关键日期视角下的钓鱼岛领土主权争端分析
|
摘要
关键日期是以争端中特定时间前的法律情势作为确定待查事实范围和评估争端可诉性的标准和尺度。钓鱼岛领土主权争端可从权利取得和权利转移两个层面来看待。中日的领土取得主张在日本声称实施先占时形成对立。在领土主权变更问题上,中日实际上没有对领土主权转移形成主张对立,无须为此再确定关键日期。钓鱼岛领土主权争端可以日本阁议决定先占的时间作为关键日期。由此,中国主张的证据可采性和证明力优于日本主张的证据,日本所谓"有效控制"行为不具有证据效力。
The critical date serves as a criterion for determining the scope of the facts to be investigated and assessing the suitability of disputes by the legal situation prior to the specific time of disputes. The disputes over territorial sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands can be viewed from two perspectives namely the acquisition of right and the transfer of right. From the former perspective,there has been an opposition between claims of the acquisition of territorial sovereignty of China and Japan when Japan declared the occupation. From the later perspective,China and Japan have never actually had a confrontation in terms of the transfer of the territorial sovereignty,and there is no need to determine the critical date relating to it. The critical date of the dispute over the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands can be the date on which the Japanese cabinet declared the occupation of the islands. According to that critical date,the admissibility of the evidence provided by China will be superior to that by Japan,and Japan's so-called effectivites will not have admissibility of evidence.
The critical date serves as a criterion for determining the scope of the facts to be investigated and assessing the suitability of disputes by the legal situation prior to the specific time of disputes. The disputes over territorial sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands can be viewed from two perspectives namely the acquisition of right and the transfer of right. From the former perspective,there has been an opposition between claims of the acquisition of territorial sovereignty of China and Japan when Japan declared the occupation. From the later perspective,China and Japan have never actually had a confrontation in terms of the transfer of the territorial sovereignty,and there is no need to determine the critical date relating to it. The critical date of the dispute over the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands can be the date on which the Japanese cabinet declared the occupation of the islands. According to that critical date,the admissibility of the evidence provided by China will be superior to that by Japan,and Japan's so-called effectivites will not have admissibility of evidence.
引文
(1)弗里德里希·卡尔·冯·萨维尼:《法律冲突与法律规则的地域与时间范围》,李双元等译,北京:法律出版社,1999年,第2—3页。
(2)Island of Palmas Case(Netherlands, U. S. A.), Award of 4 April 1928, R. I. A. A.(Reports of International Arbitral Awards),Vol. II,p. 839.
(3)Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,p. 21.
(4)Argentine-Chile Frontier Case(Argentine, Chile), Award of 9 December 1966, R. I. A. A.,Vol. XVI,p. 166.
(5)Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan(Indonesia/Malaysia),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports(Report of the International Court of Justice)2002,p. 682.
(1)Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea(Nicaragua v. Honduras),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 2007,pp. 697-8.
(2)D. H. N. Johnson,“Acquisitive Prescription in International Law”,British Yearbook of International Law,Vol. 27,1950,p. 342.
(3)L. F. E. Goldie,“The Critical Date”,The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Vol. 12,Issue 4,1963,p. 1251.
(4)张新军:《权利对抗构造中的争端:东海大陆架问题研究》,北京:法律出版社,2011年,第207页。
(5)刘文宗:《中国对钓鱼列岛主权具有无可争辩的历史和法理依据》,《法制日报》1996年11月1日。
(6)张卫彬:《国际法院证据问题研究——以领土边界争端为视角》,北京:法律出版社,2012年,第68页。
(7)Phosphates in Morocco(Italy v. French),Judgment of June 14th 1938,P. C. I. J.(Permanent Court of International Justice)Series A/B,No. 74.
(1)Case concerning Right of Passage over India Territory(Merits), Judgment of 12 April 1960,I. C. J. Reports 1960,p. 35.
(2)Rosalyn Higgins,“Time and the Law:International Perspectives on an Old Problem”,International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Vol. 46,Issue 3,1997,p. 501.
(3)L. F. E. Goldie,“Historic Bays in International Law—An Impressionistic Overview”, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce,Vol. 11,Issue 2,1984,p. 257.
(4)伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,北京:法律出版社,2002年,第143页。
(5)Argentine-Chile Frontier Case(Argentine, Chile), Award of 9 December 1966, R. I. A. A.,Vol. XVI,pp. 166-7.
(1)聚焦原则指案中存在着某项条约或事件,它们一定决定了案件的法律情势,因为它们聚焦于明确的争论问题。参见:Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,p. 22。
(2)Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,pp. 23-4.
(3)赵静:《领土争端中的关键日期问题——我国南沙群岛争端关键日期确定的考察》,《湖北师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2015年第3期。
(4)The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions(Greece v. U. K.), Judgment of 30 August 1924,P. C. I. J. Series A,No. 2,p. 11.
(1)R. Y. Jennings,The Acquisition of Territory in International Law,Manchester University Press,1963,p. 34.
(2)Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,p. 23.
(3)L. F. E. Goldie,“The Critical Date”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 12,Issue 4,1963,p. 1254.
(1)Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea(Nicaragua v. Honduras),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 2007,pp. 700-1.
(2)Case concerning the Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary(Rann of Kutch)between India and Pakistan,Award of 19 February 1968,R. I. A. A.,Vol. XVII; Case concerning the Location of Boundary Markers in Taba between Egypt and Israel, Decision of 29 September 1988, R. I. A. A., Vol. XX; Kasikili/Sedudu Island(Botswana/Namibia),Dissenting Opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren,Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 1999,p. 1208.
(3)国际法院所受理的有关非洲殖民地独立的边界争端案,原则上都是以独立的时间为关键日期来判断边界状况。参见:Frontier Dispute,Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 1986,p. 570; Frontier Dispute(Benin/Niger),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 2005,p. 90; Frontier Dispute(Burkina Faso/Niger),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 2013,p. 44。
(1)Yehuda Z. Blum,Historic Titles in International Law,Martinus Nijhoff,1965,p. 210.
(2)Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,p. 21.
(3)“帕尔马斯岛案”裁决首次在国际司法判例中提出了关键日期,确定了以领土割让条约的缔结时间为关键日期,排除了该日期之后的证据。参见:Island of Palmas Case(Netherlands,U. S. A.),Award of 4 April 1928,R. I. A. A.,Vol. II,p. 843。“东格陵兰法律地位案”的判决,以挪威作出先占声明的日期为关键日期,来查明当时丹麦和挪威对争议领土的权利状况。参见:Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(Danmark v. Norway),Judgment of April 5th 1933,P. C. I. J. Series A/B,No. 53,p. 45。“明基埃和埃克荷斯群岛案”判例提出以争端具体化来确定关键日期、考察案件证据的法律效力。参见:The Minquiers and Ecrehos case,Judgment of November 17th 1953,I. C. J. Reports 1953,p. 59。
(1)国务院新闻办公室:《钓鱼岛是中国的固有领土》,北京:人民出版社,2012年。台湾地区与中国大陆在钓鱼岛的主权论据与理由上立场基本一致。台湾当局的立场文件主要包括:《釣魚臺列嶼是中華民國的固有領土》(2012年4月3日)、《中華民國對釣魚臺列嶼的主權主張與東海和平倡議》(2013年8月6日)、《中華民國對釣魚臺列嶼主權的立場與主張》(2014年2月5日)。参见台湾“外交部”网, https://www. mofa. gov. tw/Newsnodept. aspx? n=C641B6979A7897C0&sms=60ECE8A8F0DB165D[2018-09-05]。
(2)#12
(1)#12
(2)任虎:《领土争端中“关键日期”问题研究》,《华东理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2011年第5期。
(1)尹立杰:《试论钓鱼岛领土争端》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2002年,第15页。
(2)Yoshiro Matsu,i“International Law of Territorial Acquisition and the Dispute over the Senkaku(Diaoyu)Islands”,Japanese Annual of International Law,Vol. 40,1997,p. 7.
(1)李浩培:《条约法概论》,北京:法律出版社,2003年,第1页。
(2)Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito,October 1,1972,https://treaties. un. org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20841/volume-841-i-12037-english. pdf[2018-09-06].
(3)Treaty of Peace with Japan,September 8,1951,https://treaties. un. org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20136/volume-136-I-1832-English. pdf[2018-09-06].
(1)#12
(1)Frontier Dispute,Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 1986,p. 587.
(1)中国国际法学会:《南海仲裁案裁决之批判》,北京:外文出版社,2018年,第27页。
(2)“Declarations Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court Japan”,October 6,2015,https://www. icj-cij. org/en/declarations/jp[2019-02-19].
(2)Island of Palmas Case(Netherlands, U. S. A.), Award of 4 April 1928, R. I. A. A.(Reports of International Arbitral Awards),Vol. II,p. 839.
(3)Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,p. 21.
(4)Argentine-Chile Frontier Case(Argentine, Chile), Award of 9 December 1966, R. I. A. A.,Vol. XVI,p. 166.
(5)Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan(Indonesia/Malaysia),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports(Report of the International Court of Justice)2002,p. 682.
(1)Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea(Nicaragua v. Honduras),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 2007,pp. 697-8.
(2)D. H. N. Johnson,“Acquisitive Prescription in International Law”,British Yearbook of International Law,Vol. 27,1950,p. 342.
(3)L. F. E. Goldie,“The Critical Date”,The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Vol. 12,Issue 4,1963,p. 1251.
(4)张新军:《权利对抗构造中的争端:东海大陆架问题研究》,北京:法律出版社,2011年,第207页。
(5)刘文宗:《中国对钓鱼列岛主权具有无可争辩的历史和法理依据》,《法制日报》1996年11月1日。
(6)张卫彬:《国际法院证据问题研究——以领土边界争端为视角》,北京:法律出版社,2012年,第68页。
(7)Phosphates in Morocco(Italy v. French),Judgment of June 14th 1938,P. C. I. J.(Permanent Court of International Justice)Series A/B,No. 74.
