国际法院解决领土争端中的证据问题研究
|
摘要
在任何一种法律制度之下,由于对争议事实的认定,在于对证据的占有、审查、评价和运用,因而证据对争端解决都是十分重要的。在领土争端解决程序中,证据问题涉及领土主权的最终归属和边界争端的解决,为此,国际法院在解决当事国领土争端中已经初步确立了一套证据规则体系。虽然国际法院并非超国家的司法机构,但在理论上对促进国际法治和国际习惯法的形成具有重要的推动作用。同时,国际法院在领土争端中所适用的一些具体证据规则已经为多数国家的领土争端提供了借鉴作用,并为之付诸于相关的实践。
本文共分六章,主要内容包括:国际法院解决领土争端中证据的提供与获取;证据的可采性及排除规则;证明责任的分配、适用的证明标准和证据分量的审查、判断及分量大小的认定规则;口头证据和专家意见的运用;国际法院证据规则对我国领土争端解决的借鉴等。
第一章关于国际法院解决领土争端中证据的提供与获取。其一,当事方权利与责任。国际法院在司法实践中基于国家主权平等原则和自治性的要求,始终坚持当事方提供证据自由原则。而对于当事人证据披露的义务,从某种程度上,仅具有一定的“自愿”性质,而非具有强制性。然而,鉴于争议领土主权的归属对于一国的极端重要性,因此,当事方根据证据自由的原则提供了过于繁杂的证据,给国际法院造成了沉重的证据审查负担。基于此,国际法院可以限制当事人提交证据的数量或卷数,以及在事实和证据问题审查上引入预先程序等,从而使得当事方在提供证据方面能够更有鉴别力,以便于争议的有效解决。
其二,截止2010年底,在领土争端中共有4个案件涉及第三方申请参加之诉的情况。鉴于允许第三方参加诉讼,可能存在迟延当事方正常的诉讼程序的风险,因此,国际法院在申请书及所附证据提交的时间、参加诉讼的必要条件等方面作出了严格的限制。但是,“在申请书中附上可以佐证的文件目录,这类文件应随文送致”的规定,并没有要求一国申请参加之诉时必须提交书面证据。质言之,只有一国被允许参加之诉,或者申请书中列明支持其参加诉讼主张的证据,才能要求申请参加诉讼者附上可以佐证的文件目录,而不是其相反。
其三,国际法院享有对于证据的收集采取相应措施的权力,如要求当事方补充文件、解释相关的证据、询问证人、传唤证人,委派专家和实地调查等。尽管国际法院享有自行补充证据的权力,以弥补当事方提供证据所存在的缺陷或不足,但国际法院基于当事国主权平等的原则,仅将自己的功能限制在对当事方提交证据的审查、判断基础之上,因而很少行使传唤证人,委派专家、实地调查等权力。因此,国际法院可以借鉴其他领域争端解决的具体规则,积极行使《国际法院规约》以及《国际法院规则》所赋予的各项权力,以利于查明事实,进而作出准确的判决等。
第二章主要论述国际法院解决领土争端中的证据可采性问题。主要内容包括证据提交一般程序对证据可采性的影响;证据的可采性规则;关键日期与证据可采性;证据的分量与证据的可采性,以及证据的排除规则等。
通常,书面证据应按照国际法院规定的顺序和时限内提交,只要当事方按照规定的要求,证据一般是可采的。否则,迟延提交的证据不具有可采性,除非另一方同意或未表示反对,法院在听取双方的意见后,如认为必要,可以授权提供该文件。在领土争端的实践中,国内证据法中规定的可采性条件一般得以被国际法院所承认并适用。而且,基于领土争端性质的特殊性,也产生了一些具体的限制规则。
对于国际法院而言,关键日期的选择对当事方所提供的关于领土争端的证据的相关性非常重要。关键日期一般决定着证据的可采性。对于在关键日期之后当事方的行为,国际法院通常不予以考虑,除非该行为是先前行为的正常继续。而且,国际法院强调,在关键日期之后的当事方提供的利己证据,同样不具有可采性,并不存在分量较小的问题。
证据的可采性与证据的分量也具有一定的关联。但是,与证据的可采性不同,证据的分量并非一个法律问题,而是一个事实问题。在英美证据法中,那些分量非常小的或没有任何分量的证据将予以排除。但是,国际法院在解决领土争端中,即使一项证据无任何分量,也没有明确将其排除。因而,从实质上而言,它们属于证据的可采信问题,而非可采纳问题。当然,无论是证据的可采纳抑或可采信问题,均涉及证据的分量问题。因为,在确定证据的相关性等问题时不可避免地要对证据的分量进行评价。
虽然在领土争端解决的实践中,国际法院对当事方提交的证据可采性一般是相当宽松的。然而,国际法院同样受到国内法体系中的证据可采性限制规则的影响,并事实上将其予以适用。而且,国际法院针对领土争端性质的特殊性,已经通过其司法判例和相关的实践指南初步形成了若干证据的排除规则。如经谈判取得的证据、不相关的证据、缺乏形式上真实性的证据、未经证实的传闻证据,以及禁止反言的证据等,国际法院一般将其予以排除。无疑,这既减轻了国际法院甄别证据可采性的负担,也使得当事方在提交证据之前仔细考虑其证据的相关性、真实性等,从而主动排除一些不适格的证据。
第三章国际法院解决领土争端中的证明问题。其一,在证明标准方面,国际法院主要秉承了大陆法系传统,但同时合理吸收了普通法系的传统。但是,鉴于当事国之间领土争端的复杂性,国际法院在解决领土争端实践中通常将“证据优势标准”置于主导地位。不过,国际法院在适用该标准时,经常陷入单纯比较相关证据的分量的游戏。这引起了国际社会对国际法院权威的一定质疑。实际上,国际法院内部也存在不同的声音。鉴于“证据优势标准”确定性程度相对较低,而“排除合理怀疑标准”定位过高,因此,今后一阶段国际法院在解决领土争端方面的证明标准应界定为“清晰和令人信服的标准”。这也是国际法院证明标准倾向灵活性和当事国要求确定性的意志相互协调的必然要求。
其二,关于领土争端解决中的证明责任问题。一般由提出事实主张的一方承担证明责任。但是,在特殊情况下,国际法院在适用该项原则时,可以平等分配当事方的证明责任。显然,由于领土争端的特殊性和复杂性,国际法院不再单纯依赖于传统上的原告/被告二分法。一般来说,对于当事一方提交的领土争端诉讼案,证明责任由申诉方承担,辩诉方仅承担消极的主张责任。但是,对于那些当事方通过协议提交的领土争端,证明责任的分配并不依赖于当事人在其特别协定中规定条款,而由国际法院根据每一个领土争端的案件具体情况进行适当分配。而且,也不存在证明责任转移的问题。对于参加诉讼方而言,其证明责任的范围,与当事国之间存有不同。它仅需要证明可能,而非那些将要或一定影响其法律性质的利益,且该证明责任应由参加诉讼国承担,而非法庭的职责等。与此同时,对于当事方事实清楚的部分或没有争议的事项,或者因为法官知法,将不会产生证明责任的相关问题。
其三,在解决领土争端方面,国际法院所适用的推定主要包括不可反驳的法律推定、可反驳的法律推定和事实推定等。通常,可反驳的法律推定可以通过证据推翻推定的事实,并且与证明责任的转移存在着关联性。但是,可反驳的法律推定的适用仅部分转移了当事人提出证据的责任,并非对全部证明责任的颠倒。不可反驳的推定不能通过其他证据予以推翻。而且,它可能解除或加重原告的证明责任。其效力在于结论性证明推定事实,它可以使得申诉方无需承担证明责任,或者如果推定支持相对方,申诉方将不可能解除证明责任。与之相比,事实推定对于国际法院评价当事人的主张是一个有用的证明方法。在那些没有直接证据可以利用的情况下,依赖于从相关的事实中得出的推论,可以有利于法院决定当事国的证明责任是否得以解除;同时,事实推定仅仅意味着事实已经得以证明,证明责任(说服责任)并没有被转移。
第四章主要涉及证据的种类、证据分量的审查判断及分量大小的认定规则。一般而言,国际法院庭前证据主要包括书面证据、证词和专家证据。书面证据为一般原则,证词和专家证据则为例外。在实践中,国际法院已经根据个案的情况赋予了这些证据不同的分量。而且,在证据分量大小的认定方面,国际法院在解决领土争端时,隐含适用了一项相应的证据规则。即国际条约的分量大于其他书面证据的分量;其他书面证据的分量一般大于初始性证据的分量;官方行为的分量一般大于私人行为。
但是,国际法院在具体的司法判例中,审查判断当事国提交的证据证明价值时过于灵活。甚至,将未经批准的条约赋予法律效力,作为判案的可采信证据。无疑,这侵蚀了当事国的国内宪法性功能。与条约的适用类似,保持占有原则也没有带来更加稳定的国际边界。确切的说,尽管保持占有原则在非洲和拉丁美洲取得了较大成功,但并没有有效解决领土争端的根本问题,它仅迟延了问题出现表面化而已。而且,有效控制原则趋于滥用。
对于国际法院初具雏形的证据分量大小的认定规则,应当进行辩证分析。一则,对国际法院赋予未经批准的条约以法律效力应当持否定态度;二则,对于那些建立在保持占有法律和有效控制原则基础上的证据应区别看待。证据分量大小的认定规则一般应为:有效的国际条约>初始性权利证据/有效控制证据>有效控制证据>初始性权利证据>未生效条约、瑕疵法律行为等其他证据。而对于那些曾为殖民地国家,其分量大小的认定规则如下:有效的国际条约>殖民时期立法及其他法律文件>殖民期间的有效控制证据>后殖民时期的有效控制证据>初始性权利证据>未生效条约、瑕疵法律行为等其他证据等。
第五章国际法院解决领土争端中的言词证据问题。毋庸置疑,在解决领土争端的过程中,根据国际法院规约及法庭规则,当事方有权通过安排证人和专家的方式提供所有的证据。国际法院不得排除此类证据,除非它没有相关性、缺乏真实性等;法院也不能通过命令的方式取消当事方的这种权利。从既往的司法判例来看,尽管国际法院允许当事人提供言词证据,但仍存在若干使用的不足之处。
究其原因,主要包括:国际法院自身的本质属性所决定;基于司法实践因素的考虑;案件本身的性质也是决定因素之一。此外,国际法院询问证人的程序过于灵活。总体而言,证人证言尽管在一些领土案件中具有一定的分量,但并没有发挥其应有的证明价值。然而,如果书面证据能够用于补充证人证言和专家意见,无疑这将有利促进证词程序,从而消除一些言词证据相关的问题。通过证人陈述和庭外作证两者合并的方式的潜在适用值得国际法院进一步探究。
与此同时,国际法院也没有积极行使委派自己的专家的权力。国际法院可以借鉴国内法程序,同时参考世界贸易组织(WTO)等其他机构的模式,设立专家库或指示名单。这些专家可以由各国推荐,国际法院进行遴选;或者由国际法院直接指派一些具有国际威望的各个领域的专家组成专家委员会,以供国际法院进行咨询,或为了案件的需要委派专家进行实地调查、收集情报和提交报告等。无疑,这在证据的收集方面对领土争端的解决具有重要的价值。
第六章国际法院证据规则对我国解决领土和边界争端的借鉴。目前,我国陆地边界多数已经解决,仅有与印度和不丹等国陆地争端仍长期悬而未决。同时,我国是一个海洋地理位置不利的国家。尤其,东海和南海海域划界属于“双重性”争端,其中岛屿的主权归属阻碍了这些海域边界的划分。传统上,我国相对重视历史证据,强调对于这些岛屿享有不可辩驳的主权。然而,我国藏南地区、钓鱼岛列屿、南沙群岛部分岛礁等领土正分别遭到印度、日本、越南、马来西亚、菲律宾等邻国蚕食及实际控制。因此,从有效控制的角度,我国处于不利的情势。本章借鉴了国际法院“条约的分量大于有效控制证据的分量”的认定规则,结合相关的司法判例,提出了国际法院采信有效统治证据,将领土的主权判决给实际控制方的趋势日益明显的观点。
基于此,我国在以后处理与邻国的领土争端中,应充分借鉴国际法院的证据规则,除了继续挖掘历史证据外,对于钓鱼岛列屿、中印边界和领土争端、南沙群岛所涉及的条约重点展开研究,进一步为我国的领土主权的维护提供条约证据方面的支持。同时,应采取必要措施加强对争议区域的主权宣示行为,进而从有效控制证据层面积极应对他国的主张。概言之,通过采取多种证据收集并举的方式,切实维护我国的领土主权和海洋权益。
In any legal system, evidence is crucial for the settlement of disputes, Thus the burden of proof and rules of evidence are essential to any dispute settlement system. As the territorial dispute settlement procedures, evidentiary issues relate to border settlement and the attribution of territorial sovereignty, therefore, the Court have preliminarily established a set of rules of evidence and procedure in resolving the territorial dispute in the parties. Although the International Court of Justice is not a supranational legislative bodies, but in theory, it has an important role in promoting the formation of the international rule of law and customary international law. Meanwhile, a set of rules created by the International Court of Justice in the territorial disputes has provided a reference for most countries, and apply them to the relevant practice.
The paper is divided into six chapters, its main contents include as follows: production of evidence before the International Court of Justice related to territorial disputes; rights and responsibilities of the parties and the court's power in obtaining evidence; the types of evidence, admissibility of evidence, the applicable standard of proof and evidentiary rules on probative value; testimonial evidence, expert evidence; its use for reference to territorial dispute settlement between neighboring countries and China.
Chapter I mainly analyses production of evidence before the International Court of Justice related to territorial disputes. First, it relates to rights and responsibilities of the parties in production of evidence. The International Court of Justice adheres to the freedom of production in view of Sovereign Equality and Consent Criterion. However, it should also assume certain responsibilities. Though the statute of the International Court of Justice lacks any explicit provisions of an obligation incumbent upon the parties to produce evidence, in practice, each party to the International Court of Justice proceedings has the responsibility not to contravene international law in obtaining the evidence. As for the duty of disclosure of the parties, to some degree, only has a certain‘voluntary’in nature, rather than compulsory. However, the liberality of evidentiary regime may bring negative factors, such as the burden of superfluous evidence. Therefore, the Court can limit the number of items or volume of evidence submitted by the parties. At the same time, it may be useful for the court to adopt preliminary consultation proceedings on questions of fact and proof, and so on. As a result, the Court may persuade state to be more discriminating in their submission of evidence, and so improve its ability to settle their dispute in a matter which is both and swift.
Secondly, as of the end of 2010, there are four cases involving intervention and submission of evidence by third party states about the territorial dispute. Given permitting a third party to participate in the proceedings, it may risk delaying the normal proceedings, therefore, the Court has made the appropriate provisions, which including the time of submitting evidence, the necessary conditions of participating in the proceedings, etc. However, article 81, para. 3 of the 1978 Rules of Court , which states“the application shall contain a list of the documents in support, which documents shall be attached”does not require a state to submit documentary evidence, only that if it does so, it should provide a list of that evidence, rather that the opposite.
Thirdly, the Court enjoys an extremely broad discretion in most matters of evidentiary procedure, including the power to question witnesses, request additional documents or explanations, call witnesses, to appoint experts, obtain evidence by visiting a site or location. However, the Court neglects its powers, because it has consistently viewed its own powers to seek evidence as strictly secondary in character, with its primary function being the mere supervision of parties’submission of documentary and testimonial evidence on the basis of sovereign equality. For the purpose of developing the Court’s jurisprudence and delivering judgments more precisely, it should build the confidence to use its powers so as to made extensive findings of fact. At the same time, it uses for reference to dispute methods in other field.
Chapter II analyses admissibility of evidence concerning the territorial dispute before the International Court of Justice, including order and time of submission of evidence, admissibility of evidence and critical date, evidential weight, rule of exclusion of evidence, and so on.
Generally, Documentary evidence is almost without exception presented to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the order and the time limit of submission of evidence. In other words, as long as the parties submit evidence within time limits, the Court has accepted the principle that any evidence produced by the parties should be admitted automatically. However, it does not mean that the Court should accept all evidence submitted by the parties. For example, late -filed evidence is inadmissible. Namely, after the closure of the written proceedings, no further documents may be submitted to the Court by either party except with the consent of the other party or silence of the other party. In absence of consent, the Court, after hearing the parties, may, if it considers the document necessary, authorize its production.
In practice, the restrictions upon admissibility of evidence in municipal procedure have certain place before the International Court of Justice. Moreover, the Court has developed specific rules how evidence should be presented in case concerning territorial disputes. The Court emphasizes the importance of the critical date, not so much in relation to the weight to be given to it but rather to the admissibility of evidence. At the same time, it cannot take into consideration acts having taken place after critical date on which the dispute between the Parties crystallized unless such acts are a normal continuation of prior acts and are not undertaken for the purpose of improving the legal position of the Party which relies on them. Moreover, if it is self-serving, designed to strengthen, or even establish that State’s claim to sovereignty, it is not concerned with the reduced weight to be given to it, but with the admissibility of evidence.
It is noted that the weight of the evidence is closely related to the admissibility of evidence. However, compared with the admissibility of evidence, the weight of evidence is not a legal issue but a question of fact. In Anglo-American evidential procedure, evidence which has no weight or of probative value is to be excluded as inadmissible. Nevertheless, the Court has happened only infrequently that it takes the course of declaring inadmissibility in resolving the territorial dispute. In fact, it has seemed preferable not to use admissibility but admission. Certainly, the rules on admissibility are more liberal than in national courts, thus all evidence once admitted is subjected to an evaluation of weight.
Although the Court has the freedom to admit evidence of all kinds, its practice in this is, nevertheless, governed by a number of general principles of evidential law recognized by states in national systems. Therefore, there are circumstances in which the Court applying freedom of production to have refused to accept evidence submitted by the parties, including late-filed evidence, evidence obtained through settlement negotiations, irrelevant evidence, evidence lacking authenticity, hearsay evidence, evidence obtained breach of estoppel. Undoubtedly, it can reduce the burden of admissibility of superfluous evidence. Moreover, parties may evaluate the relevance, credibility and weight of evidence, and exclude to proffer certain inadmissible evidence.
Chapter III the Court deals with the essence of proof itself on the territorial dispute. First, in terms of evidence and procedure generally, the International Court of Justice can be seen as more frequently conforming to the civil legal tradition, thus it lacks a specific standard. At the same time, In view of the complexity of the territorial disputes among the parties, the International Court of Justice absorbed the common law tradition, therefore an applicable standard is preponderance of evidence by the Court implicitly in the judicial practice. However, when the Court applied ‘preponderance of evidence’to the territorial dispute, it exist a logical confusion because of comparing a piece of evidence with another simply. It sometimes leads into a simple game. This caused the international community to question the authority of the International Court of Justice. In fact, there are different opinions within the International Court of Justice. Accordingly, rules of evidence are still developing. As a result, Preponderance of evidence is lower standard of proof, in contrast, beyond reasonable doubt standard is very higher, so the Court is faced with two competing ideals: flexibility in adjudication and certainty for the parties. The paper upholds that the International Court of Justice should adopt the clear and convincing standard. Adopting such standard not only would enable the Court to safeguard the flexibility, but give the parties a greater deal of guidance.
Secondly, with regard to the burden of proof on territorial disputes, as a general rule, the accepted formula for deciding the proponent of the legal burden of proof has been the maxim actori incumbit onus probandi. In other words, the claimant carries the burden of proof. Nevertheless, the Court holds that each party is called upon to establish the arguments on which it relies in support of its claim to sovereignty over the object in dispute. Namely, the burden of proof may, thus, be divided. Apparently, the Court does not simply rely on traditional applicant/respondent dichotomy. In general, in cases brought by application, the burden is on the application, and respondent merely has a negative burden.
