【作者】 余元玲；

【导师】 曾文革；

【作者基本信息】 重庆大学 ， 环境与资源保护法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 水是生命之源,与人类的生存和发展休戚相关,然而,淡水资源危机在全球蔓延,威胁着人类生存的环境。国际河流储存了全球一半的淡水,与经济、社会发展、国家安全和地区稳定紧密相关。我国属于国际河流较多的国家,共40多条,我国在开发国际河流实现经济和社会发展目标的同时也面临诸多的问题,其中流域合作协议少,国内国际层面立法缺失等等现状“授人以柄”,为“中国水威胁论”等国际舆论推波助澜。“中国水威胁论”等负面舆论给我国的国际形象蒙上阴影,特别对中国-东盟国际河流开发的影响较大。该地区沿岸国山水相连,唇齿相依,长期以来有着密切的经济、政治和文化交往,在中国-东盟自由贸易区成功建设的大背景下,如何协调沿岸国之间的水权关系,妥善处理国际河流水事争端,对实现地区经济的繁荣和政治的长治久安有着非常重要的作用。国际河流因其水体的跨国流动性关联着沿岸国的经济、政治和环境安全。国际河流保护合作是国际水法的基本原则,这一原则要求通过合作协调沿岸国的利益冲突,通过合作实现流域内资源的优化配置,通过合作实现争端的和平解决和国际河流的可持续利用。要解决中国-东盟国际河流利用和保护中存在的诸多问题,合作是必由之路。但是对于国际河流保护合作的制度框架,学界研究的较少。本文结合中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律机制状况,试图探索其构成框架。主要对其法律协调机制、监管机制和争端解决机制基本情况和存在的问题进行分析,提出中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律机制建设的完善构想。论文主体部分共六章。第一章是国际河流保护合作的基础理论部分,主要阐述国际河流保护合作的含义,法律基础,必要性和可行性等问题。国际河流保护是对国际河流开发利用的限制性要求,其内涵和外延相当丰富。国际经济法、国际环境法以及国际水法等都为国际河流保护合作提供了法律基础,《各国经济权利和义务宪章》、《人类环境宣言》、《国际河道航行规则草案》、《赫尔辛基规则》、《联合国国际水道非航行使用法公约》等都包含有关于“合作”的义务规定。国际河流保护合作既是必要的,也是可行的。第二章是对中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律机制构架的探讨,主要涉及国际河流保护合作法律机制的一般理论分析,中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律机制现状和基本框架的描述等。国际河流保护合作法律机制是保障国际河流开发利用过程中国际河流水资源和生态系统正常功能不丧失的所有合作措施的总称,其表现形式多样,包括组织机构,法律制度,法律文件,组织形式等等。何艳梅女士通过研究认为国际水资源利用和保护领域的国际合作制度大致内容包括:收集、交换数据和信息,通知,协商谈判,达成流域水条约,建立有效的流域组织机构,遵守审查以及和平解决国际水争端等7个方面的内容。中国-东盟国际河流澜沧江-湄公河、元江-红河、怒江-萨尔温江以及伊诺瓦底江四条河流中,目前澜沧江-湄公河的开发程度较高,其他三条国际河流的开发都未大规模地进行。该地区国际河流保护合作虽取得了可喜的成果,但也存在诸多的问题,其中法律问题较为突出。中国-东盟区域、次区域以及沿岸国双边的法律文件等都对该地区国际河流的保护合作作了规定和要求,为法律机制的进一步完善和构建提供了法律依据和条件。根据国际河流保护合作实践以及学界的相关研究成果,本文认为中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律机制主要包括协调机制,监管机制和争端解决机制等内容。第三章探讨了中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律协调机制的现状及问题,主要内容包括国际河流保护合作法律协调机制的一般理论,中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律协调机制概况及其综合评价等。国际河流保护合作法律协调机制主要涉及对合作的领导、组织、执行、督察、考评、奖惩等方面的制度建立与运行。其基本结构包括协调主体、协调对象、内容、协调制度以及协调依据和理念等等。其中协调主体、协调制度及法律依据是法律协调机制的核心要素,对其协调功能的发挥起着决定性的作用。中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律协调机制可以分成三个层次:区域层次法律协调机制、次区域层次法律协调机制和沿岸国双边层次法律协调机制。中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律协调机制已初步形成,但与世界著名国际河流多瑙河的协调机制相比,差距甚远,特别是中国作为沿岸国的协调作用没有充分发挥,严重阻碍了该地区国际河流保护合作的深层次开展。所以,进一步完善中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律协调机制迫在眉睫。第四章论述了中国-东盟国际河流监管机制的基本情况,主要涉及国际河流保护合作监管的一般理论,中国-东盟国际河流保护合作监管现状及其成因分析和综合评价等。国际水法公约如《赫尔辛基规则》、《关于水和健康的伦敦议定书》以及《奥尔胡斯公约》等都对国际河流的“监管”作了相应要求和规定,国际河流保护合作实践中也形成了一套行之有效的监管制度,如制定环境标准、开展河流监测、公众参与、信息收集及交流以及跨界环境影响评价等等,这些制度的合理实施对于维持国际河流正常功能的发挥将起到积极的作用。对比多瑙河、莱茵河和北美五大湖区的监管水平,中国-东盟国际河流保护合作监管机制目前只具备了雏形,其区域性法律依据可在《中国-东盟自由贸易区服务贸易协议》“审查”条款中找到支撑,主要监管手段采纳了环境影响评价制度和环境监测和信息系统共享制度。可以说该地区的监管机制几乎缺失,这一现象的背后有其深刻的政治、经济和历史等方面的原因。所以,构建完善中国-东盟国际河流保护合作监管机制是中国、东盟双方下一步努力的目标。第五章是对中国-东盟国际河流保护合作争端解决机制的探讨,其主要内容包括对国际河流争端解决机制一般理论的分析,对中国-东盟国际河流保护合作争端解决机制现状的描述,对中国-东盟国际河流争端解决措施的建议等。国际河流保护合作争端解决机制包括争端解决机构、争端解决程序、争端解决原则、争端解决方式等等。其法律基础理论主要来自国际河流争端判例,《赫尔辛基规则》以及《国际河流非航行使用法公约》等国际水条约,并且国际水法领域已经形成了一套包括谈判与协商、斡旋与调停、调查与和解、强制性调查、国际仲裁和国际诉讼等等为主的国际河流争端解决的方式和标准程序安排。目前中国-东盟争端解决机制由于其对国际河流争端而言缺乏针对性和专业性,受案范围有限等不足已经无法满足中国-东盟国际河流保护合作发展的需要。鉴于澜沧江-湄公河等水事争端现状,沿岸国应通过完善监管制度等措施预防和化解争端,为建立专门的中国-东盟国际河流保护合作争端解决机制创造条件。第六章提出了完善中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律机制的建议,主要从指导思想、管理模式、夯实法律基础和完善核心机制四个方面提出解决思路。树立正确的指导思想,坚持国家水权的相对性,遵守国际水法的基本原则,选择合适的管理模式,朝着“区域+流域综合管理”和“流域自治管理”的方向努力,通过“签订更多的区域和流域作条约”,“完善管理制度”等法律手段,分别对中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律协调机制、监管机制以及争端解决机制等采取不同的措施予以完善,构建公平合理、高效完备的法律机制,实现中国-东盟国际河流的可持续利用和中国-东盟自由贸易区的全面建设。综上所述,国际河流保护合作法律机制包括协调机制、监管机制和争端解决机制等基本框架。中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律协调机制初步建立,但依然存在问题;监管机制严重缺失,亟待完善;争端解决机制局限性太大,其针对性有待进一步增强。中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律机制的构建和完善任重道远,中国、东盟双方应采取积极的措施,努力建成高效合理、健全完善的中国-东盟国际河流保护合作法律机制,为中国-东盟自由贸易区的全面建设和区域可持续性发展作出应有的贡献,为消除“中国水威胁论”等国际舆论对我国的消极影响积极应对。更多还原

