南海的法律与(失)秩序:2010-22年海上执法活动分析

IF 1.3
Asia Policy Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1353/asp.2023.0027
Hong-Kong T. Nguyen
{"title":"南海的法律与(失)秩序:2010-22年海上执法活动分析","authors":"Hong-Kong T. Nguyen","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"executive summary:This article assesses the role of maritime law-enforcement (MLE) vessels in an apparent trend of heightened competition in the South China Sea and identifies patterns in the maritime policing by MLE vessels of the disputing South China Sea claimants during unplanned encounters at sea.main argumentThe South China Sea disputes, involving six political entities—China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines—have been a political flashpoint in Southeast Asia since the 1970s. The emergence and growing prominence of civilian MLE vessels (conventionally known as marine police or coast guard vessels) suggests that disputants are taking new measures to assert their claims without overtly militarizing them. Maritime policing has increased in frequency and intensity in the past decade. Yet, when considering four factors—the use of forcible measures, physical damage, human injuries/casualties, and diplomatic protests—an analysis of publicly reported naval incidents in the South China Sea between 2010 and 2022 suggests that conflict escalation primarily happens at sea between the crews. Such incidents, which range from single-day events to months-long confrontations, have, in the worst cases, resulted in intense diplomatic standoffs lasting longer than two months. In general, however, disputants have refrained from taking hostile political or legal actions against harassment at sea.policy implications• Given that reducing misunderstanding and mitigating the risks of physical confrontations is of benefit to all the South China Sea disputants, ongoing talks for a code of conduct for the sea should include a proper legal framework for MLE operations. This framework—to be separate from the existing Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, which only applies to naval vessels—should stipulate the threat and/or use of force at sea by MLE vessels because coast guard enforcement duties may require different levels of force.• Disputants should re-establish and refocus talks to address joint fisheries and marine resource management in disputed waters. They would also benefit from reinforcing the regional hotline for maritime emergencies and setting up a crisis management hotline at the coast guard level.• Regional MLE agencies should increase communications both onshore and offshore and hold joint exercises and exchanges that would increase mutual understanding and trust, which would subsequently help prevent unexpected consequences.","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Law and (Dis)order in the South China Sea: Analyzing Maritime Law-Enforcement Activities in 2010–22\",\"authors\":\"Hong-Kong T. Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/asp.2023.0027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"executive summary:This article assesses the role of maritime law-enforcement (MLE) vessels in an apparent trend of heightened competition in the South China Sea and identifies patterns in the maritime policing by MLE vessels of the disputing South China Sea claimants during unplanned encounters at sea.main argumentThe South China Sea disputes, involving six political entities—China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines—have been a political flashpoint in Southeast Asia since the 1970s. The emergence and growing prominence of civilian MLE vessels (conventionally known as marine police or coast guard vessels) suggests that disputants are taking new measures to assert their claims without overtly militarizing them. Maritime policing has increased in frequency and intensity in the past decade. Yet, when considering four factors—the use of forcible measures, physical damage, human injuries/casualties, and diplomatic protests—an analysis of publicly reported naval incidents in the South China Sea between 2010 and 2022 suggests that conflict escalation primarily happens at sea between the crews. Such incidents, which range from single-day events to months-long confrontations, have, in the worst cases, resulted in intense diplomatic standoffs lasting longer than two months. In general, however, disputants have refrained from taking hostile political or legal actions against harassment at sea.policy implications• Given that reducing misunderstanding and mitigating the risks of physical confrontations is of benefit to all the South China Sea disputants, ongoing talks for a code of conduct for the sea should include a proper legal framework for MLE operations. This framework—to be separate from the existing Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, which only applies to naval vessels—should stipulate the threat and/or use of force at sea by MLE vessels because coast guard enforcement duties may require different levels of force.