However, In particular, for cases brought by Special Agreement, there is equality in terms of the burden of proof, rather than special provisions on burden of evidence in an agreement. At the same time, the state requesting intervention bears the burden of proof and it must demonstrate convincingly what it asserts, that is to identify the interest of a legal nature. It demands only that the interest‘may be affected’, not that it‘will be affected’or even that it is‘likely to be affected’. Furthermore, if there are some facts or matters which re already within the knowledge of the judges, either by reason of their being so widely known that they do not require explanation, or because they relate to the existence of a law, which all judges are presumed to know, the Court does not require the parties to provide proof thereof.
Third, Presumptions do have an important role to play in international law involving territorial disputes. Presumptions may be rebuttable or irrebuttable. Rebuttable presumptions permit the presumption of fact to be overturned generally by evidence. Irrebuttable presumption may not be so overturned. Inferences are a tool of judicial reasoning employed to aid a court in determining whether the burden of proof has met in cases where direct evidence is not available on a particular fact.
Concretely, the effect of an irrebuttable Presumption is to conclusively prove the presumed fact, either relieving the claimant of the need for proof, or making it impossible for him to meet the burden of proof if the presumption operates in favour of the other party. Namely, it cannot be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. Only one example can be found in the case law of the International Court of Justice, namely it arose in Preah Vihear. In contrast, irrefutable presumption may be discharged or increased the weight of the burden of proof the plaintiff. Presumption and the shifting the burden of proof are often linked. Rebuttable presumptions do not in fact reverse the burden of proof. They simply relieve the proponent of the burden from having to initiate proof or adduce evidence on the fact to be presumed. This does however shift the burden of evidence to the other party. Inferences are useful method of proof for the International Court of Justice. Without lacking direct evidence in those cases, the Court states proof may be drawn from inferences of fact. Moreover, it helps to decide whether the burden of proof is met. In particular, irrebuttable inferences may sufficiently discharge the burden of proof of the parties. Inferences merely mean the fact is considered proven and no‘burden’is shifted.
Chapter IV mainly tracks the Court’practice related to types of evidence, probative value, rules of comparison concerning probative value. In general, there exist documentary evidence, testimony and expert evidence with regard to types of evidence submitted by the parties. Written evidence is a general rule, testimony and expert evidence is an exception. In practice, the International Court of Justice has given the corresponding weight to various types of evidence.
In comparative rules of probative value, the International Court of Justice always adopts a corresponding set of implied rules in resolving territorial disputes. Namely, the probative value of international treaties prevails over any other written evidence; other written documentary evidence prevails over the initial evidence; the probative value of official acts generally is better than the probative value of private behaviors. However, evidence submitted by the parties is sometimes endowed with too flexible probative value by the International Court of Justice in the specific cases. Even if ungratified treaties may be some weight. Undoubtedly, this practice erodes the domestic constitutional function of the parties.
While it is similar to the application of the treaty, but Uti possidetis juris has not brought about a more stable international borders. Although Uti possidetis juris has achieved a great success in Asia, Africa and Latin America, it does not solve the fundamental problem of territorial disputes, which only prevents territorial disputes from becoming apparently. Moreover, the weight of the evidence on effective control tends to abuse.
For the Court’comparative rules of probative value, the paper argues that the International Court of Justice should endow unratified treaties with no probative value, and the probative value of evidence on effective control and the historical evidence should be differential treatment as the case might be: As for probative value of official acts better than private behavior, if the parties lack international treaties related to boundaries and sovereignty of the territory, private behaviors should have some weight.
Therefore, for non-colonial countries, hierarchy of probative value should be as follows: probative value of valid international treaties prevails over inchoate rights/effective control; effective control prevails over inchoate right; inchoate right prevails over unratified treaties or defective legal acts. For colonial countries at one time, the hierarchy is as follows: probative value of valid of international treaties prevails over inchoate right/effective control; inchoate right/ effective control prevails over colonial legislation and other legal documents; colonial legislation and other legal documents prevails over colonial effectivités; post-colonial effectivités prevails over inchoate right; post-colonial effectivités prevails over unratified treaties or defective legal acts, etc.
Chapter V mainly discusses testimonial evidence in resolving the territorial disputes before The International Court of Justice. Needless to say, according to the rules under the Statute of the ICJ, in the process of resolving the territorial dispute, the parties have the right to provide all the evidence by arranging for witnesses and experts. The International Court of Justice should not exclude such evidence unless it has no relevance or probative value; simultaneity, the Court can not issue an order to cancel such rights of the parties as well. From the point of view of previous judicial cases, even though the Court permits the parties to provide oral evidence, there are still some deficiencies. There are a number of possible reasons why oral evidence has been a rare feature of the International Court of Justice, including the essential attribute of its own; considerations of judicial practice; the nature of the case itself, and so on. In addition, it is too flexible to examine witnesses before the International Court of Justice. Overall, testimony did not play its role, though if it to some degree has weight in territorial cases. However, if the written evidence can be used to supplement witness and expert advice, it is no doubt that it could be conducive to the procedure of testimonial evidence so as to remove some of the problems associated with live evidence. The potential utility of combing the two through the use of witness statements and depositions should be explored by the Court.
At the same time, the Court did not actively exercise the right to appoint its own experts. The International Court of Justice should set up an expert database or instructional list by learning from procedures of national law, the model of the WTO or other agencies. These experts may be recommended by the States, then they be selected by the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice can also directly appoint experts with international prestige from various fields to set up a Committee, which can give advice to the Court ; at the same time, the Court appoints some experts to visit a site, gather information and submit a report for the case. Needless to say, it is an important instrumental value for the territorial dispute settlement beyond all doubt.
Chapter VI makes some researches on territorial and boundary disputes between neighboring countries and China. At present, the majority of the land border has been resolved except for India and Bhutan. Meanwhile, China is a geographically disadvantaged country on the sea. In particular, the delimitation of East China Sea and South China Sea is attributed to‘double’disputes, which hindered maritime delimitation owing to the island's sovereignty. Traditionally, China attaches importance to historical evidence relatively, noting that our country always enjoys indisputable sovereignty over those islands. However, China’s Southern Tibet, Diaoyu islands, reefs and other parts of the territory of the Nansha Islands are being encroaching and controlling illegally by India, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and other neighboring countries respectively. Therefore, from the perspective of effective control, China is in a disadvantaged situation in these waters. The chapter draws on the hierarchy rule of‘treaty law prevail over effective control’, linking relevant case, thus presents the idea that the Court increasingly adopted effectivités to adjudge the sovereignty of disputed territory to the party which actually control it.
In addition to finding historical evidence, we should study on treaties involved Diaoyu Islands, the Sino-Indian border and territorial disputes and Nansha Islands, and provide further support for safeguard on the territorial sovereignty of our country with neighboring countries in the future on the basis of the rule. At the same time, we should positively take the necessary measures to strengthen sovereign acts for disputed areas in response to other country's position from the level of evidence on effective control. In sum, China should protect our territories, maritime rights and interests effectively by the way of taking a variety of evidence.
本文共分六章,主要内容包括:国际法院解决领土争端中证据的提供与获取;证据的可采性及排除规则;证明责任的分配、适用的证明标准和证据分量的审查、判断及分量大小的认定规则;口头证据和专家意见的运用;国际法院证据规则对我国领土争端解决的借鉴等。
第一章关于国际法院解决领土争端中证据的提供与获取。其一,当事方权利与责任。国际法院在司法实践中基于国家主权平等原则和自治性的要求,始终坚持当事方提供证据自由原则。而对于当事人证据披露的义务,从某种程度上,仅具有一定的“自愿”性质,而非具有强制性。然而,鉴于争议领土主权的归属对于一国的极端重要性,因此,当事方根据证据自由的原则提供了过于繁杂的证据,给国际法院造成了沉重的证据审查负担。基于此,国际法院可以限制当事人提交证据的数量或卷数,以及在事实和证据问题审查上引入预先程序等,从而使得当事方在提供证据方面能够更有鉴别力,以便于争议的有效解决。
其二,截止2010年底,在领土争端中共有4个案件涉及第三方申请参加之诉的情况。鉴于允许第三方参加诉讼,可能存在迟延当事方正常的诉讼程序的风险,因此,国际法院在申请书及所附证据提交的时间、参加诉讼的必要条件等方面作出了严格的限制。但是,“在申请书中附上可以佐证的文件目录,这类文件应随文送致”的规定,并没有要求一国申请参加之诉时必须提交书面证据。质言之,只有一国被允许参加之诉,或者申请书中列明支持其参加诉讼主张的证据,才能要求申请参加诉讼者附上可以佐证的文件目录,而不是其相反。
其三,国际法院享有对于证据的收集采取相应措施的权力,如要求当事方补充文件、解释相关的证据、询问证人、传唤证人,委派专家和实地调查等。尽管国际法院享有自行补充证据的权力,以弥补当事方提供证据所存在的缺陷或不足,但国际法院基于当事国主权平等的原则,仅将自己的功能限制在对当事方提交证据的审查、判断基础之上,因而很少行使传唤证人,委派专家、实地调查等权力。因此,国际法院可以借鉴其他领域争端解决的具体规则,积极行使《国际法院规约》以及《国际法院规则》所赋予的各项权力,以利于查明事实,进而作出准确的判决等。
第二章主要论述国际法院解决领土争端中的证据可采性问题。主要内容包括证据提交一般程序对证据可采性的影响;证据的可采性规则;关键日期与证据可采性;证据的分量与证据的可采性,以及证据的排除规则等。
通常,书面证据应按照国际法院规定的顺序和时限内提交,只要当事方按照规定的要求,证据一般是可采的。否则,迟延提交的证据不具有可采性,除非另一方同意或未表示反对,法院在听取双方的意见后,如认为必要,可以授权提供该文件。在领土争端的实践中,国内证据法中规定的可采性条件一般得以被国际法院所承认并适用。而且,基于领土争端性质的特殊性,也产生了一些具体的限制规则。
对于国际法院而言,关键日期的选择对当事方所提供的关于领土争端的证据的相关性非常重要。关键日期一般决定着证据的可采性。对于在关键日期之后当事方的行为,国际法院通常不予以考虑,除非该行为是先前行为的正常继续。而且,国际法院强调,在关键日期之后的当事方提供的利己证据,同样不具有可采性,并不存在分量较小的问题。
证据的可采性与证据的分量也具有一定的关联。但是,与证据的可采性不同,证据的分量并非一个法律问题,而是一个事实问题。在英美证据法中,那些分量非常小的或没有任何分量的证据将予以排除。但是,国际法院在解决领土争端中,即使一项证据无任何分量,也没有明确将其排除。因而,从实质上而言,它们属于证据的可采信问题,而非可采纳问题。当然,无论是证据的可采纳抑或可采信问题,均涉及证据的分量问题。因为,在确定证据的相关性等问题时不可避免地要对证据的分量进行评价。
虽然在领土争端解决的实践中,国际法院对当事方提交的证据可采性一般是相当宽松的。然而,国际法院同样受到国内法体系中的证据可采性限制规则的影响,并事实上将其予以适用。而且,国际法院针对领土争端性质的特殊性,已经通过其司法判例和相关的实践指南初步形成了若干证据的排除规则。如经谈判取得的证据、不相关的证据、缺乏形式上真实性的证据、未经证实的传闻证据,以及禁止反言的证据等,国际法院一般将其予以排除。无疑,这既减轻了国际法院甄别证据可采性的负担,也使得当事方在提交证据之前仔细考虑其证据的相关性、真实性等,从而主动排除一些不适格的证据。
第三章国际法院解决领土争端中的证明问题。其一,在证明标准方面,国际法院主要秉承了大陆法系传统,但同时合理吸收了普通法系的传统。但是,鉴于当事国之间领土争端的复杂性,国际法院在解决领土争端实践中通常将“证据优势标准”置于主导地位。不过,国际法院在适用该标准时,经常陷入单纯比较相关证据的分量的游戏。这引起了国际社会对国际法院权威的一定质疑。实际上,国际法院内部也存在不同的声音。鉴于“证据优势标准”确定性程度相对较低,而“排除合理怀疑标准”定位过高,因此,今后一阶段国际法院在解决领土争端方面的证明标准应界定为“清晰和令人信服的标准”。这也是国际法院证明标准倾向灵活性和当事国要求确定性的意志相互协调的必然要求。
其二,关于领土争端解决中的证明责任问题。一般由提出事实主张的一方承担证明责任。但是,在特殊情况下,国际法院在适用该项原则时,可以平等分配当事方的证明责任。显然,由于领土争端的特殊性和复杂性,国际法院不再单纯依赖于传统上的原告/被告二分法。一般来说,对于当事一方提交的领土争端诉讼案,证明责任由申诉方承担,辩诉方仅承担消极的主张责任。但是,对于那些当事方通过协议提交的领土争端,证明责任的分配并不依赖于当事人在其特别协定中规定条款,而由国际法院根据每一个领土争端的案件具体情况进行适当分配。而且,也不存在证明责任转移的问题。对于参加诉讼方而言,其证明责任的范围,与当事国之间存有不同。它仅需要证明可能,而非那些将要或一定影响其法律性质的利益,且该证明责任应由参加诉讼国承担,而非法庭的职责等。与此同时,对于当事方事实清楚的部分或没有争议的事项,或者因为法官知法,将不会产生证明责任的相关问题。
其三,在解决领土争端方面,国际法院所适用的推定主要包括不可反驳的法律推定、可反驳的法律推定和事实推定等。通常,可反驳的法律推定可以通过证据推翻推定的事实,并且与证明责任的转移存在着关联性。但是,可反驳的法律推定的适用仅部分转移了当事人提出证据的责任,并非对全部证明责任的颠倒。不可反驳的推定不能通过其他证据予以推翻。而且,它可能解除或加重原告的证明责任。其效力在于结论性证明推定事实,它可以使得申诉方无需承担证明责任,或者如果推定支持相对方,申诉方将不可能解除证明责任。与之相比,事实推定对于国际法院评价当事人的主张是一个有用的证明方法。在那些没有直接证据可以利用的情况下,依赖于从相关的事实中得出的推论,可以有利于法院决定当事国的证明责任是否得以解除;同时,事实推定仅仅意味着事实已经得以证明,证明责任(说服责任)并没有被转移。
第四章主要涉及证据的种类、证据分量的审查判断及分量大小的认定规则。一般而言,国际法院庭前证据主要包括书面证据、证词和专家证据。书面证据为一般原则,证词和专家证据则为例外。在实践中,国际法院已经根据个案的情况赋予了这些证据不同的分量。而且,在证据分量大小的认定方面,国际法院在解决领土争端时,隐含适用了一项相应的证据规则。即国际条约的分量大于其他书面证据的分量;其他书面证据的分量一般大于初始性证据的分量;官方行为的分量一般大于私人行为。
但是,国际法院在具体的司法判例中,审查判断当事国提交的证据证明价值时过于灵活。甚至,将未经批准的条约赋予法律效力,作为判案的可采信证据。无疑,这侵蚀了当事国的国内宪法性功能。与条约的适用类似,保持占有原则也没有带来更加稳定的国际边界。确切的说,尽管保持占有原则在非洲和拉丁美洲取得了较大成功,但并没有有效解决领土争端的根本问题,它仅迟延了问题出现表面化而已。而且,有效控制原则趋于滥用。
对于国际法院初具雏形的证据分量大小的认定规则,应当进行辩证分析。一则,对国际法院赋予未经批准的条约以法律效力应当持否定态度;二则,对于那些建立在保持占有法律和有效控制原则基础上的证据应区别看待。证据分量大小的认定规则一般应为:有效的国际条约>初始性权利证据/有效控制证据>有效控制证据>初始性权利证据>未生效条约、瑕疵法律行为等其他证据。而对于那些曾为殖民地国家,其分量大小的认定规则如下:有效的国际条约>殖民时期立法及其他法律文件>殖民期间的有效控制证据>后殖民时期的有效控制证据>初始性权利证据>未生效条约、瑕疵法律行为等其他证据等。
第五章国际法院解决领土争端中的言词证据问题。毋庸置疑,在解决领土争端的过程中,根据国际法院规约及法庭规则,当事方有权通过安排证人和专家的方式提供所有的证据。国际法院不得排除此类证据,除非它没有相关性、缺乏真实性等;法院也不能通过命令的方式取消当事方的这种权利。从既往的司法判例来看,尽管国际法院允许当事人提供言词证据,但仍存在若干使用的不足之处。
究其原因,主要包括:国际法院自身的本质属性所决定;基于司法实践因素的考虑;案件本身的性质也是决定因素之一。此外,国际法院询问证人的程序过于灵活。总体而言,证人证言尽管在一些领土案件中具有一定的分量,但并没有发挥其应有的证明价值。然而,如果书面证据能够用于补充证人证言和专家意见,无疑这将有利促进证词程序,从而消除一些言词证据相关的问题。通过证人陈述和庭外作证两者合并的方式的潜在适用值得国际法院进一步探究。
与此同时,国际法院也没有积极行使委派自己的专家的权力。国际法院可以借鉴国内法程序,同时参考世界贸易组织(WTO)等其他机构的模式,设立专家库或指示名单。这些专家可以由各国推荐,国际法院进行遴选;或者由国际法院直接指派一些具有国际威望的各个领域的专家组成专家委员会,以供国际法院进行咨询,或为了案件的需要委派专家进行实地调查、收集情报和提交报告等。无疑,这在证据的收集方面对领土争端的解决具有重要的价值。
第六章国际法院证据规则对我国解决领土和边界争端的借鉴。目前,我国陆地边界多数已经解决,仅有与印度和不丹等国陆地争端仍长期悬而未决。同时,我国是一个海洋地理位置不利的国家。尤其,东海和南海海域划界属于“双重性”争端,其中岛屿的主权归属阻碍了这些海域边界的划分。传统上,我国相对重视历史证据,强调对于这些岛屿享有不可辩驳的主权。然而,我国藏南地区、钓鱼岛列屿、南沙群岛部分岛礁等领土正分别遭到印度、日本、越南、马来西亚、菲律宾等邻国蚕食及实际控制。因此,从有效控制的角度,我国处于不利的情势。本章借鉴了国际法院“条约的分量大于有效控制证据的分量”的认定规则,结合相关的司法判例,提出了国际法院采信有效统治证据,将领土的主权判决给实际控制方的趋势日益明显的观点。
基于此,我国在以后处理与邻国的领土争端中,应充分借鉴国际法院的证据规则,除了继续挖掘历史证据外,对于钓鱼岛列屿、中印边界和领土争端、南沙群岛所涉及的条约重点展开研究,进一步为我国的领土主权的维护提供条约证据方面的支持。同时,应采取必要措施加强对争议区域的主权宣示行为,进而从有效控制证据层面积极应对他国的主张。概言之,通过采取多种证据收集并举的方式,切实维护我国的领土主权和海洋权益。
In any legal system, evidence is crucial for the settlement of disputes, Thus the burden of proof and rules of evidence are essential to any dispute settlement system. As the territorial dispute settlement procedures, evidentiary issues relate to border settlement and the attribution of territorial sovereignty, therefore, the Court have preliminarily established a set of rules of evidence and procedure in resolving the territorial dispute in the parties. Although the International Court of Justice is not a supranational legislative bodies, but in theory, it has an important role in promoting the formation of the international rule of law and customary international law. Meanwhile, a set of rules created by the International Court of Justice in the territorial disputes has provided a reference for most countries, and apply them to the relevant practice.
The paper is divided into six chapters, its main contents include as follows: production of evidence before the International Court of Justice related to territorial disputes; rights and responsibilities of the parties and the court's power in obtaining evidence; the types of evidence, admissibility of evidence, the applicable standard of proof and evidentiary rules on probative value; testimonial evidence, expert evidence; its use for reference to territorial dispute settlement between neighboring countries and China.