【Abstract】 Water, the origin of life, is closely related to human’s survival and development. But now the world is faced with water crises. International watercourses, holding half of the fresh water capacity in the world, are very important to the world economy, social development, national security and regional stabilization. There are over 40 international rivers flowing through China and China is now facing up many problems while developing rivers to achieve its economic goals, among which the shortage of cooperative agreements and legislations both domestic and international are obvious, which helps some negative international rumors spread and“China fresh water threat”is one of them.“China fresh water threat”imposes some bad influences to China,especially to China-ASEAN international watercourses’development. The riparian countries in the river basins are adjacent to each other and they are closely related like brothers. Therefore, coordinating their interest conflicts and solving their international watercourse disputes are crucially important to fulfill the regional prosperity and stabilization after CAFTA is established.International rivers due to their cross-boundary flowing have close connection with riparian countries’political and economic interest and environmental security. Cooperation is one of the basic rules for international watercourses’protection according to the international water law. It requires via cooperation, riparian interests be balanced, via cooperation, resouces be optimized in the river basins, and via cooperation, disputes be solved peacefully. The problems exist in China-ASEAN watercourses’development and protection and they can only be settled by cooperation. However, research on the legislative framework of international cooperation in this field has been emphasized commonly.Based on the status quo and problems of China-ASEAN legislative mechanism for internatioanal Watercourses’Protection Cooperation (IWPC) this paper attempts to analyze the framework of this mechanism. Mainly it illustrates how the coordinating, supervising and dispute settlement mechanism works repectively and what we can do to consummate it as well.Chapter One focuses on the basic theories of IWPC which is mainly concerned about the conception, legislative authority, necessity and feasibility for international watercourses’protection. International economic law, international environmental law and international fresh water law lay a good foundation for IWPC, e.g. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, Declaration on the Human Environment, Draft International River Navigation Rules, Helsinki Rules and The United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses all contain articles on cooperation. So, international watercourses’protection is necessary and feasible.Chaper Two is on the legislative mechanism framework of China-ASEAN IWPC. It covers the generalization on IWPC, the status quo and framework of China-ASEAN IWPC. IWPC mechanism is a general term for all cooperation measures to guarantee the normal function of water resource and ecological system during the development and application of international rivers. It is embodied in the organizational body, legal institutions, legal documents and organizing forms, etc. Madam Yanmei, He made a bold research in this aspect and puts forward that the framework of cooperation in internation water resources’development and protection covers such commitment as data collecting and exchanging, noticing, coordinating and negotiating, signing the river basin areements, establishing the cooperative organization in the basin, abiding by the review and seeking for a peacefull settlement for international water disputes. Among the four international watercourses between China and ASEAN, Lanchang Jiang-Mekong River enjoys a higher level of development over the other three. Some achievements have been made in the development cooperation but problems still exist, among which legislative problems are comparatively more outstanding. China-ASEAN and sub-area treaties as well as riparian bilateral agreements stipulate coopearion in IWP, which lays a good foundation for constructing and completing the IWPC legislative mechanism. From the international practice and academic research result, China-ASEAN IWPC legislative mechanism is mainly composed of coordinating, supervising and dispute settlement mechanism.Chapter Three is centered on the legislative coordinating mechanism for China-ASEAN