Research on the Delimitation of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf in International Settlement of Sea Disputes

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

国际法学院

作者：

SUNN LINN

导师：

张晓君

导师单位：

国际法学院

学位：

博士

语种：

中文

关键词：

..;..;..

摘要：

《联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称 UNCLOS 或 LOSC 或公约)是国际法中重要的公约 之一。该公约不仅针对海洋这一世界上最大资源的使用问题进行了规范，而且还包含强 制性争端解决机制——这在国际法中是一个并不常见的现象。 UNCLOS 对海洋使用、海域划分和强制争端解决程序的规定错综复杂，无疑反映 了国际关系在海洋法和争端解决方面的新时代。UNCLOS 第十五部分为争端解决制度， 既涉及传统的基于同意的程序，也涉及强制性程序。在这两方面，缔约国的灵活性一个 关键特征。第十五部分第一节规定，各国可在 UNCLOS 框架内外寻求一系列解决争端 的备选办法，这反映出各国习惯于在争端出现时按照局势的要求以各种方式解决争端， 而不是通过预先确定的手段。通常，外交行动和谈判是解决冲突的最有效方式。UNCLOS 规定，在解释和适用出现分歧时，有义务迅速交换意见，从而促进在司法程序之前通过 政治渠道解决问题。此外，国家还保留通过替代性(双边、区域或一般)协议解决冲突的 权利。鉴于海洋法中有大量条约是针对特定领域的问题，并纳入了各自的争端解决制度， 因此有必要提供这样的灵活性。题为“一般条款”的第十五部分第一节实质上要求各国在 参照第十五部分第二节的强制程序之前通过外交渠道解决争端。 如果各国尚未通过第十五部分第一节规定的各种手段解决分歧，则可应任何当事方 的请求，根据公约的规定将争端提交适当的法院。一旦一个国家是公约的缔约国，就不 需要额外的同意形式——同意受 UNCLOS 约束包括同意采取必须作出有约束力决定的 强制性程序(除第十五部分第 1 节和第 3 节以外)。根据第 2 节，争端国家不需要(双方或 全部)同意将争端提交法院或法庭，但争端可根据一个当事国的要求提交。单方面行动 足以赋予法院或仲裁庭管辖权，法院或仲裁庭可以就另一方是否参与程序作出决定 国际海洋法的主要目的之一，是界定不同的海洋区域、其范围和界限。根据 UNCLOS ，沿海国的大陆架从测算领海宽度的基线至少延伸至 200 海里。如果沿海国 符合公约规定的某些地质和地貌标准，它就可以对超过200海里界限的大陆架提出索赔。 UNCLOS 规定，有关基线 200 海里以外大陆架界限的资料，须由沿海国提交大陆架界 iii 限委员会(下称“ CLCS”或“ Commission”)。委员会负责就确定沿海国 200 海里以外大陆 架外部界限的有关事项向沿海国提出建议。 在 200 海里以外划定大陆架，有两个主要特点: 一是划定边界线与国际海底区域之 间的大陆架，二是划定毗邻或相对沿海国家大陆架之间的边界。划界过程不同于 CLCS 过程。 事实上，国际法庭(以下简称“国际法院”)的判决无疑在法典编纂过程中发挥了至关重 要的作用，今天主要体现在 UNCLOS 中。该公约为海洋资源的使用提供了全面的法律 制度，包括使用转让程序的规定。特别是海洋划界的近代法在很大程度上是通过一系列 法律裁决形成的，这些裁决不仅来自国际法院，还来自一些仲裁法庭。如北海大陆架案 件，这些案件促成了随后国际法大陆架制度的演变。 本文主要探讨国际海洋争端解决机制、海洋区域(包括大陆架)的划定以及国际大陆架 司法解决的外部界限，尤其是 200 海米以外大陆架的划界工作。

