本文選題：南海仲裁案　切入點：權利來源　出處：《政治與法律》2016年04期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：中菲南海仲裁案由菲律賓單方面提起,該案關于管轄權的裁決至關重要。菲律賓的仲裁請求可以分為權利來源、島礁地位和行為活動三個部分的內(nèi)容,其中關于權利來源部分是菲律賓仲裁申請的核心,因為它試圖從根本上徹底否定我國在"九段線"內(nèi)海洋性權利的合法性。菲律賓認為,中國在"九段線"內(nèi)主張的主權權利、管轄權和歷史性權利超過《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》在地理和實體上允許的范圍,因此不具有法律效力。為了避開領土主權與海域劃界,菲律賓希望將仲裁庭的目光引向兩個焦點,即海洋地形的法律地位和歷史性權利的范圍。在這兩個焦點問題上,菲律賓請求確認的不單純是權利的存在,實質(zhì)是權利的范圍,而確認權利的范圍是海域劃界的關鍵性因素,所以仲裁庭不能將其剝離后單獨裁決,否則就破壞了海域劃界的整體性。同時,上述焦點既涉及相關島礁的主權歸屬,也屬于《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第298條關于"歷史性海灣或所有權"的強制管轄權例外情況。因此,菲律賓的規(guī)避企圖是徒勞的,仲裁庭對其請求中關于權利來源的部分仍然不具有管轄權。
[Abstract]:The arbitration case in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines was initiated unilaterally by the Philippines. The award on jurisdiction in this case is of paramount importance. The arbitration request of the Philippines can be divided into three parts: the source of rights, the status of islands and reefs, and the activities of conduct. The source of the right is at the heart of the Philippine arbitration application because it seeks to fundamentally deny the legitimacy of China's maritime rights in the "nine-dash line". The Philippines believes that China's sovereign rights in the "nine-dash line", Jurisdiction and historical rights go beyond the geographical and substantive scope permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and therefore have no legal effect... in order to avoid territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, the Philippines wishes to draw the attention of the arbitral tribunal to two focal points, That is, the legal status of the maritime terrain and the scope of historic rights. On these two focal issues, the Philippines' request for confirmation is not simply the existence of rights, but in essence the scope of rights, which is the key factor in the delimitation of maritime areas, Therefore, the arbitral tribunal cannot separate the decision after stripping it, otherwise it will undermine the integrity of the delimitation of the maritime area. At the same time, the above focus is related to the sovereignty of the relevant islands and reefs. Also falling within the compulsory jurisdictional exception of article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to "historic bay or title"... therefore, the Philippines' attempts to circumvent are futile, The arbitral tribunal still does not have jurisdiction over the part of its application relating to the source of the right.
【作者單位】： 華東政法大學國際法學院;
【基金】：教育部人文社會科學規(guī)劃基金項目“海洋自由航行的國際法理論與實踐研究”(項目編號:14YJ A820030)的階段性成果 上海市教育委員會重點學科建設項目“國際法學”(項目編號:國際法學J51103)資助
【分類號】：D993.5

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 雷海;陳智;;人權、主權與“球權”:國際公共管理的權利來源及其限度[J];人權;2014年01期

，

本文編號：1564885