IWPC. The mechanims consists of coordinating subjects, operating procedures, coordinating objects, coordinating problems, coordinating institutions, legal documents, etc. Among them subjects, legal institutions and legal ducuments are core factors for the mechanism. This mechanism can be categorized into three levels: China-ASEAN level, sub-area level and riparian bilateral level. Some progresses have been made in its coordinating mechanism but there is a long way to the Danube model in Europe. Even worse China doesn’t play its right role in the coordinating mechanims, which prevents the IWPC from a far-reaching level development. Hence, it’s urgent to consummate China-ASEAN IWPC legislative mechanism.Chaper Four analyzes China-ASEAN IWPC supervising mechanism on its status quo, causes and disadvantages. Such international watercourse conventions as Helsinki Rules, the London Protocol on Water and Health and Arhus Convention requires for supervision in IWPC. Some supervising meausres have been adopted and proved to be effective in the course of IWPC practice, e.g. standardized environment, hydrological monitoring, data collecting, public participating and environmental evaluating and so on. These legislative measures have played important roles in IWPC. In comparison to the Danube and the Rhine, the Five Great Lakes, China-ASEAN IWPC supervising mechanism is at a very low level due to some political, economic and historic reasons. To construct and complete supervising mechanism for China-ASEAN IWPC should be the goal both parties will be striving for.Chapter Five discusses China-ASEAN IWPC dispute settlement mechanism from the aspects of general theories, status quo, water disputes and their settlement. China-ASEAN IWPC dispute settlement mechanism consists of the dipute settlement body, procedures, principles and measures, etc. Legislative authorities for IWPC dipute settlement can be traced back to some international watercourse dispute cases, international conventions like Helsinki Rules, Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses and others. A set of legal institutions have been established for IWPC disputes settlement, inluding the negotiation and consultation, mediation and conciliation, investigation and settlement, compulsory investigation, international arbitration and international litigation, etc. The present China-ASEAN IWPC dispute settlement mechanism is not designed for internatioanal watercourses’disputes,its scope of accepting cases is limited and the settlement proceures are optionally few. So riparian countries should take some measures to prevent or settle disputes and try to lay a solid foundation for a fair China-ASEAN IWPC dispute settlement mechanism.Chapter Six offers a proposal for cosummating a perfect and efficient China-ASEAN IWPC legislative mechanism in four ways, i.e. adhering to right conceptions, choosing proper management models, substaintializing legislative base and making some remedies for present mechanism. Combining the world famous international watercourses’situation, China-ASEAN IWPC legislative mechanism should aim at“Regional & River Basin Integrated Management”and“River Basin Autonomous Management”, signing more regional and river basin agreements, consummating relative institutions and so on in order to construct an equal, fair, efficient and soundlegislative mechanism and fulfill the sustainable development of China-ASEAN international watercourses and an all-round construction for CAFTA.In all, coordinating mechanism, supervising mechanism and dispute settlement mechanism constitute the framework of IWPC legislation mechanism. China-ASEAN IWPC coordinating mechanism has been fundamentally formed but problems exist. The supervising mechanism has some serious disadvantages and needs to be upgraded. The dispute settlement mechanism is considerably limited in its professionalism and case scope and yet to be improved. It’s a long way to achive an efficient, eligible and sound China-ASEAN IWPC legislative mechanism but it is of great value for CAFTA development and regional sustainability and of great help to dissipate the rumor“China Water Threat”.更多还原