(1)Case concerning Right of Passage over India Territory(Merits), Judgment of 12 April 1960,I. C. J. Reports 1960,p. 35.
(2)Rosalyn Higgins,“Time and the Law:International Perspectives on an Old Problem”,International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Vol. 46,Issue 3,1997,p. 501.
(3)L. F. E. Goldie,“Historic Bays in International Law—An Impressionistic Overview”, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce,Vol. 11,Issue 2,1984,p. 257.
(4)伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,北京:法律出版社,2002年,第143页。
(5)Argentine-Chile Frontier Case(Argentine, Chile), Award of 9 December 1966, R. I. A. A.,Vol. XVI,pp. 166-7.
(1)聚焦原则指案中存在着某项条约或事件,它们一定决定了案件的法律情势,因为它们聚焦于明确的争论问题。参见:Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,p. 22。
(2)Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,pp. 23-4.
(3)赵静:《领土争端中的关键日期问题——我国南沙群岛争端关键日期确定的考察》,《湖北师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2015年第3期。
(4)The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions(Greece v. U. K.), Judgment of 30 August 1924,P. C. I. J. Series A,No. 2,p. 11.
(1)R. Y. Jennings,The Acquisition of Territory in International Law,Manchester University Press,1963,p. 34.
(2)Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,p. 23.
(3)L. F. E. Goldie,“The Critical Date”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 12,Issue 4,1963,p. 1254.
(1)Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea(Nicaragua v. Honduras),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 2007,pp. 700-1.
(2)Case concerning the Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary(Rann of Kutch)between India and Pakistan,Award of 19 February 1968,R. I. A. A.,Vol. XVII; Case concerning the Location of Boundary Markers in Taba between Egypt and Israel, Decision of 29 September 1988, R. I. A. A., Vol. XX; Kasikili/Sedudu Island(Botswana/Namibia),Dissenting Opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren,Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 1999,p. 1208.
(3)国际法院所受理的有关非洲殖民地独立的边界争端案,原则上都是以独立的时间为关键日期来判断边界状况。参见:Frontier Dispute,Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 1986,p. 570; Frontier Dispute(Benin/Niger),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 2005,p. 90; Frontier Dispute(Burkina Faso/Niger),Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 2013,p. 44。
(1)Yehuda Z. Blum,Historic Titles in International Law,Martinus Nijhoff,1965,p. 210.
(2)Gerald Fitzmaurice,“The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,1951-4:Points of Substantive Law. Part II”,British Year Book of International Law,Vol. 32,1955-1956,p. 21.
(3)“帕尔马斯岛案”裁决首次在国际司法判例中提出了关键日期,确定了以领土割让条约的缔结时间为关键日期,排除了该日期之后的证据。参见:Island of Palmas Case(Netherlands,U. S. A.),Award of 4 April 1928,R. I. A. A.,Vol. II,p. 843。“东格陵兰法律地位案”的判决,以挪威作出先占声明的日期为关键日期,来查明当时丹麦和挪威对争议领土的权利状况。参见:Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(Danmark v. Norway),Judgment of April 5th 1933,P. C. I. J. Series A/B,No. 53,p. 45。“明基埃和埃克荷斯群岛案”判例提出以争端具体化来确定关键日期、考察案件证据的法律效力。参见:The Minquiers and Ecrehos case,Judgment of November 17th 1953,I. C. J. Reports 1953,p. 59。
(1)国务院新闻办公室:《钓鱼岛是中国的固有领土》,北京:人民出版社,2012年。台湾地区与中国大陆在钓鱼岛的主权论据与理由上立场基本一致。台湾当局的立场文件主要包括:《釣魚臺列嶼是中華民國的固有領土》(2012年4月3日)、《中華民國對釣魚臺列嶼的主權主張與東海和平倡議》(2013年8月6日)、《中華民國對釣魚臺列嶼主權的立場與主張》(2014年2月5日)。参见台湾“外交部”网, https://www. mofa. gov. tw/Newsnodept. aspx? n=C641B6979A7897C0&sms=60ECE8A8F0DB165D[2018-09-05]。
(2)#12
(1)#12
(2)任虎:《领土争端中“关键日期”问题研究》,《华东理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2011年第5期。
(1)尹立杰:《试论钓鱼岛领土争端》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2002年,第15页。
(2)Yoshiro Matsu,i“International Law of Territorial Acquisition and the Dispute over the Senkaku(Diaoyu)Islands”,Japanese Annual of International Law,Vol. 40,1997,p. 7.
(1)李浩培:《条约法概论》,北京:法律出版社,2003年,第1页。
(2)Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito,October 1,1972,https://treaties. un. org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20841/volume-841-i-12037-english. pdf[2018-09-06].
(3)Treaty of Peace with Japan,September 8,1951,https://treaties. un. org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20136/volume-136-I-1832-English. pdf[2018-09-06].
(1)#12
(1)Frontier Dispute,Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 1986,p. 587.
(1)中国国际法学会:《南海仲裁案裁决之批判》,北京:外文出版社,2018年,第27页。
(2)“Declarations Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court Japan”,October 6,2015,https://www. icj-cij. org/en/declarations/jp[2019-02-19].