国际法主体视角下的历史性权利构成要件
|
摘要
南海仲裁案引发了学界对于历史性权利的探讨,理论上仍有待研究与丰满之处。从历史性权利的定性为切入点,确定历史性权利的国际习惯属性。进而从国际习惯的物理和心理两个构成要素进行分析,主要分析这两个要素下的主体问题。随着国际法的发展,越来越多的个人行为,可以视为国际法主体的行为。物理要素的主体问题主要探讨民间的实践是否有效,如何将民间实践归于国家实践。物理要素主要针对当今国际法历史性权利中的误区,片面追求一国在某一区域活动的时间可溯及几千几百年以前,但却忽略了实践主体的适格性,并提出主体应适格化。心理要素的主体问题主要探讨,法律确信的主体是仅需要的利害关系国的容忍,还是需要世界各国的普遍认可。针对该心理要素问题,提出了逐渐用条约取代历史性权利的一种进路,为解决同类案件提供参考。
The South China Sea arbitration case has triggered academic community to explore historical rights. In theory, there is still room for research and fullness. This paper takes the definition of historical rights as the entry point and determines the international customary attributing of historical rights. Furthermore, it analyzes the two components of physical and psychological aspects of international custom, and mainly analyzes the subjective issues under these two elements. With the development of international law, more individual behaviors can be regarded as the behavior of the main body of international law. The main problem of physical elements mainly discusses whether the practice of the people is effective and how to put the folk practice into the state practice. The physical elements are mainly aimed at the misunderstandings in the historical rights of international law. The unilateral pursuit of a country's activities in a certain region can be traced back to thousands of years, but it ignores the eligibility of the subject of practice and proposes corresponding The main body of the text is recommended. The main subject of psychological factors is mainly discussed. The subject of opinion juris is the tolerance of the interested countries, or the universal recognition of the countries of the world. Aiming at the problem of psychological factors, this paper proposes a way to gradually replace historical rights with treaties, and provides reference for solving similar cases.
The South China Sea arbitration case has triggered academic community to explore historical rights. In theory, there is still room for research and fullness. This paper takes the definition of historical rights as the entry point and determines the international customary attributing of historical rights. Furthermore, it analyzes the two components of physical and psychological aspects of international custom, and mainly analyzes the subjective issues under these two elements. With the development of international law, more individual behaviors can be regarded as the behavior of the main body of international law. The main problem of physical elements mainly discusses whether the practice of the people is effective and how to put the folk practice into the state practice. The physical elements are mainly aimed at the misunderstandings in the historical rights of international law. The unilateral pursuit of a country's activities in a certain region can be traced back to thousands of years, but it ignores the eligibility of the subject of practice and proposes corresponding The main body of the text is recommended. The main subject of psychological factors is mainly discussed. The subject of opinion juris is the tolerance of the interested countries, or the universal recognition of the countries of the world. Aiming at the problem of psychological factors, this paper proposes a way to gradually replace historical rights with treaties, and provides reference for solving similar cases.
引文
[1]See Bing Bing Jia,"The Relations between Treaties and Custom"[J].Chinese Journal of International Law,Vol.9,No.1,2010,pp.81-90.
[2]王森.论海洋法上的保持占有原则与历史性权利[J].太平洋学报,2018(3):83.
[3]See Zou Keyuan,"Historic Rights in International Law and in China's Practice"[J].Ocean Development and International Law,Vol.32,No.2,2001,pp.149-152.
[4]黄异.国际海洋法[M].台北:台湾渤海堂文化事业有限公司,2002:25,401.
[5]沈固朝.关于北部湾的“历史性水域”[J].中国边疆史地研究,2000(4):54.
[6]刘江萍,郭培清.加拿大对西北航道主权控制的法律依据分析[J].中共青岛市委党校青岛行政学院学报,2010(2):101.
[7]Donat Pharand,Canada's Arctic Waters in International Law,Studies in Polar Research[M],University of Ottawa Press,1985,pp.97-106.
[8]曲波.海洋法中历史性权利构成要件探究[J].当代法学,2012(4):4-5.
[9]《国际公法学》编组.国际公法学(第二版)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2018:233,110,50,49.
[10]Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case,Judgment of 18 December 1951,ICJ Reports 1951,p.130.
[11]Study Prepared by the U.N.Secretariat,"Juridical Regime of Historic Waters,Including Historic Bays,"Doc.A/CN.4/143(March 1962).p.6,paras.33-34.
