【作者】 胡斌；

【导师】 张湘兰；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 国际法学， 2015， 博士

【摘要】 《京都议定书》的生效使得绝大多数工业领域都被纳入了“附件一”国家的量化减排承诺范围,但是由于对国际海运以及航空舱载燃油产生的温室气体规制的特殊性,这两个部门却没有被国际社会纳入《京都议定书》量化减排承诺范围。尽管当前海运温室气体排放总量占全球温室气体排放总量并不是很高,但国际海事组织预计,随着国际贸易总量的不断增加,如果不对海运温室气体排放采取任何措施的话,海运温室气体排放在未来将大幅度增加。为此,国际海事组织就海运减排开展了一系列的工作,然而,除了就海运减排制定了若干技术和操作标准以外,对于海运减排具有根本性作用的全球性海运减排市场机制的建立却由于国际社会在某些重要问题上的根本性分歧而迟迟无法实现。在这种情况下,欧盟提出,如果国际社会短期内无法就全球性海运减排市场机制的构建达成一致意见的话,欧盟将采取类似于其对国际航空温室气体排放所采取的措施,将国际海运温室气体排放也纳入到欧盟单边的碳排放交易机制中。对欧盟这一单边措施,从国际法角度来看,主要涉及两个最基本的问题：第一,欧盟是否有权对国际海运温室气体排放这样一种全球性环境问题采取单边措施?第二,如果欧盟根据国际法有权采取单边措施,欧盟是否有权将其单边海运碳排放交易机制(ETS)域外适用于外国船舶在欧盟管辖海域以外的温室气体排放行为?针对这两个问题,本研究分为五个部分进行了研究。第一部分“欧盟海运减排政策与立法发展现状”主要介绍了欧盟当前海运减排政策和法律的总体发展状况。作为国际气候变化的领导者,欧盟一直致力于减少区域以及全球温室气体排放。在海运减排问题上,欧盟一方面致力于推动国际海事组织内海运减排政策和立法的发展；另一方面也在区域内减排政策中就海运温室气体排放问题进行了相应的政策安排。目前,根据欧盟委员会的建议,欧盟已经初步确立了未来海运减排市场机制的实施方案。同时为确保未来海运ETS的顺利实施,目前欧盟已经开始就船舶温室气体排放进行了相应的检测。第二部分“国际气候变化法律制度下欧盟海运ETS合法性解读”重点探讨了一个基本的问题,即欧盟是否有权就海运采取单边措施。尽管联合国气候变化法律制度并未就海运减排作出任何具体规定,但《京都议定书》第2.2条同时又提到,议定书“附件一”缔约方应该通过国际海事组织谋求减少和限制海运温室气体的排放。对于该款的规定,目前存在不同理解。部分学者认为,根据该款,欧盟只能通过国际海事组织来减少海运温室气体的排放,而不能就此再采取任何单边行动,否则属于对其在《京都议定书》承诺的违反。然而,本研究认为,上述观点是对该款义务性质的误解,本研究认为,该款所述义务并不是一个实体性义务,而只是一种国际合作义务。根据习惯国际法的规定,合作义务只是一种程序性义务或行为义务,其并不需要义务主体就某一事项达成一项最终协议；只要义务主体善意履行了谈判和协商义务,即可认为已经履行了习惯国际法上的合作义务。在此结论基础上,本研究进一步就欧盟是否履行了上述义务,以及如何在国际海事组织框架内履行这一义务进行了分析,并最终得出结论认为,鉴于欧盟已经善意履行了该款规定的合作义务,欧盟有权就海运采取相应的单边措施。第三部分“国家管辖权制度视角下欧盟海运ETS域外效力分析”主要从习惯国际法视角就欧盟海运ETS域外效力的合法性进行了分析。在确认了欧盟海运ETS具有域外管辖效力之后。本研究认为,尽管欧盟海运ETS在习惯国际法上可以根据属地管辖对进入其领土的外国船舶进行管辖,但这种管辖由于具有域外效力,因此必须进一步通过“合理管辖”原则的检验才能最终认定其合法性。但根据“合理管辖”原则,欧盟海运ETS并不符合该原则有关“利益平衡测试”的要求,因此最终认为根据习惯国际法上有关国家管辖权的规定,欧盟无权对外国船舶域外排放行为行使管辖权。第四部分“国际海洋法对欧盟海运ETS管辖权域外扩张的限制”主要从港口国管辖权角度对欧盟海运ETS域外管辖权的合法性进行了分析,并认为,根据《联合国海洋法公约》(UNCLOS)有关船源污染管辖权的规定,欧盟无权对外国船舶域外温室气体排放行为行使管辖；此外,即使欧盟将参与欧盟海运ETS作为外国船舶进入欧盟港口的准入条件,欧盟的域外管辖实际上仍受制于其有限的执行管辖权力。第五部分“WTO贸易规则下欧盟海运ETS域外适用”主要从国际贸易法视角对欧盟海运ETS的域外管辖效力的合法性进行了评估。尽管欧盟海运ETS直接针对的对象是船舶温室气体排放,但由于这种规制措施最终会影响到与欧盟有关的货物贸易,因此欧盟海运ETS最终构成一种与环境有关的贸易措施。对于这种贸易措施,由于其根据船舶航程远近来分配船舶配额责任,因此航行距离越远的船舶所载货物,势必因此间接承担更多的由承运人转嫁的配额成本,由此也使得欧盟海运ETS在实际上构成了对WTO/GATT有关国民待遇和最惠国待遇原则的违反。而且,由于欧盟海运ETS并不能援引GATT第20条有关“环境例外”条款来获得违反WTO一般贸易规则的豁免。研究最终得出结论认为,尽管欧盟有权就国际海运采取单边减排措施,但其域外管辖最终可能并不符合有关国际法的规定。同时作为欧盟最大的贸易伙伴和海运大国,本研究也就中国应对欧盟未来可能实施的海运ETS提出了相应的建议。第六部分“欧盟海运ETS的中国应对”首先就欧盟海运ETS的实施对中国航运以及贸易可能产生的影响进行了分析；在此基础上,就中国如何应对欧盟可能实施的海运ETS从法律、政治以及外交层面进行了研究,并提出了相应的应对建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Although most industries which produce carbon emissions has been incooperated into the Kyoto Protocol when it was made into effects, international shipping and aviation, in view of their speciality, were not regulated by the Kyoto Protocol. Dispite the totoal amount of international shipping emissions are not as high as other majority land-based industries, as the international trading increasing, according to the IMO’s anticipate, GHG emissions from international shipping will grow exponentially in the consideration that there were not any effective measures against the emissions. IMO has been focused on this issue for a long time and made a series of technical and operational standards which serve as avenues for international shipping emissions reduction. However, these standards can not reduce the emissions fundamentally, the only way to resolve the problem, as quoted from the IMO’s research, is to establish a global market-based mechanism for international shipping emissions. Unfortunately, it seems extremily hard for fulfill it ambition in a predictable future considering the intertangled interests among shipping states, trading states and small islands states. In this circumstance, the EU put forward that the EU should and need to take similar unilateral measures as it did in international aviation to establish an EU emissions trading system. There are two basic problems which are in relating to the proposed EU unilateral measures. Firstly, does EU have the right to take unilateral measure against the international shipping emissions? If the answer is positive, then, the second issue is that does EU has the right to take unilateral measures against emission behaviors of foreign vessels conducted outside the EU’s jurisdictional sea area according international law? This research will discusses these two issues by six chapters.In the first chapter mainly introduces the general development of EU’s marine shipping emissions reduction policies and legislations. As the leadership of international climate change, the EU focuses on the reduction and adoptatoin of