Impact of Maritime Non-traditional Security Factors on Marine Legal Order
【中文摘要】1982年《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称“《公约》”)成立后，出现 了一些《公约》未作任何规定、或仅作了原则性规定的新问题。为此，一些国家 开始摸索新形势下的安全机制模式。针对诸如海盗和海上武装抢劫、海上恐怖活 动、大规模杀伤性武器的扩散等非传统安全威胁，部分国家通过缔结特别条约或 修订现有国际条约，扩大了非船旗国在公海等海域的管辖范围；与此同时，美、日 等国通过本国或国家集团的单方面行动，对《公约》中未作明确规定的空白部分 或仅有原则性规定的部分通过国内法或国家实践进行“填补式”或“具体化”的适 用，促成对其有利的新的制度或秩序的形成。日本在亚洲构建以海上共同执法为 最终目标的多边海上安全机制对亚太地区海上秩序的现状可能产生重大的影响。 由于国际法并不禁止国家出于自愿、以缔结区域协定或事先授权的方式把属于 本国主权管辖的事项委托别国代为行使管辖权，因此，海上共同执法行动在法理 上具有一定的可行性，在国家实践中也有一些先例存在。但是，海上共同执法也 暗含着一系列值得研究的国际法问题:如多国共同执法和公海航行自由原则的关 系;第三国参加海上共同执法的国际法依据;第三国经沿岸国授权对位于沿岸国领 海内的外国船舶行使管辖权和领海无害通过原则的关系等。今后，本地区的多边 海上安全机制的形成及其走向值得密切关注。 【Abstract】Since the adoption of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”), some new issues, which were not regulated by the Convention or regulated only in principle, emerged. Therefore, a number of countries started to explore security modalities in the new situation. Facing non-traditional security factors, such as piracy and armed robbery at sea, maritime terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, certain countries extended the scope of jurisdiction of non-flag States over the high seas and other sea areas by concluding special treaties or amending existing international treaties; while the United States, Japan and other countries or groups of countries have, through their domestic laws or State practices, taken unilateral actions, by “filling-in” or “specific” application of the “blank” parts of the Convention which are not specifically regulated or parts which are regulated only in principle, in order to shape a new system or order in their favor. The endeavor of Japan to build a multilateral maritime security mechanism in Asia with maritime joint law enforcement as the ultimate goal may significantly impact the current status of maritime order in Asian Pacific region. International Law does not prohibit a State from entrusting the exercise of jurisdiction over matters within the jurisdiction of its national sovereignty to another State voluntarily, or by way of concluding regional agreements or granting prior authorization, therefore, joint law enforcement at sea is feasible in law, and some precedents can also be found in State practice. However, maritime joint law enforcement also implies a range of questions worthy of studying in international law: such as the relationship between multinational law enforcement and the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas; the international law basis for a third State to participate in maritime law enforcement; and the relationship be¬tween a third State, authorized by a coastal State, exercising jurisdiction over foreign ships within the territorial waters of the coastal State, and the principle of the innocent passage through the territorial waters, etc. In the future, the building of multilateral maritime security mechanism in the region and its tendency deserve close attention.