• Disputants should re-establish and refocus talks to address joint fisheries and marine resource management in disputed waters. They would also benefit from reinforcing the regional hotline for maritime emergencies and setting up a crisis management hotline at the coast guard level.• Regional MLE agencies should increase communications both onshore and offshore and hold joint exercises and exchanges that would increase mutual understanding and trust, which would subsequently help prevent unexpected consequences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.0027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.0027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文评估了海上执法船在南海竞争加剧的明显趋势中的作用,并确定了南海争议声索国海上执法船在海上意外遭遇时的海上执法模式。南海争端涉及六个政治实体——中国大陆、台湾、越南、马来西亚、文莱和菲律宾——自20世纪70年代以来一直是东南亚的一个政治热点。民用MLE船只(通常被称为海警或海岸警卫队船只)的出现和日益突出表明,争端各方正在采取新的措施来维护他们的主张,而不是公然将其军事化。在过去十年中,海上警务的频率和强度都有所增加。然而,当考虑到四个因素——使用强制措施、物理损害、人员伤亡和外交抗议——对2010年至2022年间南海公开报道的海军事件的分析表明,冲突升级主要发生在海上的船员之间。这类事件从一天的事件到长达数月的对抗,在最糟糕的情况下,会导致持续两个多月的紧张外交僵局。不过,争端各方一般都避免对海上骚扰采取敌对的政治或法律行动。•考虑到减少误解和减轻物理对抗的风险对所有南中国海争端方都有利,正在进行的海上行为准则谈判应包括MLE操作的适当法律框架。这一框架——与现有的只适用于海军船只的《海上意外相遇规则》分开——应该规定MLE船只在海上威胁和/或使用武力,因为海岸警卫队的执法职责可能需要不同程度的武力。•争议国应重新建立并重新聚焦谈判,以解决争议水域的联合渔业和海洋资源管理问题。加强海上紧急情况的区域热线和在海岸警卫队一级设立危机管理热线也将使它们受益。•区域MLE机构应加强陆上和海上的沟通,并举行联合演习和交流,以增加相互理解和信任,从而有助于防止意想不到的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Law and (Dis)order in the South China Sea: Analyzing Maritime Law-Enforcement Activities in 2010–22
executive summary:This article assesses the role of maritime law-enforcement (MLE) vessels in an apparent trend of heightened competition in the South China Sea and identifies patterns in the maritime policing by MLE vessels of the disputing South China Sea claimants during unplanned encounters at sea.main argumentThe South China Sea disputes, involving six political entities—China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines—have been a political flashpoint in Southeast Asia since the 1970s. The emergence and growing prominence of civilian MLE vessels (conventionally known as marine police or coast guard vessels) suggests that disputants are taking new measures to assert their claims without overtly militarizing them. Maritime policing has increased in frequency and intensity in the past decade. Yet, when considering four factors—the use of forcible measures, physical damage, human injuries/casualties, and diplomatic protests—an analysis of publicly reported naval incidents in the South China Sea between 2010 and 2022 suggests that conflict escalation primarily happens at sea between the crews. Such incidents, which range from single-day events to months-long confrontations, have, in the worst cases, resulted in intense diplomatic standoffs lasting longer than two months. In general, however, disputants have refrained from taking hostile political or legal actions against harassment at sea.policy implications• Given that reducing misunderstanding and mitigating the risks of physical confrontations is of benefit to all the South China Sea disputants, ongoing talks for a code of conduct for the sea should include a proper legal framework for MLE operations. This framework—to be separate from the existing Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, which only applies to naval vessels—should stipulate the threat and/or use of force at sea by MLE vessels because coast guard enforcement duties may require different levels of force.• Disputants should re-establish and refocus talks to address joint fisheries and marine resource management in disputed waters. They would also benefit from reinforcing the regional hotline for maritime emergencies and setting up a crisis management hotline at the coast guard level.• Regional MLE agencies should increase communications both onshore and offshore and hold joint exercises and exchanges that would increase mutual understanding and trust, which would subsequently help prevent unexpected consequences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asia Policy
Asia Policy Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Asia Policy is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal presenting policy-relevant academic research on the Asia-Pacific that draws clear and concise conclusions useful to today’s policymakers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信