Chapter I mainly analyses production of evidence before the International Court of Justice related to territorial disputes. First, it relates to rights and responsibilities of the parties in production of evidence. The International Court of Justice adheres to the freedom of production in view of Sovereign Equality and Consent Criterion. However, it should also assume certain responsibilities. Though the statute of the International Court of Justice lacks any explicit provisions of an obligation incumbent upon the parties to produce evidence, in practice, each party to the International Court of Justice proceedings has the responsibility not to contravene international law in obtaining the evidence. As for the duty of disclosure of the parties, to some degree, only has a certain‘voluntary’in nature, rather than compulsory. However, the liberality of evidentiary regime may bring negative factors, such as the burden of superfluous evidence. Therefore, the Court can limit the number of items or volume of evidence submitted by the parties. At the same time, it may be useful for the court to adopt preliminary consultation proceedings on questions of fact and proof, and so on. As a result, the Court may persuade state to be more discriminating in their submission of evidence, and so improve its ability to settle their dispute in a matter which is both and swift.
Secondly, as of the end of 2010, there are four cases involving intervention and submission of evidence by third party states about the territorial dispute. Given permitting a third party to participate in the proceedings, it may risk delaying the normal proceedings, therefore, the Court has made the appropriate provisions, which including the time of submitting evidence, the necessary conditions of participating in the proceedings, etc. However, article 81, para. 3 of the 1978 Rules of Court , which states“the application shall contain a list of the documents in support, which documents shall be attached”does not require a state to submit documentary evidence, only that if it does so, it should provide a list of that evidence, rather that the opposite.
Thirdly, the Court enjoys an extremely broad discretion in most matters of evidentiary procedure, including the power to question witnesses, request additional documents or explanations, call witnesses, to appoint experts, obtain evidence by visiting a site or location. However, the Court neglects its powers, because it has consistently viewed its own powers to seek evidence as strictly secondary in character, with its primary function being the mere supervision of parties’submission of documentary and testimonial evidence on the basis of sovereign equality. For the purpose of developing the Court’s jurisprudence and delivering judgments more precisely, it should build the confidence to use its powers so as to made extensive findings of fact. At the same time, it uses for reference to dispute methods in other field.
Chapter II analyses admissibility of evidence concerning the territorial dispute before the International Court of Justice, including order and time of submission of evidence, admissibility of evidence and critical date, evidential weight, rule of exclusion of evidence, and so on.
Generally, Documentary evidence is almost without exception presented to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the order and the time limit of submission of evidence. In other words, as long as the parties submit evidence within time limits, the Court has accepted the principle that any evidence produced by the parties should be admitted automatically. However, it does not mean that the Court should accept all evidence submitted by the parties. For example, late -filed evidence is inadmissible. Namely, after the closure of the written proceedings, no further documents may be submitted to the Court by either party except with the consent of the other party or silence of the other party. In absence of consent, the Court, after hearing the parties, may, if it considers the document necessary, authorize its production.
In practice, the restrictions upon admissibility of evidence in municipal procedure have certain place before the International Court of Justice. Moreover, the Court has developed specific rules how evidence should be presented in case concerning territorial disputes. The Court emphasizes the importance of the critical date, not so much in relation to the weight to be given to it but rather to the admissibility of evidence. At the same time, it cannot take into consideration acts having taken place after critical date on which the dispute between the Parties crystallized unless such acts are a normal continuation of prior acts and are not undertaken for the purpose of improving the legal position of the Party which relies on them. Moreover, if it is self-serving, designed to strengthen, or even establish that State’s claim to sovereignty, it is not concerned with the reduced weight to be given to it, but with the admissibility of evidence.
It is noted that the weight of the evidence is closely related to the admissibility of evidence. However, compared with the admissibility of evidence, the weight of evidence is not a legal issue but a question of fact. In Anglo-American evidential procedure, evidence which has no weight or of probative value is to be excluded as inadmissible. Nevertheless, the Court has happened only infrequently that it takes the course of declaring inadmissibility in resolving the territorial dispute. In fact, it has seemed preferable not to use admissibility but admission. Certainly, the rules on admissibility are more liberal than in national courts, thus all evidence once admitted is subjected to an evaluation of weight.
Although the Court has the freedom to admit evidence of all kinds, its practice in this is, nevertheless, governed by a number of general principles of evidential law recognized by states in national systems. Therefore, there are circumstances in which the Court applying freedom of production to have refused to accept evidence submitted by the parties, including late-filed evidence, evidence obtained through settlement negotiations, irrelevant evidence, evidence lacking authenticity, hearsay evidence, evidence obtained breach of estoppel. Undoubtedly, it can reduce the burden of admissibility of superfluous evidence. Moreover, parties may evaluate the relevance, credibility and weight of evidence, and exclude to proffer certain inadmissible evidence.
Chapter III the Court deals with the essence of proof itself on the territorial dispute. First, in terms of evidence and procedure generally, the International Court of Justice can be seen as more frequently conforming to the civil legal tradition, thus it lacks a specific standard. At the same time, In view of the complexity of the territorial disputes among the parties, the International Court of Justice absorbed the common law tradition, therefore an applicable standard is preponderance of evidence by the Court implicitly in the judicial practice. However, when the Court applied ‘preponderance of evidence’to the territorial dispute, it exist a logical confusion because of comparing a piece of evidence with another simply. It sometimes leads into a simple game. This caused the international community to question the authority of the International Court of Justice. In fact, there are different opinions within the International Court of Justice. Accordingly, rules of evidence are still developing. As a result, Preponderance of evidence is lower standard of proof, in contrast, beyond reasonable doubt standard is very higher, so the Court is faced with two competing ideals: flexibility in adjudication and certainty for the parties. The paper upholds that the International Court of Justice should adopt the clear and convincing standard. Adopting such standard not only would enable the Court to safeguard the flexibility, but give the parties a greater deal of guidance.
Secondly, with regard to the burden of proof on territorial disputes, as a general rule, the accepted formula for deciding the proponent of the legal burden of proof has been the maxim actori incumbit onus probandi. In other words, the claimant carries the burden of proof. Nevertheless, the Court holds that each party is called upon to establish the arguments on which it relies in support of its claim to sovereignty over the object in dispute. Namely, the burden of proof may, thus, be divided. Apparently, the Court does not simply rely on traditional applicant/respondent dichotomy. In general, in cases brought by application, the burden is on the application, and respondent merely has a negative burden.
However, In particular, for cases brought by Special Agreement, there is equality in terms of the burden of proof, rather than special provisions on burden of evidence in an agreement. At the same time, the state requesting intervention bears the burden of proof and it must demonstrate convincingly what it asserts, that is to identify the interest of a legal nature. It demands only that the interest‘may be affected’, not that it‘will be affected’or even that it is‘likely to be affected’. Furthermore, if there are some facts or matters which re already within the knowledge of the judges, either by reason of their being so widely known that they do not require explanation, or because they relate to the existence of a law, which all judges are presumed to know, the Court does not require the parties to provide proof thereof.
Third, Presumptions do have an important role to play in international law involving territorial disputes. Presumptions may be rebuttable or irrebuttable. Rebuttable presumptions permit the presumption of fact to be overturned generally by evidence. Irrebuttable presumption may not be so overturned. Inferences are a tool of judicial reasoning employed to aid a court in determining whether the burden of proof has met in cases where direct evidence is not available on a particular fact.
Concretely, the effect of an irrebuttable Presumption is to conclusively prove the presumed fact, either relieving the claimant of the need for proof, or making it impossible for him to meet the burden of proof if the presumption operates in favour of the other party. Namely, it cannot be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. Only one example can be found in the case law of the International Court of Justice, namely it arose in Preah Vihear. In contrast, irrefutable presumption may be discharged or increased the weight of the burden of proof the plaintiff. Presumption and the shifting the burden of proof are often linked. Rebuttable presumptions do not in fact reverse the burden of proof. They simply relieve the proponent of the burden from having to initiate proof or adduce evidence on the fact to be presumed. This does however shift the burden of evidence to the other party. Inferences are useful method of proof for the International Court of Justice. Without lacking direct evidence in those cases, the Court states proof may be drawn from inferences of fact. Moreover, it helps to decide whether the burden of proof is met. In particular, irrebuttable inferences may sufficiently discharge the burden of proof of the parties. Inferences merely mean the fact is considered proven and no‘burden’is shifted.
Chapter IV mainly tracks the Court’practice related to types of evidence, probative value, rules of comparison concerning probative value. In general, there exist documentary evidence, testimony and expert evidence with regard to types of evidence submitted by the parties. Written evidence is a general rule, testimony and expert evidence is an exception. In practice, the International Court of Justice has given the corresponding weight to various types of evidence.
In comparative rules of probative value, the International Court of Justice always adopts a corresponding set of implied rules in resolving territorial disputes. Namely, the probative value of international treaties prevails over any other written evidence; other written documentary evidence prevails over the initial evidence; the probative value of official acts generally is better than the probative value of private behaviors. However, evidence submitted by the parties is sometimes endowed with too flexible probative value by the International Court of Justice in the specific cases. Even if ungratified treaties may be some weight. Undoubtedly, this practice erodes the domestic constitutional function of the parties.
While it is similar to the application of the treaty, but Uti possidetis juris has not brought about a more stable international borders. Although Uti possidetis juris has achieved a great success in Asia, Africa and Latin America, it does not solve the fundamental problem of territorial disputes, which only prevents territorial disputes from becoming apparently. Moreover, the weight of the evidence on effective control tends to abuse.
For the Court’comparative rules of probative value, the paper argues that the International Court of Justice should endow unratified treaties with no probative value, and the probative value of evidence on effective control and the historical evidence should be differential treatment as the case might be: As for probative value of official acts better than private behavior, if the parties lack international treaties related to boundaries and sovereignty of the territory, private behaviors should have some weight.
Therefore, for non-colonial countries, hierarchy of probative value should be as follows: probative value of valid international treaties prevails over inchoate rights/effective control; effective control prevails over inchoate right; inchoate right prevails over unratified treaties or defective legal acts. For colonial countries at one time, the hierarchy is as follows: probative value of valid of international treaties prevails over inchoate right/effective control; inchoate right/ effective control prevails over colonial legislation and other legal documents; colonial legislation and other legal documents prevails over colonial effectivités; post-colonial effectivités prevails over inchoate right; post-colonial effectivités prevails over unratified treaties or defective legal acts, etc.
Chapter V mainly discusses testimonial evidence in resolving the territorial disputes before The International Court of Justice. Needless to say, according to the rules under the Statute of the ICJ, in the process of resolving the territorial dispute, the parties have the right to provide all the evidence by arranging for witnesses and experts. The International Court of Justice should not exclude such evidence unless it has no relevance or probative value; simultaneity, the Court can not issue an order to cancel such rights of the parties as well. From the point of view of previous judicial cases, even though the Court permits the parties to provide oral evidence, there are still some deficiencies. There are a number of possible reasons why oral evidence has been a rare feature of the International Court of Justice, including the essential attribute of its own; considerations of judicial practice; the nature of the case itself, and so on. In addition, it is too flexible to examine witnesses before the International Court of Justice. Overall, testimony did not play its role, though if it to some degree has weight in territorial cases. However, if the written evidence can be used to supplement witness and expert advice, it is no doubt that it could be conducive to the procedure of testimonial evidence so as to remove some of the problems associated with live evidence. The potential utility of combing the two through the use of witness statements and depositions should be explored by the Court.
At the same time, the Court did not actively exercise the right to appoint its own experts. The International Court of Justice should set up an expert database or instructional list by learning from procedures of national law, the model of the WTO or other agencies. These experts may be recommended by the States, then they be selected by the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice can also directly appoint experts with international prestige from various fields to set up a Committee, which can give advice to the Court ; at the same time, the Court appoints some experts to visit a site, gather information and submit a report for the case. Needless to say, it is an important instrumental value for the territorial dispute settlement beyond all doubt.
Chapter VI makes some researches on territorial and boundary disputes between neighboring countries and China. At present, the majority of the land border has been resolved except for India and Bhutan. Meanwhile, China is a geographically disadvantaged country on the sea. In particular, the delimitation of East China Sea and South China Sea is attributed to‘double’disputes, which hindered maritime delimitation owing to the island's sovereignty. Traditionally, China attaches importance to historical evidence relatively, noting that our country always enjoys indisputable sovereignty over those islands. However, China’s Southern Tibet, Diaoyu islands, reefs and other parts of the territory of the Nansha Islands are being encroaching and controlling illegally by India, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and other neighboring countries respectively. Therefore, from the perspective of effective control, China is in a disadvantaged situation in these waters. The chapter draws on the hierarchy rule of‘treaty law prevail over effective control’, linking relevant case, thus presents the idea that the Court increasingly adopted effectivités to adjudge the sovereignty of disputed territory to the party which actually control it.
In addition to finding historical evidence, we should study on treaties involved Diaoyu Islands, the Sino-Indian border and territorial disputes and Nansha Islands, and provide further support for safeguard on the territorial sovereignty of our country with neighboring countries in the future on the basis of the rule. At the same time, we should positively take the necessary measures to strengthen sovereign acts for disputed areas in response to other country's position from the level of evidence on effective control. In sum, China should protect our territories, maritime rights and interests effectively by the way of taking a variety of evidence.
引文
1 Suryap P. Sharma, Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law, Kluwer Law International, 1997, p. 28.
2转引自:[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第136页。
1 Acts and Documents Concerning the Organization of the Court, P. C. I. J. Series D, Addendum to No. 2 Revision of the Rules of Court, 1926, p. 250.
1 CN Brower, Evidence before International Tribunals: the Need for Some Standard Rules, International Layer, Vol. 28, 1994, p. 49.
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 184.
4 Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 48.
1 Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (hereinafter Temple of Preah Vihear case), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 36.
2 Case concerning territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (hereinafter Nicaragua v. Honduras case), Judgment of 8 October 2007, pp. 32-35, paras. 104-115.
4 J. Craig Barker, Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals, International and Comparative Quarterly, Vol. 57, 2008, p. 705.
5 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 168.
1 Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesial/Malaysia) (hereinafter Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 632, para. 8.
2 S. Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court(1920-1996), 3rd ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, p. 1289.
3 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 607, para. 95.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Sep. Op. Judge Weeramantry, pp. 650-651, para. 44.
1 S. Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court(1920-1996), 3rd ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, p. 1289.
3 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 51.
1 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening) (hereinafter Cameroon v. Nigeria case), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 317-318, para. 25. orial
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 355, para. 70.
2证据开示具有四个方面的含义:①获知或发现此前未知事情的过程或行为;②在庭前阶段所进行的询问笔录等形式的证据开示;③根据当事方的请求,强制披露与诉讼有关的信息;④文件或事实的披露。See Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Thomson West, 2004, p. 498.
3参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第157页。
4 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 115.
2 Aguilar Mawdsley, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, in Macdonald(ed), Essays in Honor of Wang Tieya, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, p. 539.
3 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1779.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Rejoinder of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, January 2001, para. 11.15.
1 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)(hereinafter Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case), Oral Hearing, CR 2007/27, p. 46, para. 63.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Counter-Memorial of Singapore pp. 235-236, para. 9.37.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 272, para. 95.
4附加证据,又译为确证证据、补强证据、认证证据等。它是指在重要的事项上,为其他证据的准确性起支持和确认作用的附加证据,以此证明真正的事实,从而使得已经提供的证据更为有力和确定。See Elizabeth A. Martin, Oxford Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 111.
5参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第337-338页。
1《国际法院规约》第62条规定:“一、某一国家如认为某案件之判决可影响属于该国具有法律性质之利益时,得向法院申请参加。二、此项申请应由法院裁决之。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1034页。
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Weeramantry, pp. 630, 636, para. 17.
1《国际法院规约》第63条规定:“一、凡协约发生解释问题,而诉讼当事国以外尚有其他国家为该协约之签字者,应立即由书记官长通知各该国家。二、受前项通知之国家有参加程序之权;但如该国行使此项权利时,判决中之解释对该国有同样的拘束力。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1034页。
2 J. M. Ruda, Intervention before the International Court of Justice, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justpce: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 487.
3如在利比亚/突尼斯大陆架案中,国际法院强调,法庭不能仅以政策方面的原因决定是否允许第三方参加诉讼。See Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), Application to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 3, 12.
4Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), the application by Costa Rica and Honduras for Permission to intervene, Judgment of 4 May 2011, at http://www.icj-cij/homepage/index.php, May 8 2011.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Weeramantry, pp. 630, 631, para. 4.
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 421, para. 238.
3“法庭之友”一般是指,协助法庭解决某种疑难法律问题的顾问;或者协助法庭解决问题的人。
4 Palchetti, Opening the International Court of Justice to Third States, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 6, 2002, pp. 181-182.
1 Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras)(hereinafter Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case), I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 110.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 92, 98, para. 12.
3 The Special Agreement for Submission to the International Court of Justice of the Dispute between the Republic of Indonesia and Malaysia concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, Procedure, Article 3, General List No. 102, 1998, p. 3.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 575, 586, paras. 24-26.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 575, 587, para. 29.
1 The Special Agreement between El Salvador and Honduras to submit the land, island and maritime frontier dispute between the two States to the International Court of Justice, jointly notified to the Court on 11 December 1986, Article 2, General List No. 75, p. 4.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 109.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 111-114.
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 121, para. 72; p. 124, para. 77.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 111-112, para. 45.
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application to Intervene, Order of 21 October 1999, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1034, para. 14.
3参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第361页。
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 133-134, para. 97.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 92, 135, para. 100.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 133-134, para. 97.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application to Intervene, Order of 21 October 1999, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1029, 1032, para. 5.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 585, para. 22.
2 J. M. Ruda, Intervention before the International Court of Justice, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 501.
3参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1067页。
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 108-109, para.38, and pp. 130-131, para. 90; Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application to Intervene, Order of 21 October 1999, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1029, 1035, para. 17.
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 575, 590, para. 39.
3 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 585, para. 22.
4《国际法院规则》第84条第2款规定:“如果在依据本规则第八十三条确定的期限内对允许参加的请求
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application to Intervene, Order of 21 October 1999, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1029, 1034, para. 11.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 92, 134, para. 99.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application for permission to Intervene, Order, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1035, para. 18.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Order of 28 February 1990, I. C. J. Reports 1990, Diss. Op. Judge Shahabuddeen, pp. 18 et seq.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Order of 28 February 1990, I. C. J. Reports 1990, Diss. Op. Judge Tarassov, pp. 11, 13.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Order of 28 February 1990, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 3, 5.
4这主要体现在1922年《国际常设法庭规则》第59条、1936年《国际常设法庭规则》第64条,以及1972年《国际法院规则》第69条等。
5 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Observations of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on the Philippines’Application for Permission to intervene, 2 May 2001, p. 5, para. 16.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 587, para. 29.
2 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), the application by Costa Rica for Permission to intervene, Judgment of 4 May 2011, paras. 45-50, at http://www.icj-cij/homepage/index.php, May 8 2011.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 117, para. 61.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application for Permission to intervene by the Government of Equatorial Guinea, 30 June 1999, pp.16-40.
1参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1021-1022页。
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Diss. Op. Judge Rezek, p. 1233.
2 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 57.
3《国际法院规约》第48条规定:“法院为进行办理案件应颁发命令;对于当事国每造,应决定其必须终结辩论之方式及时间;对于证据之搜集,应为一切之措施。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1032页。
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Written Statement of Nicaragua, Vol. VI, p. 4, para. 11.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, oral hearing, C 4/CR 91/30, pp.15-16.
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 587-588, paras. 64-65.
1 S. Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court(1920-1996), 3rd ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, p. 137.
