歷史性權(quán)利在國(guó)際法中的地位
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-01 13:38
【摘要】：歷史性權(quán)利問(wèn)題是國(guó)際法中的問(wèn)題,也是海洋法中的熱點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。歷史性權(quán)利這一概念與歷史性海灣、歷史性水域、歷史性所有權(quán)等概念之間相互交錯(cuò)�！堵�(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》中所說(shuō)的歷史性權(quán)利實(shí)質(zhì)指的是歷史性所有權(quán)；歷史性權(quán)利是歷史性水域的理論依據(jù),歷史性水域是歷史性權(quán)利的標(biāo)的,而歷史性海灣只是歷史性水域的一種。本文研究的歷史性權(quán)利限定在歷史性水域權(quán)利范疇。 對(duì)歷史性權(quán)利構(gòu)成要件的分析有助于對(duì)歷史性權(quán)利的正確理解。歷史性權(quán)利包括兩個(gè)構(gòu)成要件。第一個(gè)要件是主張國(guó)對(duì)主張海域有效的行使權(quán)利(主權(quán)—管轄權(quán))。有效的行為要求是國(guó)家或國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)的行為,有效的國(guó)家行為必須是公開(kāi)的行為,有效的行為意味著國(guó)家的意圖必須通過(guò)行為明確得以表達(dá),權(quán)利行使具有連續(xù)性,構(gòu)成通例。第二個(gè)要件是其他國(guó)家對(duì)主張國(guó)行為采取了容忍的態(tài)度。 就歷史性權(quán)利在國(guó)際法中的地位而言,涉及到其是否構(gòu)成習(xí)慣國(guó)際法及在《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》中的地位問(wèn)題。首先,歷史性權(quán)利構(gòu)成習(xí)慣國(guó)際法。主要原因如下：第一,歷史性權(quán)利具備習(xí)慣國(guó)際法的構(gòu)成要件,是通過(guò)長(zhǎng)期、普遍和一致的國(guó)家實(shí)踐來(lái)表現(xiàn)和證明的,同時(shí)存在相關(guān)的司法案例；第二,認(rèn)為歷史性水域權(quán)利是習(xí)慣國(guó)際法的例外存在不合理性。例外的前提是先存在一般,既然歷史性水域權(quán)利同樣具備物質(zhì)要素和心理要素,就難以稱之為例外。其次,《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》沒(méi)有否認(rèn)歷史性權(quán)利的存在。遵循條約的整體解釋原則,可以看到《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》沒(méi)有否認(rèn)歷史性權(quán)利的存在；按照時(shí)際法原理,對(duì)于發(fā)生在《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》生效之前的行為,應(yīng)適用行為發(fā)生時(shí)的規(guī)定,所以《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》不能否認(rèn)其存在前一國(guó)基于歷史性權(quán)利已取得的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)。歷史性權(quán)利如果能被明確寫(xiě)入《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》需要利益相關(guān)國(guó)的主張。作為一種領(lǐng)土取得方式,歷史性權(quán)利與通過(guò)時(shí)效及先占取得領(lǐng)土主權(quán)有所不同。
[Abstract]:The issue of historic rights is not only a problem in international law, but also a hot issue in the law of the sea. The concept of historic right is intertwined with the concepts of historic bay, historic waters and historic ownership. The historical right is the theoretical basis of the historic waters, the historic waters are the object of the historical rights, and the historic bay is only one kind of the historic waters. The historical rights studied in this paper are limited to the rights of historic waters. The analysis of the elements of historical rights is helpful to the correct understanding of historical rights. Historical rights include two elements. The first element is the effective exercise (sovereignty-jurisdiction) of the claimant State over the claimed sea area. The effective act requires the behavior of the state or the state organ, and the effective act of the state must be an open act. The effective act means that the intention of the state must be clearly expressed through the act, and the exercise of the right has continuity and constitutes a general rule. The second element is tolerance on the part of other States with regard to the conduct of the asserting State. As far as the status of historical rights in international law is concerned, it concerns whether they constitute customary international law and their status in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. First, historical rights constitute customary international law. The main reasons are as follows: first, historical rights have the constitutive elements of customary international law, which are demonstrated and proved through long-term, universal and consistent state practice, while there are relevant judicial cases; Second, it is unreasonable to think that historic water rights are exceptions to customary international law. The premise of the exception is that there is a general existence before, since the historic water rights also have material and psychological elements, so it is difficult to call it an exception. Second, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not deny the existence of historic rights. Following the principle of the overall interpretation of the treaty, we can see that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not deny the existence of historical rights; In accordance with the principle of intertemporal law, the provisions of the act at the time of its occurrence shall apply to acts that occurred before the entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Therefore, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea cannot deny the territorial sovereignty acquired by a country on the basis of historical rights prior to its existence. Historic rights, if explicitly enshrined in UNCLOS, require stakeholder claims. As a form of territorial acquisition, historical rights are different from those obtained by statute of limitations and preemption.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D993.5
本文編號(hào)：2304080
[Abstract]:The issue of historic rights is not only a problem in international law, but also a hot issue in the law of the sea. The concept of historic right is intertwined with the concepts of historic bay, historic waters and historic ownership. The historical right is the theoretical basis of the historic waters, the historic waters are the object of the historical rights, and the historic bay is only one kind of the historic waters. The historical rights studied in this paper are limited to the rights of historic waters. The analysis of the elements of historical rights is helpful to the correct understanding of historical rights. Historical rights include two elements. The first element is the effective exercise (sovereignty-jurisdiction) of the claimant State over the claimed sea area. The effective act requires the behavior of the state or the state organ, and the effective act of the state must be an open act. The effective act means that the intention of the state must be clearly expressed through the act, and the exercise of the right has continuity and constitutes a general rule. The second element is tolerance on the part of other States with regard to the conduct of the asserting State. As far as the status of historical rights in international law is concerned, it concerns whether they constitute customary international law and their status in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. First, historical rights constitute customary international law. The main reasons are as follows: first, historical rights have the constitutive elements of customary international law, which are demonstrated and proved through long-term, universal and consistent state practice, while there are relevant judicial cases; Second, it is unreasonable to think that historic water rights are exceptions to customary international law. The premise of the exception is that there is a general existence before, since the historic water rights also have material and psychological elements, so it is difficult to call it an exception. Second, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not deny the existence of historic rights. Following the principle of the overall interpretation of the treaty, we can see that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not deny the existence of historical rights; In accordance with the principle of intertemporal law, the provisions of the act at the time of its occurrence shall apply to acts that occurred before the entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Therefore, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea cannot deny the territorial sovereignty acquired by a country on the basis of historical rights prior to its existence. Historic rights, if explicitly enshrined in UNCLOS, require stakeholder claims. As a form of territorial acquisition, historical rights are different from those obtained by statute of limitations and preemption.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D993.5
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條
1 黃遠(yuǎn)龍;國(guó)際法上的時(shí)際法概念[J];外國(guó)法譯評(píng);2000年02期
2 李浩培;論條約法上的時(shí)際法[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1983年06期
3 曹鑒燎;歷史性所有權(quán)原則與中國(guó)對(duì)南沙群島的主權(quán)[J];學(xué)術(shù)研究;2002年04期
4 劉江萍;郭培清;;加拿大對(duì)西北航道主權(quán)控制的法律依據(jù)分析[J];中共青島市委黨校.青島行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年02期
，本文編號(hào)：2304080
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2304080.html
最近更新
教材專著
