2016年7月12日の南シナ海における主に中比間の紛争に関する仲裁裁判所の判断について簡単に

Press Releaseから重要そうなところをピックアップ。

4. The Tribunal’s Decisions on the Merits of the Philippines’ Claims

a. The ‘Nine-Dash Line’ and China’s Claim to Historic Rights in the Maritime Areas of the South China Sea

（略）
Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, as between the Philippines and China, there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources, in excess of the rights provided for by the Convention, within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.

b. The Status of Features in the South China Sea

（略）The Tribunal agreed with the Philippines that Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are high-tide features and that Subi Reef, Hughes Reef, Mischief Reef, and Second Thomas Shoal were submerged at high tide in their natural condition. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Philippines regarding the status of Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef and concluded that both are high tide features.
（略）
Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that all of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands (including, for example, Itu Aba, Thitu, West York Island, Spratly Island, North-East Cay, South-West Cay) are legally “rocks” that do not generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
The Tribunal also held that the Convention does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly Islands to generate maritime zones collectively as a unit.

c. Chinese Activities in the South China Sea

（略）
The Tribunal concluded that China had breached its obligations under the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, and Article 94 the Convention concerning maritime safety.

http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/thediplomat_2016-07-12_09-15-37.pdf

a の九段線それ自体が歴史的権利の法的根拠にならないというのは予想できましたが、bの南シナ海の島嶼についての判断は意外でした。台湾が実効支配する南沙諸島最大の島である太平島（Itu Aba）でさえ、法的には岩（rocks）に過ぎず、EEZを形成しないと言い切っています。

この理屈は日本にとって不利になりえます。太平島（Itu Aba）ですら法的には岩（rocks）とされるのなら、沖ノ鳥島が島だと認められる可能性はほとんど皆無です。中国が対抗措置として仲裁裁判所に沖ノ鳥島の法的地位について確認する訴えを行い受理された場合、沖ノ鳥島のEEZは消滅する可能性はかなり高いと言えるでしょう。
この点について、多分誰も注目していないでしょうから、一応指摘しておきます。