風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
南中國海糾紛尚不仲裁庭管轄權
安東尼·卡蒂
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315567488-5/south-china-sea-disputes-yet-justiciable-anthony-carty
仲裁庭指示菲律賓充分解決訴狀中的所有問題，包括與仲裁庭管轄權、菲律賓訴求的可受理性以及爭端的是非曲直有關的事項。 因此，菲律賓試圖說服仲裁庭維護中菲單方麵劃定的有關地區海上邊界的主張，正如國際法院在加拿大訴美國案中所宣判的那樣，是一般國際法明確禁止的。 由於仲裁庭在就實質性法律問題做出裁決之前必須先解決管轄權和受理問題等懸而未決的問題，中國的缺席為法律學者提供了一個施展空間，為仲裁庭提供專業建議。 有了這些協助，法庭可以更好地履行《聯合國海洋法公約》附件七第九條規定的義務。
The South China Sea Disputes Are Not Yet Justiciable
By Anthony Carty
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315567488-5/south-china-sea-disputes-yet-justiciable-anthony-carty
The Tribunal directed the Philippines to fully address all issues in the Memorial, including matters relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the admissibility of the Philippines' claims, and the merits of the dispute. Thus, the Philippine arguments' attempt to persuade the Tribunal to vindicate the unilaterally drawn Sino-Philippine maritime boundary in the Relevant Area is clearly prohibited by general international law as pronounced by the ICJ in the Canada v. US case. As the Tribunal must settle the outstanding issues of jurisdiction and admissibility before ruling on the substantive legal issues, China's default of appearance provides a room for legal scholars to contribute by providing professional advice to the Tribunal. With such assistance, the Tribunal may better fulfil the obligation under Article 9 of Annex VII to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
南海的曆史與主權
[英]安東尼˙卡蒂 著， 王祥，武巍，拾壹 譯，
出版日期： 2023-11-01
編輯推薦：
詳盡地梳理、分析了法國、英國和美國自19世紀末以來對南海諸島所有權的檔案
以檔案說話，力證中國擁有南沙群島與西沙群島主權的曆史與法理依據
對於我國解決南海爭端、穩定南海局勢、共商“南海行為準則”具有劃時代的意義
內容簡介：
自20世紀70年代起，圍繞中國南海島礁的主權歸屬及部分海域的管轄權形成了6國7方的爭端局麵，近年來，域外大國以南海爭端為借口插手南海事務，以謀取政治、經濟和戰略利益。安東尼?卡蒂教授通過查閱法國、英國和美國自19世紀末以來對南海諸島所有權的檔案，理清了南海諸島的主權歸屬問題，檔案表明南海諸島的主權屬於中國，並且西方國家及越南等爭議相關方也認可這一事實。本書對於我國解決南海爭端、穩定南海局勢、共商“南海行為準則”具有重要意義。
關於作者：
安東尼˙卡蒂（Anthony Carty）教授是著名的國際法學者。現任北京大學客座教授，曾任教於英國德比大學、英國威斯敏斯特大學、香港大學、清華大學；曾在馬克斯普朗克歐洲法律史研究所、日本東京大學 、馬德裏自治大學等大學擔任訪問教授。他的學術方向集中於國際法理論、國際法哲學和國際法史等，在國際法領域發表了廣泛的著作，並在國際權威期刊發表，部分著作由英國牛津大學出版社等國際知名學術出版社出版。自2009年開始，安東尼?卡蒂教授的學術方向轉向中國。
目錄：
前 言
南海諸島曆史所有權檔案：斯普拉特利群島
1900-1975年涉及西沙群島所有權的英國和法國檔案
前言
本書由兩個各自獨立的部分組成，每個部分都基於檔案研究，主要是法國和英國的檔案，但也有一小部分是美國檔案。這種工作得益於我在英國做國際法學者期間所獲得的一些技術方法。我在以檔案為基礎的出版物中不斷積累有關技術方法，特別是我與理查?史密斯博士（Dr Richard Smith）合著 《傑拉爾德 ?菲茨莫裏斯爵士與世界危機：外交部法律顧問（1932-1945）》，由威科（Wolters Kluwer）集團於2000年出版。理查德?史密斯是一位檔案曆史學家，他教會我使用英國檔案的技術方法以及如何跳出檔案進行敘述的藝術。最後一點是極其重要的，畢竟本書有關部分不是以法律意見書的形式寫就。它們是作為曆史而寫下的。在曆史的書寫中，法律專家可以起點作用，但並不必然是主導作用。
我於2009年就職於香港大學法律係，擔任包玉剛爵士公法講座教授，繼續作為一名國際法學者從事學術研究。2011年，我應邀參加中國海洋發展戰略研究所在北京舉辦的研討會。這一個關於海洋事務的智庫機構，設有法律部門。為參加此會，我到英國國家檔案館去查閱資料，發現一份由法律顧問艾琳?登齊爾（Eileen Denzil）出具的法律意見書。我在研討會上做了介紹，法律意見書引發熱議。為此，我聘請梅麗莎?洛哈博士（Dr Melissa Loja）作為研究助理，共同研究美國檔案，特別是美國戰時委員會有關戰後東亞規劃的縮微膠片文件以及美國國務院的一些電報等。洛哈博士對於講好美國有關南沙群島故事方麵做出重要貢獻。
我從事這項研究並沒有受到中國官方部門委托，也沒有得到反饋，這項研究是完全獨立進行的，我迄今尚未發現這項研究被用於其他用途。我一貫的理解是，我可以自由地把這項研究在學術論壇上發表。這也是我到現在一直做的。關於帕拉塞爾群島和斯普拉特利群島的兩項研究已在2019年１月和７月出版的 《萬民法 :國際法律史年刊 》第４卷上發表。
