国家管辖范围外海洋保护区的第三方效力——以南极海洋生物资源养护委员会建立的海洋保护区为例

A Case Study on the Third Party Effects of Marine Protected Areas Established by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

在国家管辖范围外区域建立海洋保护区，是保护海洋环境、海洋生物多样性和海洋生态系统的有效方式，这种方式已被多个全球性及区域性法律制度所接受。但这些制度缺乏系统性，没有形成一个和谐一致的统一整体，因此不清楚由部分国家建立的这类保护区是否对第三方具备约束力。南极周边海域属于公海，南极海洋生物资源养护委员会（以下简称“委员会”）在这片海域建立了2个保护区：南奥克尼群岛南大陆架海洋保护区和罗斯海海洋保护区。鉴于委员会订立的措施具有法律约束力，且这2个保护区的参与国广泛，本文将选取这2个保护区为研究案例，探讨海洋保护区的第三方效力问题。从条约法的角度看，依据《执行1982年12月10日〈联合国海洋法公约〉有关养护和管理跨界鱼类种群和高度洄游鱼类种群的规定的协定》（以下简称“《鱼类种群协定妙》”）第8条的规定，缔约国具有参与或遵守委员会安排的义务。这一规定表明委员会建立的保护区可以间接对第三方产生约束力。然而，并非所有国家都是《鱼类种群协定》的缔约国，而且该协定也仅适用于跨界鱼类种群和高度洄游鱼类种群。因此，本文将进一步讨论下述2个问题，一是委员会保护区的规则是否或在多大程度上适用于《鱼类种群协定》调整范围外的其他鱼类种群？二是该等规则是否或在多大程度上适用于不属于该协定缔约方的第三方？为回答上述问题，本文拟从习惯国际法入手，特别是考察与委员会保护区相关的国家实践和法律确信因素，分析这些保护区的规则是否构成了可以约束第三方的习惯法。

The establishment of marine protected areas （MPAs） in areas beyond national jurisdiction （ABNJ）, as a means to protect marine environment, biodiversity and ecosystems, has been accepted by many global and regional legal regimes. Due to the fragmentation of these regimes, however, it is unclear whether MPAs in ABNJ designated by a limited number of States are binding on third parties. In the marine areas surrounding Antarctica, considered as high seas, the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf MPA and more recently the Ross Sea Region MPA have been established by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources （CCAMLR）. Due to the legally binding measures made by the CCAMLR and the participation of States from different regions, the MPAs established by the CCAMLR act as a representative case study on third party effects. From the perspective of treaty law, in accordance with Article 8 of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks （FSA）, contracting parties to the FSA are obligated to participate in or comply with the arrangements of CCAMLR, illustrating the indirect third party effects of CCAMLR MPAs. However, not all States are parties to the FSA, and the application of the FSA is limited to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. As such, this article will explore two issues, namely whether or to what extent the rules of the CCAMLR MPAs could apply to stocks other than those stipulated in FSA, and whether or to what extent the rules could apply to third parties other than the contracting parties to FSA. In order to do so, this article will embark on customary international law, particularly by ascertaining state practice and opinio juris in relation to the CCAMLR MPAs. Based on the analysis, the paper attempts to answer whether or not the rules relevant to those MPAs have constituted customary law that could bind third parties.