【作者】 贾宝金；

【导师】 娄成武；

【作者基本信息】 中国海洋大学 ， 环境与资源保护法学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 1982年12月10日召开的第三次联合国海洋法会议通过了《联合国海洋法公约》（United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea，UNCLOS），并于1994年11月16日正式生效。根据《联合国海洋法公约》第Ⅷ部分岛屿制度的规定，一个能够维持人类居住或其本身的经济生活的岛屿拥有领海、毗连区、专属经济区和大陆架；一个即使不能维持人类居住或其本身的经济生活的岩礁也拥有领海和毗连区。《联合国海洋法公约》确立了海岛在国际上的法律地位，海岛对维护一个国家的海洋权益、发展海洋经济具有举足轻重的作用。2009年12月颁布的《海岛保护法》标志着我国对海岛的保护正式纳入了法治的轨道。但是由于我国海岛保护立法经验的不足以及海岛保护立法理论的欠缺，导致这部法律还存在着不足，有必要进一步的修改和完善。论文从历史考察、现实调查、理论反思三个视角来探究现行立法存在的不足，分析问题产生的原因，提出解决问题的方案。首先从历史考察的视角，探究我国海岛保护的历史进程，从中探索我国在海岛保护历史发展过程中可以借鉴的经验。对海岛保护的认识是与海洋联系在一起的，我国明朝以前，由于认识上的局限性和科学技术的不发达，对海岛保护并没有引起足够的重视，侧重于利用海洋来发展对外贸易，对于海岛保护主要从海防的角度来进行考虑；明朝到晚清，由于出现日本倭寇从海上的入侵，这段时间主要是通过保护海岛以加强海防，海岛的保护服务于海防；甲午战争的沉痛教训，使清政府深刻认识到在海洋战争中控海权的重要性，而海岛在控制海洋的制海权中起着举足轻重的地位，保护海岛在某种程度上就意味着掌握制海权，这一时期，从为了海防来保护海岛转变到为了海权来保护海岛；民国时期到现在，对海岛保护的认识得到了进一步的形成和发展，并逐步走向了海岛保护时代。以1982年《联合国海洋法公约》通过作为标志，世界进入了海岛保护的时代。为了更具体、深刻的认识我国海岛保护的历史，论文还详细探讨了我国南海诸岛和钓鱼岛的保护历史。其次，从现实调查的视角分析我国目前海岛保护的现状。分析了我国目前海岛的地理概况，阐述了我国对南海诸岛和钓鱼岛采取的主权属于我，搁置争议，共同开发的原则。2012年6月国务院设立了三沙市加强对南海诸岛的行政管辖。9月10日公布了《中华人民共和国政府关于钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿领海基线的声明》，向世界宣布了我国钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿的领海基线，表明我国在国际上日益重视用法律的手段来保护海岛。9月25日，国务院新闻办公室发表了《钓鱼岛是中国的固有领土》的白皮书，从历史、地理和法理的角度系统的阐述了钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿属于我国的依据，表明了我国政府保护海岛，捍卫海岛主权的信心和能力。最后从理论反思的视角来拷问海岛保护立法的相关理论。法的本位、自然体权利、自然价值等理论是海岛保护立法不得不面对的基本理论问题。权利、义务何者为法的本位，论文认为应放到某一部具体的法律中来理解。在一部法律中规定大多数人享有权利，少数人履行义务，这部法律就是以权利为本位，反之，就是以义务为本位。一般来讲，以保护私人利益为主的立法是权利本位；以保护公共利益为主的立法是义务本位。海岛保护法保护的是公共利益，在海岛保护立法的权利、义务的设置上应坚持义务本位论。海岛本身的价值具有多元性。在生态危机的大背景下，自然价值理论是人类思辨的一个理论成果，有其产生的历史必然性。地球生态系统自身的演化过程无所谓稳定与平衡，我们讲的稳定与平衡是人的一种认识世界的方式，稳定与平衡是相对的，是针对人类的需要来讲的。海岛生态自身的变化也是一个客观进化的过程，无所谓好坏，离开人类利益的需要来谈自然物的内在价值、生态价值不具有任何的实践意义。环境问题的实质从某种意义上讲不是自然有没有内在价值的问题，也不是自然是否享有权利的问题，而是人类对自然具有多种价值的选择问题，是某个人或某些人选择自然的经济价值与自然对整个人类具有的生态价值两者之间的冲突与协调的问题。按照罗尔斯顿的观点，在人类产生以前，自然就有内在价值，就享有权利，但是，即使自然具有内在价值、自然享有权利，环境问题还是发生了，可见，自然具有内在价值、自然享有权利并不能避免环境问题的产生。自然体权利理论的提出，是面对环境危机提出的，试图通过在法律上为自然体设置权利的办法来解决环境问题。通过为自然体赋予权利的方式来实现对生态环境的保护，模糊了人类社会与自然的界限。环境法的伦理选择只能是人类的伦理，是真正的以整个人类的生态利益为价值的伦理，而不是以个人权利的张扬或局部利益的维护为价值的伦理。法是某些人为人类社会设置的游戏规则，自然体本身并不具有道德感和正义感，并不理解法这一人类设置的游戏规则。人类无法代表自然体的全部，人类只具有人的感官，不具有自然体的感官，只能用人的眼睛来认识世界，而不能用猫头鹰的眼睛来认识世界。自然体永远是人类利用和保护的对象，自然体不懂人类的游戏规则，人类也没有完全掌握自然界的游戏规则，自然体无法作为法律的主体与人平起平坐。自然体权利理论实质上维护的还是人的生存权利，不是单个人或某些人的生存权利，它维护的是人类作为一个物种在自然界中继续生存下去的权利，这是自然体权利设置与以往其它权利不一样的地方。其它权利维护的是某一个人或某些人的财产权或人身权，而不是人类整体作为物种的生存权。通过历史考察、现实调查、理论反思，发现我国现行《海岛保护法》存在以下问题：第一，立法目的多元化，弱化了海岛的生态保护。主要表现为海岛立法目的的伦理缺陷，没有以保护人类生态利益的伦理作为指导；名为保护海岛实质是管理某些人在利用、开发海岛的行为所产生的利益冲突，是在立法上协调私人利益与海岛具有的公共利益之间的冲突，是一部海岛管理法。有机复合体不能作为立法上的保护对象。周边海域的范围不明确，《海岛保护法》与《海域管理法》在调整的空间范围上存在的交叉，并且交叉的范围是不确定的，将一个范围不明的区域作为法律保护的对象，违背了立法保护对象要具体、明确的要求。第二，海岛保护法的原则存在着缺陷。科学规划原则存在着缺陷，主要表现为科学规划不等于不会产生生态破坏的规划；科学规划本身是一部分人认识活动的结果，这部分人的认识本身是有局限性的，不可能在现阶段完全掌握规划对象的生态功能以及规划对象相互联系、相互作用所产生的生态功能，对于被规划对象的生态发展规律，在现阶段，也没有完全掌握，这种基于对规划对象的不完全理解所做的规划，其正确性是值得怀疑的。更何况现有规划的伦理观是以某些人的利益为中心的，无法做到以整个人类的生态利益为中心，以这样的伦理观为指导的科学规划不可能不产生生态损害。保护优先原则存在着缺陷，保护的含义是避免外来的侵害，并不具有养护、维持海岛持续存在的含义，因此保护优先原则不能体现可持续发展的理念。第三，海岛保护法重行政保护轻司法救济。我国《海岛保护法》将保护海岛的职责绝大部分赋予了行政机关，行政机关自身具有自己的利益，当海岛保护行政执法在保护海岛的公共利益方面出现不作为或滥作为时，对其监督仅仅停留在行政监督领域，缺少必要的司法监督，这种立法设置违背了行政执法权应受司法权监督的法治理念。第四，现行《海岛保护法》不能满足海岛保护实践的需要。主要表现在历史遗留问题没有在立法上得到根本解决；海岛保护法律机制不完善；海岛保护法律体制不健全；对于被自然侵蚀海岛的保护没有在立法上做出明确规定。针对海岛保护法存在的问题，提出以下完善措施：以人类生态利益中心论为指导将海岛保护法立法目的修改为保护海岛及其生态系统；完善海岛保护的原则，增加生态风险预防原则；将保护优先原则改为保持优先原则；建立海岛保护司法救济机制；在立法上重构我国的海岛保护体制。更多还原

