本文選題：國際法院 + 領(lǐng)土爭端��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2011年博士論文

【摘要】：在任何一種法律制度之下,由于對爭議事實的認(rèn)定,在于對證據(jù)的占有、審查、評價和運用,因而證據(jù)對爭端解決都是十分重要的。在領(lǐng)土爭端解決程序中,證據(jù)問題涉及領(lǐng)土主權(quán)的最終歸屬和邊界爭端的解決,為此,國際法院在解決當(dāng)事國領(lǐng)土爭端中已經(jīng)初步確立了一套證據(jù)規(guī)則體系。雖然國際法院并非超國家的司法機構(gòu),但在理論上對促進國際法治和國際習(xí)慣法的形成具有重要的推動作用。同時,國際法院在領(lǐng)土爭端中所適用的一些具體證據(jù)規(guī)則已經(jīng)為多數(shù)國家的領(lǐng)土爭端提供了借鑒作用,并為之付諸于相關(guān)的實踐。 本文共分六章,主要內(nèi)容包括:國際法院解決領(lǐng)土爭端中證據(jù)的提供與獲取;證據(jù)的可采性及排除規(guī)則;證明責(zé)任的分配、適用的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和證據(jù)分量的審查、判斷及分量大小的認(rèn)定規(guī)則;口頭證據(jù)和專家意見的運用;國際法院證據(jù)規(guī)則對我國領(lǐng)土爭端解決的借鑒等。 第一章關(guān)于國際法院解決領(lǐng)土爭端中證據(jù)的提供與獲取。其一,當(dāng)事方權(quán)利與責(zé)任。國際法院在司法實踐中基于國家主權(quán)平等原則和自治性的要求,始終堅持當(dāng)事方提供證據(jù)自由原則。而對于當(dāng)事人證據(jù)披露的義務(wù),從某種程度上,僅具有一定的“自愿”性質(zhì),而非具有強制性。然而,鑒于爭議領(lǐng)土主權(quán)的歸屬對于一國的極端重要性,因此,當(dāng)事方根據(jù)證據(jù)自由的原則提供了過于繁雜的證據(jù),給國際法院造成了沉重的證據(jù)審查負(fù)擔(dān)�；诖�,國際法院可以限制當(dāng)事人提交證據(jù)的數(shù)量或卷數(shù),以及在事實和證據(jù)問題審查上引入預(yù)先程序等,從而使得當(dāng)事方在提供證據(jù)方面能夠更有鑒別力,以便于爭議的有效解決。 其二,截止2010年底,在領(lǐng)土爭端中共有4個案件涉及第三方申請參加之訴的情況。鑒于允許第三方參加訴訟,可能存在遲延當(dāng)事方正常的訴訟程序的風(fēng)險,因此,國際法院在申請書及所附證據(jù)提交的時間、參加訴訟的必要條件等方面作出了嚴(yán)格的限制。但是,“在申請書中附上可以佐證的文件目錄,這類文件應(yīng)隨文送致”的規(guī)定,并沒有要求一國申請參加之訴時必須提交書面證據(jù)。質(zhì)言之,只有一國被允許參加之訴,或者申請書中列明支持其參加訴訟主張的證據(jù),才能要求申請參加訴訟者附上可以佐證的文件目錄,而不是其相反。 其三,國際法院享有對于證據(jù)的收集采取相應(yīng)措施的權(quán)力,如要求當(dāng)事方補充文件、解釋相關(guān)的證據(jù)、詢問證人、傳喚證人,委派專家和實地調(diào)查等。盡管國際法院享有自行補充證據(jù)的權(quán)力,以彌補當(dāng)事方提供證據(jù)所存在的缺陷或不足,但國際法院基于當(dāng)事國主權(quán)平等的原則,僅將自己的功能限制在對當(dāng)事方提交證據(jù)的審查、判斷基礎(chǔ)之上,因而很少行使傳喚證人,委派專家、實地調(diào)查等權(quán)力。因此,國際法院可以借鑒其他領(lǐng)域爭端解決的具體規(guī)則,積極行使《國際法院規(guī)約》以及《國際法院規(guī)則》所賦予的各項權(quán)力,以利于查明事實,進而作出準(zhǔn)確的判決等。 第二章主要論述國際法院解決領(lǐng)土爭端中的證據(jù)可采性問題。主要內(nèi)容包括證據(jù)提交一般程序?qū)ψC據(jù)可采性的影響;證據(jù)的可采性規(guī)則;關(guān)鍵日期與證據(jù)可采性;證據(jù)的分量與證據(jù)的可采性,以及證據(jù)的排除規(guī)則等。 通常,書面證據(jù)應(yīng)按照國際法院規(guī)定的順序和時限內(nèi)提交,只要當(dāng)事方按照規(guī)定的要求,證據(jù)一般是可采的。