南海争端的相关法律问题研究
|
摘要
南海争端,主要是指南海周边国家在南海各岛礁的归属以及海域划分问题上存在的分歧与争议。虽然南海争端真正引起人们的注意仅仅是从上世纪六、七十年代开始,但随着南海资源的重要性逐步被周边各国所认识,沿海各国对南海海域的权利主张也逐渐强硬,致使冲突不断。这些对抗除了各自的政治宣言、国内立法之外,期间也伴随着零星的军事对抗和准军事对峙,如中越海战、美济礁事件等等。长久以来,虽然有国际法学者和各国政府实务部门的不断努力,试图建立起一个有效的争端解决机制,但无奈效果并不理想,问题并未得到解决。近年来,南海争端不断升温,如：菲律宾宣布领海基线；马来西亚总理登上争议岛礁宣示主权；中越之间对对方石油勘探船的海上对抗,等等,使得世界的焦点再次聚焦在南海争端上来。
正是基于此,笔者选择南海争端的法律问题研究作为博士论文题目,希望就南海争端问题进行深入分析和探讨,寻找其症结并对其解决模式进行分析。文章分为引言、主体部分四章、以及结论来进行系统论述。
引言部分简要介绍了南海争端相关法律问题的缘起,介绍了目前国内外的研究背景,并对国内外的研究情况进行评述,进而提出本文的研究思路,结构安排和研究方法。
第一章为“南海争端的概述”。本章旨在对南海争端的相关事实问题进行总结,并对当前各国的权利主张进行了提炼和对比。具体内容涉及南海问题的历史由来、南海争端的现存状况、以及南海周边各国的权利主张三个方面。针对南海问题的历史由来,本章从众多历史事件中对其进行梳理,认为南海的历史可以分为三个时期,分别是旧中国时代的殖民与反殖民时期、二战后岛礁主权的侵蚀与反侵蚀时期、以及20世纪70年代后南海资源的掠夺与反掠夺时期,指出南海海域的复杂历史是当前南海争端形成的重要原因之一。对于南海争端的现存状况,本章第二节从南海岛礁的占领现状、南海油气资源的开发现状、南海周边各国的政策现状三个方面进行了论述,得出结论：目前南海岛礁占领情况混乱,各国的实际占领战况与其主权主张并不一致；南海油气资源开发正在加快,并且出现了国际化和合作化等特点；中国的南海政策体现了两面性,而其他周边各国的南海政策则注重巩固既得利益、加强军事建设和推动南海争端的国际化。最后,本章最后一节结合各国的历史文件和官方地图,以国别为基础对各国目前的南海主张进行了提炼和总结,清晰的展示了各国对南海的不同权利要求。
第二章为“南海争端中的岛礁主权争议”。本章主要对南海争端中的焦点问题——岛礁主权争端进行研究,试图弄清依照现存国际法对领土主权问题的相关规定,南海岛礁究竟应该归属哪个国家所有。本章首先对岛礁领土主权的国际法理论与实践进行了介绍,国际法理论部分涉及了先占、添附、时效、割让、征服等传统领土取得方式,又涉及了民族自决等新的领土取得方式；对岛礁领土主权的国际实践的分析则主要以相关岛礁主权争端的案例为基础,在简要介绍案情的同时对案件中体现的要点和规则进行了总结。在了解了岛礁领土主权的国际法规范后,本文结合南海岛礁主权的实际状况,对南海岛礁争端中应适用的法律问题进行了深入而系统的思考,提出在处理南海岛礁主权争端中,应该以时际法和衡平法为原则,同时注重区分权利取得和权利存续、区分私人行为与国家行为、有效控制规则、关键日期规则、禁止反言规则的作用,对南海岛礁的领土主权争端进行综合判断。最后,本章将上述分析结果具体运用到南海岛礁主权争端的处理之中,分别对中国和周边各国的主权理由进行了讨论,最终对南海岛礁主权的真正归属进行了界定,得出中国应该是南海岛礁的主权拥有国的结论。
第三章为“南海争端中的海洋划界争议”。本章对南海争端中的另一个重要问题——海洋划界争端进行研究,鉴于以往学界对南海划界问题的研究较少,本章也是本文的重点章节。本章首先对海洋划界的理论进行了总结,除了对海洋划界规则的演进和发展进行介绍外,第一节主要对海洋划界中经常提起的公平原则、大陆架延伸规则、等距离／特殊情况划界规则进行了分析。认为公平原则是海洋划界的最高原则,其他一切划界方法和规则都是对公平原则的具体阐释；加上南海的海洋划界争端十分复杂,因此坚持公平原则、合理利用各种划界方法在南海海洋划界中显得及其重要；大陆架延伸规则是从大陆架制度发展而来,现在海洋双边划界中已不再起主要作用；等距离／特殊情况规则是当前海洋划界中最常用的划界方法,但在具体适用中,应该注意特殊情况的例外是与等距离划界的同等地位,就不能固执的运用等距离划界单一划界方法。本章在第二节对南海划界中的重要前提问题——九段线的性质进行了分析。本节首先对比学界关于九段线的性质的讨论,然后在此基础上说明自己的观点和理由,并从历史性权利的构成要件入手对中国在南海海域历史性权利的合理性进行了详细的论证,得出中国在南海的历史性权利是完全合乎国际法的。最后,本章开始论证历史性权利在《联合国海洋法公约》中的地位,以及历史性权利在国际海洋法中的地位,用以回答历史性权利对南海海洋划界影响。进而得出历史性权利一方面得到了《联合国海洋法公约》的承认,公约的相关规定体现了对历史性权利的尊重；另一方面历史性权利制度本身就是国际习惯法,与《联合国海洋法公约》中规定的海洋划界制度是平行关系,海洋划界必须要考虑历史性权利的影响。所以,中国在南海海域的历史性权利不能被忽视或漠视,南海的海洋划界应该充分考虑中国的历史性权利,按照公平划界的原则,在南海周边各国自愿协议的基础上达成最终的划界结果。
第四章为“南海争端解决的现实选择”。本章对南海争端的解决路径和方法进行了思考,并为南海争端的最终解决提出了自己的制度构想。本章第一节是对南海争端的解决途径分析,重点分析了司法途径和外交途径解决南海争端的可能性,指出由于国际司法机构的管辖权限制,以及当事国主观上并不情愿将南海争端提交给司法解决的原,所以通过司法途径解决南海争端并不现实。相反,南海争端解决的外交途径则由于其自愿性和灵活性成为和平解决南海争端的唯一可行途径。本章第二节针对外交谈判建立南海共同开发制度的基本问题进行了分析,首先概况了共同开发的概念,总结和阐述了共同开发的四个基本特点；其次深入论述了在南海建立共同开发机制的必要性和可行性,指出共同开发是当今南海争端解决的现实选择。本章第三节结合了学界对共同开发制度的研究成果,联系南海争端的现实背景,提出了自己具体的构建方案。分别从南海共同开发的管理制度、合同的选择、以及适用的法律三方面提出了自己的观点和建议。
结语部分简单回顾了本文的主要观点,结合文章在写作过程中的感悟和心得,提出了一些值得进一步研究的问题。
South China Sea disputes, mainlymeansthe differences and disputesof Sea neighboring countries in the issue of the ownership of the South China Sea islands and reefs and waters divided. Although the South China Sea disputes really caught people's attention from the sixties and seventies of the last century, but with the importance of the South China Sea resources graduallyby neighboring countries known, coastal countries gradually have tougher claims in the South China Sea, resulting in conflicts continued. These confrontations in addition to cause the respective political manifesto, domestic legislation, in the period also accompanied by the sporadic military confrontation and paramilitary confrontation, such as the Sino-Vietnamese naval battle, Mischief Reef incident. For a long time, although there are the continuous efforts of the international law scholars and governments' substantive departments, trying to establish an effective dispute settlement mechanism, but the effect is not ideal, the issue has not been resolved. In recent years, the South China Sea dispute continues to heat up, such as:the Philippines announced the baselines of the territorial; Malaysian Prime Minister boarded the disputed islands and reefs declaration of sovereignty; between China and Vietnam against each other's oil exploration shipat sea, making the world's attention once again focused up in the South China Sea dispute.
Based on this, I chose the legal issues of the South China Sea dispute research as a doctoral thesis, andhope to conduct in-depth analysis and discussion of the problems of the South China Sea dispute, then find the crux of the problem and its solution to model analysis. The article is divided into an introduction, the main part with four chapters, and a conclusion to systematically discussed.
The introductory section provides a brief introduction to the origin of the South China Sea disputes related legal issues, and introduces the research background at home and abroad, reviews domestic and foreign research, and then puts forward the ideas, structural arrangements and research methods of this research.
The first chapter is an overview of the South China Sea dispute. The aim of this chapter is to summarize the question of factrelated to the South China Sea dispute,and to refine and contrast the current countries claims. Specific content involves the three areas which are the origin of the South China Sea issue's complex history, the existing state ofthe South China Sea, and the South China Sea neighboring countries claims.
For the history of the origin of the South China Sea issue, this chapter is from the many historical events to sort out that the history of the South China Sea can be divided into three typical periods which are the colonial and anti-colonial period in the old era, the erosion and anti-erosion period of the sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs after World War II, the South China Sea resources predatory and anti-predatory period in the late1970s, and points out that the complex history of the South China Sea is one of the important reasons for the formation of the South China Sea dispute. For the existing condition of the South China Sea dispute,section II of this chapter interprets from three aspects which are the status quo of South China Sea islands and reefs occupied, the status of the development of oil and gas resources in the South China Sea, the South China Sea neighboring countries policy status quo,then have conclusions:South China Sea islands and reefs occupied chaotically, countries in the actual occupation and its claim of sovereignty is not consistent; development of oil and gas resources in the South China Sea is being accelerated, and becoming international and co-operative; China's South China Sea policy reflects the two sides, and the other neighboring countries in the South China Sea policy focus on consolidating of vested interests and strengthening military construction and promoting the internationalization of the South China Sea dispute. On the claims in the South China Sea surrounding countries, the article combines with the historical documents and official maps, based on the country to the South China Sea claims the refining and summarized, clearly shows the different countries of the South China Sea claims.