【Abstract】 Held in December10,1982Third UN Conference on the law of the sea throughthe " United Nations Convention on the law of the sea " which go into effectat formal on November16,1994. According to the " United Nations Conventionon the law of the sea " PART VIII REGIME OF ISLANDS, an island which can sustainhuman habitation or economic life of his own shall have the territorial sea,contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Rockswhich cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall haveno exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. The United Nations Conventionon the law of the sea " established the legal status of island in internationalsociety, and the island has play a decisive role in maintaining a national marinerights and interests.The island protection law which promulgated in December2009in our countrymarks the island protection into the legal orbit. But the lack of our islandprotection legislation experience and the deficiency of the island protectionlegislation theory led to the deficiencies of " the island protection law ",so, there is a need for further improvement. The paper is to explore thedeficiencies of current legislation from history, the reality investigation,theoretical reflection, analyzing of the causes of the problem, proposingsolutions to the problem. First, from historical perspective, we discuss ourisland protection historical process in China, exploring the experience we canlearn from the history of the island protection. Understanding of the islandprotection is linked with the sea. Before the Ming Dynasty, because the scienceand technology is not developed, we do not pay attention to the island protection,focusing on the use of the sea to the development of foreign trade, protectingisland mainly from the perspective of coast defense. From the Ming Dynasty tothe late Qing Dynasty, because of the Japanese invasion from the sea, this periodof time is mainly the coast defense, island protection is the services of thecoastal defense. From the painful lessons of Jia Wu war, the Qing government recognizes that due to the lack of ocean-going combat capability of the coastalcountry, the coast defense itself is not strong. From the Republic of China periodto the present, sea power thought has been further formation and development,and gradually move toward the island era. For a more profound understanding ofthe history of island protection, the paper also discusses in detail the historyof protecting the South China Sea Islands and the Diaoyu Islands. Secondly, fromthe perspective of reality investigation, I discuss the current situation ofthe protection of islands at present in China. I analyzed current Islandgeography situation, elaborated the " sovereignty belongs to me, putting asidedisputes, common development " principle in the South China Sea Islands and theDiaoyu Islands. In June2012, the State Council set up sand city which strengthensover the South China Sea Islands administrative jurisdiction, opened up todeclaring the new path of national sovereignty from the administration. InSeptember10th the Chinese government announced the "Statement of the governmentof people’s Republic of China on the Diaoyu Islands territorial seabaselines,"and announce to the world that China’s Diaoyu Islands territorialsea baseline, indicating our country in the world pay more attention to use legalmeans to protect the sea island. On September25th, the Information Office ofthe State Council published the white paper of " Diaoyu Islands are China ’sinherent territory ",in which from historical, geographical and legal point ofview, elaborated the Diaoyu Islands belong to China’s basis, showed