学科：

国际法学

提交日期：

2026-03-31

引用参考：

SUNN LINN. Research on the Delimitation of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf in International Settlement of Sea Disputes[D]. 西南政法大学,2023.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • Research on the Delimitation of the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf in International Settlement of Sea Disputes
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • WB202003010209
  • dc.contributor.author
  • SUNN LINN
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 博士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学博士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2023
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 张晓君
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • ..;..;..
  • dc.subject
  • Continental Shelf; ;Continental Margin; ;International Seabed Area (Area);
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 《联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称 UNCLOS 或 LOSC 或公约)是国际法中重要的公约 之一。该公约不仅针对海洋这一世界上最大资源的使用问题进行了规范，而且还包含强 制性争端解决机制——这在国际法中是一个并不常见的现象。 UNCLOS 对海洋使用、海域划分和强制争端解决程序的规定错综复杂，无疑反映 了国际关系在海洋法和争端解决方面的新时代。UNCLOS 第十五部分为争端解决制度， 既涉及传统的基于同意的程序，也涉及强制性程序。在这两方面，缔约国的灵活性一个 关键特征。第十五部分第一节规定，各国可在 UNCLOS 框架内外寻求一系列解决争端 的备选办法，这反映出各国习惯于在争端出现时按照局势的要求以各种方式解决争端， 而不是通过预先确定的手段。通常，外交行动和谈判是解决冲突的最有效方式。UNCLOS 规定，在解释和适用出现分歧时，有义务迅速交换意见，从而促进在司法程序之前通过 政治渠道解决问题。此外，国家还保留通过替代性(双边、区域或一般)协议解决冲突的 权利。鉴于海洋法中有大量条约是针对特定领域的问题，并纳入了各自的争端解决制度， 因此有必要提供这样的灵活性。题为“一般条款”的第十五部分第一节实质上要求各国在 参照第十五部分第二节的强制程序之前通过外交渠道解决争端。 如果各国尚未通过第十五部分第一节规定的各种手段解决分歧，则可应任何当事方 的请求，根据公约的规定将争端提交适当的法院。一旦一个国家是公约的缔约国，就不 需要额外的同意形式——同意受 UNCLOS 约束包括同意采取必须作出有约束力决定的 强制性程序(除第十五部分第 1 节和第 3 节以外)。根据第 2 节，争端国家不需要(双方或 全部)同意将争端提交法院或法庭，但争端可根据一个当事国的要求提交。单方面行动 足以赋予法院或仲裁庭管辖权，法院或仲裁庭可以就另一方是否参与程序作出决定 国际海洋法的主要目的之一，是界定不同的海洋区域、其范围和界限。根据 UNCLOS ，沿海国的大陆架从测算领海宽度的基线至少延伸至 200 海里。如果沿海国 符合公约规定的某些地质和地貌标准，它就可以对超过200海里界限的大陆架提出索赔。 UNCLOS 规定，有关基线 200 海里以外大陆架界限的资料，须由沿海国提交大陆架界 iii 限委员会(下称“ CLCS”或“ Commission”)。委员会负责就确定沿海国 200 海里以外大陆 架外部界限的有关事项向沿海国提出建议。 在 200 海里以外划定大陆架，有两个主要特点: 一是划定边界线与国际海底区域之 间的大陆架，二是划定毗邻或相对沿海国家大陆架之间的边界。划界过程不同于 CLCS 过程。 事实上，国际法庭(以下简称“国际法院”)的判决无疑在法典编纂过程中发挥了至关重 要的作用，今天主要体现在 UNCLOS 中。该公约为海洋资源的使用提供了全面的法律 制度，包括使用转让程序的规定。特别是海洋划界的近代法在很大程度上是通过一系列 法律裁决形成的，这些裁决不仅来自国际法院，还来自一些仲裁法庭。如北海大陆架案 件，这些案件促成了随后国际法大陆架制度的演变。 本文主要探讨国际海洋争端解决机制、海洋区域(包括大陆架)的划定以及国际大陆架 司法解决的外部界限，尤其是 200 海米以外大陆架的划界工作。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter refer to as “UNCLOS” or “LOSC” or “the Convention”) is one of the most important constitutive instruments in international law. Not only does this treaty regulate the uses of the world’s largest resource, but it also contains a mandatory dispute settlement system -- an unusual phenomenon in international law. The UNCLOS, with its complex regulation of ocean uses, assignment of maritime zones, and compulsory dispute settlement procedures, certainly reflects a new era in international relations generally and in law of the sea and dispute resolution specifically. Part XV of the UNCLOS is a complex dispute settlement system that entails both traditional consent-based processes as well as mandatory procedures. In both respects, flexibility for States parties is a key feature. Section 1 of Part XV anticipates that States will pursue a range of dispute settlement options both within and outside the UNCLOS framework, reflecting that States have been accustomed to settling disputes in a variety of ways as those disputes arose and as demanded by the situation -- not through predetermined means. Typically, diplomatic initiatives and negotiation have been the most efficient way to resolve a conflict. Resolution through political channels prior to judicial settlement is promoted in UNCLOS through the obligation to proceed expeditiously to an exchange of views when differences over the interpretation and application of the Convention emerge. States also retain the right to resolve conflicts through alternative (bilateral, regional, or general) agreements. This allowance was necessary in light of the large number of treaties that are specific to a particular issue area in the law of the sea and that incorporate their own dispute settlement systems. Section 1 of Part XV, entitled “General Provisions,” essentially requires States to settle disputes through diplomatic channels prior to reference to the compulsory procedures of section 2 of Part XV. When States have not settled their differences through the various means available under section 1 of Part XV, disputes can be submitted at the request of any party to the appropriate forum subject to the terms of the Convention. No additional form of consent is