风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
南中国海纠纷尚不仲裁庭管辖权
安东尼·卡蒂
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315567488-5/south-china-sea-disputes-yet-justiciable-anthony-carty
仲裁庭指示菲律宾充分解决诉状中的所有问题，包括与仲裁庭管辖权、菲律宾诉求的可受理性以及争端的是非曲直有关的事项。 因此，菲律宾试图说服仲裁庭维护中菲单方面划定的有关地区海上边界的主张，正如国际法院在加拿大诉美国案中所宣判的那样，是一般国际法明确禁止的。 由于仲裁庭在就实质性法律问题做出裁决之前必须先解决管辖权和受理问题等悬而未决的问题，中国的缺席为法律学者提供了一个施展空间，为仲裁庭提供专业建议。 有了这些协助，法庭可以更好地履行《联合国海洋法公约》附件七第九条规定的义务。
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).
南海的历史与主权
[英]安东尼˙卡蒂 著， 王祥，武巍，拾壹 译，
出版日期： 2023-11-01
編輯推薦：
详尽地梳理、分析了法国、英国和美国自19世纪末以来对南海诸岛所有权的档案
以档案说话，力证中国拥有南沙群岛与西沙群岛主权的历史与法理依据
对于我国解决南海争端、稳定南海局势、共商“南海行为准则”具有划时代的意义
內容簡介：
自20世纪70年代起，围绕中国南海岛礁的主权归属及部分海域的管辖权形成了6国7方的争端局面，近年来，域外大国以南海争端为借口插手南海事务，以谋取政治、经济和战略利益。安东尼?卡蒂教授通过查阅法国、英国和美国自19世纪末以来对南海诸岛所有权的档案，理清了南海诸岛的主权归属问题，档案表明南海诸岛的主权属于中国，并且西方国家及越南等争议相关方也认可这一事实。本书对于我国解决南海争端、稳定南海局势、共商“南海行为准则”具有重要意义。
關於作者：
安东尼˙卡蒂（Anthony Carty）教授是著名的国际法学者。现任北京大学客座教授，曾任教于英国德比大学、英国威斯敏斯特大学、香港大学、清华大学；曾在马克斯普朗克欧洲法律史研究所、日本东京大学 、马德里自治大学等大学担任访问教授。他的学术方向集中于国际法理论、国际法哲学和国际法史等，在国际法领域发表了广泛的著作，并在国际权威期刊发表，部分著作由英国牛津大学出版社等国际知名学术出版社出版。自2009年开始，安东尼?卡蒂教授的学术方向转向中国。
目錄：
前 言
南海诸岛历史所有权档案：斯普拉特利群岛
1900-1975年涉及西沙群岛所有权的英国和法国档案
前言
本书由两个各自独立的部分组成，每个部分都基于档案研究，主要是法国和英国的档案，但也有一小部分是美国档案。这种工作得益于我在英国做国际法学者期间所获得的一些技术方法。我在以档案为基础的出版物中不断积累有关技术方法，特别是我与理查?史密斯博士（Dr Richard Smith）合著 《杰拉尔德 ?菲茨莫里斯爵士与世界危机：外交部法律顾问（1932-1945）》，由威科（Wolters Kluwer）集团于2000年出版。理查德?史密斯是一位档案历史学家，他教会我使用英国档案的技术方法以及如何跳出档案进行叙述的艺术。最后一点是极其重要的，毕竟本书有关部分不是以法律意见书的形式写就。它们是作为历史而写下的。在历史的书写中，法律专家可以起点作用，但并不必然是主导作用。
我于2009年就职于香港大学法律系，担任包玉刚爵士公法讲座教授，继续作为一名国际法学者从事学术研究。2011年，我应邀参加中国海洋发展战略研究所在北京举办的研讨会。这一个关于海洋事务的智库机构，设有法律部门。为参加此会，我到英国国家档案馆去查阅资料，发现一份由法律顾问艾琳?登齐尔（Eileen Denzil）出具的法律意见书。我在研讨会上做了介绍，法律意见书引发热议。为此，我聘请梅丽莎?洛哈博士（Dr Melissa Loja）作为研究助理，共同研究美国档案，特别是美国战时委员会有关战后东亚规划的缩微胶片文件以及美国国务院的一些电报等。洛哈博士对于讲好美国有关南沙群岛故事方面做出重要贡献。
我从事这项研究并没有受到中国官方部门委托，也没有得到反馈，这项研究是完全独立进行的，我迄今尚未发现这项研究被用于其他用途。我一贯的理解是，我可以自由地把这项研究在学术论坛上发表。这也是我到现在一直做的。关于帕拉塞尔群岛和斯普拉特利群岛的两项研究已在2019年１月和７月出版的 《万民法 :国际法律史年刊 》第４卷上发表。
第三项研究是关于2016年菲律宾南海仲裁案的评论。在2017年上海交通大学法学院举办的一个国际研讨会后，这一评论被发表在中国的《海洋法评论》上，尚未以英文发表。
