当前位置: X-MOL 学术Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The Geographic Scope of the Svalbard Treaty and Norwegian Sovereignty: Historic – or Evolutionary – Interpretation?
Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy Pub Date : 2017-12-30 , DOI: 10.3935/cyelp.13.2017.287
Peter Thomas Orebech

The Svalbard Treaty and its claimed ‘extended-reach’ jurisdiction incorporating both the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – ie a fisheries protection zone (FPZ) – is an international law puzzle. Disputes regarding the Treaty’s jurisdictione ratione terrae results from interpretative differences. My findings are as follows: the Treaty’s concept of ‘full and absolute sovereignty’ refers to the one-time jurisdiction transfer that occurred in April 1925. The notion of ‘territorial waters’ attracts both an historic (static) and evolutionary (dynamic) reading. Regarding its material content, we are faced with the first category. Considering geographic reach, evolutionary reading takes over. ‘Territorial water’ jurisdictione ratione terrae is a generic form whose reach, which is at most 12 nautical miles, is dynamic. The treaty does not prevent Norway from unilaterally deciding whether to enforce this maximum, or a less extensive, area. While territorial sea jurisdiction due to the development of international law may extend to 12 nautical miles, it cannot creep to 200 nautical miles. Due to substantial variations, the EEZ cannot qualify as a similar zone adjoining the territorial sea. Further; it is difficult to argue that its reach should include areas beyond the territorial sea of Svalbard due to the very fact that its reach is limited to the ‘Svalbard Box’. Coastal state jurisdiction beyond the Box is not granted in the Svalbard Treaty but results from the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC).

中文翻译:

斯瓦尔巴特条约和挪威主权的地理范围:历史的解释还是进化的解释?

《斯瓦尔巴条约》及其声称的“延伸范围”管辖权既包括大陆架又包括专属经济区(EEZ),即渔业保护区(FPZ),这是国际法难题。关于《条约》管辖权的争议是由解释性分歧引起的。我的发现如下:该条约的“完全和绝对主权”的概念是指1925年4月发生的一次性管辖权移交。“领水”的概念既吸引了历史性的(静态的),又吸引了进化性的(动态的)理解。 。关于其物质含量,我们面临着第一类。考虑到地理范围,进化阅读就占了上风。属地的“领土水”管辖权是一种通用形式,其最大可达12海里的范围是动态的。该条约并未阻止挪威单方面决定是否执行这一最大范围或范围较小的范围。尽管由于国际法的发展,领海管辖权可能会扩展到12海里,但不能攀升到200海里。由于实质性变化,专属经济区不能被视为与领海相邻的类似区域。进一步; 很难争辩说,由于其范围仅限于“斯瓦尔巴德盒子”,因此其范围应包括斯瓦尔巴群岛领海以外的地区。《斯瓦尔巴特条约》并未授予Box以外的沿海州管辖权,而是1982年《海洋法公约》(LOSC)的结果。尽管由于国际法的发展,领海管辖权可能会扩展到12海里,但不能攀升到200海里。由于实质性变化,专属经济区不能被视为与领海相邻的类似区域。进一步; 很难争辩说,由于其范围仅限于“斯瓦尔巴德盒子”,因此其范围应包括斯瓦尔巴群岛领海以外的地区。《斯瓦尔巴特条约》并未授予Box以外的沿海州管辖权,而是1982年《海洋法公约》(LOSC)的结果。尽管由于国际法的发展,领海管辖权可能会扩展到12海里,但不能攀升到200海里。由于实质性变化,专属经济区不能作为毗邻领海的类似区域。进一步; 很难争辩说,由于其范围仅限于“斯瓦尔巴德盒子”,因此其范围应包括斯瓦尔巴群岛领海以外的地区。《斯瓦尔巴特条约》并未授予Box以外的沿海州管辖权,而是1982年《海洋法公约》(LOSC)的结果。很难争辩说,由于其范围仅限于“斯瓦尔巴德盒子”,因此其范围应包括斯瓦尔巴群岛领海以外的地区。《斯瓦尔巴特条约》并未授予Box以外的沿海州管辖权,而是1982年《海洋法公约》(LOSC)的结果。很难争辩说,由于其范围仅限于“斯瓦尔巴德盒子”,因此其范围应包括斯瓦尔巴群岛领海以外的地区。《斯瓦尔巴特条约》并未授予Box以外的沿海州管辖权,而是1982年《海洋法公约》(LOSC)的结果。
更新日期:2017-12-30
down
wechat
bug