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Pleadings, Vol. III, p. 434.
3 South West Africa cases (Ethiopia/South Africa; Liberia/South Africa)(hereinafter South West Africa cases), Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, pp. 334, 381, 385, 475, 554, 555; Pleadings XI, pp. 201, 317; Pleadings XII, pp. 44.
1 Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom/Albania), Pleadings, Vol. III, p. 616.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law,2009, p. 67.
2 South West Africa cases, Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Vol. VIII, 1966, p. 278.
3《国际法院规则》第67条第1款规定:“法院如果认为有必要作出安排,进行调查或取得专家意见,应在听取当事国意见后,颁发这种决定的命令。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1059页。
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 361-362, para. 22.
1 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), I. C. J. Reports 1959, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 252.
2 Diversion of Water from the Meuse(Netherlands/Belgium), Order of 13 May 1937, P. C. I. J. Series C, No. 81, pp. 553 et seq.
3 Gabcikovo Nagymaros case (Hungary/Slovakia), Order of 5 February 1997, I. C. J. Reports 1997, pp. 3 et seq.
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 361-362, para. 22.
1 South West Africa cases, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1966, p. 9.
2在国际法中,它是指新成立的国家应当与其独立前的边界保持一致。See Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., 1999, p. 1544.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 167, 227.
2 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (hereinafter Qatar v. Bahrain case), Memorial of Qatar, Vol. 1, 1996, pp. 308 et seq.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 154.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 351.
1 Temple of Preah Vihear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Wellington Koo, p. 100, para. 55.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999 , Sep. Op. Judge Oda, pp. 1118-1119, para. 6.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1072, para. 42.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria, Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I. C. J. Reports 1996, p. 22, para. 38.
1《国际法院规则》第31条规定:“在提交法院的每一个案件中,院长应了解当事双方关于程序问题的意见。为此目的,院长应在当事国搭理人指派后尽速约见代理人,并在嗣后于必要时随时约见。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1048页。
2 K Highet, Evidence and Proof of Facts, in Le Damrosch(ed), the International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, Transnational Publishers, 1987, p. 371.
1《国际法院规则》第62条第2款规定:“法院在必要时得安排证人或鉴定人在程序中出席。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1058页。
1 G White, the Use of Experts by International Tribunal, Syracuse University Press, 1965, pp. 163-169.
2 Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Appointment of Expert, Order of 30 March 1984, I. C. J. Reports 1984, p. 165.
3 Application for Revision of the Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf case, pp. 227-228, para. 65.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Sep. Op. Judge Oda, paras. 6, 61.
2 Cameroon v Nigeria case, Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I. C. J. Reports 1996, p. 22, para. 38.
3 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 75.
1 Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th ed., Thomson West, 2009, p. 53.
2根据《元照英美法词典》的解释,证据可采性是指:“具有在听审、庭审或其他程序中被允许作为证据提出的品质或状况。”参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第37页。
3参见夏登峻、何联升主编:《英汉法律词典》(修订本),法律出版社1999年版,第26页。
4参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第267页。
5此部分内容将在本章第二节中详细进行讨论。
6 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 679, para. 129.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 185.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 361, para. 21.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 46-47.
2《国际法院规约》的45条规定:“法院之审讯应由院长指挥,院长不克出席时,由副院长指挥;院长和副院长均不克出席时,由出席法官中之资深者主持。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1031页。
3《国际法院规则》第54条规定:“1.书面程序结束时,案件即得进行审讯。口述程序开始的日期,应由法院确定。遇有必要,法院一得裁决延长开始口述程序的日期或推迟口述程序的继续进行。2.在确定或推迟开始口头程序日期时,法院应考虑到本规则第七十四条所要求的优先次序和任何其他特殊情况,包括某一特定案件的紧迫性。3.法院不开庭时,本条规定的法院职权应由院长行使。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1056页。
4 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Pleading, p. 769.
5 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 48-49.
1参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1053-1054页。
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 101-102.
3《国际法院规则》第51条第3款规定:“书状所附文件不使用法院正式语文时,该书状应附有经提交书状的当事国核证为正确的英文译本或法文译本。译本可以只译附件的一部分或附件的节录,但在这种情况下必须附有解释性说明,叙明所译的几段。但法院得要求提供较为广泛而详尽的译本或全译本。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1055页。
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 163.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 404, para. 71.
3 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, pp. 1246-1247.
1参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1060-1061页。
2《国际法院规则》第63条第1款规定:“当事国得传唤按本规则第五十七条送交法院的名单上的任何证人或鉴定人。如果在审讯中的任何时候当事国一方要传唤的证人或鉴定人不在该名单上,该当事国应通知法院和当事国另一方,并应提供第五十七条所要求的情报。如果当事国另一方不表示反对,或法院认为该证人或鉴定人的证词可能证明为有关,得传唤该证人或该鉴定人。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1058-1059页。
3《国际法院规则》第70条第4款规定:“当事一方提供的翻译人员,在该案中进行第一次翻译前,应在法庭内公开作以下的宣言:‘我以自己的荣誉和良心为保证郑重宣言,我的翻译是忠实的、完全的。’”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1061页。
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Oral Hearing, 1991, C 4/CR 91/34, p. 10.
5《国际法院规约》第43条第2款和第3款规定:“一、书面程序系指以诉状、辩诉状,及必要时之答辩状连同可资佐证之各种文书及公文书、送达法院及各当事国。二、此项送达应由书记官长以法院所定次序及期限为之。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1031页。
6《国际法院规则》第50条规定:“1.每一书状的原本都应附有可资佐证书状中论点的一切文件的经核证的副本。2.如果文件只有部分有关,则只需附以佐证该书状所需的节录。整个文件的副本应交存书记官处,但已经出版并为公众所能得的文件除外。3.书状所附的一切文件的目录应于提交书状时提供。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1054页。
1参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第15页。
2根据《国际法院规约》第48条规定:“法院为进行办理案件应办法命令;对于当事国每造,应决定其必须终结辩论之方式及时间;对于证据之搜集,应为一切之措施。”刘颖、吕国民编:《国际法资料选编》(中英文对照),中信出版社2004年版,第441页。
3 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 75.
2 R Higgins, Respecting Sovereign States and Running a Tight Courtroom, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 50, 2001. pp. 121, 130.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 20, para. 10.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 49, para. 30.
1 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1136.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 315, para. 22.
2 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, I. C. J. Reports 1953, Reply of the United Kingdom, pp. 490-500.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 351, 574, para. 360.
2 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1135.
1 Land and Maritime Boundary case (Request for Interpretation), I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 31 et seq.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Revision, I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 400, para. 22.
3 Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad, Interpretation and Revision of International Boundary Decisions, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 272-273.
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Submission of Honduras, I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 403, para. 31.
5 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 441, paras. 58-60.
1 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1318.
2马副外长:《如发现白礁属马国新证据,马将向国际法院提出上诉》,《联合早报》,2008年7月19日。
1参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第267页。
2参见高忠智:《美国证据法新解-相关性证据及其排除规则》,法律出版社2004年版,第33页。
3 Cn Brower, Evidence before International Tribunals: the Need for Some Standard Rules, International Layer, Vol. 28, 1994, pp.49, 148.
4 Acts and Documents concerning the Organization of the Court, P. C. I. J. Series D, Addendum to No to 2 Revision of the Rules of Court, 1926, p. 250.
5 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 179.
1 Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 1 November 2007, at http://www.ICJ.-cij.org/presscom/files/3/14113.pdf, Otc. 10, 2010.
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 180-181.
3在英美法系,最佳证据是指在具体情形下不存在更好的证据时,它是证明争议事实的最有效的证据。最
1参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第374-375页。
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, I. C. J. Reports 1992, Sep. Op. Judge Torres. Bernárdes, p. 675, para. 93.
3该条款规定:“为了阐明争执事项的任一方面,法院得随时要求当事国双方提出法院认为必要的证据或作出法院认为必要的解释,或法院为此目的自己搜集其他情报。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1058页。
1参见伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年版,第143页。
2 Seoung-Yong Hong﹠ Jon M. Van Dyke, Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Process, and the Law of the Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009, p. 141.
3 R. Y. Jennings, the Acquisition of territory in International Law, Manchester University Press, 1961, p. 31.
4 Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, p. 227.
5转引自张新军:《法律适用中的时间因素》,载《法学研究》2009年第4期。
1 The Legal of Status of Eastern Greenland (Norway v. Denmark) (hereinafter The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case), P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 53, 1933, p. 22.
2参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第92页。
3The Minquiers and Ecrehos case, I. C. J. Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, Vol. II, pp. 68, 69.
4马里于1960年独立,其前身为1959年从法属苏丹海外领地产生的苏丹共和国;上沃尔特于1960年独立,1980年改名为布基纳法索。
5 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 568, paras. 29-30.
2参见[英]马尔科姆·N.肖著:《国际法》(影印版),北京大学出版社2005年版,第431页。
3 Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 431-432.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 679, para. 128.
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Oral Hearing, CR 2002/30, p. 27.
3 Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, p. 226.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 682, para. 135.
5 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, pp. 35-36, para. 117.
1转引自[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第92页。
2 Hoffmann, the South African Law of Evidence, Durham, 1970, p. 117.
3 Fitzmaurice, British Year Book of International Law (1955-6), Vo1. 32, pp. 20-44.
4参见伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年版,第143页。See also I. Brownlie, op. cit., Annex 46 (2), cited in Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Memorial of the Federal Republic of Botswana, 1997, Vol. 1, para. 539.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, 1953, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 60.
2 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 59.
3参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第92页。
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Memorial of the Republic of Botswana, p. 122, para. 281.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1083-1084, para. 60
3 The Minquiers and Ecrehos case, I. C. J. Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, Vol. II, pp. 68, 69.
4德国文本所使用的词语为主河道的最深谷底线(thalweg)。具体参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第322-323页。
1 Temple of Preah Vihear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 29.
2 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, pp.125-126, para. 67.
3 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 120, para. 46.
4 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, pp. 109-110, para. 27.
1 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 109, para. 26.
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/6, pp. 25-26, paras. 43-44.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/3, p. 35, para. 5.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, p. 37, para. 123.
2尼加拉瓜于1982年3月17日在争议区域捕获洪都拉斯的一艘渔船。随后,3月21日在博尔礁和中南礁附近海域又捕获了4艘渔船。1982年3月23日,洪都拉斯向尼加拉瓜提出正式抗议,认为尼加拉瓜巡逻艇侵入了两国传统承认的15度平行线。同年4月14日,尼加拉瓜否认传统线的存在。基于此,国际法院认为,从两个事件的发生时间来看,关于海域划界的争议于1982年3月17日已经明确存在了。See Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, p. 38, para. 131.
3在该份诉状中,尼加拉瓜指出,在法院未能采纳二等分线(bisector line)情况下,它对处于争议海域的所有岛礁享有主权。See Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Memorial of Nicaragua, 21 March 2001, p. 166.
4 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment, P. C. I. J. Series A, No. 2, 1924, p. 11.
5参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第92页。
6 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks a South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 27, para. 32.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks a South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 28, para. 36.
1张新军:《法律适用中的时间因素》,载《法学研究》2009年第4期。
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 182.
2参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第4-5页。
3参见伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年版,第143页。
4转引自[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第143页。
5 Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 431.
6 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 570.
1 Eritrea v. Yemen (phase one) case, 1998, ILR 1, p. 32, cited in Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, p. 227.
2 Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, p. 226.
1参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第114页。
2根据《元照英美法词典》的解释,作为判案依据的可采信的证据称之为“proof”,与用以证明未知的或有争议的事实或主张的真实性的事实和方法的“evidence”存有区别。具体参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第499、1106页。
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 47, para. 20.
4《国际法院规则》第31条规定:“在提交法院的每一个案件中,院长应了解当事国双方关于程序问题的意见。为此目的,院长应在当事国代理人指派后尽速约见代理人,并在嗣后于必要时随时约见。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1048页。
1参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第266页。
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 176.
3 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 167.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 574, para. 360.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 361, para. 21.
2 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, p. 1274.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 12.
4 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 13.
1 Chorów Factory, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, P. C. I. J. Series A, No. 17, 1928, p. 51.
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 632-633, paras. 147-149.
3 South West Africa cases, Preliminary Objections, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Van Wyk, pp. 584-585.
1 1969年《维也纳条约法公约》第48条第1款规定:“一国得援引条约中的错误以主张其受该条约拘束的同意无效,但以此错误关涉其在缔约时假定为存在且构成其同意受该条约拘束的必要基础的事实或局面为限。”李浩培:《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版,第582页。
2 Frontier Dispute(Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 90.
3 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 182.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 682, para. 135.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 40, paras. 82-83.
1 Js Al-Arayed, A Line in the sea-The Qatar V Bahrain Border Dispute in the World Court, North Atlantic, Berkeley, 2003, pp.364-386.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Fortier, pp. 451-453, paras. 1-11.
1参见宋英辉、汤维建主编:《证据法学研究述评》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第214页。
2不过,在英美法系国家,传闻证据排除规则存在许多例外。如《美国联邦证据规则》(Federal Rules of Evidence第803条和第804条列举了20多种例外。参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第631页。
3参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第102-103页。
4 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Pleadings, 1962, Vol. II, p. 333.
1 Valencia Ospina, Evidence Before the International Court of Justice, Intl L Forum du droit international, Vol. 1, 1999, p. 205.
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 372.
1 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1959, pp. 246-247.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Memorial of the Federal Republic of Botswana, 1997, Vol. 1, p. 112, paras. 255-256.
3 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 229.
1参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第130页。
2 Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 439.
1 The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 48, 1933, p. 46.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, p. 62.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 355.
1 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) and North Sea Continental Shelf(Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark), I. C. J. Reports 1969, p. 26, para. 30.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 81, para. 228.
2参见毕玉谦:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第315页。
3参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1106页。
4 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, pp. 79-82.
5第52条英文原文为“after the Court has received the proofs and evidence within the time specified for the purpose, it may refuse to accept any further oral or written evidence that one party may desire to present unless the other side consents.”参见刘颖、吕国民编:《国际法资料选编》,中信出版社2004年版,第440页。
1参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第288页。
2参见叶自强著:《举证责任及其分配标准》,法律出版社2005年版,第69-70页。
3参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第291页。
4 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 78.
5 Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence, Blackstone Press Limited, 2000, p. 102.
2 Michelle T. Grando, Evidence, Proof, and Fact-Finding in WTO Dispute Settlement, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 83-84.
3 P Herzoh﹠ M Weser, Civil Procedurein France, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1967, p. 310.
1 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 22.
2 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of American), I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 33, paras. 56-57.
3 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of American), I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 75, para. 2.
1 Elettronica Sicula S. p. A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Verbatim Record C 3/CR 89/8 of 3 Feb., 1989, p. 26.
2 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 81.
3 Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), I. C. J. Reports 1957, Sep. Op. Judge Lauterpacht, p. 39.
4参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第308页。
1参见毕玉谦:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第371页。
2罗森贝克的证明责任分配理论为法律要件分类说的形式奠定了理论基础,凡主张权利的当事人,应就权利发生法律要件存在的事实承担证明责任;否认者则应就权利妨害法律要件、权利消灭法律要件或权利制约法律要件的存在事实承担证明责任。具体参见[德]莱奥·罗森贝克:《证明责任论》,庄敬华译,中国法制出版社2002年版,第103页以下。
3参见毕玉谦:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第372-373页。
4 R Cross, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th ed., Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 97.
5《国际法院规约》第38条规定:“一、法院对于陈述各项争端,应以国际法裁判之,裁判时应适用:(子)不论普通或特别国际协约,确定诉讼当事国明白承认之规条者;(丑)国际习惯,作为通例之证明而经接受为法律者;(寅)一般法律原则为文明各国所承认者;(卯)在第59条规定之下,司法判例及各国权威最高之公法学家学说,作为确定法律原则之补助资料者。二、前项规定不妨碍法院经当事国同意本‘公允及善良’原则裁判案件之权力。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1029-1030页。
1 The Island of Palmas (Netherlands v. USA) case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards(RIAA), Vol. II, 1928, p. 837,
2 France v. Greece case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 71, 1937, p. 679.
3 The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 53, 1933, p. 49.
2 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 47, 52.
3 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 66.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, Indi. Op. Judge M. Levi Carneiro, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 99.
2 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1959, p. 209. See also Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 70.
3 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 94.
4 Temple of Preach Vihear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, pp. 15-16.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 586-587, paras. 63-65.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 30-31, paras. 43-45.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/20, p. 14.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 117-118.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, I. C. J. Reports 1953, Memorial of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, p. 74, para. 121.
2 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, p. 1036.
3 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 75-78.
4 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1050.
5 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 630.
6 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 6.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 587-588, para. 65.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 94.
2 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), I. C. J. Reports 1959, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 256.
3 Cameroon v Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 453, paras. 321-324.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 49-52.
2 Temple of Preach Vihear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 144.
3 Temple of Preach Vihear case, Counter-Memorial of the Royal Government of Thailand, p. 194, para. 75.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Reply of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, pp. 498, 514, paras. 139-140.
2 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Memorial of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, p. 76, para. 128.
3 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Reply of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, pp. 431-432, para. 15.
4 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 47, 52.
5 Sovereignty over certain Frontier Land, I. C. J. Reports 1959, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno-Quintana, p. 256.
1 Case Concerning the India-Pakistan Western Boundary (Rann of Kutch), Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA), Vol. XVII, 1968, pp. 10-11.
2参见王圣扬:《论诉讼证明标准的二元制》,载《中国法学》1999年第3期。
3 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 323.
4参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第193页。
2 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 103-104.
3 K M Clermont﹠ E Sherwin, A Comparative View of Standards of Proof, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 50, 2002, p. 246.
4参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第328-329页。
1 James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International﹠ Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 58, 2009, pp. 166-168.
2《国际法院规约》第53条规定:“一、当事国一造不到法院或不辩护其主张时,他造得请求法院对自己主张为有利之裁判。二、法院于允准前项请求钱,应查明不特依第三十六条及第三十七条法院对本案有管辖权,且请求人之主张在事实及法律上均有根据。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1036页。
3该条款英文文本为:“1. Whenever one of the parties does not appear before the Court, or fails to defend its case, the other party may call upon the Court to decide in favour of its claim. 2. the Court must, before doing so, satisfy itself, not only that it has jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 36 and 37, but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.”刘颖、吕国民编:《国际法资料选编》(中英文对照),中信出版社2004年版,第440页。
1 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (New Application), I. C. J. Reports 1970, Sep. Op. Judge Fitzmaurice, p. 65, para. 58.
2 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 242.
3 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 190.
4 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, p. 18.
5与国际法院不同,在WTO所受理的案件中,多数学者认为,专家组适用了表面证据标准,而且存在证明责任的转移。但是,学界也存在一定的争议,如埃德蒙·麦克文(Edmond McGovern)指出,在实践中专家组实质上适用了证据优势标准。See Edmond McGovern, International Trade Regulation, 3rd,ed. Globefield Press, 2006, p. 63.
6 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, paras. 14-18.
1 Robert Kolb, General Principles of Procedural Law, in Andreas Zimmerman (eds), the Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 124-129.
2 Simone Halink, All Things Considered: How the International Court of Justice Delegated Its Fact-Assessment to the United Nations In the Armed Activities Case International Law and Politics, Vol. 40, 2008, p. 25.
3 Robert Kolb, General Principles of Procedural Law, in Andreas Zimmerman (eds), the Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 830.
1 [联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第38页。
2傅崐成著:《海洋法专题研究》,厦门大学出版社2004年版,第317页。
3 The Minqttiers and Ecrehos case, Pleadings of United Kingdom/France, Oral Argument of Sir L. Heald, p. 53.
4 [联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第354-356页。
5 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, I. C. J. Reports 1953, Indi. Op. Judge Basdevant, pp. 83-84.