第三項研究是關於2016年菲律賓南海仲裁案的評論。在2017年上海交通大學法學院舉辦的一個國際研討會後，這一評論被發表在中國的《海洋法評論》上，尚未以英文發表。
構成本書帕拉塞爾群島和斯普拉特利群島研究基礎的有關檔案，在我自2011年至2017年研究期間，在法國和英國是向普通公眾開放的。參閱檔案無需特別許可。
如上所述，本書研究成果並非作為法律建議而寫成，而是曆史敘述。這就給國際法的淵源學說，特別是一般習慣法的學說提出一些問題。由於曆史敘述基於事件和事實的世界，嚴格地說，隻要檔案史並未寫明相關國家表達明確意見或采取相應行動，那麽檔案記錄僅為內部思考，不產生國家實踐。盡管如此，這裏需要一些限定條件。
如果檔案揭示，一個國家所為違背本國法律顧問的專業思考，該當如何？如果一國法律、政治和曆史顧問一致認為，就“法律權利”而言應支持爭端當事國某一方，而國家卻選擇在當事國各方之間保持所謂的 “中立”立場，那又當如何？國家在麵臨一個爭端問題時所謂的中立立場是否受到對有關問題的製度記憶和曆史記憶的影響？這個問題尤其緊迫，特別是所謂 “中立國家”認為，它鼓勵國際法治可以派出一支海軍，而它實際上所針對的是爭端當事國一方的海軍力量，對於當事國其他各方而言是貢獻幫助。還可能存在另一種情況，檔案記錄顯示一國認為爭端當事國某一方沒有合理的法律訴求，但出於政治上的好處仍鼓勵該方堅持其主張。甚至還可能出現這樣一種情況，一國考慮其國內法律建議，拋出一些不著邊際的訴求進行直接幹預，而這樣做僅僅是為了試探相關各方反應。
事實上，還有一種檔案使用方式較少引起爭議，並且學術上顯然更能產生成果。法律檔案在很大程度上揭示了一個大國起草和締結一項國際公約的立場，而非專門闡釋該國與其他特定國家可能的爭議，這種法律檔案特別具有啟發性和普遍意義。使用法國參與1973年至１982年第三次聯合國海洋法會議的國際法檔案正是這種情況。法國觀點不僅可以從檔案中獲取，而且還可以從其法律顧問的學術出版物和公開條約實踐中收集。
排除上述種種考量，顯然，本書學術研究成果明確說明，中國在存在強烈爭議的南中國海問題上所持的立場是合理的。這個結論是在並未考慮中國自己曆史檔案的情況下做出的。
讓曆史說話——歐洲多國專家熱議《南海的曆史與主權》
2024-04-09
不久前，英國著名國際法學者安東尼·卡蒂推出其新書《南海的曆史與主權》。作者曆經10餘年，查閱大量法國、英國和美國自19世紀末以來對南海諸島所有權問題的國家檔案，以曆史與法理為依據，厘清了南海諸島的主權歸屬，同時也為有關南海諸島主權的研究提供了重要曆史資料和國際法證據，受到歐洲多國專家學者和媒體人士的關注。
奧地利自由撰稿記者馬丁·索羅斯撰文表示，安東尼·卡蒂的研究成果是基於英法美等國家的史料得出的，這進一步客觀地強調了其專業性和研究結論的國際意義。
摩爾多瓦國家廣播電台記者阿納托爾·戈丘克表示，依托於《南海的曆史與主權》的研究成果，那些對中國南海局勢感興趣的人將能夠更好地理解中國基於其曆史背景下的立場。該立場是非常明確的：“卷入這場爭端的國家絕不能損害中國在中國南海的領土主權和海洋利益，更不能借助域外勢力幹預中國南海海洋資源的開發。”
保加利亞《言論報》資深記者塔尼亞女士表示，鑒於南海特殊的地緣位置和豐富的石油和天然氣資源，該海域的一些島嶼成為了某些國家覬覦的對象，但這是徒勞的，因為早在1974年，時任英國外交大臣卡拉漢就在一本關於南海諸島的法律意見書上做過筆記——“這些島嶼屬於中國”。
烏克蘭基輔國立大學曆史學係副教授烏魯索夫·沃洛迪米爾認為，《南海的曆史與主權》一書對於中國解決南海爭端、穩定南海局勢、並與有關國家達成“南海行為準則”的努力具有重要意義。“同時，也應該看到，中國對南海諸島擁有無可爭辯的主權，這一結論在英國自己的文獻中都給予了良好的證明。”
阿爾巴尼亞知名政治評論員瑪利亞娜·多達撰文表示，中國主張解決海上爭端的最好辦法是擱置爭議，共同開發，維護地區和平。但菲律賓在得到域外勢力支持後，選擇挑起爭端和製造對抗。美國政府利用“美菲共同防禦條約”來威脅中國的行為，也助長了菲方的挑釁行為。
阿爾巴尼亞全球化研究院執行院長馬爾塞拉·穆薩貝留在其評論文章《南海為何風浪再起？》中表示，南海地區各國很清楚菲律賓外交政策被美國玩弄於股掌之間，近期發生的糾紛就是一個例子。從曆史上看，不管是《華盛頓條約》《巴黎條約》等國際條約還是英美關於菲律賓領土的協議，仁愛礁都不屬於菲方管轄範圍。
波蘭中國問題專家、前駐上海總領事沙法什撰文表示，南海島嶼主權永遠屬於中國。南海問題被美國及其盟友以越來越“非理性”和“具有侵略性”的方式利用。美國新一輪反華情緒的高漲，不僅在南海，而且在亞太地區和全球範圍內，都加劇了國際緊張局勢，而且不利於中美關係的發展。
'The rule of law says that the islands are Chinese'
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202404/1310059.shtml
By Global Times Apr 06, 2024
A Chinese coast guard ship uses a water cannon to expel a Philippine coast guard ship near the South China Sea during the Philippines'illegal re-supply mission on March 5, 2024.
Editor's Note:
The recent tensions between China and the Philippines have been flared up by the Philippines to make illegal claims over South China Sea islands and maritime rights. Nonetheless, a book written by Anthony Carty (Carty), an Irish professor of international law and now a visiting professor at the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences of Peking University and a professor at the School of Law of Beijing Institute of Technology, shows China's indisputable sovereignty in the South China Sea. In an interview with the Global Times (GT) reporter Wang Wenwen, Professor Carty explained how the official British and French archives he had dug into back China's claims and how he thought of the current situation in the South China Sea. The book, The History and Sovereignty of South China Sea, has been released in Chinese language so far and the English version will be released soon by the Beijing-headquartered New Star Press.