否則,遲延提交的證據(jù)不具有可采性,除非另一方同意或未表示反對,法院在聽取雙方的意見后,如認(rèn)為必要,可以授權(quán)提供該文件。在領(lǐng)土爭端的實踐中,國內(nèi)證據(jù)法中規(guī)定的可采性條件一般得以被國際法院所承認(rèn)并適用。而且,基于領(lǐng)土爭端性質(zhì)的特殊性,也產(chǎn)生了一些具體的限制規(guī)則。 對于國際法院而言,關(guān)鍵日期的選擇對當(dāng)事方所提供的關(guān)于領(lǐng)土爭端的證據(jù)的相關(guān)性非常重要。關(guān)鍵日期一般決定著證據(jù)的可采性。對于在關(guān)鍵日期之后當(dāng)事方的行為,國際法院通常不予以考慮,除非該行為是先前行為的正常繼續(xù)。而且,國際法院強調(diào),在關(guān)鍵日期之后的當(dāng)事方提供的利己證據(jù),同樣不具有可采性,并不存在分量較小的問題。 證據(jù)的可采性與證據(jù)的分量也具有一定的關(guān)聯(lián)。但是,與證據(jù)的可采性不同,證據(jù)的分量并非一個法律問題,而是一個事實問題。在英美證據(jù)法中,那些分量非常小的或沒有任何分量的證據(jù)將予以排除。但是,國際法院在解決領(lǐng)土爭端中,即使一項證據(jù)無任何分量,也沒有明確將其排除。因而,從實質(zhì)上而言,它們屬于證據(jù)的可采信問題,而非可采納問題。當(dāng)然,無論是證據(jù)的可采納抑或可采信問題,均涉及證據(jù)的分量問題。因為,在確定證據(jù)的相關(guān)性等問題時不可避免地要對證據(jù)的分量進行評價。 雖然在領(lǐng)土爭端解決的實踐中,國際法院對當(dāng)事方提交的證據(jù)可采性一般是相當(dāng)寬松的。然而,國際法院同樣受到國內(nèi)法體系中的證據(jù)可采性限制規(guī)則的影響,并事實上將其予以適用。而且,國際法院針對領(lǐng)土爭端性質(zhì)的特殊性,已經(jīng)通過其司法判例和相關(guān)的實踐指南初步形成了若干證據(jù)的排除規(guī)則。如經(jīng)談判取得的證據(jù)、不相關(guān)的證據(jù)、缺乏形式上真實性的證據(jù)、未經(jīng)證實的傳聞證據(jù),以及禁止反言的證據(jù)等,國際法院一般將其予以排除。無疑,這既減輕了國際法院甄別證據(jù)可采性的負(fù)擔(dān),也使得當(dāng)事方在提交證據(jù)之前仔細考慮其證據(jù)的相關(guān)性、真實性等,從而主動排除一些不適格的證據(jù)。 第三章國際法院解決領(lǐng)土爭端中的證明問題。其一,在證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面,國際法院主要秉承了大陸法系傳統(tǒng),但同時合理吸收了普通法系的傳統(tǒng)。但是,鑒于當(dāng)事國之間領(lǐng)土爭端的復(fù)雜性,國際法院在解決領(lǐng)土爭端實踐中通常將“證據(jù)優(yōu)勢標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”置于主導(dǎo)地位。不過,國際法院在適用該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時,經(jīng)常陷入單純比較相關(guān)證據(jù)的分量的游戲。這引起了國際社會對國際法院權(quán)威的一定質(zhì)疑。實際上,國際法院內(nèi)部也存在不同的聲音。鑒于“證據(jù)優(yōu)勢標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”確定性程度相對較低,而“排除合理懷疑標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”定位過高,因此,今后一階段國際法院在解決領(lǐng)土爭端方面的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)界定為“清晰和令人信服的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”。這也是國際法院證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)傾向靈活性和當(dāng)事國要求確定性的意志相互協(xié)調(diào)的必然要求。 