1 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), I. C. J. Reports 1959, Declaration of Judge Spiropoulos, p. 232.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 506, para. 248.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Oral Hearing, CR 99/13, pp. 40-41.
4 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1098-1100, paras. 83-87.
5 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/22, p. 28, para. 68.
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 242.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 123.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Joint Diss. Op. Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and Koroma, p. 172, para. 83.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Sep. Op. Judge Rezek, pp. 1233-1237.
2 James Thuo Gathii, Geographical Hegelianism in Territorial Disputes Involving Non-European Land Relations: An Analysis of the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), At http://SSRN-id655922.pdf, Dec. 28, 2010.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Diss. Op. Judge Weeramantry, pp. 1176-1177, paras. 73-76.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 52, 67.
2在本案中,处于争议的领土为宗德里根A段第91号和第92号的两片土地。根据荷兰出示的与比利时在1841年签字的“公社记录”复本记载,第78号至第111号土地属于荷兰的巴阿勒—纳苏公社所有。但是,随后1843年《荷兰和比利时边界条约》规定:第91号和92号土地归于比利时的巴埃勒—杜克公社。因此,荷兰认为,1843年边界条约存在错误。See Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1959, p. 222.
1 Temple of Preah Vihear case, Pleadings of Cambodia, Vol. II, p. 158.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 564, para. 343
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 405, para. 207.
4 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 159.
5 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, p. 154, para. 3.
6 Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 24, para. 29.
7 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, pp. 154-155, paras. 3-5.
1参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第327页。
2参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第320页。
3 James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International﹠ Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 58, 2009, p. 167.
4参见何主宇编著:《英美法案例研读指南》,法律出版社2007年版,第118-119页。
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Counter-Memorial of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Vol. 1, p. 645.
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge Ajibola, p. 599, para. 194.
1 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, Diss. Op. Judge Krylov, p. 72.
2 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), I. C. J. Reports 2007, p. 76, para. 422.
3 Ruth Teitelbaum, Recent Fact-Finding Developments at the International Court of Justice, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 6, 2007, p. 127.
4 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Oral Hearing, CR 99/6, p. 12.
5 Counter-Memorial Submitted by the State of Bahrain (Questions of Jurisdiction and Admissibility), Vol. I, 11 June 1992, p. 24.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/31, p. 53, para. 15.
2 E Valencia Ospina, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, Intl L Forum du droit International, Vol.1, 1999, pp. 203-207.
3 Cn Brower, Evidence before International Tribunals: the Need for Some Standard Rules, International Layer, 1994, Vol. 28, p. 49.
2 James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International﹠ Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 58, 2009, pp. 168-174.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 137.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, p. 154, para. 3.
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 239-241.
2 Walter George, Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location, John Wiley﹠ Sons, 2002, p. 27.
3参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第327页。
1 Ruth Teitelbaum, Recent Fact-Finding Developments at the International Court of Justice, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 6, 2007, p. 128.
2转引自郭华、殷宪龙、李继刚著:《证据法学》,山东人民出版社2009年版,第393页。
3毕玉谦主编:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第497页。
4 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 211.
5 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 653-657.
6参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1084页。
7转引自龙宗智:《推理的界限及适用》,载《法学研究》2008年第1期。
8参见宋英辉、汤维建主编:《证据法学研究述评》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第388页。
1何家弘主编:《外国证据法》,法律出版社2003年版,第244页。
2 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 101.
3 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 141-142.
4 Lighthouses Case between France and Greece, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 62, 1934, p. 47.
1 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 250.
2 The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 48, 1933, p. 287.
3 The Minquiters and Ecrehos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 47.
4 The Minquiters and Ecrehos case, Memorial of the United Kingdom, p. 108, para. 199.
5 The Minquiters and Ecrehos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 61.
1 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Judge Fitzmaurice, p. 61.
2 The Minquiters and Ecrehos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 57.
3 Territorial Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1994, p. 28, para. 56.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge Franck, pp. 692-704.
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 219-220.
3 Ruth Teitelbaum, Recent Fact-Finding Developments at the International Court of Justice, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 6, 2007, p. 128.
1 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), I. C. J. Reports 1959, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, pp. 252-253.
2参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993年,第57页。
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993年,第59页。
2参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第375页。
3参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第725页。
4 Alan Taylor, Principles of Evidence, Canvendish Publishing Limited, 2000, pp. 41-42.
5 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 257.
1 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Judge Alfaro, p. 41.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 582-583, paras. 55-56.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, C4/CR 91/35, p. 31.
3 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 119, para. 44.
4 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 58-59.
5Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Joint Diss. Op. Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and Koroma, pp. 165-167.
1 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 258. See also Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 223.
2参见宋英辉等主编《证据法学研究述评》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第195-196页。
3 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 656.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Kooijmans, p. 242, para. 68.
5 Territorial Dispute(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Counter-Memorial of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Vol. 1, pp. 343-344.
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 223.
2 See Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks a South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 31, para. 44.
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Reply of the State of Qatar, Chapter IV, Section 4, p. 62.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Oral Hearing, CR 2000/11, p. 33, para. 69.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrehos case, Judgment of November 17th, 1953, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 66.
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, pp. 28-29.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 398, para. 188.
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Percy Spender, p. 109.
3转引自宋英辉、汤维建主编:《证据法学研究述评》,中国公安大学出版社2006年版,第392页。
4参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第731页。
5 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 655-656.
1 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, p. 18.
2参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第410页。
3参见[美]罗纳德·J.艾伦等:《证据法:文本、问题和案例》(第三版),张保生等译,满云龙校,高等教育出版社2006年版,第879页。
4 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 390.
5参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第276页。
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 160-161.
2 Island of Palmas (Netherlands/United States of America), 4 April 1928, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, pp. 841-842.
3该条规定:“法庭不应要求证明众所周知的事实,而应采取司法认知的方式。同时,对于官方政府的文件、联合国报告,以及包括各同盟国为了调查战争犯罪而形成的决议和文件、联合国某一军事或其他法庭的记录和调查结果等。”
4 Access to, or Anchorage in, the Port of Danzig, of Polish War Vessels, Advisory Opinion, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 43, 1931, p. 144.
5 Fisheries Jurisdiction case, (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland), I. C. J. Reports 1974, p. 9, para. 17.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Oral Hearing, CR 2001/1, p. 10. para. 7.
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Indi. Op. Judge Franck, pp. 654-655, para. 8.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Rejoinder of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, para. 14.2.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Diss. Op. Judge Dugard, p. 143, para. 22.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application of the Republic of Nicaragua, pp. 1-4.
2 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgement, I. C. J. Reports 1991, p. 24.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, the Special Agreement for Submission to the International Court of Justice, p. 19.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 58.
2参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第58页。
3德国国际法学者英戈·冯·闵希认为,习惯国际法包括普遍的国际习惯法、特殊国际习惯法、区域国际习惯法等。参见[德]英戈·冯·闵希著:《国际法教程》,世界知识出版社1997版,第52页。李浩培先生也认为,国际习惯法是可以分为一般习惯法和特殊习惯法的。参见李浩培著:《国际法的概念与渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第94页。
4参见曾令良主编:《国际法学》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2003年版,第12页。
1 Case Concerning Asylum (Colombia v. Peru), I. C. J. Reports 1950, pp. 276-277.
2 Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), I. C. J. Reports 1951, Sep. Op. Judge de Castro, pp. 78-79.
3 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 645, para. 37; Territorial Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1994, pp. 21-22, para. 41; Qatar v. Bahrain case, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1995, p. 18, para. 33; Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1059, para. 18.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 668, para. 92.
1 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 93-94, paras. 174-176.
2参见[美]路易斯·亨金:《国际法:政治与法律》,张乃根等译,张乃根校,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第54页。
3参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第688页。
4参见张卫彬:《论海洋划界中的禁止反言原则》,载《常熟理工学院学报》(社科版)2008年第5期。
1转引自赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第15页。
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 81, para. 228.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Counter-Memorial of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Vol. 1, Bakassi, pp. 158-160.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 404-405, para. 205.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 36, para. 67.
1参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第431页。
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, p. 47, paras. 165-167.
3 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 233.
1 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 999-1002.
2 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 10.
3 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p.197.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 41, para. 86.
5 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 128, para. 80.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 47.
2英国证据法中的实物证据是指,法官对有关物体、人身、场所或环境通过其视觉、听觉、触觉等感官作用予以观察并得到结论的一切物体,如证物、人或动物的自身特征、证人的表现行为、现场勘查视察、文件的存在或外形特征等。参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第98页。
3 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 8.
4周叔厚:《证据法论》,台湾三民书局1995年版,第11-12页。转引自何家弘主编:《外国证据法》,法律出版社2003年版,第174页。
1在民法体系,德国和意大利模式与法国存在不同。在某些情况下,需要全体法官出庭。See D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp.198-199.
2参见刁荣华主编:《比较刑事证据法各论》,台湾汉林出版社刊印1985年版,第322页。转引自齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第94页。
3 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), I. C. J. Reports 2007, p. 77, para. 211.
1 Island of Palmas (Netherlands/United States of America), 4 April 1928, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, p. 841.
2 South West Africa cases, Second phase, 1966, Pleadings-X, p. 122.
1根据《国际法院规约》第31条第3款规定,专案法官是指:“法院受理案件,如当事国均无本国国籍法官时,各当事国均得依本条第二项之规定选派法官一人。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1028页。
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge Franck, p. 696, para. 17.
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Fortier, pp. 451-453, paras. 1-11.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge Ad Hoc Franck, p. 692, para. 3.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Diss. Op. Judge ad hoc Dugard, p. 133.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, p. 153.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge ad hoc Franck, pp. 694-695, paras. 10-12.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge ad hoc Ajibola, p. 355.
2 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 192.
1 K Highet, Evidence, the Court and the Nicaragua Case, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, 1987, pp. 44-46.
2参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第381页。
1 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1794.
2 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1959, p. 222.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, pp. 270-273.
2 Territorial Dispute (Libya/Chad), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1994, pp.12-13.
3 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, pp. 1802-1803.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 68, para. 89.
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1997-2002),联合国出版物2005,第40页。
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1997-2002),联合国出版物2005,第40页。
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 683-684, paras. 142-145.
2参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993年,第32页。
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 182-186.
1《常设国际法院出版物》,Series A/B, No.53.转引自赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第16页。
2 Land,Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application by Nicaragua to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 118, para. 63.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Memorial of Singapore, Vol. 1, 25 March 2004, p. 155.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 74, para. 198.
5 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 79, para. 220.
6 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 80, para. 223.
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993,第31页。
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 56-57.
2参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第356页。
3 R Higgins, Speech by H E Judge Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice, to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, 2 Nov. 2007, p. 2.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, pp. 298-299.
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 586, para. 63.
3 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 586, para. 63.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 399, para. 62.
2参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第374-375页。
3参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1997-2002),联合国出版物2005,第251页。
4 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 57.
1 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Joint Diss. Op. Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and Koroma, pp. 155-158, paras. 150-162.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 584-585, paras. 58-61.
1 Island of Palmas (Netherlands/United States of America), 4 April 1928, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, pp. 852-854.
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 229-230.
3 Delimitation of the Polish/Czechoslovakian Frontier Advisory Opinion, 1923, P. C. I. J. Series B, No. 8, p. 33.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 582-583, paras. 54-56.
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 215.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 209.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 94, para. 267.
5 I. Brownlie, International law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations: General Course on Public International Law in Académie du Droit International, Recueil des Cours (1995), p. 159, cited in the Namibian Counter-Memorial, Annex 116, p. 126.
6 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 267.
7参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993,第57-59页。
2参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993,第68页。
3 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, pp. 133-134.
4 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 70.
1参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第61页。
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 362-364, paras. 87-91.
3 Colombia/Venezuela Arbitration 1891, British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 83, p. 387, cited in Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, pp. 229-230.
1 Frontier Dispute(Benin/Niger), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 119, para. 44.
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 584-586, paras. 62-65.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Namibian Counter-Memorial, p. 4, para. 11.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Reply of the Republic of Botswana Vol. I, November 1998, pp.102-108.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1099-1100, paras. 85-88.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 92-95, paras. 268-272.
5 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 267.
1参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第159页。
2 1982年我国制定的民事诉讼法(试行),第一次将视听资料作为独立的诉讼证据予以规定。此后,1989年制定的行政诉讼法和1991年修改的民事诉讼法,对此都有相同的规定。1996年3月17日颁布的新刑事诉讼法第42条也明确将视听资料列为一种独立的证据。参见毕玉谦主编:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第190页。
3 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 145, 264, 317.
4 A aguilar Mawdsley, Evidence Before the International Court of Justice, in R St J Macdonald(ed), Essays in Honor of Wang Tieya, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, 1993, p. 547.
1 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 9.
2在该案中,双方均预先提供一份拷贝给登记员和对方当事人,并在庭审过程中播放了录像。See Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Pleadings, CR 1999/2 10, 1999, Para. 8.
3卡塔尔在向秘书处提交备忘录时,存放了20份关于卡塔尔人自中世纪以来,在海瓦尔群岛的行为和活动。See Qatar v. Bahrain case, Memorial of the Government of the State of Qatar, 50.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Pleadings, CR 2002/8, para. 30; CR 2002/11, para. 63.
5参见林惠敏:《白礁主权案开审我代表列大量证据证明拥有白礁》,《联合早报》,2007年11月7日。
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 13.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Counter-Memorial of Botswana, Annexs 47-51;Reply of Botswana, Vol. 1, Annexs. 20-22.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, 25 January 2005, para. 190.
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Diss. Op. Judge Torres Bernardezp, p. 273, para. 36.
1 Nicuruguu v. United States of America case, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 42, para. 68.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, Annex 4; Oral Hearing, CR 2007/22, p. 41, para. 13.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/22, paras. 8-16.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 244.
2该条第4款规定,口述程序过程中不得提及不按照规约第43条或本条提出任何文件的内容,除非该文件是公众易于得到的某出版物的一部分。
3 Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Merits) I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 40, para. 62.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 34-35, para. 57.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Counter-Memorial of Singapore, p. 59, paras. 4.38-4.45.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 35, paras. 58-59.
4 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 40-41, paras. 62-63.
5 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge Ad Hoc Sreeniva Rao, pp. 155-156, para. 8.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, pp. 288-289.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 12.
1在该案中,博茨瓦纳在其辩诉状(counter-memorial)和专家报告中涉及了大量的卫星图像,以支持自己的论点:丘贝河(Chobe river)的主航道在北面。See Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Pleadings, CR 1999/2, pp. 29-30.
2针对巴林利用卫星图像显示争议区域的一条干涸线,卡塔尔则提交了不同的卫星图像,帮助确定一条自然形成的水道。See Qatar v. Bahrain case, Pleading, CR 2000/9, p. 51.
3 Cameroon v Nigeria case, preliminary Objections Pleadings, CR 1998/1, para.30.
4双方均提出了大量的卫星图像,以显示沿海岸泥沙沉积增长的进程,以及说明各自海岸基点的确定的考虑因素。See Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Pleadings, CR 2007/1, para. 55; CR 2007/2, para. 7; CR 2007/8, paras. 52-59.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Pleadings, CR 1999/3, p. 69.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Oral hearing, CR 2000/14, p. 42, para. 42.
1 Cameroon v Nigeria, preliminary Objections, Pleadings, CR 1998/1, para. 30.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Counter-Memorial of the Republic of Botswana, paras. 59-60.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Declaration of Higgins, p. 1115, para. 9.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Diss. Op. Judge Parra- Aranguren, p. 1229, para. 78.
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Memorial of the Republic of Honduras, p. 195.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 277-280.
4该公约第15条规定:“如果两国海岸彼此相向或相邻,两国中任何一国在彼此没有相反协议的情形下,均无权将其领海伸延至一条其每一点都同测算两国中每一国领海宽度的基线上最近各点距离相等的中间线以外。但如因历史性所有权或其他特殊情况而有必要按照与上述规定不同的方法划定两国领海的界限,则不适用上述规定。”傅崐成编校:《海洋法相关公约及中英文索引》,厦门大学出版社2005年版,第6页。
5 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Memorial of Republic of Honduras, para. 93.
1 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, p. 17.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1089-1091, paras. 65-69.
1参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第114-115页。
2 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1780.
1 The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 5, 1933, p. 45, at http://www.I CJ-cij.org/pcij/serie_AB/AB_53/01_Groenland_Oriental_Arret.pdf, Nov. 30, 2009.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp, 80-85, paras. 128, 147.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 454, para. 325.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 68, para. 89.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 683-684, paras. 142-145.
2 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed. Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, p. 1243.
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993,第31-32页。
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 568, para. 30.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 208.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 95-96, paras. 273-277.
3 Mark J. Valencia, the Spratly Islands Dispute, Far Eastern Economic Review, January 9, 2003, p. 21.
4 The Minqttiers and Ecrehos case, I. C. J. Pleadings, Oral Argument of Sir L.Heald(U.K.), p. 54.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 683-684, paras. 141-145.
2转引自赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第9页。
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Diss. Op. Judge Rezek, p. 1237, para. 14.
1 Anthony Connerty, A Mannual of International Dispute Resolution, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2006, p. 34.
1 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1792.
2万鄂湘等主编:《国际法:领悟与构建—W.迈克尔.赖斯曼论文集》,法律出版社2007年版,第352页。
1 Helen Ghebrewebet, Identifying Units of Statehood and Determining International Boundaries, Perer Lang GmbH, 2006, p. 21.
2 Helen Ghebrewebet, Identifying Units of Statehood and Determining International Boundaries, Perer Lang, 2006, p. 21.
1 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1791.
1参见[英]伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良等译,法律出版社2003年版,第70-76页。
2相反占有权是指取得不动产所有权的一种方法。凡无法律根据而占有不动产,根据时效在一定条件下依法可取得此项不动产的所有权,在发生纠纷时,对此项占有权称为相反占有权。即因非法占有取得时效。具体参见夏登峻、何联升主编:《英汉法律词典》,法律出版社1999年版,第29页。
1 Hill, Claims to Territory in International Law and Relations, Oxford University Press, 1945, pp. 146-149.
2 Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 6th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 506.
3 James Thuo Gathii, Geographical Hegelianism in Territorial Disputes Involving Non-European Land Relations: An Analysis of the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), at http://SSRN-id655922.pdf, Dec. 28, 2010.
1 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1810.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 355, para.70.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, p. 156, para. 5.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 50-51, paras. 120-121.
2 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1984, p. 305, para. 130.
3 Coalter G. Lathrop, Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, 2008, pp. 833-834.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 288.
2参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第125-126页。
3 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 564, para. 18.
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 388, para. 45.
1 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 72.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 524, para. 276.
1参见卞建林主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第489页。
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 73.进一步的讨论详见下一节的内容。
3专家证人的概念首次出现在国际常设法院1927年波属上西里西亚德国利益案之中。
4 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Oral Proceedings on the Merits, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 331.
5 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 291.
1 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, Rejoinder of Mr de Villiers, p. 85.
2 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, Rejoinder of Mr de Villiers, p. 123.
3 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1020.
4 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, Rejoinder of Mr de Villiers, p. 123.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 307.
2参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第89页。
1 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, p. 1343.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Pleadings, Vol. II, 1962, pp. 332-333.
1 South West Africa cases, I. C. J. Pleadings, Vol. X, 1966, pp. 122-123, 175.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 574-575, para. 361.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Oral Hearing, 1991, C 4/CR 91/34, pp. 11-49.
1 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Diss. Op. Judge Torres Bernardez, p. 273, para. 36.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Counter-Memorial of the Republic of Honduras, pp. 104-106.
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 190-193.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 194-196.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 200-201.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 73.
3 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Judge Gerald Fitzmaurice, p. 60.
