1951年,美国联邦政府否认了这一说法,规定各岛必须单独划定基线,而且因为美国禁止采用直线基线,这些岛屿只能采用低潮线来划定海域。尽管当地政府反对,但是由于夏威夷只是美国的一个州,其政策不能违背联邦的总政策。⑦Jon M.Van Dyke,An Overview of the Jurisdictional Issues Affecting Hawaii’s Ocean Waters,The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law,Vol.11,No.3,1996,p. 363.

从上述的国际法理论和国家实践中,我们可以看出国际社会对于大陆国远洋群岛的整体性问题还没有形成统一的认识,但是多数国家和国际法理论是倾向于将其视为一个整体的。毕竟,要世界上所有国家都形成统一看法是困难的。还有学者认为《联合国海洋法公约》没有对其做出规定,这个空白就意味着群岛的每个岛屿必须各自划定领海,不能被看作一个整体划定直线基线。笔者认为这个观点是不合理的,虽然公约没有对其做出规定,但也没有明文禁止,而且考虑到远洋群岛的经济、安全等方面的利益,尤其是在这种利益已经长期存在时,否认其整体性对远洋群岛本身也是不公平的。

(二)直线基线的适用

既然国际上对于远洋群岛的整体性已经取得普遍认可,那么接下来考虑的问题便是应该用何种基线划定整个群岛的领海。根据现有的国际公约,大陆国家可以采用直线基线划定沿海群岛的领海,群岛国可以采用直线群岛基线来划定其群岛的海域,而大陆国远洋群岛则没有规定。这里的问题便是直线基线是否适用远洋群岛,国际法是否明文规定禁止大陆国家采取此种做法。这一点就必须要从确认直线基线合法性的英挪渔业案和当前的国家实践中寻找线索。

1.英挪渔业案的判决

1951年的英挪渔业案是由于英国不满挪威政府1935年颁布的渔业法令而向国际法院提起的诉讼。根据该法令,挪威对其沿岸被称作“岩石壁垒”的一系列岛屿采用连接岛屿外缘的直线基线划定领海。最后,国际法院认定该法令规定的划界使用方法和基线本身并不违反国际法。①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.139.虽然这个案件只是涉及到挪威的沿岸岛屿,但是影响极为深远。后来在解决沿岸群岛和群岛国群岛制度时,相关国家都会援引该判决作为法理依据,而笔者认为该案也为大陆国家远洋群岛的基线制度提供了一定的法律指导。正如挪威法学家伊文森在为1958年海洋法会议撰写的准备文件中提到:“国际法院制定的标准适用于远洋群岛和沿海群岛,法院的概括性声明体现了国际法在这一领域的基本原则。”②Evensen,Certain Legal Aspects Concerning the Delimitation of the Territorial Waters of Archipelagos,U.N.Doc.A/CONF.13/18,1958,p.300.

英国提出的原则是基线必须是低潮线,因为这是各国在实践中普遍采用的标准。法院承认这一点,但是又指出基线使用的核心问题是地理特点。③Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.128.挪威的沿海岛屿山脉连绵,到处是峡湾和海湾,无数的岛屿、小岛和暗礁断断续续,采用传统的低潮线显然不合理。此外,国际法院还提出了一些适用于领海划定的基本指导性原则。总结一下,主要有以下几点:第一,划定领海时,必须要考虑到水域与陆地的关系,毕竟是陆地赋予一国拥有海域的权利;第二,国家应当被赋予必要的权利使其领海划定满足实际的和当地的需要,但是不可以明显地偏离原来的轮廓;第三,考虑领海划界时,不能只考虑地理因素,还要考虑到该地区的经济利益。④Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.133.