其二,關(guān)于領(lǐng)土爭端解決中的證明責(zé)任問題。一般由提出事實主張的一方承擔(dān)證明責(zé)任。但是,在特殊情況下,國際法院在適用該項原則時,可以平等分配當(dāng)事方的證明責(zé)任。顯然,由于領(lǐng)土爭端的特殊性和復(fù)雜性,國際法院不再單純依賴于傳統(tǒng)上的原告/被告二分法。一般來說,對于當(dāng)事一方提交的領(lǐng)土爭端訴訟案,證明責(zé)任由申訴方承擔(dān),辯訴方僅承擔(dān)消極的主張責(zé)任。但是,對于那些當(dāng)事方通過協(xié)議提交的領(lǐng)土爭端,證明責(zé)任的分配并不依賴于當(dāng)事人在其特別協(xié)定中規(guī)定條款,而由國際法院根據(jù)每一個領(lǐng)土爭端的案件具體情況進行適當(dāng)分配。而且,也不存在證明責(zé)任轉(zhuǎn)移的問題。對于參加訴訟方而言,其證明責(zé)任的范圍,與當(dāng)事國之間存有不同。它僅需要證明可能,而非那些將要或一定影響其法律性質(zhì)的利益,且該證明責(zé)任應(yīng)由參加訴訟國承擔(dān),而非法庭的職責(zé)等。與此同時,對于當(dāng)事方事實清楚的部分或沒有爭議的事項,或者因為法官知法,將不會產(chǎn)生證明責(zé)任的相關(guān)問題。 其三,在解決領(lǐng)土爭端方面,國際法院所適用的推定主要包括不可反駁的法律推定、可反駁的法律推定和事實推定等。通常,可反駁的法律推定可以通過證據(jù)推翻推定的事實,并且與證明責(zé)任的轉(zhuǎn)移存在著關(guān)聯(lián)性。但是,可反駁的法律推定的適用僅部分轉(zhuǎn)移了當(dāng)事人提出證據(jù)的責(zé)任,并非對全部證明責(zé)任的顛倒。不可反駁的推定不能通過其他證據(jù)予以推翻。而且,它可能解除或加重原告的證明責(zé)任。其效力在于結(jié)論性證明推定事實,它可以使得申訴方無需承擔(dān)證明責(zé)任,或者如果推定支持相對方,申訴方將不可能解除證明責(zé)任。與之相比,事實推定對于國際法院評價當(dāng)事人的主張是一個有用的證明方法。在那些沒有直接證據(jù)可以利用的情況下,依賴于從相關(guān)的事實中得出的推論,可以有利于法院決定當(dāng)事國的證明責(zé)任是否得以解除;同時,事實推定僅僅意味著事實已經(jīng)得以證明,證明責(zé)任(說服責(zé)任)并沒有被轉(zhuǎn)移。 第四章主要涉及證據(jù)的種類、證據(jù)分量的審查判斷及分量大小的認(rèn)定規(guī)則。一般而言,國際法院庭前證據(jù)主要包括書面證據(jù)、證詞和專家證據(jù)。書面證據(jù)為一般原則,證詞和專家證據(jù)則為例外。在實踐中,國際法院已經(jīng)根據(jù)個案的情況賦予了這些證據(jù)不同的分量。而且,在證據(jù)分量大小的認(rèn)定方面,國際法院在解決領(lǐng)土爭端時,隱含適用了一項相應(yīng)的證據(jù)規(guī)則。即國際條約的分量大于其他書面證據(jù)的分量;其他書面證據(jù)的分量一般大于初始性證據(jù)的分量;官方行為的分量一般大于私人行為。 但是,國際法院在具體的司法判例中,審查判斷當(dāng)事國提交的證據(jù)證明價值時過于靈活。甚至,將未經(jīng)批準(zhǔn)的條約賦予法律效力,作為判案的可采信證據(jù)。無疑,這侵蝕了當(dāng)事國的國內(nèi)憲法性功能。與條約的適用類似,保持占有原則也沒有帶來更加穩(wěn)定的國際邊界。確切的說,盡管保持占有原則在非洲和拉丁美洲取得了較大成功,但并沒有有效解決領(lǐng)土爭端的根本問題,它僅遲延了問題出現(xiàn)表面化而已。而且,有效控制原則趨于濫用。 對于國際法院初具雛形的證據(jù)分量大小的認(rèn)定規(guī)則,應(yīng)當(dāng)進行辯證分析。一則,對國際法院賦予未經(jīng)批準(zhǔn)的條約以法律效力應(yīng)當(dāng)持否定態(tài)度;二則,對于那些建立在保持占有法律和有效控制原則基礎(chǔ)上的證據(jù)應(yīng)區(qū)別看待。證據(jù)分量大小的認(rèn)定規(guī)則一般應(yīng)為:有效的國際條約初始性權(quán)利證據(jù)/有效控制證據(jù)有效控制證據(jù)初始性權(quán)利證據(jù)未生效條約、瑕疵法律行為等其他證據(jù)。