毗连区立法的国际法问题——以“尼加拉瓜诉哥伦比亚案”2022年判决为中心

International law and the contiguous zone:a reading of the case Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea(Nicaragua v.Colombia)

“尼加拉瓜诉哥伦比亚案”2022年判决回应了部分有关毗连区立法的国际法问题。在判决中,国际法院对《联合国海洋法公约》中毗连区制度的习惯国际法属性加以确认,阐释毗连区制度与专属经济区制度的规范关系,并明确将领海基线外24海里作为毗连区的最大边界,否定沿海国可依据特殊情况对此扩张的观点。同时,国际法院不承认哥伦比亚享有超出毗连区四个管制事项的那些基于安全、国家海洋利益或环境保护的管制权。然而,法院的上述判断,是在哥伦比亚毗连区同时也是尼加拉瓜专属经济区这一本案特定情形下作出的,其一般意义还有待进一步澄清。特别指出的是,在哥伦比亚毗连区的安全事项立法问题上,尼加拉瓜在其专属经济区也没有“安全”事项的专属主权权利和管辖权。在这一点上,岩泽雄司法官将其和领海外第三国的航行自由相联系,富有想象力。

In the Judgment of 21 April 2022(Nicaragua v.Colombia),the International Court of Justice confirmed the customary international law nature of the contiguous zone regime as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,explained the normative relationship between the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone,and clarified that the 24 nautical miles from the baselines is the maximum extent that permits no extension in any circumstances.The Court also rejected the extension of the material scope of the power of Colombia in its contiguous zone,particularly those concerning security,national maritime interests,or environmental protection.While announcing all are not in conformity with the customary law as reflected in the Convention,the Court only decided that Colombia’s legislative extensions over the latter two infringed on Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction,as Nicaragua’s power does not include“security”either.The Court made the above decision in the specific context where Colombia’s contiguous zone overlaps Nicaragua’s exclusive economic zone.Therefore,the general significance needs further clarification.On this point,Judge Iwasawa made an insightful comment by introducing the freedom of navigation of third parties outside the territorial sea into the discussion.