以上国际法院所阐释的基本原则虽然只是针对英挪渔业案,而且该判决对于其他国家没有法律约束力,但是判决体现的法律理念是适用于大陆国家的远洋群岛的。首先,决定基线适用的最根本原则乃是该区域的地理特征。远洋群岛地理特征复杂,采用正常基线显然比较困难,可以考虑采用新方法。正如法院的判决所指出的一样,“在特殊的情况下,规则将消失”。①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.129.其次,国家有选择划定领海界限方法的自由。再者,远洋群岛的岛屿之间联系紧密,应该考虑到经济等方面的利益。因此,大陆国家远洋群岛适用直线基线连接其最外缘岛屿划定领海是合理的,并不违背国际上一般的法律规则。

2.国家实践

世界上有很多拥有远洋群岛的大陆国家,在20世纪,它们纷纷通过国内立法对各自的远洋群岛做出基线规定。因为国际上缺乏对远洋群岛基线适用的共识,每个国家的做法也存在着差异。有的国家如美国对所有领土包括岛屿的领海划定始终坚持正常基线,反对直线基线制度。而大多数的国家都是采用直线基线制度。以下便是主要的几个国家的立法实践:

(1)加拿大

加拿大于1985年颁布法令,规定其控制的北极群岛采用直线基线,并以长期行使主权为由,将基线内的水域宣布为内水。②Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

(2)丹麦

1959年丹麦政府颁布法令,宣布法罗群岛采用直线基线制度,并于1963年颁布皇家第259号法令,宣布基线内水域为专属渔业区,但未说明这一水域是否属于内水或领海。③Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

(3)挪威

根据1920年《斯匹次卑尔根协定》,挪威对其享有绝对主权。1970年划定直线基线,并将基线以内的水域确定为内水。④Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

(4)厄瓜多尔

根据1938年和1951年的总统法令,厄瓜多尔政府视加拉帕格斯群岛为一个整体,用连接群岛最外缘岛屿的直线基线来划定领海。1971年颁布高级法令第959-A号,肯定了上述对于加拉帕格斯群岛确定的直线基线,并宣布基线内的海域作为一个特殊区域,禁止国际航行,以保护该群岛的生态系统,同时宣布享有领海和大陆架。⑤Lucchini and Voeckel,Le droit international de la mer,Tome I,Paris:Pedone,1990,pp. 381～382.

(5)印度

印度政府认为构成群岛国的群岛与大陆国家的远洋群岛没有不同,沿海群岛与远洋群岛也不应该区别对待。安达曼—尼科巴群岛和拉克沙群岛也应享有群岛该有的权利。①Summary Records of Plenary Meetings 27th plenary meeting,at http://untreaty.un.org/ cod/diplomaticconferences/lawofthesea-1982/docs/vol_I/a_conf-62_sr-27.pdf.p. 96,15 January 2012.

另外,法国、芬兰和南斯拉夫等国家也都赞同直线基线制度。②Declarations and statements,Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations,at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm,16 January 2012.

从以上的国际法理论和国家实践可以看出,在大陆国家远洋群岛的基线划定问题上,国际社会多认同将远洋群岛看成是法律上的一个整体,主张整体划定基线的趋势很明显。而直线基线原则适用于大陆国远洋群岛应该是为法律所允许的,与现行的国家实践和国际法理论并不冲突。至于最后划定时选择正常基线还是直线基线则是由大陆国家自主决定。另外,为了使国际社会更容易接受直线基线制度,围绕远洋群岛的基线就一定要满足一定的客观标准,例如基线不可以过长、不可以明显偏离原来的轮廓等等,这些标准可以比照群岛直线基线,此处不再赘述。

三、远洋群岛水域的法律制度

大陆国家远洋群岛法律制度的另一核心问题便是基线内水域的法律地位,这其实也是拥有远洋群岛的大陆国家与推行自由主义的海洋大国之间争论的焦点之一。大陆国家出于主权、安全等方面因素的考虑通常倾向于严格控制远洋群岛水域;而海洋大国则出于航行自由的考虑反对大陆国家对远洋群岛的控制。迄今为止,国际海洋法之所以没能解决远洋群岛的法律制度问题,原因之一便在于远洋群岛水域的地位。因此,要填补海洋法上的空白,这一问题不能不得到妥善解决。而在此之前,几乎没有关于这一问题的国际法理论讨论,因此,考虑远洋群岛水域的法律地位就必须从沿海群岛水域和群岛国群岛水域以及现今的国家实践中寻找线索。