The second chapter is about the reefs sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea dispute. This chapter focuses on the focus-reefs sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea dispute, trying to figure out in accordance with the relevant provisions of existing international law on the issue of sovereignty over the territory, the South China Sea islands and reefs what should be vested in all of which country. This chapter begins reefs territorial sovereignty of international law theory and practice introduced, in which the theoretical part of international law involving the preemptive and accretion, timeliness, ceded, conquered traditional territory to obtain, involved in new territories such as national self-determination to obtain; analysis of the international practice of the reefs territorial sovereignty is mainly based on the sovereignty dispute related reefs, presents a case based on a summary of the points and rules embodied in the case. After learning about reefs territorial sovereignty norms of international law, combined with the actual situation of the sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs, the article has an in-depth and systematic thinking of the law applicable to the dispute over the South China Sea islands and reefs, and puts forward that it should be the principle of Intertemporal law and equitablein the dispute over sovereignty in the South China Sea islands and reefs, while focusing on the role of the distinction between the right to obtain and rights subsisting, the distinction between private behavior and national acts, effectively control rules, the key date rules, estoppel rules, to make a comprehensive judgment of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs dispute. Finally, the article makes a concrete application of the results of the analysis to the handling of the dispute over sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs, discussesChina and neighboring countries sovereignty reasons, and ultimately definesthe truly belongs to the sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs.It is the conclusion that Chinais the Sovereign possessor States of the South China Sea islands and reefs.
The third chapteris maritime delimitation disputes in the South China Sea dispute. This chapter studies another important issue in the South China Sea dispute Maritime Delimitation Disputes, in view of the less previous academic research on the delimitation of the South China Sea, this chapter is also the focus of this article. This chapter begins with a summary of the theory of maritime delimitation, in addition to the introduction to the evolution and development of the maritime delimitation rules, the first section mainly analyses the principle of fairness, the continental shelf extends rule, equidistance/special circumstances the delimitation rulewhich are often brought on maritime delimitation. The principle of fairness is considered to be the highest principles of maritime delimitation, and other delimitation methods and rules are specific interpretation of the principle of fairness, coupled with the maritime delimitation disputes in the South China Sea is very complicated, so it's important to adhere to the principle of fairness and reasonable use of method of delimitation in the South China Sea maritime delimitation; extended continental shelf ruleis evolved from the continental shelf system, andno longer plays a major role in the bilateral maritime demarcation; equidistance/special circumstances rule is currently the most commonly used program in the maritime delimitation sector, but in a specific application, you should pay attention to the special circumstances exception equal status with equidistant delimitation cannot be stubborn use equidistant delimitation single method of delimitation. In the second section of this chapter, an important prerequisite in the South China Sea demarcation problem-the nature of the Kau line were analyzed. This section first compares academic discussion on the nature of the Kau line, on this basis explains their views and reasons, and detailed arguesthe rationality of the historical rights of China in the South China Sea from the historic rights of the constituent elements,then obtainsthat the historic rights of the Chinese in the South China Sea is fully in line with international law. Finally, the historical right position in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the historic rights in international law of the sea is demonstrated, to answer historic rights in the South China Sea maritime delimitation's influence. Concluded:on the one hand historic rights has been recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ", the provisions of the Convention reflects the respect the historic rights; On the other hand historic rights system itself is customary international law and a parallel relationship with the United Nations maritime delimitation system stipulated in the Convention on the Law of the Sea ", maritime delimitation must consider the impact of historic rights. Therefore, the historical rights of China in the South China Sea cannot be overlooked or ignored, the South China Sea maritime delimitation should take full account of the historic rights of the Chinese, to reach a final sector resultin accordance with the principle of fair delimitation and on the basis of voluntary agreements in the neighboring countries of the South China Sea.
The fourth chapter isthe realistic choice of the South China Sea dispute settlement. This chapter has a thinking of the solution path and method of the South China Sea dispute, and puts forward their own system concept for the final settlement of the South China Sea dispute. The first section of this chapter is the way to resolve the South China Sea dispute, the focus is the possibility of judicial means and diplomatic means to resolve the South China Sea disputes, studies have shown that due to the limit of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, as well as the State Party on the subjective is reluctant to submit the South China Sea dispute to judicial settlement, so through legal channels to solve the South China Sea dispute is not realistic. In contrast, the South China Sea dispute diplomatic settlement channels due to its voluntary and flexibility becomes the only possible way to solve the South China Sea dispute. Section Ⅱ of this chapter analysis basic problems through diplomatic negotiations to establish the joint development in the South China Sea system, firstly it generalizes the concept of open development, summarizes and elaborates jointly development's four basic characteristics; Secondly it in-depthdiscusses the necessity and feasibilityto establish a mechanism for the joint development in the South China Sea and points outthat joint development is the realistic choiceof today's South China Sea dispute settlement. Thirdsection of this Chapter combines the academic research jointly developed system, contacts the realistic background of the South China Sea dispute, puts forward own specific building program. This article puts forward theown views and suggestions from the management system of joint development in the South China Sea, the choice of the contract, as well as the applicable law.
The epilogue briefly reviews the main points of this article, combines with the insights and experiences obtained from the article writing process, and puts forward several problems worthy of further study.
正是基于此,笔者选择南海争端的法律问题研究作为博士论文题目,希望就南海争端问题进行深入分析和探讨,寻找其症结并对其解决模式进行分析。文章分为引言、主体部分四章、以及结论来进行系统论述。
引言部分简要介绍了南海争端相关法律问题的缘起,介绍了目前国内外的研究背景,并对国内外的研究情况进行评述,进而提出本文的研究思路,结构安排和研究方法。
第一章为“南海争端的概述”。本章旨在对南海争端的相关事实问题进行总结,并对当前各国的权利主张进行了提炼和对比。具体内容涉及南海问题的历史由来、南海争端的现存状况、以及南海周边各国的权利主张三个方面。针对南海问题的历史由来,本章从众多历史事件中对其进行梳理,认为南海的历史可以分为三个时期,分别是旧中国时代的殖民与反殖民时期、二战后岛礁主权的侵蚀与反侵蚀时期、以及20世纪70年代后南海资源的掠夺与反掠夺时期,指出南海海域的复杂历史是当前南海争端形成的重要原因之一。对于南海争端的现存状况,本章第二节从南海岛礁的占领现状、南海油气资源的开发现状、南海周边各国的政策现状三个方面进行了论述,得出结论：目前南海岛礁占领情况混乱,各国的实际占领战况与其主权主张并不一致；南海油气资源开发正在加快,并且出现了国际化和合作化等特点；中国的南海政策体现了两面性,而其他周边各国的南海政策则注重巩固既得利益、加强军事建设和推动南海争端的国际化。最后,本章最后一节结合各国的历史文件和官方地图,以国别为基础对各国目前的南海主张进行了提炼和总结,清晰的展示了各国对南海的不同权利要求。
第二章为“南海争端中的岛礁主权争议”。本章主要对南海争端中的焦点问题——岛礁主权争端进行研究,试图弄清依照现存国际法对领土主权问题的相关规定,南海岛礁究竟应该归属哪个国家所有。本章首先对岛礁领土主权的国际法理论与实践进行了介绍,国际法理论部分涉及了先占、添附、时效、割让、征服等传统领土取得方式,又涉及了民族自决等新的领土取得方式；对岛礁领土主权的国际实践的分析则主要以相关岛礁主权争端的案例为基础,在简要介绍案情的同时对案件中体现的要点和规则进行了总结。在了解了岛礁领土主权的国际法规范后,本文结合南海岛礁主权的实际状况,对南海岛礁争端中应适用的法律问题进行了深入而系统的思考,提出在处理南海岛礁主权争端中,应该以时际法和衡平法为原则,同时注重区分权利取得和权利存续、区分私人行为与国家行为、有效控制规则、关键日期规则、禁止反言规则的作用,对南海岛礁的领土主权争端进行综合判断。最后,本章将上述分析结果具体运用到南海岛礁主权争端的处理之中,分别对中国和周边各国的主权理由进行了讨论,最终对南海岛礁主权的真正归属进行了界定,得出中国应该是南海岛礁的主权拥有国的结论。
第三章为“南海争端中的海洋划界争议”。本章对南海争端中的另一个重要问题——海洋划界争端进行研究,鉴于以往学界对南海划界问题的研究较少,本章也是本文的重点章节。本章首先对海洋划界的理论进行了总结,除了对海洋划界规则的演进和发展进行介绍外,第一节主要对海洋划界中经常提起的公平原则、大陆架延伸规则、等距离／特殊情况划界规则进行了分析。认为公平原则是海洋划界的最高原则,其他一切划界方法和规则都是对公平原则的具体阐释；加上南海的海洋划界争端十分复杂,因此坚持公平原则、合理利用各种划界方法在南海海洋划界中显得及其重要；大陆架延伸规则是从大陆架制度发展而来,现在海洋双边划界中已不再起主要作用；等距离／特殊情况规则是当前海洋划界中最常用的划界方法,但在具体适用中,应该注意特殊情况的例外是与等距离划界的同等地位,就不能固执的运用等距离划界单一划界方法。本章在第二节对南海划界中的重要前提问题——九段线的性质进行了分析。本节首先对比学界关于九段线的性质的讨论,然后在此基础上说明自己的观点和理由,并从历史性权利的构成要件入手对中国在南海海域历史性权利的合理性进行了详细的论证,得出中国在南海的历史性权利是完全合乎国际法的。最后,本章开始论证历史性权利在《联合国海洋法公约》中的地位,以及历史性权利在国际海洋法中的地位,用以回答历史性权利对南海海洋划界影响。进而得出历史性权利一方面得到了《联合国海洋法公约》的承认,公约的相关规定体现了对历史性权利的尊重；另一方面历史性权利制度本身就是国际习惯法,与《联合国海洋法公约》中规定的海洋划界制度是平行关系,海洋划界必须要考虑历史性权利的影响。所以,中国在南海海域的历史性权利不能被忽视或漠视,南海的海洋划界应该充分考虑中国的历史性权利,按照公平划界的原则,在南海周边各国自愿协议的基础上达成最终的划界结果。
第四章为“南海争端解决的现实选择”。本章对南海争端的解决路径和方法进行了思考,并为南海争端的最终解决提出了自己的制度构想。本章第一节是对南海争端的解决途径分析,重点分析了司法途径和外交途径解决南海争端的可能性,指出由于国际司法机构的管辖权限制,以及当事国主观上并不情愿将南海争端提交给司法解决的原,所以通过司法途径解决南海争端并不现实。相反,南海争端解决的外交途径则由于其自愿性和灵活性成为和平解决南海争端的唯一可行途径。本章第二节针对外交谈判建立南海共同开发制度的基本问题进行了分析,首先概况了共同开发的概念,总结和阐述了共同开发的四个基本特点；其次深入论述了在南海建立共同开发机制的必要性和可行性,指出共同开发是当今南海争端解决的现实选择。本章第三节结合了学界对共同开发制度的研究成果,联系南海争端的现实背景,提出了自己具体的构建方案。分别从南海共同开发的管理制度、合同的选择、以及适用的法律三方面提出了自己的观点和建议。
结语部分简单回顾了本文的主要观点,结合文章在写作过程中的感悟和心得,提出了一些值得进一步研究的问题。
South China Sea disputes, mainlymeansthe differences and disputesof Sea neighboring countries in the issue of the ownership of the South China Sea islands and reefs and waters divided. Although the South China Sea disputes really caught people's attention from the sixties and seventies of the last century, but with the importance of the South China Sea resources graduallyby neighboring countries known, coastal countries gradually have tougher claims in the South China Sea, resulting in conflicts continued. These confrontations in addition to cause the respective political manifesto, domestic legislation, in the period also accompanied by the sporadic military confrontation and paramilitary confrontation, such as the Sino-Vietnamese naval battle, Mischief Reef incident. For a long time, although there are the continuous efforts of the international law scholars and governments' substantive departments, trying to establish an effective dispute settlement mechanism, but the effect is not ideal, the issue has not been resolved. In recent years, the South China Sea dispute continues to heat up, such as:the Philippines announced the baselines of the territorial; Malaysian Prime Minister boarded the disputed islands and reefs declaration of sovereignty; between China and Vietnam against each other's oil exploration shipat sea, making the world's attention once again focused up in the South China Sea dispute.