GT: You became interested in China-related academic research in 2009. Why?
Carty: I came from the University of Aberdeen, where I was chair professor of public law, to Hong Kong in April 2009. That was when the South China Sea issue was warming up with the claims being put up by the Philippines and Vietnam to vast maritime economic zones in the South China Sea. As I understand, they were put up to do this by the Americans. And the Chinese were responding to that.
So I decided that when I would go back to Britain in the summer, I would go and check the British national archives to see whether there was any material on this. I thought it would be at least marginally of interest and something to do. To my surprise, I found that there was a substantial dossier dealing directly with the question of the ownership of the Nansha Islands, of which the Philippines calls Spratly Islands. Equally to my surprise, it said that the Spratly Islands [the Nansha Islands] were by default Chinese.
Then I still wasn't that interested in it, but colleagues in Hong Kong have close links with Chinese colleagues and I had been sent to Beijing to present myself to Tsinghua University and finally Tsinghua University brought this to the attention of the China Institute for Marine Affairs, which later invited me to take part in an international conference on the South China Sea question. After I presented some British archival material, Judge Gao Zhiguo invited me to explore these archives more exhaustively. At that time, there was criticism from the European colleagues who were attending the conference, and they said that the French were key players. So I turned to look at the French archives.
That's how it all started. It mushroomed into a major undertaking from just being a casual way of taking an interest in what I was reading in the newspapers.
GT: After you dug into these official archives which show that China's position in the South China Sea is reasonable, you wrote the book, The History and Sovereignty of South China Sea. How do these archives back China's maritime claims?
Carty: They are complex archives going from the 1880s until the late 1970s. The key archives are probably the French, the British are observing the French and the Chinese. The archives demonstrate, taken as a whole, that it is the view of the British and French legal experts that as a matter of the international law territory, which is a rather arcane subject, the Xisha Islands and the Nansha Islands are Chinese territory. That is to say, the Chinese claims and activities on the islands far exceeded in intensity of those of any other country during the period, except for the French, whose own lawyers challenged the actions of France, which, in any case, subsequently withdrew.
