By Zong Haiping
宗海平
The provisions on the use of weapons as stipulated by China’s Coast Guard Law have drawn the attention of some countries. In fact, these provisions are not only consistent with the international law but also similar to the coast guard laws in other countries, being an important guarantee for China’s Coast Guard to protect national rights and perform its duties. The deliberate misinterpretation of this law reveals certain countries’ malicious intent of stirring up trouble for China.
中国《海警法》颁布后，其中关于武器使用的规定引起一些国家的关注。事实上，有关规定不仅符合国际法，而且与各国海警相关法律大体相同，是中国海警维权执法的重要保障。对此的蓄意误读是“唯恐天下不乱”，别有用心。
Some accuse China’s Coast Guard Law of violating the international law prohibiting the use of force. According to the UN Charter, there are only two scenarios in which a state can use force legally – either with the authorization of the UN or to exercise the right to self-defence. But at the same time, this rule applies only to international relations, not to the exercise of a state’s internal law enforcement power; otherwise, the prohibition would contradict the basic principle of international law of “no interfering in domestic affairs”.
有人指责中国《海警法》关于武器使用的规定违反国际法“禁止使用武力”规则。实际上，国际法“禁止使用武力”是指根据《联合国宪章》规定，国家合法使用武力的情形只有两种，即获得安理会授权或行使自卫权。但上述规则仅限于国际关系，并不适用于一国对内行使执法权，否则这一“禁止”就与不干涉内政的国际法基本原则相冲突。
On the other hand, in peacetime, the international rule on weapon use may refer to the application of international humanitarian law, such as the principle of proportionality. This has already been reflected in China’s Coast Guard Law, which states that weapons shall be used when it’s necessary to stop “illegal violation or the imminent danger of illegal violation”, and demands “the employees of a coast guard agency shall, based on the nature, degree, and imminence of the danger of an illegal or criminal act…, reasonably judge the necessary limits of the use of weapons and exercise best effort to avoid or reduce unnecessary casualties and property losses.” As a matter of fact, the China Coast Guard officers have always exercised restraint when enforcing the law on the sea in the past, and will not take enforcing measures beyond reason upon foreign fishing boats or personnel in the future, especially as the Coast Guard Law has come into effect.
另一方面，在和平时期，有关武器使用的国际法规则可参照适用国际人道法，如比例原则。这已反映在中国《海警法》条文中，如规定使用武器需为制止不法侵害、排除紧迫危险之必要，第50条要求根据有关危险性质、程度和紧迫性，合理判断，以尽量避免或减少不必要的人员伤亡、财产损失。事实上，中国海警在海上执法行动中始终保持克制，在《海警法》的规范下，未来更不会对外国渔民渔船采取超出执法需要的强制措施。
There are people claiming that should China’s Coast Guard order a foreign military vessel or foreign government vessel used for a non-commercial purpose to leave immediately or take other forcible measures against them, that would violate the rule of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) about the immunity enjoyed by such vessels. Well, this is downright garbling. As Article 30 of the UNCLOS stipulates, “If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea…, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.” The provisions of China’s Coast Guard Law are in line with the UN convention.
还有人称中国海警若依据《海警法》对外国军舰和其他非商业目的政府船舶采取强制驱离等措施，则违反《联合国海洋法公约》关于此类船舶享有豁免权的规定。这是断章取义。《联合国海洋法公约》第30条规定，如果军舰拒不遵守沿海国关于通过领海的法律法规，沿海国可要求该军舰立即离开领海。中国《海警法》有关规定符合《公约》上述精神。
A review of the coast guard laws of various countries indicates that most countries only authorize their coast guard agency to use a weapon when enforcing the law without specifying the circumstances for the use. The ROK’s law stipulates that the Coast Guard chief is responsible for the introduction and management of the weapons and ordnance needed for carrying out missions; the Malaysia’s allows its officers to carry weapons when performing duties; and the Australia’s allows the Coast Guard ships, aircraft and personnel to be armed, but it is up to the parliament to decide when and where the weapons and equipment shall be used and to what extent.
纵观各国海警立法，多数国家仅授权海警执法时使用武器，却未明确使用武器的具体情形。例如《韩国海洋警察厅法》规定，海警厅厅长负责海警执行任务过程中所需武器、警械的引进及管理计划。《马来西亚海事执法局法》规定，海事执法局官员在执行任务时可携带武器。《澳大利亚海岸警卫队法》规定其海岸警卫队的舰船、飞机与人员配有武器，但武器和装备的使用情形由议会具体规定。
Some countries have specified the situations in which Coast Guard forces can use weapons. The US permits coast guard officers and investigators to carry weapons when discharging their duties and the vessels to fire at suspicious ships that refuse to leave even after the firing of warning shots. The Vietnam prescribes the scenarios where weapons, explosives and instruments may be used, including arm-firing if life safety is under grave threat.
也有国家明确海警可以使用武器的情形。例如《美国海岸警卫队法》规定，海岸警卫队成员和调查局特工在执行公务时，可以携带武器。在鸣枪示警后，如可疑船只仍不停船，执法船只可对其射击。《越南海警法》规定了可使用武器、爆炸物和辅助工具的情形，包括在严重威胁生命安全等特定情形下可以开火。
China’s Coast Guard Law includes similar prescriptions, including rigorous and detailed descriptions of situations where weapons may be used, so as to avoid the abuse of weapons – this is far more scientific and rational than some countries’ law that allows the use of a weapon without elaborating on the situation for weapon use. The Chinese law also prescribes international cooperation and the supervision of law enforcement, which reflects China’s willingness to work with relevant countries to jointly preserve maritime security and implement maritime governance. Those who accuse China’s Coast Guard Law of setting loose conditions for the use of force obviously have an ax to grind.
中国《海警法》在武器使用方面的规定与此大体类似，其中对武器使用的情形作出严格细致的规定，远比一些国家允许使用武器但又未做详细规定的做法更为科学、合理，可避免滥用武力。此外，中国《海警法》对国际合作、执法监督作出专门规定，体现了中国希望与有关国家共同维护海上安全、携手开展海洋治理的善意。所谓中国《海警法》“对武力使用的限制条件较为宽松”等说法显然是别有用心。
(The author Zong Haiping is an observer on international issues.)
（作者宗海平, 国际问题观察员）