Based on this, I chose the legal issues of the South China Sea dispute research as a doctoral thesis, andhope to conduct in-depth analysis and discussion of the problems of the South China Sea dispute, then find the crux of the problem and its solution to model analysis. The article is divided into an introduction, the main part with four chapters, and a conclusion to systematically discussed.
The introductory section provides a brief introduction to the origin of the South China Sea disputes related legal issues, and introduces the research background at home and abroad, reviews domestic and foreign research, and then puts forward the ideas, structural arrangements and research methods of this research.
The first chapter is an overview of the South China Sea dispute. The aim of this chapter is to summarize the question of factrelated to the South China Sea dispute,and to refine and contrast the current countries claims. Specific content involves the three areas which are the origin of the South China Sea issue's complex history, the existing state ofthe South China Sea, and the South China Sea neighboring countries claims.
For the history of the origin of the South China Sea issue, this chapter is from the many historical events to sort out that the history of the South China Sea can be divided into three typical periods which are the colonial and anti-colonial period in the old era, the erosion and anti-erosion period of the sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs after World War II, the South China Sea resources predatory and anti-predatory period in the late1970s, and points out that the complex history of the South China Sea is one of the important reasons for the formation of the South China Sea dispute. For the existing condition of the South China Sea dispute,section II of this chapter interprets from three aspects which are the status quo of South China Sea islands and reefs occupied, the status of the development of oil and gas resources in the South China Sea, the South China Sea neighboring countries policy status quo,then have conclusions:South China Sea islands and reefs occupied chaotically, countries in the actual occupation and its claim of sovereignty is not consistent; development of oil and gas resources in the South China Sea is being accelerated, and becoming international and co-operative; China's South China Sea policy reflects the two sides, and the other neighboring countries in the South China Sea policy focus on consolidating of vested interests and strengthening military construction and promoting the internationalization of the South China Sea dispute. On the claims in the South China Sea surrounding countries, the article combines with the historical documents and official maps, based on the country to the South China Sea claims the refining and summarized, clearly shows the different countries of the South China Sea claims.
The second chapter is about the reefs sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea dispute. This chapter focuses on the focus-reefs sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea dispute, trying to figure out in accordance with the relevant provisions of existing international law on the issue of sovereignty over the territory, the South China Sea islands and reefs what should be vested in all of which country. This chapter begins reefs territorial sovereignty of international law theory and practice introduced, in which the theoretical part of international law involving the preemptive and accretion, timeliness, ceded, conquered traditional territory to obtain, involved in new territories such as national self-determination to obtain; analysis of the international practice of the reefs territorial sovereignty is mainly based on the sovereignty dispute related reefs, presents a case based on a summary of the points and rules embodied in the case. After learning about reefs territorial sovereignty norms of international law, combined with the actual situation of the sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs, the article has an in-depth and systematic thinking of the law applicable to the dispute over the South China Sea islands and reefs, and puts forward that it should be the principle of Intertemporal law and equitablein the dispute over sovereignty in the South China Sea islands and reefs, while focusing on the role of the distinction between the right to obtain and rights subsisting, the distinction between private behavior and national acts, effectively control rules, the key date rules, estoppel rules, to make a comprehensive judgment of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs dispute. Finally, the article makes a concrete application of the results of the analysis to the handling of the dispute over sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs, discussesChina and neighboring countries sovereignty reasons, and ultimately definesthe truly belongs to the sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs.It is the conclusion that Chinais the Sovereign possessor States of the South China Sea islands and reefs.
The third chapteris maritime delimitation disputes in the South China Sea dispute. This chapter studies another important issue in the South China Sea dispute Maritime Delimitation Disputes, in view of the less previous academic research on the delimitation of the South China Sea, this chapter is also the focus of this article. This chapter begins with a summary of the theory of maritime delimitation, in addition to the introduction to the evolution and development of the maritime delimitation rules, the first section mainly analyses the principle of fairness, the continental shelf extends rule, equidistance/special circumstances the delimitation rulewhich are often brought on maritime delimitation. The principle of fairness is considered to be the highest principles of maritime delimitation, and other delimitation methods and rules are specific interpretation of the principle of fairness, coupled with the maritime delimitation disputes in the South China Sea is very complicated, so it's important to adhere to the principle of fairness and reasonable use of method of delimitation in the South China Sea maritime delimitation; extended continental shelf ruleis evolved from the continental shelf system, andno longer plays a major role in the bilateral maritime demarcation; equidistance/special circumstances rule is currently the most commonly used program in the maritime delimitation sector, but in a specific application, you should pay attention to the special circumstances exception equal status with equidistant delimitation cannot be stubborn use equidistant delimitation single method of delimitation. In the second section of this chapter, an important prerequisite in the South China Sea demarcation problem-the nature of the Kau line were analyzed. This section first compares academic discussion on the nature of the Kau line, on this basis explains their views and reasons, and detailed arguesthe rationality of the historical rights of China in the South China Sea from the historic rights of the constituent elements,then obtainsthat the historic rights of the Chinese in the South China Sea is fully in line with international law. Finally, the historical right position in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the historic rights in international law of the sea is demonstrated, to answer historic rights in the South China Sea maritime delimitation's influence. Concluded:on the one hand historic rights has been recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ", the provisions of the Convention reflects the respect the historic rights; On the other hand historic rights system itself is customary international law and a parallel relationship with the United Nations maritime delimitation system stipulated in the Convention on the Law of the Sea ", maritime delimitation must consider the impact of historic rights. Therefore, the historical rights of China in the South China Sea cannot be overlooked or ignored, the South China Sea maritime delimitation should take full account of the historic rights of the Chinese, to reach a final sector resultin accordance with the principle of fair delimitation and on the basis of voluntary agreements in the neighboring countries of the South China Sea.
The fourth chapter isthe realistic choice of the South China Sea dispute settlement. This chapter has a thinking of the solution path and method of the South China Sea dispute, and puts forward their own system concept for the final settlement of the South China Sea dispute. The first section of this chapter is the way to resolve the South China Sea dispute, the focus is the possibility of judicial means and diplomatic means to resolve the South China Sea disputes, studies have shown that due to the limit of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, as well as the State Party on the subjective is reluctant to submit the South China Sea dispute to judicial settlement, so through legal channels to solve the South China Sea dispute is not realistic. In contrast, the South China Sea dispute diplomatic settlement channels due to its voluntary and flexibility becomes the only possible way to solve the South China Sea dispute. Section Ⅱ of this chapter analysis basic problems through diplomatic negotiations to establish the joint development in the South China Sea system, firstly it generalizes the concept of open development, summarizes and elaborates jointly development's four basic characteristics; Secondly it in-depthdiscusses the necessity and feasibilityto establish a mechanism for the joint development in the South China Sea and points outthat joint development is the realistic choiceof today's South China Sea dispute settlement. Thirdsection of this Chapter combines the academic research jointly developed system, contacts the realistic background of the South China Sea dispute, puts forward own specific building program. This article puts forward theown views and suggestions from the management system of joint development in the South China Sea, the choice of the contract, as well as the applicable law.
The epilogue briefly reviews the main points of this article, combines with the insights and experiences obtained from the article writing process, and puts forward several problems worthy of further study.
引文
① 郭文路,黄硕林.南海争端与南海渔业资源区域合作管理研究[M].北京：海洋出版社,2007：42.
② 于向东.古代越南的海洋意识[D],厦门：厦门大学,2008：157.
① 付崑成.南海法律地位之研究[M].台北：一二三咨询有限公司,1995：88-89.
② 钮仲勋,王平编.边界历史地理研究论从[M].北京：中国科学院地理研究所出版社,1986：160-162.