the abilityand confidence of our government to protecting the island, defending the island’s right.Finally, from the perspective of theoretical reflection to torture therelated theory of island protection legislation.Right and obligation， whichis the Law Center, should be put into a specific law to understand. The lawwhich most people enjoy the right and a few people fulfill the obligation iswith right as centre, instead is with duty as center. Generally speaking,thelaw which is mainly protecting private interests is with right as centre,thepublic interests is with duty as center. Island protection law is to protect the public interest in the island, so the legislation on the protection of islandshould adhere to the center of obligation.. The island itself has the valueof diversity. On the background of the ecological crisis, the natural valuetheory is a theory achievement of human thinking, has its historicalinevitability. The evolution of the earth’s ecological system is withoutstability and balance, the stability and balance is directed to human needs,the ecological change itself is also an objective evolutionary process, nomatter good or bad.. It does not have any practical significance when we talkabout the natural intrinsic value and ecological value without considering thehuman interest need. In a sense,the essence of environmental problem is notthe problem whether the nature has intrinsic value, nor whether the nature hasright., but the problem that human has a variety of value choice about the nature.It is the problem of the conflict and coordination that someone or some peoplechoose the economic value of nature and the nature has ecological value ofhumanity as a whole. According to the Holmes Rolston, before the existence ofhuman being, nature has the intrinsic value. According to Holmes Rolston,before the existence of human being, nature has the intrinsic value, enjoy therights, but, even if the nature has intrinsic value, enjoy the rights, theproblem of environment happened. It is obvious that the nature has intrinsicvalue, enjoy the rights, cannot avoid environmental problems. In the face ofenvironmental crisis, the theory of the nature having rights is presented,trying to solve environmental problems through setting the right on the naturalbody. In order to realize the protection of ecological environment, the wayof setting a right on natural body, fuzzy human society and the naturalboundaries. Law is the rules of the game which the human society sets, thenatural body itself does not have moral sense and sense of justice, notunderstanding the human setting the rules of the game. Human beings can notreplace the natural body, only with human senses, there is no natural bodysensory. Humans can only use human eye to know the world, and not with the eyesof owls to know the world. Natural body is always the object of human using and protecting. Natural body does not know the rules of the game setting up,and humans also did not fully grasp the rules of the nature having. Naturalbody can not be used as a subject of law and people on an equal footing. Thetheory of the natural right is essentially to safeguard the people ’s rightof existence, not a single person or some people ’s right of existence. It isto safeguard the humans as a species to survive the rights in nature, whichis the different places between a natural right and other rights. Other rightssafeguard the survival rights of a person or some persons rather than the humanoverall.Through the study of history, reality