1参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1057-1058页。
2参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1059页。
1 K Highet, Evidence, the Court, and the Nicaragua Case, America Journal of International Law, Vol. 81, 1987, p. 26.
2 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundaries in the Gulf of Marine Area, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1984 , pp. 273-278.
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 142, para. 142.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/13, pp. 27-28, paras. 28-31.
1 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) and North Sea Continental Shelf(Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark), I. C. J. Reports 1969, Diss. Op. Judge Koretsky, p. 160.
1 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, President Sir Percy Spender, p. 515.
2参见夏登峻、何联升主编:《英汉法律词典》,法律出版社1999年版,第871-872页。
3 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1021.
4 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, President Sir Percy Spender, p. 340.
5 South West Africa cases, Pleading, Vol. X, pp. 335-342; Vol. XI, p. 456-457.
1 P. C. I. J. Series D, No. 2, 1936, p. 247, cited in Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 333.
1 G White, the Use of Experts by International Tribunals, Syracuse University Press, 1965, p. 73.
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Wellington Koo, p. 100.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namihia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Sep. Op. Judge Oda, p. 1119, para.6.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namihia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1063, para. 28.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Diss. Op. Judge ad hoc Torrez Bernardez, p. 275, para. 41.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 361-362, para. 22. See also Oral Hearing, C 4/CR 91/30, p. 24.
4 M Lachs, Evidence in the Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Role of the Court, in E. G. Bello﹠ B. A. Ajibola (eds), Essays in Honor of Judge Taslim Olawle Elias, Vol. II, Contemporary International Law and Human Rights, 1993, p. 273.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 558.
2 Gillian White, the Use of experts by the International Court, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 533-534.
1 R Jennings, International Lawers and the Progressive Development of International Law, in J Makarczyk(ed), Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of Krzystof Skubiszewski, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 416.
2 Western Sahara cases, I. C. J. Reports 1975, Sep. Op. Judge Petrén, p. 113.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 337.
1 M Lachs, Evidence in the Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Role of the Court, Essays in Honor of Judge Taslim Olawle Elias, Vol. II, Contemporary International Law and Human Rights, 273.
1 Elettronica Sicula S. p. A.(ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Pleading-III, I. C. J. Reports 1987, p. 301.
2 Elettronica Sicula S. p. A.(ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Pleading-III, I. C. J. Reports 1987, p. 313.
1参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第226页。
1 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 97-98, paras. 188-190.
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 303, para. 102.
1 CM Schofield﹠ CH Carleton, Technical Considerations in Law of the Sea Dispute Resolution in AG Oude Elferink and D R Rothwell(eds), Oceans Management in the 21st Century, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004, p. 251.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Judge Gerald Fitzmaurice, pp. 58-59.
3 Continental Shelf case (Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya/Malta), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1985, p. 36, para. 41.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 324.
1 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1018.
1第62条第1款规定:“为了阐明争执事项的任一方面,法院得随时要求当事国双方提出法院认为必要的证据,或者作出法院认为必要的解释或法院为此目的自己搜集其他情报。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1058页。
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 338.
1 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, President Sir Percy Spender, p. 341.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 344.
2 Diversion of Water from the Meuse, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 70, 1937, p. 9.
3 Gillian White, the Use of experts by the International Court, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 528.
4 South West Africa cases, Pleadings, 1965, p. 98.
3 Procedural Order No. 1 of the Tribunal, 18 July 2005; Procedural Order No. 3, 4 of 12 Oct. 2005; Procedural Order No. 5 of 16 Feb. 2006.
1 Procedural Order No. 6 of the Tribunal, 27 Nov. 2007.
2 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal of 17 September 2007 in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname, para. 110.
3 Procedural Order No. 7 of 12 March 2007; Procedural Order No. 8 of 21 May 2007.
4 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal of 17 September 2007 in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname, para. 309.
1 Rongxing Guo, the Land and Maritime Boundary Disputes of Europe, Nova Science Publishers, 2009, p. 88. See also Gideon Blger, the Encyclopedia of International Boundaries, the Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd., 1995, p. 156.
1参见江国青主编:《国际法》,高等教育出版社2005年版,第176页。
2 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publicationas, 1971, pp. 9-10.
3参见万鄂湘等主编:《国际法:领悟与构建—迈克尔·赖斯曼论文集》,法律出版社2007年版,第356页。
1参见《元以来西藏地方与中央政府关系档案史料汇编》(第6册),中国藏学出版社1994年版,第2419页以下。
2 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987, p. 280.
3卡塔尔认为,该条约未被批准的原因在于第一次世界大战的爆发,而巴林认为,1913年条约没有被批准的原因为“一系列复杂而相互依存的提议......最后(批准,作者注)停止了。”See Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 57, paras. 46-47.
1 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987, p. 280.
2参见[印]卡·古普塔著:《中印边界秘史》,王宏纬、王至亭译,中国藏学出版社1990年版,第48页。
3 Rubin, the Sino-India Border Dispute, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1960, p. 105.
4 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, p. 5.
5 Gideon Blger, the Encyclopedia of International Boundaries, Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd., 1995, pp. 158-159.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Counter-Memorial of the Royal Government of Thailand, p. 194, para. 75.
3 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, p. 6.
4参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第635-636页。
5参见周鲠生著:《国际法》(下册),武汉大学出版社2007年第1版,第517页。
1 India Year Book of International Affairs, 1956, pp. 172-173, cited in Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 40-41.
2 Rubin, A Matter of fact, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 59, 1965, p. 586; David A. McCabe, Tibet’s Declaration of Independence, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 60, 1966, p. 812.
3参见《中华民国临时约法》总纲部分。
4参见世界知识出版社编辑:《中印边界问题》,世界知识出版社1959年版,第47-48页。
5 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987, p. 280.
1 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 40-41.
1转引自[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第134页。
2参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第626页。
1 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987, p. 280.
2 Government of India Notes, Memoranda and Letters exchanged and Agreements signed between the Government of India and China, White Paper I, 1954-1959, pp.49-50.
3 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 9-10.
1 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 18-19.
2参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第610页。
1在东格陵兰岛案中,挪威和丹麦均提出了大量的历史证据。但是,常设国际法院认为,丹麦的历史证据更令人信服。See Janice Cavell, Historical Evidence and the Eastern Greenland Case, the Arctic Institute of North America, Vol. 61, 2008, p. 433.
2参见黄盛璋、王士鹤:《清代中印东段边界的历史研究》,载《边界历史地理研究论丛》,中国社科院地理研究所编,第74页。
3 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 280.
4转引自康民军:《地理原则能论证“麦克马洪线"的有效性吗?——评析20世纪五六十年代印度政府对“麦克马洪线"的一个观点》,载《南亚研究》2009年第3期。
5 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 31-34.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 422, para. 101.
3参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993年,第68页。
4参见中国科学院青藏高原综合考察队:《西藏自然地理》,科学出版社1982年版,第20页。
1 Neville Maxwell, India’China War, Jonathan Cape, 1970, p. 39.
2 Alastair Lamb, the China-India Border: The origin of the Disputed Boundaries, Oxford University Press, 1964, p. 126.
3 Gideon Blger, the Encyclopedia of International Boundaries, the Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd., 1995, pp. 158-159.
4参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第75页。
3 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 587, para. 63.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 355, para. 70.
1 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 9-10.
2参见邵津主编:《国际法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2008年版,第118页。
3 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 58.
4 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 283.
1以上内容参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第633页以下。
2 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 19-20.
1参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第633-635页。
2 Alastair Lamb, the Sino-Indian Border in Ladakah, Australian National University Press, 1973, p. 35.
3参见《中华人民共和国政府官员和印度政府官员关于边界问题的报告》,第2-3页。转引自吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第642页。
1参见《中华人民共和国政府官员与印度政府官员关于边界问题的报告》,中国外交部,第1页。转引自吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第643页。
2 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 21, 47.
3 Parshotam Mchra, An“agreed”Frontier Ladakh and India’s Northernmost Borders(1846-1947), Oxford University press, 1992, p. 18.
1 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 283.
1 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, pp. 283-284.
2参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第645-646页。
3 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 284.
1 John Lall, Akasichin and Sino-Indian Conflict, Allied Pub. Pvt. Ltd., 1989, p. 59.
2参见王宏纬:《喜马拉雅山情结:中印关系研究》,中国藏学出版社1998年版,第43页。
3 A. P. Rubin, Sino-India Border Dispute, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 9, p. 124.
2 Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000, pp. 79-80.
1我国于1971年12月30日曾发表声明,钓鱼岛列屿附属于台湾岛。1972年2月台湾省将其纳入宜兰县管辖。See Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 287.
2参见郑海麟著:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,中华书局2007年版,第119-120页。
3 Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010, p. 48.
4 Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000, pp. 85-86.
5参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第91页。
1参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第78页。
2 Steven Wei Su, the Territorial Dispute over the Tiaoyu/Senkaku Islands: An Update, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 36, 2005.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1075, para. 48.
4 Kimie Hara, Cold War Frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: Divided Territories in the San Francisco System, Routledge, 2007, p. 17.
1 Min Gyo Koo, Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia, Springer, 2009, pp. 69-70.
2 Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010, pp. 49-50.
1参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第117页。
1参见李浩培著:《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版,第502页。
2参见张暄主编:《当代中日关系四十年》,时事出版社1993年版,第317页。
3参见郑海麟:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,中华书局2007年版,第155-156页。
1 Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000, p. 86.
2参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第5页以下。
3参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第47页。
1参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第288页。
2参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第71页。
3参见郑海麟著:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,中华书局2007年版,第135页。
1参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第86页。
2参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第137页。
1 Daniel Bodansky, Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, 2008, p. 115.
1参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第47页。
2 Steven Wei Su, the Territorial Dispute over the Tiaoyu/Senkaku Islands: An Update, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 36, 2005, p. 55.
3参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台—中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第101页。
1 Dai Tan, J. D, the Diaoyu/Senkaku Dispute: Bridging the Cold Divide, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Vol. 1, 2006, pp. 157-158.
2 J. Craig Barker, Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals, International and Comparative Quarterly, Vol. 57, 2008, p. 705.
3参见李金明著:《南海波涛》,江西高校出版社2005年版,第2页。
4 Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Kluwer Law International, 2000, p. 256.
5参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第2页。
6参见邵津主编:《国际法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2008年版,第116页。吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第1048-1049页。
1参见李金明著:《南海波涛》,江西高校出版社2005年版,第3页。
2参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第1051页。
3参见赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第12页。
4参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第1051-1055页。
5参见赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第11页。
6 Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010, p. 67.
7 Lee G. Cordner, the Spratly Islands Disputes and the Law of the Sea, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 25, 1994, p. 65.
1参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第13页。
2 Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000, pp. 92-93.
1 Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Kluwer Law International, 2000, p. 256.
2 Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010, p. 67.
1自1933年4月起,法国殖民者陆续侵入南沙群岛的九个小岛。1933年7月法国在一份政府公报中声称,已经占领南沙群岛的九个小岛,并将其置于法国的主权管辖之下。当时我国的渔民即展开了反抗斗争,如砍掉法国的国旗,插上中国的国旗等。随后,中国政府采取了积极的应对措施。
2参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第1051-1055页。
3参见李金明著:《南海波涛》,江西高校出版社2005年版,第90-91页。
4参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第8页。
1参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第2页。
2 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, pp.374-375.
3参见赵理海:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第14页。
4参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第10-11页。
1参见傅崐成著:《海洋法专题研究》,厦门大学出版社2004年版,第381页。
2 Anthony Connerty, A Manual of International Dispute Resolution, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2006,p. 41.
1参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第249页。
2 J. Craig Barker, Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals, International and Comparative Quarterly, Vol. 57, 2008, p. 704.
1参见张卫彬:《海洋划界的趋势与相关情况规则》,载《华东政法大学学报》2010年第2期。
1、[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨:《奥本海国际法》,王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版。
2、高忠智著:《美国证据法新解——相关性证据及其排除规则》,法律出版社2004年版。
3、[英]马尔科姆·N.肖著:《国际法》(影印版),北京大学出版社2005年版,第431页。
4、李浩培著:《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版。
5、何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2008年第3版。
6、[英]伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年版。
7、叶自强著:《举证责任及其分配标准》,法律出版社2005年版。
8、[德]莱奥·罗森贝克:《证明责任论》,庄敬华译,中国法制出版社2002年版。
9、[英]戴维·M.沃克:《牛津法律大辞典》,李元双等译,法律出版社2003年版。
10、[美]罗纳德·J.艾伦等:《证据法:文本、问题和案例》,张保生等译,高等教育出版社2006年版。
11、[德]汉斯·普维庭:《现代证明责任问题》,吴越译,法律出版社2000年版。
12、[德]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》,陈致中、李斐南译,中山大学出版社1989年版。
13、[德]英戈·冯·闵希:《国际法教程》,李浩培译,世界知识出版社1997版。
14、李浩培著:《国际法的概念与渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版。
15、[美]路易斯·亨金:《国际法:政治与法律》,张乃根等译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
16、赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版。
17、周叔厚著:《证据法论》,台湾三民书局1995年版。
18、[英]蒂莫西·希利尔:《国际公法原理》,曲波译,中国人民大学出版社2006年版。
19、[印]卡·古普塔:《中印边界秘史》,王宏纬、王至亭译,中国藏学出版社1990年版。
20、周鲠生著:《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
21、[英]内维尔·马克斯维尔:《印度对华战争》,陆仁译,世界知识出版社1981年版。
22、张荣祖、郑度、杨勤业著:《西藏自然地理》,科学出版社1982年版。
23、王宏纬著:《喜马拉雅山情结:中印关系研究》,中国藏学出版社1998年版。
24、郑海麟著:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,中华书局2007年版。
25、鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版。
26、李金明著:《南海波涛》,江西高校出版社2005年版。
27、马英九著:《从新海洋法论钓鱼台列屿与东海划界问题》,中正书局1986年版。
28、李静著:《证据裁判原则初论》,中国人民公安大学出版社2008年版。
29、段厚生著:《证明评价影响因素分析》,法律出版社2009年版。
30、段书臣、刘澍著:《证明标准问题研究》,人民法院出版社2007年版。
31、丛杭青著:《陈词证据研究》,人民出版社2005年版。
32、毛立华著:《论证据与事实》,中国人民公安大学出版社2008年版。
33、慕亚平等著:《当代国际法论》,法律出版社1998年版。
34、陈荣宗、林庆苗著:《民事诉讼法》,台湾三民书局1996年版。
35、傅崐成著:《海洋法专题研究》,厦门大学出版社2004年版。
36、张乃根著:《国际法原理》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
37、杨泽伟著:《国际法析论》(第二版),中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
38、[美]托马斯·伯根索尔、肖恩·D.墨菲:《国际公法》(第三版),黎作恒译,法律出版社2005年版。
1、曹建明、周洪钧、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,法律出版社1997年版。
2、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》(第二版),北京大学出版社、上海人民出版社2006年版。
3、曾令良、余敏友主编:《国际法》,法律出版社2004年版。
4、张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版。
5、王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版。
6、邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版。
7、刘颖、吕国民编:《国际法资料选编》,中信出版社2004年版。
8、齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版。
9、宋英辉、汤维建主编:《证据法学研究述评》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版。
10、薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版。
11、毕玉谦主编:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版。
12、何主宇编著:《英美法案例研读全程指南》,法律出版社2007年版。
13、何家弘主编:《外国证据法》,法律出版社2003年版。
14、郭华、殷宪龙、李继刚主编:《证据法学》,山东人民出版社2009年版。
15、曾令良主编:《国际法学》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2003年版。
16、刁荣华主编:《比较刑事证据法各论》,台湾汉林出版社刊印1985年版。
17、万鄂湘、王贵国、冯华健主编:《国际法:领悟与构建》,法律出版社2007年版。
18、夏登峻、何联升主编:《英汉法律词典》,法律出版社1999年版。
19、卞建林主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
20、江国青主编:《国际法》,高等教育出版社2005年版。
21、邵津主编:《国际法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2008年版。
22、吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》,四川人民出版社2007年版。
23、张暄主编:《当代中日关系四十年》,时事出版社1993年版。
24、边永民编著:《国际法》,对外经贸大学出版社2005年版。
25、王献枢主编:《国际法》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
26、屈广清主编:《海洋法》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版。
27、梁淑英主编:《国际法学案例教程》,知识产权出版社2003年版。
28、王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版。
29、邵沙平、余敏友主编:《国际法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2002年版
30、刘家兴主编:《北京大学法学百科全书》(诉讼法学、司法制度卷),北京大学出版社2001年版。
31、傅崐成编校:《海洋法相关公约及中英文索引》,厦门大学出版社2005年版。
1、梁淑英:《论国家领土主权》,载《法律适用》1997年第5期。
2、王圣扬:《论诉讼证明标准的二元制》,载《中国法学》1999年第3期。
3、龙宗智:《推理的界限及适用》,载《法学研究》2008年第1期。
4、姜作利:《WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的合理性分析》,载《现代法学》2010年第6期。
5、叶自强:《举证责任的确定性》,载《法学研究》2001年第3期。
6、康民军:《地理原则能论证“麦克马洪线"的有效性吗?——评析20世纪五六十年代印度政府对“麦克马洪线"的一个观点》,载《南亚研究》2009年第3期。
7、王之昌:《新马岛屿争端之判决:依据与启示》,载《东南亚研究》2009年第1期。
8、王学棉:《论推定的逻辑学基础》,载《政法论坛》2004年第1期。
9、裴苍龄:《再论推定》,载《法学研究》2006年第3期。
10、王可菊:《钓鱼岛及其在东海划界中的地位》,载《中国海洋法评论》2006年第1期。
11、朱利江:《马来西亚和印度尼西亚岛屿主权争议案评论》,载《南洋问题研究》2003年第4期。
12、朱利江:《试论解决领土争端国际法的发展与问题》,载《现代国际关系》2003年第10期。
13、韩占元:《试析解决领土主权争端的有效控制原则—兼论我国的无人岛屿主权争端问题》,载《太原师范学院学报》(社会科学版)2008年第2期。
14、孙传香:《有效控制理论在国际法院的运用及我国的对策》,载《平顶山学院学报》2008年第6期。
15、聂宏毅:《国际法院在解决领土争端中的作用及困境评析》,载《河北法学》2009年第1期。
16、刘芳雄:《国际法治与国际法院的强制管辖权》,载《求索》2006年第5期。
17、吴慧:《国际海洋法争端解决机制对钓鱼岛争端的影响》,载《国际关系学院学报》2007年第4期。
18、曲波:《有效控制原则在解决岛屿争端中的适用》,载《当代法学》2010年第1期。
19、郭渊:《晚清政府的海洋主张与对南海权益的保护》,载《中国边疆实地研究》2007年第3期。
20、金永明:《岛屿与岩礁的法律要件论析》,载《政治与法律》2010年第12期。
21、张新军:《法律适用中的时间因素—中日东海争端关键日期和时际法问题的考察》,载《法学研究》2009年第4期。
22、朱榄叶:《WTO争端解决中的证据问题》,载《当代法学》2007年第1期。
23、王虎华:《论我国和平解决国际争端的理论与实践》,载《河南师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2002年第4期。
24、管建强:《论中日东海划界、领土争端解决的法律方法》,载《学术界》2010年第4期。
25、刘冰:《先占原则与钓鱼岛主权》,载《天津市政法管理干部学院学报》2005年第4期。
1、黄盛璋、王士鹤:《清代中印东段边界的历史研究》,载中国社科院地理研究所编:《边界历史地理研究论丛》,中国科学院地理研究所1998年版。
2、高健军:《论冲绳海槽在中日东海大陆架划界中的作用》,载武汉大学国际法研究所:《武大国际法评论》(第二卷),武汉大学出版社2004年版。
3、邵津:《联合国国际法院在和平解决国际争端中起了什么作用》,载《中国国际法年刊》,法律出版社1986年版。
4、林金枝:《中国最早发现经营和管辖南海诸岛》,载吕一然主编:《南海诸岛地理、历史、主权》,黑龙江教育出版社1992年版。
1、李华:《论解决国际领土争端的基本法律原则》,湘潭大学硕士学位论文,2008年。
2、聂宏毅:《中国与陆地邻国领土争端问题研究(1949-2007)》,清华大学博士学位论文,2009年。
3、林明明:《解析也门与厄立特里亚领土争端》,外交学院硕士学位论文,2010年。
4、董妍:《论领土争端解决中的有效占领规则》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2008年。
5、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。
6、刘衡:《WTO争端解决机制中的证据问题》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,2008年。
1、林惠敏:《白礁主权案开审我代表列大量证据证明拥有白礁》,载《联合早报》2007年11月7日第3版。
1. Acts and Documents Concerning the Organization of the Court, P. C. I. J. Series D, Addendum to No. 2 Revision of the Rules of Court, 1926, p. 250.
2. Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 36.
3. Case concerning territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, Judgment of 8 October 2007, pp. 32-35.
4. Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 632.
5. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 317-318.
6. Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 272
7. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), the Republic of Honduras requests permission to intervene in the proceedings, Press Release (Unofficial), No. 2010/18, 16 June 2010.
8. Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 90.
9. Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 92, 98.
10. Case concerning the Continental Shelf(Tunisia/Libya), Application to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 3, 12.
11. Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports, 1999, p. 1063.
12. Case concerning Frontier dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali),Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 587-588.
13. Case concerning Sovereignty over certain Frontier Land (Belgium/ Netherlands), Judgment of 20 June, I. C. J. Reports 1959, p. 252.
14. Diversion of Water from the Meuse(Netherlands/Belgium), Order of
13 May 1937, P. C. I. J. Series C, No. 81, pp. 553 et seq.
15. Gabcikovo Nagymaros case (Hungary/Slovakia), Order of 5 February 1997, I. C. J. Reports 1997, pp. 3 et seq.
16. South West Africa cases (Ethiopia/South Africa; Liberia/South Africa), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1966, p. 9.
17. Cameroon v. Nigeria, Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I. C. J. Reports 1996, p. 22.
18. Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine area (Canada/United States of America), Appointment of Expert, Order of 30 March 1984, I. C. J. Reports 1984, p. 165.
19. Application for Revision of the Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf case, pp. 227-228.
20. Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 441.
21. Island of Palmas (Netherlands/ United States of America), 4 April 1928, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, p. 841.
22. Chorów Factory, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, P. C. I. J. Series A, No. 17, 1928, p. 51.
23. North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) and North Sea Continental Shelf(Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1969, p. 16.
24. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of American), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 33.
25. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A.(ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1989, p. 26.
26. Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), I. C. J. Reports 1957, Sep. Op. Judge Lauterpacht, p. 39.
27. Case concerning the India-Pakistan Western Boundary (Rann of Kutch), UNRIAA, Vol. XVII, 1968, pp. 10-11.
28. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (New Application: 1962), I. C. J. Reports 1970, Sep. Op. Judge Fitzmaurice, p. 65.
29. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 190.
30. Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, p. 18.
31. The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland,Judgment of 5 April 1933, P. C. I. J. Series A/B No. 53, 1933, p. 49.
32. Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 24.
33. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), I. C. J. Reports 2007, p. 76.
34. Fisheries Jurisdiction case, (United Fisheries’Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1974, p. 9.
1. Suryap P. Sharma, Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law, Kluwer Law International, 1997.
2. D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, UniversityPress of Virginia, 1975.
3. Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press, 2005.
4. Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005.
5. S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court(1920-1996), 3rd ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997.
6. Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law,2009.
7. Elizabeth A. Martin, Oxford Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press, 1997.
8. G White, the Use of Experts by International Tribunal, Syracuse University Press, 1965.
9. Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006.
10. Le Damrosch, the International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, Transnational Publishers, 1987.
11. R. Y. Jennings, the Acquisition of territory in International Law, Manchester University Press, 1961.
12. Hoffmann, the South African Law of Evidence, Durham, 1970.
13. Seoung-Yong Hong﹠ Jon M. Van Dyke, Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Process, and the Law of the Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
14. Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006.
15. Michelle T. Grando, Evidence, Proof, and Fact-Finding in WTO Dispute Settlement, Oxford University Press, 2009.
16. Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad, Interpretation and Revision ofInternational Boundary Decisions, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
17. Js Al-Arayed, A Line in the sea-The Qatar V Bahrain Border Dispute in the World Court, North Atlantic, 2003.
18. Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2003.
19. Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008.
20. Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence, Blackstone Press Ltd., 2000.
21. P Herzoh﹠ M Weser, Civil Procedure in France, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1967.
22. Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996.
23. R Cross, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th ed., Oxford University Press, 2007.
24. Alan Taylor, Principles of Evidence, Canvendish Publishing Ltd., 2000.
25. Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000.
26. Anthony Connerty, A Manual of International Dispute Resolution, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2006.
27. Hill, Claims to territory in International Law and Relations, Oxford University Press, 1945.
28. Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 6th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2007.
29. Guoxing Ji, Maritime Jurisdiction in the Three China Seas: Options for Equitable Settlement, IGCC Publications, 1995.
30. AG Oude Elferink﹠ D R Rothwell, Oceans Management in the 21st Century, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004.
31. Mark J. Valencia﹠ Jon M. Van Dyke﹠ Noel A. Ludwig, Sharingthe Resources of the South China Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997.
32. Rongxing Guo, the Land and Maritime Boundary Disputes of Europe, Nova Science Publishers, 2009.
33. Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987.
34. Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971.
35. Gideon Blger, the Encyclopedia of International Boundaries, the Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd. 1995.
36. Alastair Lamb, the China-India Border: The origin of the Disputed Boundaries, Oxford University Press,1964.
37. Parshotam Mchra, An“agreed”Frontier Ladakh and India’s Northernmost Borders (1846-1947), Oxford University press, 1992.
38. Kimie Hara, Cold War Frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: Divided Territories in the San Francisco System, Routledge, 2007.
39. Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010.
40. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Kluwer Law International, 2000.
41. John O’Brien, International Law, Cavendish Publishing Ltd., 2001.
42. Wallace, International Law, 2nd ed., Sweet﹠ Maxwell Limited, 2002.
43. Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press, 2001.
44. Terence Anderson, David Schum﹠ William Twining, Analysis of evidence, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2005.
45. Chester Brown, A Common Law of International Adjudication, Oxford University Press, 2007.
46. H. Dennis, the Law of Evidence, Sweet﹠ Maxwell, 1999.
47. Alan Taylor, Principle of Evidence, Cavendish Publishing Ltd., 2000.
48. Ulf Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties, Springer, 2007.
49. Richard K Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 2008.
50. Helen Ghebrewebet, Identifying Units of Statehood and Determining International Bounaries, Peter Lang, 2006.
51. Michelle L. Burgis, Boundaries of Discourse in the International Court of Justice, Martinus Nijuoff Publishers, 2009.
1. Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Thomson West, 2004.
2. Aguilar Mawdsley, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, in Macdonald (ed), Essays in Honor of Wang Tieya, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.
3. Walter George,Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location, John Wiley﹠ Sons, 2002.
4. Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
5. J Makarczyk, Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the
21st Century: Essays in Honor of Krzystof Skubiszewski, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996.
6. E. G. Bello﹠ B. A. Ajibola, Essays in Honor of Judge Taslim Olawle Elias, Vol. II, Contemporary International Law and Human Rights, 1993.
1.J. Craig Barker, Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals, International and Comparative Quarterly, Vol. 57, 2008.
2. Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004.
3. Palchetti, Opening the International Court of Justice to Third States, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 6, 2002.
4. J. M. Ruda, Intervention before the International Court of Justice, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
5. Gillian White, the Use of experts by the International Court, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
6. Fitzmaurice, British Year Book of International Law, Vo1. 32, 1955-1956.
7. Cn Brower, Evidence before International Tribunals: the Need for Some Standard Rules, International Layer, Vol. 28, 1994.
8. K Highet, Evidence, the Court and the Nicaragua Case, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, 1987.
9. R Higgins, Respecting Sovereign States and Running a Tight Courtroom, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 50, 2001.
10. K M Clermont and E Sherwin, A Comparative View of Standards of Proof, American journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 50, 2002.
11. James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International﹠Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 58, 2009.
12. Valencia Ospina, Evidence Before the International Court ofJustice, International Law Forum du droit international, Vol. 1, 1999.
13. Ruth Teitelbaum, Recent Fact-Finding Developments at the International Court of Justice, the Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 6, 2007.
14. Rubin, A Matter of fact, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 59, 1965.
15. David A. McCabe, Tibet’s Declaration of Independence, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 60, 1966.
16. Pauwelyn, Evidence, Proof and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement, Who Bears the Burden? Journal of International Economic Law,Vol. 27, 1998.
17. Simone Halink,All Things Considered: How the International Court of Justice Delegated Its Fact-Assessment to the United Nations In the Armed Activities Case International Law and Politics, Vol. 40, 2008.
18. Janice Cavell, Historical Evidence and the Eastern Greenland Case, The Arctic Institute of North America, Vol. 61, 2008.
19. Zou Keyuan, the Sino-Vietnamese Agreement on Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Gulf of Tonkin, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 36, 2005.
20. Lee G. Cordner, the Spratly Islands Disputes and the Law of the Sea, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 25, 1994.
21. Guyen Hong Thao, the Settlement Disputes in the Bac Bo (Tonkin) Gulf, Vietnam Law & Legal Forum, Vol. 7, 2001.
22. Martin Pratt, Case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Hague Justice Journal, Vol. 2, 2007.
23. CM Schofield and CH Carleton, Technical Considerations in Law of the Sea Dispute Resolution in AG Oude Elferink and D R Rothwell (eds), Oceans Management in the 21st Century, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004.
24. Daniel Bodansky, Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, 2008.
25. Posner, Eric A.﹠ Miguel FP de Figueiredo, Is the International Court of Justice Biased? Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 34, 2005.
26. Steven Wei Su, the Territorial Dispute over the Tiaoyu/Senkaku Islands: An Update, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 36, 2005.
27. Dai Tan, J. D., the Diaoyu/Senkaku Dispute: Bridging the Cold Divide, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Vol. 1, 2006.
1.Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 1 November 2007, at http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/3/14113.pdf, Oct. 10, 2010.
2. The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 5, 1933, p. 45, at http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_AB/AB_53/01_Groenland_Oriental_Arret.pdf, Oct. 12, 2010.
3. Summary of Frontier Dispute Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali Judgement-22 December 1996, at http://www.icj-cij.org/I.C.Jwww/Icases/iHVM/ihvm_isummary_19861222.htmSummary, Dec. 2, 2010.
4. Eric A. Posner, Decline of the International Court of Justice, at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=629341, Dec. 12, 2010.
5. James Thuo Gathii, Geographical Hegelianism in Territorial Disputes Involving Non-European Land Relations: An Analysis of the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), at http://SSRN-id655922.pdf, Dec. 28, 2010.
6. Robin Geib, Revision Proceedings before the International Courtof Justice, at http://www.zaoerv.de.63_2003_1_a_167_194-pdf, Feb. 22, 2011.
7. Drifte Reinhard, Japanese-Chinese territorial disputes in the East China Sea—between military confrontation and economic cooperation, at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/20881/, Feb. 28, 2011.
8. Gillian Triggs, Maritime Boundary Disputes in the South China Sea: International Legal Issues, at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1401189, Feb. 28, 2011.
9. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 4 May 2011, the application by Costa Rica and Honduras for Permission to intervene, at http://www.icj-cij/homepage/index.php, May 8, 2011.
2转引自:[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第136页。
1 Acts and Documents Concerning the Organization of the Court, P. C. I. J. Series D, Addendum to No. 2 Revision of the Rules of Court, 1926, p. 250.
1 CN Brower, Evidence before International Tribunals: the Need for Some Standard Rules, International Layer, Vol. 28, 1994, p. 49.
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 184.
4 Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 48.
1 Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (hereinafter Temple of Preah Vihear case), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 36.
2 Case concerning territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (hereinafter Nicaragua v. Honduras case), Judgment of 8 October 2007, pp. 32-35, paras. 104-115.
4 J. Craig Barker, Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals, International and Comparative Quarterly, Vol. 57, 2008, p. 705.
5 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 168.
1 Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesial/Malaysia) (hereinafter Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 632, para. 8.
2 S. Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court(1920-1996), 3rd ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, p. 1289.
3 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 607, para. 95.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Sep. Op. Judge Weeramantry, pp. 650-651, para. 44.
1 S. Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court(1920-1996), 3rd ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, p. 1289.
3 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 51.
1 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening) (hereinafter Cameroon v. Nigeria case), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 317-318, para. 25. orial
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 355, para. 70.
2证据开示具有四个方面的含义:①获知或发现此前未知事情的过程或行为;②在庭前阶段所进行的询问笔录等形式的证据开示;③根据当事方的请求,强制披露与诉讼有关的信息;④文件或事实的披露。See Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Thomson West, 2004, p. 498.
3参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第157页。
4 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 115.
2 Aguilar Mawdsley, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, in Macdonald(ed), Essays in Honor of Wang Tieya, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, p. 539.
3 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1779.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Rejoinder of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, January 2001, para. 11.15.
1 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)(hereinafter Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case), Oral Hearing, CR 2007/27, p. 46, para. 63.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Counter-Memorial of Singapore pp. 235-236, para. 9.37.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 272, para. 95.
4附加证据,又译为确证证据、补强证据、认证证据等。它是指在重要的事项上,为其他证据的准确性起支持和确认作用的附加证据,以此证明真正的事实,从而使得已经提供的证据更为有力和确定。See Elizabeth A. Martin, Oxford Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 111.
5参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第337-338页。
1《国际法院规约》第62条规定:“一、某一国家如认为某案件之判决可影响属于该国具有法律性质之利益时,得向法院申请参加。二、此项申请应由法院裁决之。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1034页。
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Weeramantry, pp. 630, 636, para. 17.
1《国际法院规约》第63条规定:“一、凡协约发生解释问题,而诉讼当事国以外尚有其他国家为该协约之签字者,应立即由书记官长通知各该国家。二、受前项通知之国家有参加程序之权;但如该国行使此项权利时,判决中之解释对该国有同样的拘束力。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1034页。
2 J. M. Ruda, Intervention before the International Court of Justice, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justpce: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 487.
3如在利比亚/突尼斯大陆架案中,国际法院强调,法庭不能仅以政策方面的原因决定是否允许第三方参加诉讼。See Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), Application to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 3, 12.
4Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), the application by Costa Rica and Honduras for Permission to intervene, Judgment of 4 May 2011, at http://www.icj-cij/homepage/index.php, May 8 2011.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Weeramantry, pp. 630, 631, para. 4.
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 421, para. 238.
3“法庭之友”一般是指,协助法庭解决某种疑难法律问题的顾问;或者协助法庭解决问题的人。
4 Palchetti, Opening the International Court of Justice to Third States, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 6, 2002, pp. 181-182.
1 Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras)(hereinafter Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case), I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 110.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 92, 98, para. 12.
3 The Special Agreement for Submission to the International Court of Justice of the Dispute between the Republic of Indonesia and Malaysia concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, Procedure, Article 3, General List No. 102, 1998, p. 3.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 575, 586, paras. 24-26.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 575, 587, para. 29.
1 The Special Agreement between El Salvador and Honduras to submit the land, island and maritime frontier dispute between the two States to the International Court of Justice, jointly notified to the Court on 11 December 1986, Article 2, General List No. 75, p. 4.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 109.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 111-114.
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 121, para. 72; p. 124, para. 77.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 111-112, para. 45.
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application to Intervene, Order of 21 October 1999, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1034, para. 14.
3参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第361页。
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 133-134, para. 97.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 92, 135, para. 100.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 133-134, para. 97.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application to Intervene, Order of 21 October 1999, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1029, 1032, para. 5.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 585, para. 22.
2 J. M. Ruda, Intervention before the International Court of Justice, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 501.
3参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1067页。
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 108-109, para.38, and pp. 130-131, para. 90; Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application to Intervene, Order of 21 October 1999, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1029, 1035, para. 17.
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 575, 590, para. 39.
3 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 585, para. 22.
4《国际法院规则》第84条第2款规定:“如果在依据本规则第八十三条确定的期限内对允许参加的请求
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application to Intervene, Order of 21 October 1999, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1029, 1034, para. 11.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 92, 134, para. 99.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application for permission to Intervene, Order, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1035, para. 18.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Order of 28 February 1990, I. C. J. Reports 1990, Diss. Op. Judge Shahabuddeen, pp. 18 et seq.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Order of 28 February 1990, I. C. J. Reports 1990, Diss. Op. Judge Tarassov, pp. 11, 13.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Order of 28 February 1990, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 3, 5.
4这主要体现在1922年《国际常设法庭规则》第59条、1936年《国际常设法庭规则》第64条,以及1972年《国际法院规则》第69条等。
5 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Observations of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on the Philippines’Application for Permission to intervene, 2 May 2001, p. 5, para. 16.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Application for Permission to intervene, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 587, para. 29.
2 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), the application by Costa Rica for Permission to intervene, Judgment of 4 May 2011, paras. 45-50, at http://www.icj-cij/homepage/index.php, May 8 2011.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 117, para. 61.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application for Permission to intervene by the Government of Equatorial Guinea, 30 June 1999, pp.16-40.
1参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1021-1022页。
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Diss. Op. Judge Rezek, p. 1233.
2 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 57.
3《国际法院规约》第48条规定:“法院为进行办理案件应颁发命令;对于当事国每造,应决定其必须终结辩论之方式及时间;对于证据之搜集,应为一切之措施。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1032页。
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Written Statement of Nicaragua, Vol. VI, p. 4, para. 11.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, oral hearing, C 4/CR 91/30, pp.15-16.
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 587-588, paras. 64-65.
1 S. Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court(1920-1996), 3rd ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, p. 137.
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Pleadings, Vol. III, p. 434.
3 South West Africa cases (Ethiopia/South Africa; Liberia/South Africa)(hereinafter South West Africa cases), Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, pp. 334, 381, 385, 475, 554, 555; Pleadings XI, pp. 201, 317; Pleadings XII, pp. 44.
1 Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom/Albania), Pleadings, Vol. III, p. 616.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law,2009, p. 67.
2 South West Africa cases, Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Vol. VIII, 1966, p. 278.
3《国际法院规则》第67条第1款规定:“法院如果认为有必要作出安排,进行调查或取得专家意见,应在听取当事国意见后,颁发这种决定的命令。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1059页。
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 361-362, para. 22.
1 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), I. C. J. Reports 1959, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 252.
2 Diversion of Water from the Meuse(Netherlands/Belgium), Order of 13 May 1937, P. C. I. J. Series C, No. 81, pp. 553 et seq.
3 Gabcikovo Nagymaros case (Hungary/Slovakia), Order of 5 February 1997, I. C. J. Reports 1997, pp. 3 et seq.
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 361-362, para. 22.
1 South West Africa cases, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1966, p. 9.
2在国际法中,它是指新成立的国家应当与其独立前的边界保持一致。See Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., 1999, p. 1544.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 167, 227.
2 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (hereinafter Qatar v. Bahrain case), Memorial of Qatar, Vol. 1, 1996, pp. 308 et seq.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 154.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 351.
1 Temple of Preah Vihear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Wellington Koo, p. 100, para. 55.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999 , Sep. Op. Judge Oda, pp. 1118-1119, para. 6.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1072, para. 42.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria, Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I. C. J. Reports 1996, p. 22, para. 38.