[12]Ibid.p.22,para.164.
[13]The Republic of the Philippines v the People's Republic of China,PCA Case N2013-19 in the matter of the South China Arbitration,Award of 12 July 2016(Merits),available on the Permanent Court of Arbitration website at www.pca-cpa.org.para.238(a).
[14]Case concerning the Land,Islands and Maritime Frontier Dispute(EL Salvador/Honduras:Nicaragua intervening),Judgment of 11 September 1992,ICJ Reports 1992,para.332.
[15]刘楠来.国际海洋法[M].北京:海洋出版社,1986:19.
[16]王铁崖.国际法[M].法律出版社,1995:10.
[17]Franz von Liszt,Le droit international[M].A.Pedone,Editeur,1927,pp.47-48.
[18][美]凯尔森.国际法原理[M].王铁崖,译.北京:华夏出版社,1989:96.
[19]CURIA,Van Gend en Loos v.Administratie der Belastingen,5 February 1963,pp.4-16.
[20][英]劳特派特修订.奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)[M].王铁崖,等,译.商务印书馆,1989:14-15.
[21]Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case,ICJ Report,1951,para.184.
[22]贾宇.中国在南海的历史性权利[J].中国法学,2015(3):182-189.
[23]吴凤斌.南沙群岛历来就是我国领土[J].南洋问题,1979(6):30.
[24]韩振华.我国南海诸岛史料汇编(续编)(第一册)[M].厦门:厦门大学南洋研究所,1976:68.
[25]MICHAEL SHENG-TI GAU,The U-Shaped Line and a Categorization of the Ocean Disputes in the South China Sea[J].Ocean Development&International Law,43:1,p.57,2012.
[26]辉明.从近代美国文献看南海诸岛的主权[J].文史哲,2016(4):15.
[27]吕一燃.近代中国政府和人民维护南海诸岛主权概论[J].近代史研究,1997(3):8.
[28]刘晨虹.驳“历史性权利属一般海洋法规则之例外”说[J].江苏大学学报(社会科学版),2018(1):40,10.
[29]Louis Henkin,"International law Cases and Materials Third Edition"[M].West Publishing Co,1993,pp.72-73.
[30]Michael Barton Akehurst,"Custom as a source of international law"[J].British Yearbook of International Law,Issue 1,1975,Vol 47,pp.12-21.
[31]曲波.禁反言在国际法中的适用---以领土争端案为例[J].法学杂志,2014(8):17-20.
[32]See Eastern Greenland,1933 P.I.C.J.ser.A./B.,No.53.p.73.
[33]韩振华.我国南海诸岛史料汇编[M].北京:东方出版社,1988:34.
[34]西沙群岛和南沙群岛争端的由来,[N].人民日报,1979-05-15.
[35]外交部文件.中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩[EB/OL].http://www.thesouthchinasea.org.cn/2016-06/24/c_52626.htm,最后访问日期:2019-03-22。
[36]大彼得湾从来就是俄国的内海[N].人民日报,1957-09-23.
[37]The Soviet Union Note Verbale to the Japanese Government[J].7 January 1958,Japanese Annual of International Law,Vol.2,pp.215-216.
[38]Merrill Wesley Clark,Jr.,Historic Bays and Waters:A Regime of Recent Beginnings and Continued Usage[M].New York:Oceana Publications,Inc.,1994,p.190.
[39]薛捍勤.依法治国与全球治理[J].中山大学法律评论,2016(2):8.
[40]Continental Shelf(Tunisia v.Libyan Arab Jamahiriya),1982 ICJ Reports,p.74.
(1)在英国的观点中,直线基线仅适用于海湾,而且两个基点之间的长度不能超过十海里,这就是所谓的“十海里原则”。
[2]王森.论海洋法上的保持占有原则与历史性权利[J].太平洋学报,2018(3):83.
[3]See Zou Keyuan,"Historic Rights in International Law and in China's Practice"[J].Ocean Development and International Law,Vol.32,No.2,2001,pp.149-152.
[4]黄异.国际海洋法[M].台北:台湾渤海堂文化事业有限公司,2002:25,401.
[5]沈固朝.关于北部湾的“历史性水域”[J].中国边疆史地研究,2000(4):54.
[6]刘江萍,郭培清.加拿大对西北航道主权控制的法律依据分析[J].中共青岛市委党校青岛行政学院学报,2010(2):101.
