|
Dispute Settlement 2023
论海洋法历史性权利之“持续有效行使相关管辖权”要件
|
Abstract:
尽管学界和实践中对于历史性权利的内涵及构成要件持有不同意见,但通过对历史性权利的研究和表述进行分析,可以发现“持续有效行使相关管辖权”构成了历史性权利的核心要件。根据现有文件以及司法仲裁实践可以发现,这个公因式能被拆分出“管辖权的行使”“有效行使管辖权”以及“持续行使管辖权”三个方面,这三个方面分别对应不同的要点。管辖权的行使主要体现在国家对于历史性海湾、历史性水域以及历史性群岛水域主张特定的航海和渔业控制的行政管理。有效行使管辖权需注意公开权利主张,通常情况下外国的默认是产生历史性权利的必要条件。持续行使管辖权应保证时间上的连续性,至于需要多长时间应具体情况具体分析,原则是遵循已存在的法律效力或事实状态。
Despite the divergent views in academia and practice on the connotation and constituent elements of historical rights, an analysis of studies and expressions of historical rights reveals that the “continuous and effective exercise of relevant jurisdiction” constitutes the core element of historical rights. According to the existing documents and judicial and arbitration practice, it can be found that this common factor can be split into three aspects, namely, “exercise of jurisdiction”, “effective exercise of jurisdiction”, and “continuous exercise of jurisdiction”, which correspond to different elements respectively. Jurisdiction should be exercised primarily in the context of the administration of the state’s claim to specific navigational and fisheries controls over historic bays, historic waters, and historic archipelagic waters. Effective exercise of jurisdiction requires attention to the publicity of the claim, and foreign acquiescence is usually a necessary condition for the creation of historic rights. Continuous exercise of jurisdiction should ensure continuity in time, and the length of time required should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, following the principle of pre-existing legal effects or factual status.
[1] | United Nations (1962) Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, Including Historic Bays, Document A/CN.4/143. 13-20. |
[2] | Blum, Y.Z. (1984) Historic Rights. In: Bernhardt, R., Ed., Encyclopedia of Public International Law, In-stallment 7, North Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 120-121. |
[3] | Symmons, C.R. (2019) Historic Waters and Historic Rights in the Law of the Sea: A Modern Reappraisal. 2nd Edition, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004377028_002 |
[4] | 傅崐成, 崔浩然. 南海U形线的法律性质与历史性权利的内涵[J]. 厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2019(4): 66-75. |
[5] | 曲波. 海洋法中历史性权利构成要件探究[J]. 当代法学, 2012, 26(4): 3-9. |
[6] | Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) (1951) Judgment of December 18th 1951. I. C. J. Reports, 130. |
[7] | Bouchez, L.J. (1964) The Regime of Bays in International Law. Albertus Willem Sijthoff, 281. |
[8] | 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]. 青岛行政学院学报, 2010(2): 102-105. |
[9] | 刘惠荣, 刘秀. 北极群岛水域法律地位的历史性分析[J]. 中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版), 2010(2): 1-5. |
[10] | 冯寿波. 论海洋法中“历史性所有权”的构成要件[J]. 河北法学, 2018, 36(2): 83-97.
https://doi.org/10.16494/j.cnki.1002-3933.2018.02.008 |
[11] | The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (1953) Individual Opinion of Judge Levi Carneiro. I. C. J. Reports, 104-105. |
[12] | 方新军. 权利客体的概念及层次[J]. 法学研究, 2010, 32(2): 36-58. |
[13] | Stroll, M.P. (1963) The International Law of Bays. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 252. |
[14] | Roach & Smith (1994) United States Responses to Excessive Maritime Claims. 2nd Edition, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 36-37. |
[15] | 曲波, 于天一. 历史性权利的习惯国际法地位思考[J]. 大连海事大学学报(社会科学版), 2012, 11(2): 51-54. |
[16] | British Institute of International Affairs, and Royal Institute of International Af-fairs (1953) British Year Book of International Law (Vol. 30). H. Frowde, London, 29. https://doi.org/10.2307/2604714 |
[17] | Garner, B.A. (2009) Black’s Law Dictionary: Deluxe. 9th Edition, West Group, St. Paul, 1680. |
[18] | 李浩培. 论条约法上的时际法[J]. 武汉大学学报(社会科学版), 1983(6): 61-70. |
[19] | 游灶群, 王建廷. 从时际法的角度看南海仲裁案[J]. 亚太安全与海洋研究, 2017(6): 82-90+124-125. |
[20] | 李任远. 历史性权利法理基础研究——以海洋中历史性权利的产生与发展为视角[J]. 太平洋学报, 2015, 23(10): 8-17. |