③ 李金明.抗战前后中国政府维护西沙南沙群岛主权的斗争[J].中国边疆史地研究,1998(3)：70.
④ 法占粤海九小岛,外交部抗议[N].申报,1933,7(27).
⑤Daniel J.Dzurek. The Spratly islands dispute:who's on first?[M]. UK:International Boundaries Research Unit, 1996:10.
① 李金明.抗战前后中国政府维护西沙南沙群岛主权的斗争[J].中国边疆史地研究,1998(3)：71.
② 李金明.抗战前后中国政府维护西沙南沙群岛主权的斗争[J].中国边疆史地研究,1998(3)：71.
① 张明亮.日本侵占中国西、南沙群岛及其后果[J].历史教学,2006(3)：26.
② 吴士存.南沙争端的由来与发展[M].北京：海洋出版社,1999：46.
③ 韩振华.南沙诸岛史地研究[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1996：87.
④ 王士录.当代越南[M].成都：四川人民出版社,1992：76-83.
⑤ 郭渊.南海地缘政治研究[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学出版社,2007：72.
⑥ 马燕冰,黄莺.列国志,菲律宾[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007：84-107.
① 大公报,1946,7(24).
② 中华人民共和国对外关系文件集(第四集)[M].北京：世界知识出版社,1958：61.
③ECAFE, Committee for Coordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in Asia Off-Shore Areas (CCOP).Technical Bulletin,1969:2.
①Chang, T.K. China's Claim of Sovereignty over Spratly and Paracel Islands:A Historical and Leagal Perspective[J]. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law,1991(23):407.
② 吴士存.南沙争端的由来与发展[M].北京：海洋出版社,1999：25-60.
③ 陈鸿瑜.南海诸岛主权与国际冲突[M].台北：幼师文化事业公司,1977：87.
④ 陈峰君.冷战后亚太国际关系[M].北京：新华出版社,1999：386.
①Prescott.在东南亚的海洋管辖权：注释和地图[M].东西方政策和环境研究所,1981.
② 常书.印度尼西亚南海政策的演变[J].国际资料信息,2011(10)：25-26.
① 杨胜雄.南沙海域油气勘查信息专报[M].广州：国土资源部广州海洋地质调查局信息资源所,2010.
① 成汉平.越南海洋安全战略构想及我对策思考[J].世界经济与政治论坛,2011(3).
① 鞠海龙.文莱海洋安全与实践[J].世纪经济与政治论坛,2001，9(5)：62.
② 日本与菲律宾外交官讨论南海领土纠纷解决方案[N].新加坡联合早报.2011,9(20).
① 贾宇.南海断续线的法律地位[J].中国边疆史地研究,2005,6(15)：115.
① 海洋法国际问题研究会.中国海洋邻国海洋法规和协定选编[Ml.北京,海洋出版社,1984：117-119.
② 陶辉玉.南中国海争端：越南的观点[J].美国亚洲评论,1994,12(4).
① 海洋法国际问题研究会.中国海洋邻国海洋法规和协定选编[M].北京,海洋出版社,1984：79-80.
① 高伟浓.东南亚国家的海洋法实践[J].东南亚研究,1996(2)：89.
① 海洋法国际问题研究会.中国海洋邻国海洋法规和协定选编[M].北京,海洋出版社,1984：113.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：113.
①Malcom N. Shaw. International Law [M]. Cambridge, Cambridge Press,2003:426
① 梁西.国际法M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：114.
②Ian Brownlie. Principle of Public International Law [M]. Oxford, Oxford Press,2003:129.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：115.
①Island of Palmas (Neth. V. U. S),2 R. International Arbitration Court. Awards 829 (Perm. Ct. Arb.1928)
②Sovereignty over Clipperton Island (Mex. V. Fr.),2 R. Int'l Arb. Awards 1105.1931.
①Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (Fr. V. U.K.). I. C. J.1953.
①Land, Island and Maritime Frontier (El Sal v. Hond.), I. C. J.1992.
①Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Bots. V. Namib.), I. C. J.1999.
① Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipatan (Indon. V. Malay.), I. C. J.2002.
② Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Brancha/Pulau Batu Puteh. Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Singapore v. Malaysia). I. C. J.2008.
① 王子昌.新马岛屿争端之判决：依据与启示[J].东南亚研究,2009,1.
② Award of the Island of Palmas Case [J]. American Journal of International Law,1928 (22):883.
② 黄远龙,国际法上的时际法概念[J],外国法译评,2000(5)：74.
① 胡侨.衡平法的道路[D].上海,华东政法大学,2009.
① 张文彬.衡平法与国际法明.外国法译评,1993,2：58.
① 杨翠柏.时际国际法与中国对南沙群岛享有无可争辩的主权[J].中国史地边疆研究,2003,1(11)：60.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：93.
① 曲波.国际法院解决岛屿主权争端适用的法律原则[J].法学杂志,2011,2：80.转引自A. L. W. Munkman. Adjudication and Adjustment- Internatioanl Judicial Decision and Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes. British Yearbook of Internatioanl Law. Vol 46,1972-1973:104
① Fitzmaurice. The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice [M]. Hague, Grotius Publications Limited,1996.
② Goldie. The Critical Date [J], International and Comparative Law,1963,10(12):1251.
① 史中伟.禁止反言在国际法中的适用问题研究[D].南昌,南昌大学,2009：2.
② Goerg Schwarzenberger. International Law [M], Steven and Sons Limited Law Publisher,1945:317.
③ R. Y. Jennings. The Acquisition of Territory in International Law [M]. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1961:41.
④ Ian Brownlie. Principle of Public International Law [M]. Oxford, Oxford Press,2003:712.
① 韩振华.我国南海诸岛史料汇编[M].北京：东方出版社,1988：25.
② 姚楠.南海贸易与南洋华人[M].香港：中华书局香港分局,1988：27-29.
③ Orent, Beatrice, Reinsch, Pauline. Sovereignty over Islands in the Pacific [J]. The American journal of international law.1941,7(35):443.
① 杨翠柏.发现与中国对南沙群岛的主权[J].社会科学研究,2003,2：6
②Lawrence B. Evans. Leading Case on International Law [M]. Chicago, Calleghen and Compancy,1922:283-284.
② 黄彩虹.遥远的国土[M].北京：海洋出版社,1991：46.
① 吴士存.南沙争端的起源与发展[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2010：87.
② 吴士存.南沙争端的起源与发展[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2010：108.
①Daniel J.Dzurek. The Spratly islands dispute:who's on first?[M].UK:International Boundaries Research Unit, 1996:16.
① 菲律宾外交部公布对南沙群岛立场的文件[N].参考资料,1987,12(5).
② Tao Cheng. The Dispute over the South China Sea Islands [J]. Texas International Law Journal,1975(10):270.
③ Yorac Haydee B. The Philippine Claim to the Spratly Island Group [J]. Philippine Law Journal,1983,58(2): 42-68.
①Year Book of International Law Commission,1953, Vol. II:213-216.
① 高建军.国际海洋划界论-有关等距离/特殊情况规则研究[M].北京,北京大学出版社,2005：19.
② 魏敏.海洋法[M].北京,法律出版社,1987：166.
① 王湘英,胡应志.国际法上的公平原则及其应用[J].法学评论,1990,4：143.
② 沈宗灵.比较法总论[M].北京,北京大学出版社,1987：172-173.
① The North Sea Continental Shelf Case. Para 91.
② The Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration. Para 97.
③he Tunisian-Libyan Continental Shelf Case. Para 70.
④Canadian-U.S. Maritime Boundary Case, the Gulf of Maine. Para 112.
⑤ The Libya-Malta Continental Shelf Case. Para 18.
⑥ The French-Canada Boundary Case, Para 38.
⑦ The Greenland and Jan Mayen Case, Para 67.
⑧ The Qatar-Bahrain Boundary Case, Para 231.
①The Cameroon-Nigeria Boundary Case, Para 294.
①《联合国海洋法公约》第76条第1款.
②《联合国海洋法公约》第74条第2款.
① 傅崐成.国际海洋法-衡平划界论[M].台北,三民书局,1992：17.
② 高健军.国际海洋划界论-有关等距离/特殊情况规则研究[M].北京,北京大学出版社,2005：11.
③《领海及毗连区公约》第12条。
①Year Book of International Law Commission,1956, Vol. II:213.
②Prescott V. Schofield C. The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World [M]. Martinus Nijhoff Pub,2005:216
① Yann huei Song. United States and Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea:A Study of Ocean Law and Politics [J], University of Maryland School of Law,2002:144
① 赵理海.海洋法问题研究[M].北京,北京大学出版社,1996：38.
② 韩振华.我国南海诸岛史料汇编[M].北京,东方出版社,1988：360.
① Zhiguo Gao. The South China Sea:From Conflict to Cooperation [J]. Ocean Development and International Law.1994,(25):346.
① 管建强.南海九段线的法律地位研究[J].国际观察,2012,4：18.
② 俞宽赐.我国南海U形线及线内水域之法律性质和地位[A].海南南海研究中心,海南暨南海学术研讨会论文集.2001：427-439.
①《联合国海洋法公约》,第10条第6款。
②《联合国海洋法公约》,第15条。
③ 萧波.元照英美法词典[M].北京,法律出版社,2003：641.
① 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.
②ICJ Reports.AngIo-Norwegian Fisheries Case:Judgment of 18 December 1951[R].1951:130.
② 刘楠来.国际海洋法[M].北京,海洋出版社,1986：19.
① 吴士存.南海争端的由来与发展[M].北京,海洋出版社,1999：25-60.
② 同上.
① 同上.
② 傅崐成.南中国海法律地位之研究[M].台北,一二三资讯出版社,1995.
① 曹鉴燎.历史性所有权原则与中国对南沙群岛的主权[J].学术研究,2002,4：87.
②O' Cornell. The International Law of the Sea [M]. Oxford, Oxford University Press,1989:420
② 黄异.海洋秩序与国际法[M].台湾,学林文化事业有效公司,2000：408.
①I. C. J. Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Judgment 1982 [R]. Separate Opinion of Judge Jimenez De Archaga, Para 80.