[7]Donat Pharand,Canada's Arctic Waters in International Law,Studies in Polar Research[M],University of Ottawa Press,1985,pp.97-106.
[8]曲波.海洋法中历史性权利构成要件探究[J].当代法学,2012(4):4-5.
[9]《国际公法学》编组.国际公法学(第二版)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2018:233,110,50,49.
[10]Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case,Judgment of 18 December 1951,ICJ Reports 1951,p.130.
[11]Study Prepared by the U.N.Secretariat,"Juridical Regime of Historic Waters,Including Historic Bays,"Doc.A/CN.4/143(March 1962).p.6,paras.33-34.
[12]Ibid.p.22,para.164.
[13]The Republic of the Philippines v the People's Republic of China,PCA Case N2013-19 in the matter of the South China Arbitration,Award of 12 July 2016(Merits),available on the Permanent Court of Arbitration website at www.pca-cpa.org.para.238(a).
[14]Case concerning the Land,Islands and Maritime Frontier Dispute(EL Salvador/Honduras:Nicaragua intervening),Judgment of 11 September 1992,ICJ Reports 1992,para.332.
[15]刘楠来.国际海洋法[M].北京:海洋出版社,1986:19.
[16]王铁崖.国际法[M].法律出版社,1995:10.
[17]Franz von Liszt,Le droit international[M].A.Pedone,Editeur,1927,pp.47-48.
[18][美]凯尔森.国际法原理[M].王铁崖,译.北京:华夏出版社,1989:96.
[19]CURIA,Van Gend en Loos v.Administratie der Belastingen,5 February 1963,pp.4-16.
[20][英]劳特派特修订.奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)[M].王铁崖,等,译.商务印书馆,1989:14-15.
[21]Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case,ICJ Report,1951,para.184.
[22]贾宇.中国在南海的历史性权利[J].中国法学,2015(3):182-189.
[23]吴凤斌.南沙群岛历来就是我国领土[J].南洋问题,1979(6):30.
[24]韩振华.我国南海诸岛史料汇编(续编)(第一册)[M].厦门:厦门大学南洋研究所,1976:68.
[25]MICHAEL SHENG-TI GAU,The U-Shaped Line and a Categorization of the Ocean Disputes in the South China Sea[J].Ocean Development&International Law,43:1,p.57,2012.
[26]辉明.从近代美国文献看南海诸岛的主权[J].文史哲,2016(4):15.
[27]吕一燃.近代中国政府和人民维护南海诸岛主权概论[J].近代史研究,1997(3):8.
[28]刘晨虹.驳“历史性权利属一般海洋法规则之例外”说[J].江苏大学学报(社会科学版),2018(1):40,10.
[29]Louis Henkin,"International law Cases and Materials Third Edition"[M].West Publishing Co,1993,pp.72-73.
[30]Michael Barton Akehurst,"Custom as a source of international law"[J].British Yearbook of International Law,Issue 1,1975,Vol 47,pp.12-21.
[31]曲波.禁反言在国际法中的适用---以领土争端案为例[J].法学杂志,2014(8):17-20.
[32]See Eastern Greenland,1933 P.I.C.J.ser.A./B.,No.53.p.73.
[33]韩振华.我国南海诸岛史料汇编[M].北京:东方出版社,1988:34.
[34]西沙群岛和南沙群岛争端的由来,[N].人民日报,1979-05-15.
[35]外交部文件.中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩[EB/OL].http://www.thesouthchinasea.org.cn/2016-06/24/c_52626.htm,最后访问日期:2019-03-22。
[36]大彼得湾从来就是俄国的内海[N].人民日报,1957-09-23.
[37]The Soviet Union Note Verbale to the Japanese Government[J].7 January 1958,Japanese Annual of International Law,Vol.2,pp.215-216.
[38]Merrill Wesley Clark,Jr.,Historic Bays and Waters:A Regime of Recent Beginnings and Continued Usage[M].New York:Oceana Publications,Inc.,1994,p.190.
[39]薛捍勤.依法治国与全球治理[J].中山大学法律评论,2016(2):8.
[40]Continental Shelf(Tunisia v.Libyan Arab Jamahiriya),1982 ICJ Reports,p.74.
(1)在英国的观点中,直线基线仅适用于海湾,而且两个基点之间的长度不能超过十海里,这就是所谓的“十海里原则”。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |