誰かの妄想・はてな版

南シナ海中比間仲裁裁判所の判断（2016年7月12日）の島岩礁の性格に関する部分

領土問題

仲裁裁判所判断について少しずつまとめる。

島岩礁の性格に関する部分（フィリピン側主張）

(3) Scarborough Shoal generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;

(4) Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, and are not features that are capable of appropriation by occupation or otherwise;

(5) Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines;

(6) Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, but their low-water line may be used to determine the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Namyit and Sin Cowe, respectively, is measured;

(7) Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;

http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/thediplomat_2016-07-12_09-15-37.pdf

これに対応する仲裁裁判所の判断がこれ。

（仲裁裁判所判断）

The Tribunal agreed with the Philippines that Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are high-tide features and that Subi Reef, Hughes Reef, Mischief Reef, and Second Thomas Shoal were submerged at high tide in their natural condition. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Philippines regarding the status of Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef and concluded that both are high tide features.

（略）

Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that all of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands (including, for example, Itu Aba, Thitu, West York Island, Spratly Island, North-East Cay, South-West Cay) are legally “rocks” that do not generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

The Tribunal also held that the Convention does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly Islands to generate maritime zones collectively as a unit.

http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/thediplomat_2016-07-12_09-15-37.pdf

要するにこういうこと。

仲裁裁判所判断に名称が明記されている岩礁について実効支配国を示すとこうなります。

仲裁裁判所判断はある意味、中国が実効支配する六つの岩について、太平島やパガサ島と同等の法的地位を与えたとも言えます。

ツイートする

Permalink | コメント(0) | トラックバック(0) | 00:39