Enforcing Australian Law in Antarctica: The HSI Litigation
Enforcing Australian Law in Antarctica: The HSI Litigation
复制标题
在南极洲执行澳大利亚法律：HSI 诉讼
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
0.6
通讯作者：
Ruth Davis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ruth Davis
[由于主权和管辖权方面的不确定性，南极洲的执法工作变得复杂。按照南极条约缔约方的惯例，澳大利亚一般不对外国人强制执行其在澳大利亚南极领土的立法。最近的诉讼试图在南极洲针对日本捕鲸者执行澳大利亚的鲸鱼保护法，这是对这种传统方法的挑战。HS1诉讼突显了澳大利亚在《南极条约》制度的约束下，试图有效管理澳大利亚南极领土所面临的持续困难。本评注以渔业监管和大陆架划界为比较实例，突出了南极法律制度在执法方面面临的挑战，以及对澳大利亚南极法律和政策的影响。南极传统上对执法采取克制的做法，使南极条约体系得以蓬勃发展，发展成为一种充满活力的、可以说是相当有效的南极环境保护制度。尽管各国在领土主权问题上存在根本性分歧，但仍是如此。继续对HSI提起诉讼似乎有可能引起日本的国际反应，并可能对南极条约体系产生进一步的影响。]内容一介绍二国际法背景三HSI案例四澳大利亚参与南极的简史五南极条约体系下的南极管理六主权和管辖权A南极海区B执行管辖权七渔业条例八捕鲸条例九结论一介绍南极的执法一直存在问题，因为该区域的主权和管辖权存在不确定性。目前在澳大利亚联邦法院审理的诉讼重新引发了关于《南极条约》(1)缔约国可以在多大程度上对在南极的外国人执行本国法律的辩论。(2)这起诉讼是由环保组织国际人道协会(HSI)对日本公司共同社(Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd.)提起的。它涉及据称共同社违反澳大利亚法律在澳大利亚南极领地近海专属经济区(“EEZ”)进行的捕鲸作业。从表面上看，这起诉讼似乎涉及相当直接地适用澳大利亚保护鲸鱼的法律。然而，在这个表象的背后，隐藏着一个复杂的国际法义务网络：海洋法、管制捕鲸的法律，以及管理南极条约体系的法律。(3)从这一背景来看，这起诉讼突出了澳大利亚在宣称对澳大利亚南极领土拥有主权方面所面临的持续困难。这起诉讼对澳大利亚在南极洲执行其鲸鱼保护法的能力提出了质疑，也突显了澳大利亚在《南极条约》体系的约束下有效管理澳大利亚南极领土所面临的困难。在简要介绍了国际法背景之后，本评论将概述HSI诉讼，特别是突出诉讼的政治方面。然后，它将把诉讼置于澳大利亚在南极洲的活动和《南极条约》的背景下。然后，评注将审查这起诉讼突出的两个问题：对海域的管辖权主张和南极洲的法律执行，特别是与渔业和捕鲸有关的法律。将参照澳大利亚目前的做法对这些问题进行评估。…
[Law enforcement in Antarctica is complicated by uncertainties regarding sovereignty, and jurisdiction. In line with the usual practice of the Antarctic Treaty parties, Australia has generally refrained from enforcing its legislation for the Australian Antarctic Territory against foreigners. Recent litigation that attempts to enforce Australian whale protection laws against Japanese whalers in Antarctica represents a challenge to this traditional approach. The HS1 Litigation highlights the ongoing difficulties faced by Australia in trying to effectively manage the Australian Antarctic Territory within the constraints of the Antarctic Treaty System. Using fisheries regulation and continental shelf delimitation as comparative examples, this commentary highlights the challenges of law enforcement facing the Antarctic legal regime, and the implications for Australian Antarctic law and policy. The traditionally restrained approach to law enforcement in Antarctica has allowed the Antarctic Treaty System to flourish and develop into a dynamic, and arguably quite effective, regime for the environmental protection of Antarctica. This is despite the fundamental disagreements between states over questions of territorial sovereignty. It seems likely that continuation of the HSI Litigation will provoke an international response from Japan, and potentially have further repercussions for the Antarctic Treaty System.] CONTENTS I Introduction II International Law Context III The HSI Case IV A Brief History of Australian Involvement in Antarctica V Management of Antarctica under the Antarctic Treaty System VI Sovereignty and Jurisdiction A Maritime Zones in Antarctica B Enforcement Jurisdiction VII Regulation of Fisheries VIII Regulation of Whaling IX Conclusion I INTRODUCTION Law enforcement in Antarctica has always been problematic because of uncertainty regarding sovereignty and jurisdiction in the region. Litigation currently before the Federal Court of Australia has reignited the debate about the extent to which Antarctic Treaty (1) parties can enforce their national laws against foreigners in the Antarctic. (2) The court action has been brought by an environmental group, Humane Society International ('HSI'), against a Japanese company, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd ('Kyodo'). It relates to whaling operations that are alleged to have been conducted by Kyodo, contrary to Australian law, in the exclusive economic zone ('EEZ') offshore the Australian Antarctic Territory. On its face, the litigation appears to involve a fairly straightforward application of Australian laws for the protection of whales. Behind that facade, however, lies a complex web of international law obligations: the law of the sea, laws for the regulation of whaling and laws governing the Antarctic Treaty System. (3) When viewed in this context, the litigation highlights the ongoing difficulties that Australia faces in relation to its assertion of sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory. By raising questions about the ability of Australia to enforce its whale protection laws in Antarctica, the litigation also highlights the difficulties that Australia faces in trying to effectively manage the Australian Antarctic Territory within the constraints of the Antarctic Treaty System. After briefly noting the international law context, this commentary will outline the HSI Litigation, in particular highlighting the political aspects of the litigation. It will then place the litigation in the context of Australian activities in Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty. The commentary will then examine two issues that have been highlighted by this litigation: the assertion of jurisdiction over maritime areas and the enforcement of laws in Antarctica, in particular, laws dealing with fisheries and whaling. These issues will be assessed in reference to current Australian practice. …