From the classical Western international law point of view, this is very significant. The most important French foreign minister of the inter-war period Aristide Briand, who was foreign minister most of the time between 1918 and his death in 1932, took the view that the Xisha Islands were clearly Chinese. And he consulted with the independent Jurisconsult of the Foreign Ministry, Jules Basdevant, subsequently a French judge on the International Court of Justice. The latter wrote that according to the Island of Palmas case, the Xisha Islands were recognized as Chinese. Subsequently, French legal advice was that France never completed an effective occupation of the Spratlys [the Nansha Islands], and they abandoned them completely in 1956. In the 1930s they recognized that these Spratlys [the Nansha Islands] had always been home to Chinese fisherman from Hainan Island and Guangdong. There had never been any Vietnamese or Philippine connection and French interference had only been in its own name and not that of Vietnam. It is the British who then drew a decisive conclusion, from all the French and British records available, that the Chinese were the owners of the Spratlys [the Nansha Islands], a legal position certified as part of British Cabinet records in 1974.
At the present time, the position of Britain and France, who are basically junior allies of the United States, is that they are agnostic as to the ownership of the Nansha Islands and Xisha Islands. Publicly, the British and the French have stated that they are agnostic as to who owns the South China Sea islands, whether it is Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines, or China itself. They say that China should be prepared to submit the dispute to arbitration. China's insistence that these islands are Chinese is apparently then viewed by them as an act of what is called "assertiveness" and even aggression. China is portrayed as a "revisionist" power with hegemonic ambitions.
The point of this research is to demonstrate that this is not part of the legal historical memory of the French and the British and that they should really support the Chinese. Basically, I am adopting a rigorously legal position that it's not up to China to do whatever is necessary diplomatically to calm the nerves of its neighbors. It's up to all of these countries to accept the rule of law, and the rule of law says that the islands are Chinese. There is a very important document in the French archives, which is a letter from the French ambassador to Beijing in 1974, written to the French prime minister at the time, saying all of this unrest in the South China Sea is due to French interference in the region. It is further due, in his view, to the Americans inciting the Vietnamese to make claims for the purpose of embarrassing China. And there is a record in the mid-1950s in the US National Archive, in which a US under secretary of state says that, while the Filipinos have no claim to the Spratlys [the Nansha Islands], it is in the US interest to encourage them to make a claim anyway to keep Communist China out of the area.
So, there will be peace when people accept China's legal rights, not when China simply calms down these countries by making whatever concessions they demand.
GT: How do you see the South China Sea disputes being exploited by external players based on their strategic considerations rather than purely legal perspectives?
Carty: There is absolutely no doubt that this whole dispute is entirely about the Americans trying to make life difficult for the Chinese. The aggression that is building up against China and the scapegoating of China by the whole of the so-called democratic community of the world is appalling.
Anthony Carty
GT: What role can your book play in the peaceful resolution of the South China Sea disputes and the formation of the Code of Conduct?
Carty: The short answer to that, for me as an international lawyer, is that if we abide by the rule of law and rules for acquisition of territory, then countries like France and Britain will have to stop supporting the American line that China is being "unreasonable" and "assertive," and so on and so forth in the South China Sea. The American position has always been a function of what it thinks are its own strategic interests, regardless of law.
The Code of Conduct is a diplomatic matter for China. For China, this is an issue of historical justice, but once that is accepted by other countries, particularly by Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines, then it's open to China to proceed whatever way it thinks is in the best interests of its relations with these countries. It's not a purely legal question.
GT: Tensions between China and the Philippines have escalated since last year due to the South China Sea issue. How do you comment on the handling of the disputes and the overall policy in the South China Sea by China and the Philippines respectively?
Carty: That for me is not really a legal question. The legal question is that the Philippines has no legal claim to the Spratly Islands [the Nansha Islands]. The Filipino claim to the Nansha Islands is absurd. This is outside my field, but it's obvious that the United States has been interfering with and shaping Filipino policies since they conquered the Philippines and wiped out the Filipino independence movement in 1900. The American conduct toward the Philippines has been for a very long time and very problematic, but the Philippines itself is then a divided society. There are pro-Chinese elements and pro-American elements at the moment which are the richer elements of Filipino society. They are in the political ascendancy at the moment.
One has to recognize that this is fundamentally a strategic struggle between China and America. I think that in the long term, America will lose. And the best strategy for China is just to keep cool. My advice would be to stress the legal position and to make sure that is very widely known. The argument about China being an "assertive and aggressive" power and a "revisionist" power is simply slanderous abuse. And it's very worrying because it definitely implies a willingness on the part of the West to use force against China. It represents a complete collapse of any kind of civilized diplomacy.