构成本书帕拉塞尔群岛和斯普拉特利群岛研究基础的有关档案，在我自2011年至2017年研究期间，在法国和英国是向普通公众开放的。参阅档案无需特别许可。
如上所述，本书研究成果并非作为法律建议而写成，而是历史叙述。这就给国际法的渊源学说，特别是一般习惯法的学说提出一些问题。由于历史叙述基于事件和事实的世界，严格地说，只要档案史并未写明相关国家表达明确意见或采取相应行动，那么档案记录仅为内部思考，不产生国家实践。尽管如此，这里需要一些限定条件。
如果档案揭示，一个国家所为违背本国法律顾问的专业思考，该当如何？如果一国法律、政治和历史顾问一致认为，就“法律权利”而言应支持争端当事国某一方，而国家却选择在当事国各方之间保持所谓的 “中立”立场，那又当如何？国家在面临一个争端问题时所谓的中立立场是否受到对有关问题的制度记忆和历史记忆的影响？这个问题尤其紧迫，特别是所谓 “中立国家”认为，它鼓励国际法治可以派出一支海军，而它实际上所针对的是争端当事国一方的海军力量，对于当事国其他各方而言是贡献帮助。还可能存在另一种情况，档案记录显示一国认为争端当事国某一方没有合理的法律诉求，但出于政治上的好处仍鼓励该方坚持其主张。甚至还可能出现这样一种情况，一国考虑其国内法律建议，抛出一些不着边际的诉求进行直接干预，而这样做仅仅是为了试探相关各方反应。
事实上，还有一种档案使用方式较少引起争议，并且学术上显然更能产生成果。法律档案在很大程度上揭示了一个大国起草和缔结一项国际公约的立场，而非专门阐释该国与其他特定国家可能的争议，这种法律档案特别具有启发性和普遍意义。使用法国参与1973年至１982年第三次联合国海洋法会议的国际法档案正是这种情况。法国观点不仅可以从档案中获取，而且还可以从其法律顾问的学术出版物和公开条约实践中收集。
排除上述种种考量，显然，本书学术研究成果明确说明，中国在存在强烈争议的南中国海问题上所持的立场是合理的。这个结论是在并未考虑中国自己历史档案的情况下做出的。
让历史说话——欧洲多国专家热议《南海的历史与主权》
2024-04-09
不久前，英国著名国际法学者安东尼·卡蒂推出其新书《南海的历史与主权》。作者历经10余年，查阅大量法国、英国和美国自19世纪末以来对南海诸岛所有权问题的国家档案，以历史与法理为依据，厘清了南海诸岛的主权归属，同时也为有关南海诸岛主权的研究提供了重要历史资料和国际法证据，受到欧洲多国专家学者和媒体人士的关注。
奥地利自由撰稿记者马丁·索罗斯撰文表示，安东尼·卡蒂的研究成果是基于英法美等国家的史料得出的，这进一步客观地强调了其专业性和研究结论的国际意义。
摩尔多瓦国家广播电台记者阿纳托尔·戈丘克表示，依托于《南海的历史与主权》的研究成果，那些对中国南海局势感兴趣的人将能够更好地理解中国基于其历史背景下的立场。该立场是非常明确的：“卷入这场争端的国家绝不能损害中国在中国南海的领土主权和海洋利益，更不能借助域外势力干预中国南海海洋资源的开发。”
保加利亚《言论报》资深记者塔尼亚女士表示，鉴于南海特殊的地缘位置和丰富的石油和天然气资源，该海域的一些岛屿成为了某些国家觊觎的对象，但这是徒劳的，因为早在1974年，时任英国外交大臣卡拉汉就在一本关于南海诸岛的法律意见书上做过笔记——“这些岛屿属于中国”。
乌克兰基辅国立大学历史学系副教授乌鲁索夫·沃洛迪米尔认为，《南海的历史与主权》一书对于中国解决南海争端、稳定南海局势、并与有关国家达成“南海行为准则”的努力具有重要意义。“同时，也应该看到，中国对南海诸岛拥有无可争辩的主权，这一结论在英国自己的文献中都给予了良好的证明。”
阿尔巴尼亚知名政治评论员玛利亚娜·多达撰文表示，中国主张解决海上争端的最好办法是搁置争议，共同开发，维护地区和平。但菲律宾在得到域外势力支持后，选择挑起争端和制造对抗。美国政府利用“美菲共同防御条约”来威胁中国的行为，也助长了菲方的挑衅行为。
阿尔巴尼亚全球化研究院执行院长马尔塞拉·穆萨贝留在其评论文章《南海为何风浪再起？》中表示，南海地区各国很清楚菲律宾外交政策被美国玩弄于股掌之间，近期发生的纠纷就是一个例子。从历史上看，不管是《华盛顿条约》《巴黎条约》等国际条约还是英美关于菲律宾领土的协议，仁爱礁都不属于菲方管辖范围。
波兰中国问题专家、前驻上海总领事沙法什撰文表示，南海岛屿主权永远属于中国。南海问题被美国及其盟友以越来越“非理性”和“具有侵略性”的方式利用。美国新一轮反华情绪的高涨，不仅在南海，而且在亚太地区和全球范围内，都加剧了国际紧张局势，而且不利于中美关系的发展。
'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.