而對于那些曾為殖民地國家,其分量大小的認(rèn)定規(guī)則如下:有效的國際條約殖民時期立法及其他法律文件殖民期間的有效控制證據(jù)后殖民時期的有效控制證據(jù)初始性權(quán)利證據(jù)未生效條約、瑕疵法律行為等其他證據(jù)等。 第五章國際法院解決領(lǐng)土爭端中的言詞證據(jù)問題。毋庸置疑,在解決領(lǐng)土爭端的過程中,根據(jù)國際法院規(guī)約及法庭規(guī)則,當(dāng)事方有權(quán)通過安排證人和專家的方式提供所有的證據(jù)。國際法院不得排除此類證據(jù),除非它沒有相關(guān)性、缺乏真實性等;法院也不能通過命令的方式取消當(dāng)事方的這種權(quán)利。從既往的司法判例來看,盡管國際法院允許當(dāng)事人提供言詞證據(jù),但仍存在若干使用的不足之處。 究其原因,主要包括:國際法院自身的本質(zhì)屬性所決定;基于司法實踐因素的考慮;案件本身的性質(zhì)也是決定因素之一。此外,國際法院詢問證人的程序過于靈活�？傮w而言,證人證言盡管在一些領(lǐng)土案件中具有一定的分量,但并沒有發(fā)揮其應(yīng)有的證明價值。然而,如果書面證據(jù)能夠用于補充證人證言和專家意見,無疑這將有利促進證詞程序,從而消除一些言詞證據(jù)相關(guān)的問題。通過證人陳述和庭外作證兩者合并的方式的潛在適用值得國際法院進一步探究。 與此同時,國際法院也沒有積極行使委派自己的專家的權(quán)力。國際法院可以借鑒國內(nèi)法程序,同時參考世界貿(mào)易組織(WTO)等其他機構(gòu)的模式,設(shè)立專家?guī)旎蛑甘久麊巍＿@些專家可以由各國推薦,國際法院進行遴選;或者由國際法院直接指派一些具有國際威望的各個領(lǐng)域的專家組成專家委員會,以供國際法院進行咨詢,或為了案件的需要委派專家進行實地調(diào)查、收集情報和提交報告等。無疑,這在證據(jù)的收集方面對領(lǐng)土爭端的解決具有重要的價值。 第六章國際法院證據(jù)規(guī)則對我國解決領(lǐng)土和邊界爭端的借鑒。目前,我國陸地邊界多數(shù)已經(jīng)解決,僅有與印度和不丹等國陸地爭端仍長期懸而未決。同時,我國是一個海洋地理位置不利的國家。尤其,東海和南海海域劃界屬于“雙重性”爭端,其中島嶼的主權(quán)歸屬阻礙了這些海域邊界的劃分。傳統(tǒng)上,我國相對重視歷史證據(jù),強調(diào)對于這些島嶼享有不可辯駁的主權(quán)。然而,我國藏南地區(qū)、釣魚島列嶼、南沙群島部分島礁等領(lǐng)土正分別遭到印度、日本、越南、馬來西亞、菲律賓等鄰國蠶食及實際控制。因此,從有效控制的角度,我國處于不利的情勢。本章借鑒了國際法院“條約的分量大于有效控制證據(jù)的分量”的認(rèn)定規(guī)則,結(jié)合相關(guān)的司法判例,提出了國際法院采信有效統(tǒng)治證據(jù),將領(lǐng)土的主權(quán)判決給實際控制方的趨勢日益明顯的觀點。 基于此,我國在以后處理與鄰國的領(lǐng)土爭端中,應(yīng)充分借鑒國際法院的證據(jù)規(guī)則,除了繼續(xù)挖掘歷史證據(jù)外,對于釣魚島列嶼、中印邊界和領(lǐng)土爭端、南沙群島所涉及的條約重點展開研究,進一步為我國的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)的維護提供條約證據(jù)方面的支持。同時,應(yīng)采取必要措施加強對爭議區(qū)域的主權(quán)宣示行為,進而從有效控制證據(jù)層面積極應(yīng)對他國的主張。概言之,通過采取多種證據(jù)收集并舉的方式,切實維護我國的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)和海洋權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:in that dispute settlement procedure of the territorial dispute , the issue of evidence relate to the final attribution of territorial sovereignty and the settlement of the border dispute .