① Gidel. Le Droit International Public de la mer, Vol. Ⅳ [M].1934:621-623.
② International Court of Justice. Fisheries Case Report.1951:131.
③ International Court of Justice.Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Fisheries Case Report.1951. Vol II:302.
④ Gidel. Le Droit International Public de la mer, Vol. Ⅲ [M].1934:621-623.
① 雷筱璐.论中国在南海的主张[D].武汉,武汉大学博士学位论文,2012：41.转引自Les Baies Historiques, Melanges Georges Sause-Hall,1952:42.
①Intemational Court of Justice.Fisheries Case Report.1951:139.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：43.
② 刘楠来.国际海洋法[M].北京,海洋出版社,1986：19.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005年：344.
① 联合国海洋法公约,第287条。
① Daniel J.Dzurek. The Spratly islands dispute:who's on first?[M】. UK:International Boundaries Research Unit, 1996:24.
② Daniel J.Dzurek. The Spratly islands dispute:who's on first?[M]. UK:International Boundaries Research Unit, 1996:10
① 李金明.南海争端与国际海洋法[M].北京,海洋出版社.2003：66.
① 吴士存.聚焦南海-地缘政治/资源/航道[M].北京,中国经济出版社,2009：3.
② 中国渔业资源调查和区划编辑委员会.中国渔业区划[M].杭州,浙江科学技术出版社,1990：23-65.
③ 郭文璐.南海争端与南海渔业资源区域合作管理研究[M].北京,海洋出版社,2007：29.
①ainer Lagoni. Oil and Deposit Across National Frontier[J]. American Journal of International Law.1979,2(73): 215.
② Miyoshi M. The basic Concept of Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Resources in the Continental Shelf[J]. International Law Journal of Estuarine Coast Law,1988:50.
① Zhiguo Gao. The Legal Concept and Aspects of Joint Development in International Law [R]. Sino-Canadian Maritime Delimitation Technical Training Workshop. Beijing December 16-18,1998:112.
① 蔡鸿鹏.争议海域共同开发的管理模式：比较研究[M].上海,上海社会科学出版社,1998：14.
① 龚迎春.日本与多边海上安全的构建[J].当代亚太,2006,7：15-16.
① 孙炳辉.共同开发海洋资源法律问题研究[D].北京,中国政法大学,2000：58-66.
① 蔡鸿鹏.争议海域共同开发的管理模式：比较研究[M].上海,上海社会科学出版社.1988：40.
②R. Fabrikant. Production-sharing Contract in the Indonesian Petrodum Industry [J].International Law Journal. 1975:303-351,
①William T. Qnorato. Potential Joint Development of Methane Gas Resources of La Kivu [J]. International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1990,39:653.
① 于辉.共同开发海域矿物资源的国际法问题[J].中国国际法年刊,1994：56.
① Hazel Fox. Joint Development of offshore Oil and Gas [J]. British Institue of International and Comparative Law.1995:277
② O' Connell, P.J. The International Law of Sea [M]. Oxford, Clarenclon Press,1982:83.
1.北京大学法律系国际法教研室编：《海洋法资料汇编》,北京：人民出版社1974年版。
2.国家海洋局政策研究室编：《各国领海及毗连区法规选编》,北京：法律出版社1984年版。
3.刘振民编著：《海洋法基本文件集》,北京：海洋出版社2002年版。
4.中华人民共和国海事局：《联合国海洋法公约》,北京：人民交通出版社2004年版。
5.陈德恭编著：《国际海底资源与海洋法》,北京：海洋出版社1986年版。
6.陈德恭：《现代国际海洋法》,北京：海洋出版社2009年版。
7.傅崐成：《国际海洋法与渔权之争》,台北：123资讯有限公司1980年版。
8.傅崐成：《国际海洋法：衡平划界论》,台北：三民书局股份有限公司1992年版。
9.傅崐成等编译：《弗吉尼亚大学海洋法论文三十年精选集》,厦门：厦门大学出版社2010年版。
10.高建军著：《国际海洋划界论——有关等距离／特殊情况规则的研究》,北京：北大出版社2005年版。
11.高伟浓：《国际海洋法与太平洋地区海洋管辖权》,广东高等教育出版社1996年版。
12.高维新：《海洋法教程》,北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社2009年版。
13.高之国、贾宇、张海文主编：《国家海洋法的新发展》,北京：海洋出版社2005年版。
14.高之国、贾宇、张海文主编：《国际海洋法的理论与实践》,北京：海洋出版社2006年版。
15.高之国、贾宇、张海文主编：《国际海洋法发展趋势研究》,北京：海洋出版社2007年版。
16.黄异：《海域管理与行政法》,神舟图书出版有限公司2003年版。
17.李明春：《海洋权益与中国崛起》,北京：海洋出版社2007年版。
18.刘楠来等：《国际海洋法》,北京：海洋出版社1986年版。
19.屈广清主编：《海洋法》,北京：中国人民大学出版社2005年版。
20.(斐济)萨切雅·南丹主编：《1982年<联合国海洋法公约>评注》,焦永科 等译,北京：海洋出版社2009年版。
21.周忠海：《国际海洋法》,北京：中国政法大学出版社1987年版。
1.罗国强：“多边路径在解决南海争端中的作用及其构建”,载《法学论坛》2011年第4期。
2.蔡高强,高阳：“论解决南海争端的国际法路径”,载《湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2011年第2期。
3.余敏友,雷筱璐：“南海诸岛争端国际仲裁的可能性——国际法分析”,载《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2011年第1期。
4.董玉鹏：“论大陆架公有”,载《中国海洋法学评论》2006年第1期。
5.赵伟：“国际法院解决海洋争端的最新发展”,载《中国海洋法学评论》2006年第2期。
6.曲波：“对大陆架划界的几个问题的思考”,载《当代法学》2006年第4期。
7.关晶：“论国际海洋法法庭的临时措施管辖权”,载《中国海洋法学评论》2007年第1期。
8.赵理海：“关于南海诸岛的若干法律问题”,载《法制与社会发展》1995年第4期。
9.张东江,武伟丽：《论中日东海海域划界问题及其解决》,载《世界经济与政治》2006年第4期。
10.鞠海龙：《和平解决南海问题的现实思考》,载《东南亚研究》2006年第5期。
11.周琦,陈雪娇：《冷战后的亚太大国关系及其特点》,载《湘潭大学学报(社科版)》2006年第6期。
12.张欣：《国际海洋石油共同开发的法律问题研究及中国的开发现状》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2006年。
13.宋婷：《对中日东海大陆架共同开发问题的研究》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2006年。
14.何海榕：《南海困局的法律研究》,厦门大学硕士学位论文,2006年。
15.任卫东：《国家安全观的演变与重构》,载《人民论坛》2005年第2期。
16.管松：《共同开发模式初探：南中国海争端之解决》,载《中国渔业经济》2005年第5期。
17.蔡鹏鸿：《试析东亚海域争端及其解决思路》,载《现代国际关系》2005年第6期。
18.段小平：《南中国海问题治理的国际机制分析》,华中师范大学硕士学位论文,2005年。
19.周忠海：《论海洋法中的剩余权利》,载《中国政法大学学报》2004年第5期。
20.谢晓娟：《国际恐怖主义、新安全观与中国国家安全问题》,载《马克思主义与现实》2004年第6期。
21.王颖、马劲松：《南海海底特征、资源区位与疆界断续线》,载《南京大学学报(自然科学)》2003年第6期。
22.余民才：《跨界海洋石油储藏联合开发的法律分析》,载《清华法学(第二辑)》2003年。
23.秦晓程：《与海底资源共同开发有关的几个国际法问题》,载《政法论坛》2000年第1期。
24.王诗成：《欲国家富强不可置海洋于不顾(一)》,载《齐鲁渔业》2000年第17卷第1期。
25.廖文章：《海洋法上共同开发法制的形成和国家实践》,载《人文暨社会科学期刊》2000年第3卷第3期。
26.孙炳辉：《共同开发海洋资源法律问题研究》,中国政法大学博士学位论文,2000年。
27.于辉：《澳大利亚与印度尼西亚(帝汉缺口条约)述评》,载《中国国际法年刊》1999年。
1. Case concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic, Decision of 30 June 1977, reprinted in International Law Materials, Vol.18, 1979.
2. Case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Judgement of Mar.16,2001, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol. XL,2002.
3. Continental Shelf (Tunisia/ Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgement of Feb.24, 1982, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol.21,1982.
4. Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgement of June 3,1985, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol.24,1985.
5. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can. v. U. S.), Judgement of Oct.12,1984, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol.23, 1984.
6. Delimitation of the Maritime Area between Canada and France, Award of June 10,1992, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol.31,1992.
7. Philippe Cahier, The Sources of Law of Maritime Delimitation, in:Law of the Sea Institute (Honolulu, Hawaii), Conference (22nd:1988:Narrangansett, R. I.) on New Development in Maritime Science and Technology:Economic, Legal and Political Aspects of Change,1988.
8. The Single Maritime Boundary:Problems in Theory and Practice, Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute,1985.
9. United Nations Division Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs, The Law of the Sea:A Select Bibliography 2006, United Nations, New York,2008.
10. Acer Yucel, The Aegean Maritime Disputes and International Law, Ashgate, 2003.
11. Beurier, Jean-Pierre, Alexandre Kiss & Said Mahmoudi, New Technologies and Law of the Marine Environment, Kluwer law International,2000.
12. Hollis, Duncan B. & Merritt R. Blakeslee, National Treaty Law and Practice: Dedicated to the Memory of Monroe Leigh, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2005.
13. Hong, Nong, Law and Politics in the South China Sea:Assessing the Role of UNCLOS in the Ocean
14. Miles, Edward L., Global Ocean Politics:The Decision Process at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1998.
15. Molenaar, Erik Jaap, Coastal State Jurisdiction over Vessel-Source Pollution, Kluwer Law International,1998.
16. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Kluwer Law International,2000.
17. Moore, John Norton & Robert F. Turner, Readings on International Law from the Naval War College Review:1978-1994, Newport, R. I.:Naval War College, 1995.
