فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران
دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

سازوکار‌های حل اختلافات مربوط به منطقۀ انحصاری-اقتصادی و چالش‌های آن

نویسندگان

سید باقر میرعبّاسی 1
ابوطالب امیرشعبانی 2

1 استاد گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 فارغ‌التحصیل کارشناسی‌ارشد حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2018.137629.1159
چکیده
در کنوانسیون 1982 حقوق دریاها، با توجه به نظام حقوقی ویژۀ منطقۀ انحصاری اقتصادی که مستعد وقوع اختلاف است، سازوکار‌هایی برای حل اختلافات ناشی از این منطقه تدبیر شده است. اما در سال‌های بعد از تصویب کنوانسیون به‌دلیل کلی بودن و ابهام این سازوکار‌ها، عدم کارایی آنها در عمل اثبات شده است، به‌گونه‌ای که اگر مفاهیم مندرج در آنها تشریح و روشن نشود، می‌توان گفت که وجود یا نبود آنها تفاوتی نمی‌کند. نهادهای قضایی از جمله ایتلوس هم شاید بنابر همین دلایل به این سازوکار‌ها به‌خصوص مادۀ 59 اقبال نشان نداده‌اند. در این مقاله، پس از بررسی ضعف‌های سازوکار‌های مذکور دو نمونه از اختلاف‌های رایج در منطقۀ مذکور که ماهیت متفاوتی نسبت به یکدیگر دارند (فعالیت‌های نظامی و سوخت‌رسانی) بررسی می‌شود و در پرتو آنها پیشنهاد‌هایی به‌منظور حل این اختلاف‌ها مطرح خواهد شد.  

کلیدواژه‌ها

توجه مقتضی
دادگاه بین‌المللی حقوق دریاها
فعالیت‌های نظامی
سوخت‌رسانی
منطقۀ انحصاری اقتصادی
مادۀ 59 کنوانسیون

عنوان مقاله English

Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the Exclusive Economic Zone and their Challenges

نویسندگان English

seyyed Bagher Mirabbasi 1
Abootaleb Amirshaabani 2
1 member of faculty of law
2 Student, Senior
چکیده English

Given that specific legal regime of the exclusive economic zone which is prone to disputes per se, some mechanisms have been devised for settlement of these disputes in UNCLOS. However, in after years of the adoption of the Convention, owing to being imprecise and ambiguous, these mechanisms have been proved inefficient, in a way that if concepts mentioned in them remain undefined, it can be said that there is no difference if they exist or not. Maybe it is the reason for judicial bodies including the ITLOS, not being interested in these mechanisms at all. This article intends to firstly, examine the flaws of the mechanisms in general, and secondly, analyses specifically two common and different in nature disputes arising in connection with the exclusive economic zone, namely military activities and offshore bunkering. Based on this analysis, some suggestions are given in order to solve other possible disputes arising out of this zone.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Due Regard
ITLOS
Military Activities
Bunkering
Exclusive Economic Zone
Article 59 of the Convention

  1.    A) Books

     

    1. Tuerk, H. (2012). Reflections on the Contemporary Law of the Sea (Vol. 71), Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
    2. Kraska, J. (2010). Maritime Power and the Law of the Sea: Expeditionary Operations in World Politics, New York, Oxford University Press.
    3. Churchill, R. R., & Lowe, A. V. (1988). The law of the sea, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
    4. Hong, N. (2012) UNCLOS and Ocean Dispute Settlement: Law and Politics in the South China Sea, New York, Routledge.
    5. Walker, G. K. (Ed.). (2012). Definitions for the Law of the Sea: terms not defined by the 1982 Convention, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
    6. Roach, J. A., & Smith, R. W. (2012). Excessive maritime claims, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
    7. Kaczorowska-Ireland, A. (2015). Public International Law, New York, Routledge.
    8. Burk, W. T. (1994). The new international law of fisheries, Virginia, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    9. Nordquist, M. (Ed.). (1993). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Volume II: A Commentary (Vol. 2), Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

     

    B) Articles

     