climate change give rise to anthropogenic GHG emissions. In view of international marine shipping emissions, besides putting forward the legislation relating to shipping emissions reduction in the IMO, the EU also make some regional policy arrangement in relating to marine shipping emissions reduction. Currently, the EU plans to establish a marine shipping emissions trading system following the proposal of the European Commission. In order to make sure the draft into practice, a premeasure, the MRV measure has been taken into effects.The second chapter centred on a basic issue that does EU is authorized to take unilateral action against the international shipping emissions according to the acticle 2.2 of Koyoto Protocol. There is no other provision regulating GHG emissions arsing from international bunker fuel except the arctile 2.2 of Koyoto Protocol which provides that the "Annex I" countries should "work through" the IMO and ICAO to reduce and limit the GHG emissions from international shipping and aviation. There are different understandings about this provision. Some thought that this provision in fact prohibit member states, especially "Annex I" countries to take any unilateral action against international shipping and aviation emissions but can only achieve that aim through international cooperative action via IMO and ICAO. However, this opinion is some kind of misunderstanding regarding this provision. In fact, this research think that the obligation contained in this provision is not substituted one, but only a procedure regulation which requires Parties to cooperate with other international community members as possible as it can do. There is no obligation for any Parties to get an final agreement with other countries about solve of GHG emissions from international bunker fuels. All Parties need to do is negotiation with others in good faith. Based on this opinion, this research examined the performance of the EU in this international law obligation and concluded that since the EU has negotiation with other parties in the IMO in terms of the reduction of international shipping emissions, and therefore it is rightful for the EU to take necessary domestic measures against the international marine shipping emissions.The third charpter has a systematic analysis about the extraterritoriality of the the EU marine ETS through customary international laws. The research concludes that the extraterritoriality of the proposed EU marine ETS can not pass the test of so-called "reasonable jurisdiction test" which is the most important customary international rule that assess the legality of extraterritorial jurisdiction.The fourth chapter assesses the legality of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the EU marine ETS and thought that firstly, provisions relating to vessel-source pollution does not entitled EU to regulate the extraterritorial emissions behaviors of foreign vessels, and secondly, even the EU mairne ETS could be disguised as condition for port entry of foreign vessels, the extraterritorial jurisdiction will still limited by its enforcement jurisdiction over foreign vessels which violated the port entry condition.The fifth chapter evaluates the the legality of the EU mairne ETS in the context of the WTO rules. Alghough currently discussed is about the mairne emissions and the relevant market-based mechanism which desgined to reduce them; the proposed EU marine ETS would affect the good transportation and finally impact the international trade and therefore under the regulation of the WTO rules. As a result, the proposed EU marine ETS constructed as a trade-related environmental measures. According to the drefted design, further voyage the foreign vessel, higher carbon allocation allowance cost would have to be undertaken. In this circumstance, this cost undertaken by ship-owner and transferred to shippers will becomes discrimination among similar conducts imported from different states, and therefore will be imcompatible with the "most favored nations" and "national treatment". Further, EU can not get exemption by citing the "environmental exceptions" contained in article 20 (b), (g) of GATT.The sixth chapter firstly assesses and analysises the potential impact of the EU marine ETS on China’s foreign trade and shipping industry, based on which provides some advises about how should China do to offset the passive influences the proposed EU marine ETS bringing forward from law, politics and diplomacy.更多还原