18. Ngantcha, Francis, The Right of Innocent Passage and the Evolution of the International Law of the Sea:The Current Regime of 'Free' Navigation in Coastal Waters of the Third States, Pinter Publishers,1990.
19. Payoyo, Peter Bautista, Cries of the Sea:World Inequality, Sustainable Development and the Common Heritage of Humanity, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1997.
20. Pharand, Donat & Leanza, Umberto, The Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone Delimitation and Legal Regime, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.
21. Pineus, Kaj, International Maritime Law:Time-Barred Actions, Lloyd's of London Press Ltd.,1984.
22. Prescott, Victor and Clive Schofield, The Maritimw Political Boundaries of the World,2nd ed., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2005.
23. Prescott, Victor and Gillian D. Triggs, International Frontiers and Boundaries: Law, Politics and Geography, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
24. Symmons, Clive R., Historic Waters in the Law of the Sea:A Modern Re-Appraisal, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
25. Tan, Alan Khee-Jin, Vessel-Source Marine Pollution:The Law and Politics of International Regulation, Cambridge University Press,2006.
1. Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, "Semi-enclosed Troubled Water:A New Thinking on the Application of the 1982 UNCLOS article 123 to the South China sea", in Ocean Development and International Law,41 (2010).
2. Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, "South China Sea:Troubled Waters or a Sea of Opportunity", Ocean Development and International Law,41(2010).
3. Nguyen Hong Thao, "The 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Paries in the South China Sea:A Note", Ocean Development and International Law, 34(2003).
4. Nguyen Hong Thao, "A New Arrangement for the South China Sea", Ocean Development and International Law,40(2009).
5. David Rosenberg and Christopher Chung, "Maritime Security in the South China Sea:Coordinating Coastal and User State Priorities,"Ocean Development and International Law,39(2008).
6. Vijay Sakhuja, "Maritime Power of People's Republic of China:the Economic Dimension", Strategic Analysis:A Monthly Journal of the IDSA,26(February, 2001)
7. Chen Hurng-yu, "A Comparison Between Taipei and Peking in Their Policies and Concepts Regarding the South China Sea,"Issues and Studies,29,no. 1(2005).
8. Daniel J. Dzurek, "China Occupies Mischief Reef in Lateset Spratly Gambit,' Boundary and Security Bulletin 3, no.1(1995)
9. Hasjim Djalal, "The South China Sea-The Long Road Towards Peace and Cooperation," Secutiy and International Politics in the South China Sea: Towards a Co-operative Mangement Regime,2008
10. Nguyen Hong Thao, "Maritime Delimitation and Fishery Cooperation in the Tonkin Gulf," Ocean Development and International Law,36, no.1 (2005).
11. Brian McCartan, "Roiling the Waters in the Spratlys", Asia Sentinel.
12. J. M. Van Dyke and D.L. Bennett, "Islands and the Delimitation of Ocean Space in the South China Sea "Ocean Yearbook,10 (1993)
13. M. A. Massoud, M. D. Scrimshaw, and J. N. Lester, "Qualitative Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Mediterranean Action Plan:Wastewater Management in the Mediterranean Region", Ocean and Coastal Management,46 (2003).
14. Peter Hulm, "The Regional Seas Program:What Fate for UNEP's Crown Jewels?" Ambio 12, no 1(1983)
15. Marian A. L. Miller, "Protecting the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region:The Challenge of Institution-Building", Green Globe Yearbook 1996.
16. Bisessar Chakalall, Robin Mahon, Patrick McConney, Leonard Nurse, and Derrick Oderson, "Governance of Fisheries and Other Living Marine Resources in the Wilder Caribbean.,"Fisheries Research,87(2007).
17. Zuo keyuan, "South China Sea Studies in China:Achievements, Constraints and Prospects", in Singapore Year Book of International Law and Contributors, 2007.
18. Robert W. Smith, "Maritime Delimitation in the South China Sea:Potentiality and Challenges", Ocean Development and International Law,41(2010).
19. Peter Kien-Hong Yu, "Setting Up International Regimes in the South China Sea: Analyzing the Obstacles from a Chinese Perspective", Ocean Development and International Law,38(2007).
20. Peter Kien-Hong Yu, "Solving and Resolving the East China Sea Dispute: Beijing's Options "Korean Journal of Defense Analysis,17, no.3 (2005)
21. Li Jimming and Li Dexia, "The Dotted Line on the Chinese Map of the South China:A note" Ocean Development and International Law,34(2003).
22. Peter Kien-Hong Yu, "The Chinses U-shaped Line in the South China Sea: Points, Lines, and Zones,"Contemporary Southeast Asia,25 (2003)
23. Robert D. Hodgson, "Island:Normal and Special Circumstances", Law of Sea: Emerging Regime of the Oceans, Proceedings of the Law of the Sea Institute. 1974
② 于向东.古代越南的海洋意识[D],厦门：厦门大学,2008：157.
① 付崑成.南海法律地位之研究[M].台北：一二三咨询有限公司,1995：88-89.
② 钮仲勋,王平编.边界历史地理研究论从[M].北京：中国科学院地理研究所出版社,1986：160-162.
③ 李金明.抗战前后中国政府维护西沙南沙群岛主权的斗争[J].中国边疆史地研究,1998(3)：70.
④ 法占粤海九小岛,外交部抗议[N].申报,1933,7(27).
⑤Daniel J.Dzurek. The Spratly islands dispute:who's on first?[M]. UK:International Boundaries Research Unit, 1996:10.
① 李金明.抗战前后中国政府维护西沙南沙群岛主权的斗争[J].中国边疆史地研究,1998(3)：71.
② 李金明.抗战前后中国政府维护西沙南沙群岛主权的斗争[J].中国边疆史地研究,1998(3)：71.
① 张明亮.日本侵占中国西、南沙群岛及其后果[J].历史教学,2006(3)：26.
② 吴士存.南沙争端的由来与发展[M].北京：海洋出版社,1999：46.
③ 韩振华.南沙诸岛史地研究[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1996：87.
④ 王士录.当代越南[M].成都：四川人民出版社,1992：76-83.
⑤ 郭渊.南海地缘政治研究[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江大学出版社,2007：72.
⑥ 马燕冰,黄莺.列国志,菲律宾[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007：84-107.
① 大公报,1946,7(24).
② 中华人民共和国对外关系文件集(第四集)[M].北京：世界知识出版社,1958：61.
③ECAFE, Committee for Coordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in Asia Off-Shore Areas (CCOP).Technical Bulletin,1969:2.
①Chang, T.K. China's Claim of Sovereignty over Spratly and Paracel Islands:A Historical and Leagal Perspective[J]. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law,1991(23):407.
② 吴士存.南沙争端的由来与发展[M].北京：海洋出版社,1999：25-60.
③ 陈鸿瑜.南海诸岛主权与国际冲突[M].台北：幼师文化事业公司,1977：87.
④ 陈峰君.冷战后亚太国际关系[M].北京：新华出版社,1999：386.
①Prescott.在东南亚的海洋管辖权：注释和地图[M].东西方政策和环境研究所,1981.
② 常书.印度尼西亚南海政策的演变[J].国际资料信息,2011(10)：25-26.
① 杨胜雄.南沙海域油气勘查信息专报[M].广州：国土资源部广州海洋地质调查局信息资源所,2010.
① 成汉平.越南海洋安全战略构想及我对策思考[J].世界经济与政治论坛,2011(3).
① 鞠海龙.文莱海洋安全与实践[J].世纪经济与政治论坛,2001，9(5)：62.
② 日本与菲律宾外交官讨论南海领土纠纷解决方案[N].新加坡联合早报.2011,9(20).
① 贾宇.南海断续线的法律地位[J].中国边疆史地研究,2005,6(15)：115.
① 海洋法国际问题研究会.中国海洋邻国海洋法规和协定选编[Ml.北京,海洋出版社,1984：117-119.
② 陶辉玉.南中国海争端：越南的观点[J].美国亚洲评论,1994,12(4).
① 海洋法国际问题研究会.中国海洋邻国海洋法规和协定选编[M].北京,海洋出版社,1984：79-80.
① 高伟浓.东南亚国家的海洋法实践[J].东南亚研究,1996(2)：89.
① 海洋法国际问题研究会.中国海洋邻国海洋法规和协定选编[M].北京,海洋出版社,1984：113.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：113.
①Malcom N. Shaw. International Law [M]. Cambridge, Cambridge Press,2003:426
① 梁西.国际法M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：114.
②Ian Brownlie. Principle of Public International Law [M]. Oxford, Oxford Press,2003:129.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：115.
①Island of Palmas (Neth. V. U. S),2 R. International Arbitration Court. Awards 829 (Perm. Ct. Arb.1928)
②Sovereignty over Clipperton Island (Mex. V. Fr.),2 R. Int'l Arb. Awards 1105.1931.
①Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (Fr. V. U.K.). I. C. J.1953.
①Land, Island and Maritime Frontier (El Sal v. Hond.), I. C. J.1992.
①Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Bots. V. Namib.), I. C. J.1999.
① Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipatan (Indon. V. Malay.), I. C. J.2002.
② Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Brancha/Pulau Batu Puteh. Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Singapore v. Malaysia). I. C. J.2008.
① 王子昌.新马岛屿争端之判决：依据与启示[J].东南亚研究,2009,1.
② Award of the Island of Palmas Case [J]. American Journal of International Law,1928 (22):883.
② 黄远龙,国际法上的时际法概念[J],外国法译评,2000(5)：74.
① 胡侨.衡平法的道路[D].上海,华东政法大学,2009.
① 张文彬.衡平法与国际法明.外国法译评,1993,2：58.
① 杨翠柏.时际国际法与中国对南沙群岛享有无可争辩的主权[J].中国史地边疆研究,2003,1(11)：60.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：93.
① 曲波.国际法院解决岛屿主权争端适用的法律原则[J].法学杂志,2011,2：80.转引自A. L. W. Munkman. Adjudication and Adjustment- Internatioanl Judicial Decision and Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes. British Yearbook of Internatioanl Law. Vol 46,1972-1973:104
① Fitzmaurice. The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice [M]. Hague, Grotius Publications Limited,1996.