required once a State is party to the Convention -- consent to be bound by UNCLOS includes consent to compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions (subject to sections 1 and 3 of Part XV). Under section 2, the States in dispute do not need (both or all) to consent to the referral of the dispute to a court or tribunal, but the dispute can be submitted at the behest of v just one of the disputant States. “Unilateral action is sufficient to vest the court or tribunal with jurisdiction, and that court or tribunal may render a decision whether or not the other party participates in the process.” One of the central purposes of the international law of the sea is to define various maritime zones, their extension and limits. According to the UNCLOS Convention, the continental shelf of coastal States extends at least to a distance of 200 nautical miles (hereinafter refer to as “nm”) from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. If a coastal State fulfils a certain geological and geomorphological criteria laid out in the Convention it can make a claim to the continental shelf beyond the 200 nm limit. UNCLOS provides that information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm from the baselines shall be submitted by the coastal State to a scientific and technical the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (hereinafter refer to as “CLCS” or “Commission”). The Commission is responsible for making recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm. The establishment of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm has two main features: The establishment of the boundary line between the continental shelf and the international sea bed area (the delineation of the continental shelf) and the establishment of the boundary between the continental shelf of adjacent or opposite coastal States (the delimitation of the continental shelf). The delimitation process is different from the CLCS procedure. Basically, International Legal Forums are contributing to develop International Law. The judgments of the International Court of Justice (hereinafter refer to as “ICJ”) have undoubtedly played a crucial role in the process of codification and progressive development are today mainly embodied in the UNCLOS. The Convention provides a comprehensive legal regime for the use of the world’s largest resource, including regulation of use assignment procedures. It is especially the modern law of maritime delimitation which has been forged to a large extent through a series of legal decisions, emanating not only from the ICJ, but also from a number of arbitral tribunals. It is beginning with the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, which contributed to the subsequent evolution of the continental shelf regime in international law. The dissertation highlights the dispute settlement mechanism, delimitation and delineation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm (hereinafter refer to as outer limits of continental shelf/extended continental shelf-OCS) in international judicial settlement in sea vi dispute. Especially, it is focusing on delimitation and delineation process in the continental shelf beyond 200 nm under the practices of international forums. The significant feature of this dissertation is complexity of the delimitation and delineation process in continental shelf beyond 200 nm under the UNCLOS provisions. It is clear from the plain words of the paragraph 10 of Article 76 of the UNCLOS that the questions involving the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between states with opposite or adjacent coasts. However, the two processes impact each other, which gives rise to more complex dynamics than may be perceived from a cursory reading of Article 76. Therefore, this dissertation is focusing on the interaction between delineation and delimitation by exploring the following four issues. First, What are differences between the process of delimitation and delineation of the outer continental shelf?; Second, How to solve the situation of CLCS’s recommendations is received but still overlapping in the continental shelf beyond 200 nm limits?; Third, What is the role of international courts and tribunals competence to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in the absence of the recommendations of the CLCS?; and Fourth, How to resolve the pending case in the delineation procedure due to the objection raised by interested parties or the workload of the CLCS under the its Rules of Procedure?
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-31
回到顶部