This paper is divided into six chapters . The main contents include the provision and acquisition of evidence in the dispute of the territorial disputes by the International Court of Justice ; the admissibility and the rule of exclusion of evidence ; the examination of the burden of proof , the application of the standard of proof and the determination of the component size ; the application of oral evidence and expert opinion ; and the reference to the settlement of the territorial dispute of our country by the rules of evidence of the International Court of Justice .


Chapter I on the provision and acquisition of evidence in the settlement of territorial disputes by the International Court of Justice . First , the rights and responsibilities of the parties . The International Court of Justice , based on the principle of sovereign equality and autonomy of States , has always adhered to the principle of freedom of evidence provided by the parties .


Second , as at the end of 2010 , there were four cases involving third - party applications in the territorial dispute . In view of the fact that a third party was allowed to participate in the proceedings , there might be a risk of a delay in the proceedings of the parties , so that , in the application and the attached evidence , the Court had to submit documentary evidence . In short , only one State was allowed to participate in the proceedings , or the application set out evidence in support of its participation in the proceedings before the application was required to attach a documentary catalogue that could be supported , rather than the contrary .


Third , the International Court of Justice has the power to take appropriate measures for the collection of evidence , such as requiring the parties to supplement the documents , explain the relevant evidence , ask witnesses , summon witnesses , appoint experts and field investigations , etc . The International Court of Justice , despite the principle of the sovereign equality of the parties , has limited its own functions to the examination of the evidence submitted by the parties , on the basis of judgement , and thus rarely exercises the powers conferred by the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the rules of the International Court of Justice , in order to facilitate the identification of facts and , in turn , to make an accurate judgement .


The second chapter mainly discusses the admissibility of the evidence in the settlement of territorial disputes by the International Court of Justice . The main contents include the influence of the general procedure on the admissibility of the evidence , the admissibility of the evidence , the admissibility of the evidence , the admissibility of the evidence and the rule of exclusion of the evidence .


In general , documentary evidence should be submitted in accordance with the order and time limit provided by the International Court of Justice , provided that the evidence is generally recoverable as long as the party follows the requirements of the provision . Otherwise , the evidence submitted does not have the admissibility unless the other party agrees or fails to express its objection . In the practice of territorial disputes , the conditions of admissibility specified in the Domestic Evidence Act are generally recognized and applied by the International Court of Justice . Moreover , in the practice of territorial disputes , specific restrictions are also generated .


In the case of the International Court of Justice , the selection of key dates is of great importance to the relevance of the evidence provided by the parties on the territorial dispute . The key dates generally determine the admissibility of the evidence . The International Court of Justice is generally not taken into account for the conduct of the parties after a critical date unless the conduct is a normal continuation of the previous conduct . Furthermore , the International Court of Justice emphasizes that the evidence provided by the parties after the critical date is equally authentic and does not have a minor component .


But , unlike the admissibility of the evidence , the component of the evidence is not a legal problem , but a fact problem . In the Anglo - American evidence law , the evidence that the components are very small or without any component will be ruled out .


While in the practice of territorial dispute settlement , the admissibility of the evidence submitted by the International Court of Justice to the parties is generally quite liberal . However , the International Court of Justice has , in fact , been excluded from the admissibility of the evidence in the domestic law system .