② Goldie. The Critical Date [J], International and Comparative Law,1963,10(12):1251.
① 史中伟.禁止反言在国际法中的适用问题研究[D].南昌,南昌大学,2009：2.
② Goerg Schwarzenberger. International Law [M], Steven and Sons Limited Law Publisher,1945:317.
③ R. Y. Jennings. The Acquisition of Territory in International Law [M]. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1961:41.
④ Ian Brownlie. Principle of Public International Law [M]. Oxford, Oxford Press,2003:712.
① 韩振华.我国南海诸岛史料汇编[M].北京：东方出版社,1988：25.
② 姚楠.南海贸易与南洋华人[M].香港：中华书局香港分局,1988：27-29.
③ Orent, Beatrice, Reinsch, Pauline. Sovereignty over Islands in the Pacific [J]. The American journal of international law.1941,7(35):443.
① 杨翠柏.发现与中国对南沙群岛的主权[J].社会科学研究,2003,2：6
②Lawrence B. Evans. Leading Case on International Law [M]. Chicago, Calleghen and Compancy,1922:283-284.
② 黄彩虹.遥远的国土[M].北京：海洋出版社,1991：46.
① 吴士存.南沙争端的起源与发展[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2010：87.
② 吴士存.南沙争端的起源与发展[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2010：108.
①Daniel J.Dzurek. The Spratly islands dispute:who's on first?[M].UK:International Boundaries Research Unit, 1996:16.
① 菲律宾外交部公布对南沙群岛立场的文件[N].参考资料,1987,12(5).
② Tao Cheng. The Dispute over the South China Sea Islands [J]. Texas International Law Journal,1975(10):270.
③ Yorac Haydee B. The Philippine Claim to the Spratly Island Group [J]. Philippine Law Journal,1983,58(2): 42-68.
①Year Book of International Law Commission,1953, Vol. II:213-216.
① 高建军.国际海洋划界论-有关等距离/特殊情况规则研究[M].北京,北京大学出版社,2005：19.
② 魏敏.海洋法[M].北京,法律出版社,1987：166.
① 王湘英,胡应志.国际法上的公平原则及其应用[J].法学评论,1990,4：143.
② 沈宗灵.比较法总论[M].北京,北京大学出版社,1987：172-173.
① The North Sea Continental Shelf Case. Para 91.
② The Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration. Para 97.
③he Tunisian-Libyan Continental Shelf Case. Para 70.
④Canadian-U.S. Maritime Boundary Case, the Gulf of Maine. Para 112.
⑤ The Libya-Malta Continental Shelf Case. Para 18.
⑥ The French-Canada Boundary Case, Para 38.
⑦ The Greenland and Jan Mayen Case, Para 67.
⑧ The Qatar-Bahrain Boundary Case, Para 231.
①The Cameroon-Nigeria Boundary Case, Para 294.
①《联合国海洋法公约》第76条第1款.
②《联合国海洋法公约》第74条第2款.
① 傅崐成.国际海洋法-衡平划界论[M].台北,三民书局,1992：17.
② 高健军.国际海洋划界论-有关等距离/特殊情况规则研究[M].北京,北京大学出版社,2005：11.
③《领海及毗连区公约》第12条。
①Year Book of International Law Commission,1956, Vol. II:213.
②Prescott V. Schofield C. The Maritime Political Boundaries of the World [M]. Martinus Nijhoff Pub,2005:216
① Yann huei Song. United States and Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea:A Study of Ocean Law and Politics [J], University of Maryland School of Law,2002:144
① 赵理海.海洋法问题研究[M].北京,北京大学出版社,1996：38.
② 韩振华.我国南海诸岛史料汇编[M].北京,东方出版社,1988：360.
① Zhiguo Gao. The South China Sea:From Conflict to Cooperation [J]. Ocean Development and International Law.1994,(25):346.
① 管建强.南海九段线的法律地位研究[J].国际观察,2012,4：18.
② 俞宽赐.我国南海U形线及线内水域之法律性质和地位[A].海南南海研究中心,海南暨南海学术研讨会论文集.2001：427-439.
①《联合国海洋法公约》,第10条第6款。
②《联合国海洋法公约》,第15条。
③ 萧波.元照英美法词典[M].北京,法律出版社,2003：641.
① 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.
②ICJ Reports.AngIo-Norwegian Fisheries Case:Judgment of 18 December 1951[R].1951:130.
② 刘楠来.国际海洋法[M].北京,海洋出版社,1986：19.
① 吴士存.南海争端的由来与发展[M].北京,海洋出版社,1999：25-60.
② 同上.
① 同上.
② 傅崐成.南中国海法律地位之研究[M].台北,一二三资讯出版社,1995.
① 曹鉴燎.历史性所有权原则与中国对南沙群岛的主权[J].学术研究,2002,4：87.
②O' Cornell. The International Law of the Sea [M]. Oxford, Oxford University Press,1989:420
② 黄异.海洋秩序与国际法[M].台湾,学林文化事业有效公司,2000：408.
①I. C. J. Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Judgment 1982 [R]. Separate Opinion of Judge Jimenez De Archaga, Para 80.
① Gidel. Le Droit International Public de la mer, Vol. Ⅳ [M].1934:621-623.
② International Court of Justice. Fisheries Case Report.1951:131.
③ International Court of Justice.Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Fisheries Case Report.1951. Vol II:302.
④ Gidel. Le Droit International Public de la mer, Vol. Ⅲ [M].1934:621-623.
① 雷筱璐.论中国在南海的主张[D].武汉,武汉大学博士学位论文,2012：41.转引自Les Baies Historiques, Melanges Georges Sause-Hall,1952:42.
①Intemational Court of Justice.Fisheries Case Report.1951:139.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005：43.
② 刘楠来.国际海洋法[M].北京,海洋出版社,1986：19.
① 梁西.国际法[M].武汉,武汉大学出版社,2005年：344.
① 联合国海洋法公约,第287条。
① Daniel J.Dzurek. The Spratly islands dispute:who's on first?[M】. UK:International Boundaries Research Unit, 1996:24.
② Daniel J.Dzurek. The Spratly islands dispute:who's on first?[M]. UK:International Boundaries Research Unit, 1996:10
① 李金明.南海争端与国际海洋法[M].北京,海洋出版社.2003：66.
① 吴士存.聚焦南海-地缘政治/资源/航道[M].北京,中国经济出版社,2009：3.
② 中国渔业资源调查和区划编辑委员会.中国渔业区划[M].杭州,浙江科学技术出版社,1990：23-65.
③ 郭文璐.南海争端与南海渔业资源区域合作管理研究[M].北京,海洋出版社,2007：29.
①ainer Lagoni. Oil and Deposit Across National Frontier[J]. American Journal of International Law.1979,2(73): 215.
② Miyoshi M. The basic Concept of Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Resources in the Continental Shelf[J]. International Law Journal of Estuarine Coast Law,1988:50.
① Zhiguo Gao. The Legal Concept and Aspects of Joint Development in International Law [R]. Sino-Canadian Maritime Delimitation Technical Training Workshop. Beijing December 16-18,1998:112.
① 蔡鸿鹏.争议海域共同开发的管理模式：比较研究[M].上海,上海社会科学出版社,1998：14.
① 龚迎春.日本与多边海上安全的构建[J].当代亚太,2006,7：15-16.
① 孙炳辉.共同开发海洋资源法律问题研究[D].北京,中国政法大学,2000：58-66.
① 蔡鸿鹏.争议海域共同开发的管理模式：比较研究[M].上海,上海社会科学出版社.1988：40.
②R. Fabrikant. Production-sharing Contract in the Indonesian Petrodum Industry [J].International Law Journal. 1975:303-351,
①William T. Qnorato. Potential Joint Development of Methane Gas Resources of La Kivu [J]. International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1990,39:653.
① 于辉.共同开发海域矿物资源的国际法问题[J].中国国际法年刊,1994：56.
① Hazel Fox. Joint Development of offshore Oil and Gas [J]. British Institue of International and Comparative Law.1995:277
② O' Connell, P.J. The International Law of Sea [M]. Oxford, Clarenclon Press,1982:83.