(一)沿海群岛和群岛国群岛水域的法律地位

根据1958年日内瓦《领海与毗连区公约》和1982年《联合国海洋法公约》,沿海国可对其沿岸的一系列岛屿采用直线基线,“领海基线向陆一面的水域构成国家内水的一部分”。①Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,Art 5(a);UNCLOS,Art 8 (a).也就是说,对于沿海国来说,沿海群岛基线内的水域属于内水性质。但是,如果直线基线使原来并非是内水的区域变成了内水,则此种水域内应享有无害通过权。②Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,Art 5(b);UNCLOS,Art 8 (b).

群岛国的群岛水域是一个全新的概念,直到第三次联合国海洋法会议上才被写入1982年《联合国海洋法公约》。根据《联合国海洋法公约》第四部分第49至54条,群岛水域既不同于领海,也不同于内水。“群岛国的主权及于群岛水域的上空、海床和底土,以及其中所包含的资源”,③UNCLOS,Art 49(b).但是,群岛水域的主权又受到多方面的限制。首先,群岛国要尊重现有协定,尊重相邻国家在群岛水域的传统捕鱼权利以及铺设海底电缆的权利。其次,群岛水域要实行特别的通过制度,即无害通过权和群岛海道通过权。这也是美国、苏联等海洋大国最关心和讨论最激烈的部分。④Plenary Meetings,Sum mary Records and Verbatim Records,as well as Documents of the Conference,Resumed Eleventh Session,Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,Volume XVII,New York,22-24 September 1982.

(二)国家实践

本文的第二部分在论述直线基线的国家实践时,已经可以看出各大陆国家对于其远洋群岛水域的制度是不同的。例如,对于一直反对直线基线的美国来说,夏威夷群岛采用的是正常基线,即低潮线,基线内的水域当然属于内水范围。在这种制度下,可以说是不存在连接各岛屿的远洋群岛水域。加拿大和挪威则宣布直线基线内的水域为内水,国家对其享有绝对的主权。丹麦和厄瓜多尔采取的方法则比较独特,比其他国家的法律制度要宽松得多。如丹麦将其法罗群岛基线内的水域规定为“专属渔业区”,避免了规定为内水招致海洋大国反对的局面;厄瓜多尔则以保护生态的名义,将加拉帕格斯群岛基线内的水域规定为特殊海域,禁止外国船只的自由航行,同时宣称拥有领海和大陆架。另外,像前苏联则于1985年颁布法令,以历史性水域的名义为其北部海岸包括东北水道的一系列群岛划定直线基线,基线以内的水域为内水。而这些宣称远洋群岛水域为内水并禁止自由航行的主张通常又遭到美国和英国等海洋大国的强烈反对。

通过上述的国家实践,再比照沿海群岛和群岛国群岛水域的法律制度,我们可以发现要创设远洋群岛水域的法律制度必须要考虑两个问题,一是基线内水域的性质,二是远洋群岛水域的历史性权利,包括通行制度。

首先,必须要明确决定基线内水域性质的标准。这一标准在当代国际法上没有明文规定,但是从1951年国际法院的判决中可以找到一点指导精神,即海域划定是以陆地为前提的。①Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports,1951,p.133.因此,基线内水域的法律地位应当根据每个群岛的不同特点区别对待,要充分考虑陆地与水域之间的关系。如果陆地与水域联系十分紧密,将基线内的水域视为内水也不是没有道理的。此外,群岛的地理因素在此固然重要,但也应考虑到安全和经济等因素。远洋群岛的地理特点使当地的安全形势复杂,政府不能有效地对各个岛屿进行常规的控制,“外国的间谍或者侦查活动在此处较容易开展”,“外国的海军力量对当地政府的决策会产生极大的威胁”。②Myres Smith McDougal and William T.Burke,Public Order of the Oceans,New Haven: Yale University Press,1962,p.412.同时,这些远洋群岛还面临着装载危险物质的船舶的威胁,而当今油轮泄漏的事件也极其常见。最后,远洋群岛的经济利益也越来越重要,既然英挪渔业案和群岛国制度分别肯定了沿岸群岛和群岛国群岛的经济利益,那么唯独否定大陆国家远洋群岛的经济利益是极不公平的。