In the light of the complexity of the territorial dispute between the parties concerned , the International Court of Justice , in the light of the complexity of the territorial dispute between the States parties , often finds itself in a dominant position in the settlement of territorial disputes . However , in view of the complexity of the territorial dispute between the parties , the International Court of Justice has often been caught in a mere comparison of the components of the relevant evidence .


2 . The question of proof of responsibility in the settlement of the territorial dispute is generally borne by one of the parties presenting the facts . However , in exceptional circumstances , the Court of Justice may equally assign the burden of proof to the parties when applying the principle . It is clear that the distribution of responsibilities is not solely dependent on the plaintiff / accused dichotomy in its special agreement . However , it is only necessary to prove the possibility , not those that will or must affect its legal nature , and that the burden of proof should be borne by the participating States rather than the functions of the Tribunal . At the same time , there is no question of proof of responsibility for the part of the party ' s facts or the matter which is not disputed , or because the judge knows the law .


Third , the presumption of the application of the International Court of Justice , in the settlement of territorial disputes , mainly includes the non - refutation of the presumption of law , the presumption of law and the presumption of fact .


In practice , the International Court of Justice , in resolving territorial disputes , implicitly applies a corresponding rule of evidence . In practice , the International Court of Justice , in resolving territorial disputes , implicitly applies a corresponding rule of evidence . In practice , the component of the international treaty is greater than that of other documentary evidence ; the component of other written evidence is generally greater than the component of the initial evidence ; and the component of official conduct is generally greater than private .


However , in a specific jurisprudence , the International Court of Justice examined whether the evidence submitted by the State concerned was too flexible . Even the non - ratified treaties were given the legal effect as admissible evidence of the case . No doubt it had eroded the domestic constitutional function of the States concerned . There was no doubt that this had eroded the domestic constitutional function of the States concerned . It was clear that , despite the greater success of the principle of possession in Africa and Latin America , it had not effectively resolved the fundamental problem of territorial disputes . It had only delayed the surface of the problem . Furthermore , the principle of effective control tends to be abused .


A dialectical analysis should be made for the determination of the size of the evidence component of the first prototype of the International Court of Justice . In one case , there should be a negative attitude towards the validity of an unratified treaty by the International Court of Justice ; and , for those former colonial countries , the rule of recognition of the size of the evidence component would normally be : an effective international treaty colonial period legislation and other evidence of the effective control of evidence in the post - colonial period during the colonial period of effective control of evidence of the existence of evidence of the initial right to control evidence , such as the absence of an effective treaty , and other evidence of legal acts .


Chapter V . The International Court of Justice deals with the question of the evidence of words in a territorial dispute . There is no doubt that , in the settlement of the territorial dispute , the parties have the right to provide all evidence by arranging witnesses and experts , in accordance with the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the rules of the Tribunal .


In addition , the Court asked the witness to be too flexible . In general , the testimony of witnesses , while having a certain component in some of the territory cases , did not exert its due probative value . However , if documentary evidence could be used to supplement the witness testimony and expert opinion , it would certainly be advantageous to promote the testimony procedure , thereby eliminating the question of evidence - related issues . The potential application of the way in which both witness statements and the testimony of the two witnesses were combined merits further inquiry by the International Court of Justice .


At the same time , the International Court of Justice has not been actively exercising the authority to appoint its own experts . The International Court of Justice may draw on domestic law procedures and , at the same time , refer to the modalities of other institutions , such as the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) , to establish a pool of experts or indicators .


At the same time , China is a country with unfavourable geographical position . In particular , China is a country with unfavourable geographical position . In particular , China is a country with unfavorable geographical position . In particular , China is in an unfavourable situation from the perspective of effective control .


On the basis of this , our country should learn from the rules of evidence of the International Court of Justice in the subsequent handling of territorial disputes with neighbouring countries . In addition to continuing to explore historical evidence , it is necessary to study the focus of treaties relating to the sovereignty of the territorial sovereignty of our country . At the same time , we should take the necessary measures to strengthen the sovereignty declaration of the disputed area and to actively respond to the claim of his country from the level of effective control of the evidence .

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D993.1

【引證文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 李潔宇;;論中國在釣魚島列嶼之爭中對國際法的遵守[J];西部學(xué)刊;2013年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 許昌;國際法院遲延同意管轄權(quán)研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 王慧;有效控制規(guī)則的國際法問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

2 羅蛟;影響國際法院的政治因素研究[D];云南民族大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號：1895643