1.北京大学法律系国际法教研室编：《海洋法资料汇编》,北京：人民出版社1974年版。
2.国家海洋局政策研究室编：《各国领海及毗连区法规选编》,北京：法律出版社1984年版。
3.刘振民编著：《海洋法基本文件集》,北京：海洋出版社2002年版。
4.中华人民共和国海事局：《联合国海洋法公约》,北京：人民交通出版社2004年版。
5.陈德恭编著：《国际海底资源与海洋法》,北京：海洋出版社1986年版。
6.陈德恭：《现代国际海洋法》,北京：海洋出版社2009年版。
7.傅崐成：《国际海洋法与渔权之争》,台北：123资讯有限公司1980年版。
8.傅崐成：《国际海洋法：衡平划界论》,台北：三民书局股份有限公司1992年版。
9.傅崐成等编译：《弗吉尼亚大学海洋法论文三十年精选集》,厦门：厦门大学出版社2010年版。
10.高建军著：《国际海洋划界论——有关等距离／特殊情况规则的研究》,北京：北大出版社2005年版。
11.高伟浓：《国际海洋法与太平洋地区海洋管辖权》,广东高等教育出版社1996年版。
12.高维新：《海洋法教程》,北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社2009年版。
13.高之国、贾宇、张海文主编：《国家海洋法的新发展》,北京：海洋出版社2005年版。
14.高之国、贾宇、张海文主编：《国际海洋法的理论与实践》,北京：海洋出版社2006年版。
15.高之国、贾宇、张海文主编：《国际海洋法发展趋势研究》,北京：海洋出版社2007年版。
16.黄异：《海域管理与行政法》,神舟图书出版有限公司2003年版。
17.李明春：《海洋权益与中国崛起》,北京：海洋出版社2007年版。
18.刘楠来等：《国际海洋法》,北京：海洋出版社1986年版。
19.屈广清主编：《海洋法》,北京：中国人民大学出版社2005年版。
20.(斐济)萨切雅·南丹主编：《1982年<联合国海洋法公约>评注》,焦永科 等译,北京：海洋出版社2009年版。
21.周忠海：《国际海洋法》,北京：中国政法大学出版社1987年版。
1.罗国强：“多边路径在解决南海争端中的作用及其构建”,载《法学论坛》2011年第4期。
2.蔡高强,高阳：“论解决南海争端的国际法路径”,载《湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2011年第2期。
3.余敏友,雷筱璐：“南海诸岛争端国际仲裁的可能性——国际法分析”,载《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2011年第1期。
4.董玉鹏：“论大陆架公有”,载《中国海洋法学评论》2006年第1期。
5.赵伟：“国际法院解决海洋争端的最新发展”,载《中国海洋法学评论》2006年第2期。
6.曲波：“对大陆架划界的几个问题的思考”,载《当代法学》2006年第4期。
7.关晶：“论国际海洋法法庭的临时措施管辖权”,载《中国海洋法学评论》2007年第1期。
8.赵理海：“关于南海诸岛的若干法律问题”,载《法制与社会发展》1995年第4期。
9.张东江,武伟丽：《论中日东海海域划界问题及其解决》,载《世界经济与政治》2006年第4期。
10.鞠海龙：《和平解决南海问题的现实思考》,载《东南亚研究》2006年第5期。
11.周琦,陈雪娇：《冷战后的亚太大国关系及其特点》,载《湘潭大学学报(社科版)》2006年第6期。
12.张欣：《国际海洋石油共同开发的法律问题研究及中国的开发现状》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2006年。
13.宋婷：《对中日东海大陆架共同开发问题的研究》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2006年。
14.何海榕：《南海困局的法律研究》,厦门大学硕士学位论文,2006年。
15.任卫东：《国家安全观的演变与重构》,载《人民论坛》2005年第2期。
16.管松：《共同开发模式初探：南中国海争端之解决》,载《中国渔业经济》2005年第5期。
17.蔡鹏鸿：《试析东亚海域争端及其解决思路》,载《现代国际关系》2005年第6期。
18.段小平：《南中国海问题治理的国际机制分析》,华中师范大学硕士学位论文,2005年。
19.周忠海：《论海洋法中的剩余权利》,载《中国政法大学学报》2004年第5期。
20.谢晓娟：《国际恐怖主义、新安全观与中国国家安全问题》,载《马克思主义与现实》2004年第6期。
21.王颖、马劲松：《南海海底特征、资源区位与疆界断续线》,载《南京大学学报(自然科学)》2003年第6期。
22.余民才：《跨界海洋石油储藏联合开发的法律分析》,载《清华法学(第二辑)》2003年。
23.秦晓程：《与海底资源共同开发有关的几个国际法问题》,载《政法论坛》2000年第1期。
24.王诗成：《欲国家富强不可置海洋于不顾(一)》,载《齐鲁渔业》2000年第17卷第1期。
25.廖文章：《海洋法上共同开发法制的形成和国家实践》,载《人文暨社会科学期刊》2000年第3卷第3期。
26.孙炳辉：《共同开发海洋资源法律问题研究》,中国政法大学博士学位论文,2000年。
27.于辉：《澳大利亚与印度尼西亚(帝汉缺口条约)述评》,载《中国国际法年刊》1999年。
1. Case concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic, Decision of 30 June 1977, reprinted in International Law Materials, Vol.18, 1979.
2. Case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Judgement of Mar.16,2001, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol. XL,2002.
3. Continental Shelf (Tunisia/ Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgement of Feb.24, 1982, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol.21,1982.
4. Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgement of June 3,1985, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol.24,1985.
5. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can. v. U. S.), Judgement of Oct.12,1984, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol.23, 1984.
6. Delimitation of the Maritime Area between Canada and France, Award of June 10,1992, reprinted in International Law Materials Vol.31,1992.
7. Philippe Cahier, The Sources of Law of Maritime Delimitation, in:Law of the Sea Institute (Honolulu, Hawaii), Conference (22nd:1988:Narrangansett, R. I.) on New Development in Maritime Science and Technology:Economic, Legal and Political Aspects of Change,1988.
8. The Single Maritime Boundary:Problems in Theory and Practice, Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute,1985.
9. United Nations Division Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs, The Law of the Sea:A Select Bibliography 2006, United Nations, New York,2008.
10. Acer Yucel, The Aegean Maritime Disputes and International Law, Ashgate, 2003.
11. Beurier, Jean-Pierre, Alexandre Kiss & Said Mahmoudi, New Technologies and Law of the Marine Environment, Kluwer law International,2000.
12. Hollis, Duncan B. & Merritt R. Blakeslee, National Treaty Law and Practice: Dedicated to the Memory of Monroe Leigh, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2005.
13. Hong, Nong, Law and Politics in the South China Sea:Assessing the Role of UNCLOS in the Ocean
14. Miles, Edward L., Global Ocean Politics:The Decision Process at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1998.
15. Molenaar, Erik Jaap, Coastal State Jurisdiction over Vessel-Source Pollution, Kluwer Law International,1998.
16. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Kluwer Law International,2000.
17. Moore, John Norton & Robert F. Turner, Readings on International Law from the Naval War College Review:1978-1994, Newport, R. I.:Naval War College, 1995.
18. Ngantcha, Francis, The Right of Innocent Passage and the Evolution of the International Law of the Sea:The Current Regime of 'Free' Navigation in Coastal Waters of the Third States, Pinter Publishers,1990.
19. Payoyo, Peter Bautista, Cries of the Sea:World Inequality, Sustainable Development and the Common Heritage of Humanity, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1997.
20. Pharand, Donat & Leanza, Umberto, The Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone Delimitation and Legal Regime, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.
21. Pineus, Kaj, International Maritime Law:Time-Barred Actions, Lloyd's of London Press Ltd.,1984.
22. Prescott, Victor and Clive Schofield, The Maritimw Political Boundaries of the World,2nd ed., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2005.
23. Prescott, Victor and Gillian D. Triggs, International Frontiers and Boundaries: Law, Politics and Geography, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
24. Symmons, Clive R., Historic Waters in the Law of the Sea:A Modern Re-Appraisal, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
25. Tan, Alan Khee-Jin, Vessel-Source Marine Pollution:The Law and Politics of International Regulation, Cambridge University Press,2006.
1. Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, "Semi-enclosed Troubled Water:A New Thinking on the Application of the 1982 UNCLOS article 123 to the South China sea", in Ocean Development and International Law,41 (2010).
2. Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, "South China Sea:Troubled Waters or a Sea of Opportunity", Ocean Development and International Law,41(2010).
3. Nguyen Hong Thao, "The 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Paries in the South China Sea:A Note", Ocean Development and International Law, 34(2003).
4. Nguyen Hong Thao, "A New Arrangement for the South China Sea", Ocean Development and International Law,40(2009).
5. David Rosenberg and Christopher Chung, "Maritime Security in the South China Sea:Coordinating Coastal and User State Priorities,"Ocean Development and International Law,39(2008).
6. Vijay Sakhuja, "Maritime Power of People's Republic of China:the Economic Dimension", Strategic Analysis:A Monthly Journal of the IDSA,26(February, 2001)
7. Chen Hurng-yu, "A Comparison Between Taipei and Peking in Their Policies and Concepts Regarding the South China Sea,"Issues and Studies,29,no. 1(2005).
8. Daniel J. Dzurek, "China Occupies Mischief Reef in Lateset Spratly Gambit,' Boundary and Security Bulletin 3, no.1(1995)
9. Hasjim Djalal, "The South China Sea-The Long Road Towards Peace and Cooperation," Secutiy and International Politics in the South China Sea: Towards a Co-operative Mangement Regime,2008
10. Nguyen Hong Thao, "Maritime Delimitation and Fishery Cooperation in the Tonkin Gulf," Ocean Development and International Law,36, no.1 (2005).
11. Brian McCartan, "Roiling the Waters in the Spratlys", Asia Sentinel.
12. J. M. Van Dyke and D.L. Bennett, "Islands and the Delimitation of Ocean Space in the South China Sea "Ocean Yearbook,10 (1993)
13. M. A. Massoud, M. D. Scrimshaw, and J. N. Lester, "Qualitative Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Mediterranean Action Plan:Wastewater Management in the Mediterranean Region", Ocean and Coastal Management,46 (2003).
14. Peter Hulm, "The Regional Seas Program:What Fate for UNEP's Crown Jewels?" Ambio 12, no 1(1983)
15. Marian A. L. Miller, "Protecting the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region:The Challenge of Institution-Building", Green Globe Yearbook 1996.
16. Bisessar Chakalall, Robin Mahon, Patrick McConney, Leonard Nurse, and Derrick Oderson, "Governance of Fisheries and Other Living Marine Resources in the Wilder Caribbean.,"Fisheries Research,87(2007).
17. Zuo keyuan, "South China Sea Studies in China:Achievements, Constraints and Prospects", in Singapore Year Book of International Law and Contributors, 2007.
18. Robert W. Smith, "Maritime Delimitation in the South China Sea:Potentiality and Challenges", Ocean Development and International Law,41(2010).
19. Peter Kien-Hong Yu, "Setting Up International Regimes in the South China Sea: Analyzing the Obstacles from a Chinese Perspective", Ocean Development and International Law,38(2007).
20. Peter Kien-Hong Yu, "Solving and Resolving the East China Sea Dispute: Beijing's Options "Korean Journal of Defense Analysis,17, no.3 (2005)
21. Li Jimming and Li Dexia, "The Dotted Line on the Chinese Map of the South China:A note" Ocean Development and International Law,34(2003).
22. Peter Kien-Hong Yu, "The Chinses U-shaped Line in the South China Sea: Points, Lines, and Zones,"Contemporary Southeast Asia,25 (2003)
23. Robert D. Hodgson, "Island:Normal and Special Circumstances", Law of Sea: Emerging Regime of the Oceans, Proceedings of the Law of the Sea Institute. 1974