但是考虑到其他国家的权利和要求,若在基线划定的水域内存在重要的国际航道,则该部分水域应适用于《联合国海洋法公约》的国际航道的过境通行权,保证正常的国际航行。尽管每个国家都有权决定采用何种制度来划定海域,但是这种划界必须要遵循国际法。确切地说,划界这一行动由国内法规定,但是划界的合法性则由国际法决定。这一点在1951年国际法院在英挪渔业案的判决中得到了确认:“海域划界是一个国际法问题:不能简单地取决于沿海国的国内立法。尽管划界这一行动必须要国家单方面进行,因为只有沿海国才有能力这么做,但是对于其他国家来说,划界的有效性则取决于国际法。”③Fisheries Case,Judgment of December 18th,1951,I.C.J.Reports 1951,p.132.而且,这一点在国际海洋法的发展过程中也得到了证明。如果一个国家在提倡建立新制度时采取一定限制的自我约束,从而做出比较灵活的规定,那么此项制度往往比较容易为国际社会所接受,在实施的过程中阻力较小,也就不会与其他国家在海洋权益上产生重大纷争。

四、结 语

综上所述,国际上对于大陆国家远洋群岛的法律制度还没有形成特定的规则。事实上,考虑到地理、经济和历史因素,形成特定的、统一的国际法规则也是不可取的。统一的规则太过死板,不能完全考虑到每个远洋群岛的特殊之处。但是,这并不意味着一些规则与原则不存在,或者说不应当被制定,毕竟,当今海洋权益的争端还是要依靠相应的国际法规范来解决。

因此,在综合分析了国家实践、国际法院判决和国际法理论的基础上,我们可以得出以下结论:大陆国家的远洋群岛是可以被视为一个整体并可以采用连接群岛最外缘岛屿、小岛或岩礁的直线基线来测算领海的。在考虑基线内水域的性质时,水域与陆地的关系是核心。如果联系的相当紧密,可以视为内水。但是,一定要考虑到他国的利益,采取适当的措施保证国际航行,力避重大冲突的出现。总之,任何制度的建立都要本着具体情况具体分析的态度,综合考虑到各方的因素。在受到不同政治、经济和历史等方面影响的不同区域,应该要允许多样性的存在,建立独特的法律制度来解决当前的问题,这也是现代海洋法的精神内涵。

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

Ⅰ.Classification and Status Quo of Legal Regimes of Archipelagos

A.Classification of Archipelagos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ⅱ.Baselines of Outlying Archipelagos of Continental Countries

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

A.Unity of Outlying Archipelagos of Continental Countries

1.International Agreements and Studies of International Bodies

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

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

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

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

2.Views of Publicists

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

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

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

3.State Practice

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

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

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

B.Application of Straight Baselines

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

1.Judgment of Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case

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

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

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

2.State Practice

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

a.Canada

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

b.Denmark

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

c.Norway

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

d.Ecuador

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

e.India

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

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

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

Ⅲ.Legal Regime of Archipelagic Waters of Continental States

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

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

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

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

B.State Practice

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

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

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

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

Ⅳ.Conclusion

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

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

On the Outlying Archipelagos of Continental States

JIA Nan*

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

Outlying archipelagos;Status quo;Baselines;Archipelagic waters

*贾楠,武汉大学国际问题研究院。电子邮箱:jslyg19891209@163.com。

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