    1. Anderson, D. (2011). "Coastal State Jurisdiction and High Seas Freedoms in the EEZ in the Light of the Saiga Case", in Symmons, C. (Ed) Selected Contemporary Issues in the Law of the Sea (Vol. 71), Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, PP. 105-115.
    2. Lagoni, R. (2007) "Offshore Bunkering in the Exclusive Economic Zone", in Ndiaye, T. M., & Wolfrum, R. (Eds.) Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 613-627.
    3. Bateman, S. (2007). " The Regime of Exclusive Economic Zone: Military Activities and the Need for Compromise?", in Ndiaye, T. M., & Wolfrum, R. (Eds.) Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 569-582.
    4. Hayashi, M. (2013). "Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Foreign Coastal States", in Freestone, D. (Ed.) The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention at 30: Successes, Challenges and New Agendas, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 121-129.
    5. Kim, H., S. (2006). "Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Preventing Uncertainty and Defusing Conflicts", in Jaques, R. (Ed.). Issues in International Law and Military Operations (Vol. 80). Naval War College Press, pp. 257-262.
    6. Kaye, S (2006). "Freedom of Navigation in a Post 9/11 World: Security and Creeping Jurisdiction", in Freestone, D., Barnes, R., & Ong, D. M. (Eds.). The law of the sea: progress and prospects, New York, Oxford University Press. PP. 347-364.
    7. Valencia, M. J. (2015, October). "Military Activities in Foreign EEZs: An Update1". In Hong, N. & Wu, S. & Valencia, M., (Eds). UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the South China Sea, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, pp. 33-63.
    8. Beckman, R. (2006)." Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: Towards a Common Understanding". Yang Razali Kassim (Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, 2006), 42.
    9. Stephens, T., & Rothwell, D. R. (2012). "The LOSC Framework for Maritime Jurisdiction and Enforcement 30 Years on". The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27(4), 701-709.
    10. Beckman, R., & Davenport, T. (2012). "The EEZ Regime: Reflections after 30 Years. LOSI-KIOST Conference on Securing the Ocean for the Next Generation", Retrieved on October 20, 2015 from: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Beckman-Davenport-final.pdf.
    11. Shearer, I. A. (1986). "Problems of jurisdiction and law enforcement against delinquent vessels". International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 35(02), 320-343.
    12. Karagiannis, S. (2004)." Article 59 de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le Droit de la Mer (ou les Mysteres de la Nature Juridique de la Zone Economique Exclusive)". Rev. BDI, 37, 325-418.
    13. Pedrozo, R. (2009). "Close encounters at sea: The USNS Impeccable incident". NAVAL WAR COLL NEWPORT RI.
    14. Pedrozo, R. P. (2014)." Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: East Asia Focus". Int'l L. Stud. Ser. US Naval War Col., 90, 514-542.
    15. Bateman, S. (2005)." Prospective Guidelines for Navigation and Overflight in the Exclusive Economic Zone". Maritime Studies, 2005(144), 17-28.
    16. Stephens, D. G. (1998). "Impact of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention on the Conduct of Peacetime Naval/Military Operations", The. Cal. W. Int'l LJ, 29, 283-311.
    17. Valencia, M. J., & Garmendia, J. M. (2003). "The Regime of the exclusive economic zone: issues and responses: a report of the Tokyo meeting", 19-20 February 2003.
    18. Geng, J. (2012). "The Legality of Foreign Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone under UNCLOS". Merkourios, 28(74), 22-30.
    19. Galdorisi, G. V., & Kaufman, A. G. (2001). "Military activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone: preventing uncertainty and defusing conflict". Cal. W. Int'l LJ, 32, 253.
    20. Burgess, J. P. (2003). "The politics of the South China Sea: Territoriality and international law. Security Dialogue", 34(1), 7-10.
    21. Vignocchi, C. (2014). "ITLOST-The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Sounds the Charge to Expand Coastal State Jurisdiction". Tul. Mar. LJ, 39, 791.

     

    C) Cases

     

    1. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland), Judgment of 25 July 1974, I. C. J. Reports, 1974.
    2. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), Judgment of April 9th, 1949: I. C. J. Reports 1949.
    3. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, I. C. J Reports, 1986.
    4.  M/V Virginia G Case (Panama v. Guinea Bissau), Judgment of 14 April 2014, ITLOS Reports 2014.
    5. M/V SAIGA Case (Guinea v. Saint Vincent and Grenadines), Judgment of 4 December 1997, ITLOS Reports 1997.
    6. M/V SAIGA (No. 2) Case (Guinea v. Saint Vincent and Grenadines), Judgment of  July 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999.
    1. M/V Virginia G Case, Declaration of Judge Treves, ITLOS Reports, 2014
    2. M/V Virginia G Case, Declaration of Judge Nelson, ITLOS Reports, 2014.
فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران
دوره 48، شماره 4
زمستان 1397
صفحه 849-865

  • تاریخ دریافت 19 آذر 1394
  • تاریخ بازنگری 30 فروردین 1395
  • تاریخ پذیرش 04 مرداد 1395

صفحه اصلی

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

فرایند ارزیابی و پذیرش مقالات

ارسال مقاله

بانک‌ها و نمایه‌نامه‌ها

تماس با ما