investigation, theoreticalreflection,it is found that the current " island protection law " has thefollowing problems: First,a plurality of the legislative purpose leads toweakening of island ecological protection. Main performance is a ethicaldefects of the legislative purpose. It is nominally protecting Island but inessence human interest need. He is not to protect the island, but coordinatethe conflict of interest in behavior of island using. It is an island managementlaw. The organic complex body cannot be used as the protection object inlegislation. The scope of the sea area is not clear." The island protectionlaw " and "the sea management law " exists on the cross in adjusting the space,and the cross range is uncertain, a range of uncertain area as the object oflegal protection is contrary to the scientific requirements in legislation.The legislative purpose of rational development and utilization of naturalresources conflict with the reasonable development principles. Second theprinciple of the island protection law defects. The main show is that scientificplanning is not equal to the planning of no ecological destruction. Scientificplanning itself is a part of cognitive activities result, this part of humanknowledge is limited. It is not possible at this stage to fully grasp theecological function of the planning object, and planning object mutualconnection, interaction generating. The law of ecological development ofplanning object, in the present stage, also did not fully grasp, the planning of not fully understanding the program object is questionable in science.Moreover, the existing ethics of planning is based on some people’s interestsas the center, unable to on the interest of the whole of mankind as the center,the ethical concept to guide the scientific planning will produce ecologicaldamage. The principle of protection priority defects. Protection means avoidingalien invasion, does not indicate maintaining persistent existence of theisland. Therefore the principle of protection priority can not embody theconcept of sustainable development. Third the island protection law take theadministrative protection in light of judicial relief. Most of the islandsprotection duties in the island protection law are given to the administrativeorgan. The administrative organ has its own interests. When the administrativelaw enforcement in the public interest to protecting the island appears inactionor abuse of power, the supervision only stay in the field of administrativesupervision, lack of judicial supervision, this kind of legislation goesagainst the concept of the rule of law of Administrative law enforcement shallbe subject to judicial supervision. Fourth, the current "island protection law"can not meet the practical needs of the islands protection.It is as follow:historical problems have not been fundamentally resolved in legislation; Islandprotection law system is not perfect; Island protection law system is notperfect; Protection on natural erosion island is not made clear in legislation.In view of the problems of the island protection law, put forward the followingmeasures to improve. The legislative purpose of the island protection lawmodified to protect island and its ecological system; Perfecting the protectionprinciple, increase ecological risk precautionary principle; The principle ofprotection priority is modified for the principle of maintenance; Theadministrative public welfare litigation system should be established in islandprotection law. Reconstructure island protection system in legislation.更多还原