1《国际法院规则》第31条规定:“在提交法院的每一个案件中,院长应了解当事双方关于程序问题的意见。为此目的,院长应在当事国搭理人指派后尽速约见代理人,并在嗣后于必要时随时约见。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1048页。
2 K Highet, Evidence and Proof of Facts, in Le Damrosch(ed), the International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, Transnational Publishers, 1987, p. 371.
1《国际法院规则》第62条第2款规定:“法院在必要时得安排证人或鉴定人在程序中出席。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1058页。
1 G White, the Use of Experts by International Tribunal, Syracuse University Press, 1965, pp. 163-169.
2 Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Appointment of Expert, Order of 30 March 1984, I. C. J. Reports 1984, p. 165.
3 Application for Revision of the Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf case, pp. 227-228, para. 65.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Sep. Op. Judge Oda, paras. 6, 61.
2 Cameroon v Nigeria case, Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I. C. J. Reports 1996, p. 22, para. 38.
3 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 75.
1 Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th ed., Thomson West, 2009, p. 53.
2根据《元照英美法词典》的解释,证据可采性是指:“具有在听审、庭审或其他程序中被允许作为证据提出的品质或状况。”参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第37页。
3参见夏登峻、何联升主编:《英汉法律词典》(修订本),法律出版社1999年版,第26页。
4参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第267页。
5此部分内容将在本章第二节中详细进行讨论。
6 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 679, para. 129.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 185.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 361, para. 21.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 46-47.
2《国际法院规约》的45条规定:“法院之审讯应由院长指挥,院长不克出席时,由副院长指挥;院长和副院长均不克出席时,由出席法官中之资深者主持。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1031页。
3《国际法院规则》第54条规定:“1.书面程序结束时,案件即得进行审讯。口述程序开始的日期,应由法院确定。遇有必要,法院一得裁决延长开始口述程序的日期或推迟口述程序的继续进行。2.在确定或推迟开始口头程序日期时,法院应考虑到本规则第七十四条所要求的优先次序和任何其他特殊情况,包括某一特定案件的紧迫性。3.法院不开庭时,本条规定的法院职权应由院长行使。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1056页。
4 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Pleading, p. 769.
5 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 48-49.
1参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1053-1054页。
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 101-102.
3《国际法院规则》第51条第3款规定:“书状所附文件不使用法院正式语文时,该书状应附有经提交书状的当事国核证为正确的英文译本或法文译本。译本可以只译附件的一部分或附件的节录,但在这种情况下必须附有解释性说明,叙明所译的几段。但法院得要求提供较为广泛而详尽的译本或全译本。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1055页。
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 163.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 404, para. 71.
3 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, pp. 1246-1247.
1参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1060-1061页。
2《国际法院规则》第63条第1款规定:“当事国得传唤按本规则第五十七条送交法院的名单上的任何证人或鉴定人。如果在审讯中的任何时候当事国一方要传唤的证人或鉴定人不在该名单上,该当事国应通知法院和当事国另一方,并应提供第五十七条所要求的情报。如果当事国另一方不表示反对,或法院认为该证人或鉴定人的证词可能证明为有关,得传唤该证人或该鉴定人。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1058-1059页。
3《国际法院规则》第70条第4款规定:“当事一方提供的翻译人员,在该案中进行第一次翻译前,应在法庭内公开作以下的宣言:‘我以自己的荣誉和良心为保证郑重宣言,我的翻译是忠实的、完全的。’”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1061页。
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Oral Hearing, 1991, C 4/CR 91/34, p. 10.
5《国际法院规约》第43条第2款和第3款规定:“一、书面程序系指以诉状、辩诉状,及必要时之答辩状连同可资佐证之各种文书及公文书、送达法院及各当事国。二、此项送达应由书记官长以法院所定次序及期限为之。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1031页。
6《国际法院规则》第50条规定:“1.每一书状的原本都应附有可资佐证书状中论点的一切文件的经核证的副本。2.如果文件只有部分有关,则只需附以佐证该书状所需的节录。整个文件的副本应交存书记官处,但已经出版并为公众所能得的文件除外。3.书状所附的一切文件的目录应于提交书状时提供。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1054页。
1参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第15页。
2根据《国际法院规约》第48条规定:“法院为进行办理案件应办法命令;对于当事国每造,应决定其必须终结辩论之方式及时间;对于证据之搜集,应为一切之措施。”刘颖、吕国民编:《国际法资料选编》(中英文对照),中信出版社2004年版,第441页。
3 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 75.
2 R Higgins, Respecting Sovereign States and Running a Tight Courtroom, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 50, 2001. pp. 121, 130.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 20, para. 10.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 49, para. 30.
1 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1136.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 315, para. 22.
2 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, I. C. J. Reports 1953, Reply of the United Kingdom, pp. 490-500.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 351, 574, para. 360.
2 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1135.
1 Land and Maritime Boundary case (Request for Interpretation), I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 31 et seq.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Revision, I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 400, para. 22.
3 Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad, Interpretation and Revision of International Boundary Decisions, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 272-273.
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Submission of Honduras, I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 403, para. 31.
5 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 441, paras. 58-60.
1 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1318.
2马副外长:《如发现白礁属马国新证据,马将向国际法院提出上诉》,《联合早报》,2008年7月19日。
1参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第267页。
2参见高忠智:《美国证据法新解-相关性证据及其排除规则》,法律出版社2004年版,第33页。
3 Cn Brower, Evidence before International Tribunals: the Need for Some Standard Rules, International Layer, Vol. 28, 1994, pp.49, 148.
4 Acts and Documents concerning the Organization of the Court, P. C. I. J. Series D, Addendum to No to 2 Revision of the Rules of Court, 1926, p. 250.
5 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 179.
1 Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 1 November 2007, at http://www.ICJ.-cij.org/presscom/files/3/14113.pdf, Otc. 10, 2010.
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 180-181.
3在英美法系,最佳证据是指在具体情形下不存在更好的证据时,它是证明争议事实的最有效的证据。最
1参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第374-375页。
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, I. C. J. Reports 1992, Sep. Op. Judge Torres. Bernárdes, p. 675, para. 93.
3该条款规定:“为了阐明争执事项的任一方面,法院得随时要求当事国双方提出法院认为必要的证据或作出法院认为必要的解释,或法院为此目的自己搜集其他情报。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1058页。
1参见伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年版,第143页。
2 Seoung-Yong Hong﹠ Jon M. Van Dyke, Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Process, and the Law of the Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009, p. 141.
3 R. Y. Jennings, the Acquisition of territory in International Law, Manchester University Press, 1961, p. 31.
4 Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, p. 227.
5转引自张新军:《法律适用中的时间因素》,载《法学研究》2009年第4期。
1 The Legal of Status of Eastern Greenland (Norway v. Denmark) (hereinafter The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case), P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 53, 1933, p. 22.
2参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第92页。
3The Minquiers and Ecrehos case, I. C. J. Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, Vol. II, pp. 68, 69.
4马里于1960年独立,其前身为1959年从法属苏丹海外领地产生的苏丹共和国;上沃尔特于1960年独立,1980年改名为布基纳法索。
5 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 568, paras. 29-30.
2参见[英]马尔科姆·N.肖著:《国际法》(影印版),北京大学出版社2005年版,第431页。
3 Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 431-432.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 679, para. 128.
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Oral Hearing, CR 2002/30, p. 27.
3 Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, p. 226.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 682, para. 135.
5 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, pp. 35-36, para. 117.
1转引自[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第92页。
2 Hoffmann, the South African Law of Evidence, Durham, 1970, p. 117.
3 Fitzmaurice, British Year Book of International Law (1955-6), Vo1. 32, pp. 20-44.
4参见伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年版,第143页。See also I. Brownlie, op. cit., Annex 46 (2), cited in Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Memorial of the Federal Republic of Botswana, 1997, Vol. 1, para. 539.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, 1953, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 60.
2 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 59.
3参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第92页。
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Memorial of the Republic of Botswana, p. 122, para. 281.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1083-1084, para. 60
3 The Minquiers and Ecrehos case, I. C. J. Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, Vol. II, pp. 68, 69.
4德国文本所使用的词语为主河道的最深谷底线(thalweg)。具体参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第322-323页。
1 Temple of Preah Vihear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 29.
2 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, pp.125-126, para. 67.
3 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 120, para. 46.
4 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, pp. 109-110, para. 27.
1 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 109, para. 26.
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/6, pp. 25-26, paras. 43-44.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/3, p. 35, para. 5.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, p. 37, para. 123.
2尼加拉瓜于1982年3月17日在争议区域捕获洪都拉斯的一艘渔船。随后,3月21日在博尔礁和中南礁附近海域又捕获了4艘渔船。1982年3月23日,洪都拉斯向尼加拉瓜提出正式抗议,认为尼加拉瓜巡逻艇侵入了两国传统承认的15度平行线。同年4月14日,尼加拉瓜否认传统线的存在。基于此,国际法院认为,从两个事件的发生时间来看,关于海域划界的争议于1982年3月17日已经明确存在了。See Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, p. 38, para. 131.
3在该份诉状中,尼加拉瓜指出,在法院未能采纳二等分线(bisector line)情况下,它对处于争议海域的所有岛礁享有主权。See Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Memorial of Nicaragua, 21 March 2001, p. 166.
4 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment, P. C. I. J. Series A, No. 2, 1924, p. 11.
5参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第92页。
6 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks a South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 27, para. 32.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks a South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 28, para. 36.
1张新军:《法律适用中的时间因素》,载《法学研究》2009年第4期。
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 182.
2参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第4-5页。
3参见伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年版,第143页。
4转引自[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第143页。
5 Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 431.
6 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 570.
1 Eritrea v. Yemen (phase one) case, 1998, ILR 1, p. 32, cited in Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, p. 227.
2 Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, p. 226.
1参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第114页。
2根据《元照英美法词典》的解释,作为判案依据的可采信的证据称之为“proof”,与用以证明未知的或有争议的事实或主张的真实性的事实和方法的“evidence”存有区别。具体参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第499、1106页。
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 47, para. 20.
4《国际法院规则》第31条规定:“在提交法院的每一个案件中,院长应了解当事国双方关于程序问题的意见。为此目的,院长应在当事国代理人指派后尽速约见代理人,并在嗣后于必要时随时约见。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1048页。
1参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第266页。
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 176.
3 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 167.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 574, para. 360.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 361, para. 21.
2 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, p. 1274.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 12.
4 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 13.
1 Chorów Factory, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, P. C. I. J. Series A, No. 17, 1928, p. 51.
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 632-633, paras. 147-149.
3 South West Africa cases, Preliminary Objections, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Van Wyk, pp. 584-585.
1 1969年《维也纳条约法公约》第48条第1款规定:“一国得援引条约中的错误以主张其受该条约拘束的同意无效,但以此错误关涉其在缔约时假定为存在且构成其同意受该条约拘束的必要基础的事实或局面为限。”李浩培:《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版,第582页。
2 Frontier Dispute(Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 90.
3 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 182.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 682, para. 135.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 40, paras. 82-83.
1 Js Al-Arayed, A Line in the sea-The Qatar V Bahrain Border Dispute in the World Court, North Atlantic, Berkeley, 2003, pp.364-386.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Fortier, pp. 451-453, paras. 1-11.
1参见宋英辉、汤维建主编:《证据法学研究述评》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第214页。
2不过,在英美法系国家,传闻证据排除规则存在许多例外。如《美国联邦证据规则》(Federal Rules of Evidence第803条和第804条列举了20多种例外。参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第631页。
3参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第102-103页。
4 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Pleadings, 1962, Vol. II, p. 333.
1 Valencia Ospina, Evidence Before the International Court of Justice, Intl L Forum du droit international, Vol. 1, 1999, p. 205.
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 372.
1 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1959, pp. 246-247.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Memorial of the Federal Republic of Botswana, 1997, Vol. 1, p. 112, paras. 255-256.
3 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 229.
1参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第130页。
2 Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 439.
1 The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 48, 1933, p. 46.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, p. 62.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 355.
1 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) and North Sea Continental Shelf(Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark), I. C. J. Reports 1969, p. 26, para. 30.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 81, para. 228.
2参见毕玉谦:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第315页。
3参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1106页。
4 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, pp. 79-82.
5第52条英文原文为“after the Court has received the proofs and evidence within the time specified for the purpose, it may refuse to accept any further oral or written evidence that one party may desire to present unless the other side consents.”参见刘颖、吕国民编:《国际法资料选编》,中信出版社2004年版,第440页。
1参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第288页。
2参见叶自强著:《举证责任及其分配标准》,法律出版社2005年版,第69-70页。
3参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第291页。
4 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 78.
5 Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence, Blackstone Press Limited, 2000, p. 102.
2 Michelle T. Grando, Evidence, Proof, and Fact-Finding in WTO Dispute Settlement, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 83-84.
3 P Herzoh﹠ M Weser, Civil Procedurein France, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1967, p. 310.
1 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 22.
2 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of American), I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 33, paras. 56-57.
3 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of American), I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 75, para. 2.
1 Elettronica Sicula S. p. A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Verbatim Record C 3/CR 89/8 of 3 Feb., 1989, p. 26.
2 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 81.
3 Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), I. C. J. Reports 1957, Sep. Op. Judge Lauterpacht, p. 39.
4参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第308页。
1参见毕玉谦:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第371页。
2罗森贝克的证明责任分配理论为法律要件分类说的形式奠定了理论基础,凡主张权利的当事人,应就权利发生法律要件存在的事实承担证明责任;否认者则应就权利妨害法律要件、权利消灭法律要件或权利制约法律要件的存在事实承担证明责任。具体参见[德]莱奥·罗森贝克:《证明责任论》,庄敬华译,中国法制出版社2002年版,第103页以下。
3参见毕玉谦:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第372-373页。
4 R Cross, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th ed., Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 97.
5《国际法院规约》第38条规定:“一、法院对于陈述各项争端,应以国际法裁判之,裁判时应适用:(子)不论普通或特别国际协约,确定诉讼当事国明白承认之规条者;(丑)国际习惯,作为通例之证明而经接受为法律者;(寅)一般法律原则为文明各国所承认者;(卯)在第59条规定之下,司法判例及各国权威最高之公法学家学说,作为确定法律原则之补助资料者。二、前项规定不妨碍法院经当事国同意本‘公允及善良’原则裁判案件之权力。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1029-1030页。
1 The Island of Palmas (Netherlands v. USA) case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards(RIAA), Vol. II, 1928, p. 837,
2 France v. Greece case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 71, 1937, p. 679.
3 The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 53, 1933, p. 49.
2 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 47, 52.
3 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 66.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, Indi. Op. Judge M. Levi Carneiro, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 99.
2 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1959, p. 209. See also Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 70.
3 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 94.
4 Temple of Preach Vihear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, pp. 15-16.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 586-587, paras. 63-65.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 30-31, paras. 43-45.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/20, p. 14.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 117-118.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, I. C. J. Reports 1953, Memorial of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, p. 74, para. 121.
2 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, p. 1036.
3 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 75-78.
4 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1050.
5 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 630.
6 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 6.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 587-588, para. 65.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 94.
2 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), I. C. J. Reports 1959, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 256.
3 Cameroon v Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 453, paras. 321-324.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 49-52.
2 Temple of Preach Vihear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 144.
3 Temple of Preach Vihear case, Counter-Memorial of the Royal Government of Thailand, p. 194, para. 75.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Reply of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, pp. 498, 514, paras. 139-140.
2 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Memorial of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, p. 76, para. 128.
3 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Reply of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, pp. 431-432, para. 15.
4 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 47, 52.
5 Sovereignty over certain Frontier Land, I. C. J. Reports 1959, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno-Quintana, p. 256.
1 Case Concerning the India-Pakistan Western Boundary (Rann of Kutch), Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA), Vol. XVII, 1968, pp. 10-11.
2参见王圣扬:《论诉讼证明标准的二元制》,载《中国法学》1999年第3期。
3 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 323.
4参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第193页。
2 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 103-104.
3 K M Clermont﹠ E Sherwin, A Comparative View of Standards of Proof, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 50, 2002, p. 246.
4参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2008年版,第328-329页。
1 James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International﹠ Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 58, 2009, pp. 166-168.
2《国际法院规约》第53条规定:“一、当事国一造不到法院或不辩护其主张时,他造得请求法院对自己主张为有利之裁判。二、法院于允准前项请求钱,应查明不特依第三十六条及第三十七条法院对本案有管辖权,且请求人之主张在事实及法律上均有根据。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1036页。
3该条款英文文本为:“1. Whenever one of the parties does not appear before the Court, or fails to defend its case, the other party may call upon the Court to decide in favour of its claim. 2. the Court must, before doing so, satisfy itself, not only that it has jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 36 and 37, but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.”刘颖、吕国民编:《国际法资料选编》(中英文对照),中信出版社2004年版,第440页。
1 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (New Application), I. C. J. Reports 1970, Sep. Op. Judge Fitzmaurice, p. 65, para. 58.
2 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 242.
3 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 190.
4 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, p. 18.
5与国际法院不同,在WTO所受理的案件中,多数学者认为,专家组适用了表面证据标准,而且存在证明责任的转移。但是,学界也存在一定的争议,如埃德蒙·麦克文(Edmond McGovern)指出,在实践中专家组实质上适用了证据优势标准。See Edmond McGovern, International Trade Regulation, 3rd,ed. Globefield Press, 2006, p. 63.
6 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, paras. 14-18.
1 Robert Kolb, General Principles of Procedural Law, in Andreas Zimmerman (eds), the Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 124-129.
2 Simone Halink, All Things Considered: How the International Court of Justice Delegated Its Fact-Assessment to the United Nations In the Armed Activities Case International Law and Politics, Vol. 40, 2008, p. 25.
3 Robert Kolb, General Principles of Procedural Law, in Andreas Zimmerman (eds), the Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 830.
1 [联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第38页。
2傅崐成著:《海洋法专题研究》,厦门大学出版社2004年版,第317页。
3 The Minqttiers and Ecrehos case, Pleadings of United Kingdom/France, Oral Argument of Sir L. Heald, p. 53.
4 [联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第354-356页。
5 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, I. C. J. Reports 1953, Indi. Op. Judge Basdevant, pp. 83-84.
1 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), I. C. J. Reports 1959, Declaration of Judge Spiropoulos, p. 232.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 506, para. 248.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Oral Hearing, CR 99/13, pp. 40-41.
4 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1098-1100, paras. 83-87.
5 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/22, p. 28, para. 68.
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 242.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 123.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Joint Diss. Op. Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and Koroma, p. 172, para. 83.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Sep. Op. Judge Rezek, pp. 1233-1237.
2 James Thuo Gathii, Geographical Hegelianism in Territorial Disputes Involving Non-European Land Relations: An Analysis of the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), At http://SSRN-id655922.pdf, Dec. 28, 2010.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Diss. Op. Judge Weeramantry, pp. 1176-1177, paras. 73-76.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 52, 67.
2在本案中,处于争议的领土为宗德里根A段第91号和第92号的两片土地。根据荷兰出示的与比利时在1841年签字的“公社记录”复本记载,第78号至第111号土地属于荷兰的巴阿勒—纳苏公社所有。但是,随后1843年《荷兰和比利时边界条约》规定:第91号和92号土地归于比利时的巴埃勒—杜克公社。因此,荷兰认为,1843年边界条约存在错误。See Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1959, p. 222.
1 Temple of Preah Vihear case, Pleadings of Cambodia, Vol. II, p. 158.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 564, para. 343
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 405, para. 207.
4 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 159.
5 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, p. 154, para. 3.
6 Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 24, para. 29.
7 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, pp. 154-155, paras. 3-5.
1参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第327页。
2参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第320页。
3 James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International﹠ Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 58, 2009, p. 167.
4参见何主宇编著:《英美法案例研读指南》,法律出版社2007年版,第118-119页。
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Counter-Memorial of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Vol. 1, p. 645.
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge Ajibola, p. 599, para. 194.
1 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, Diss. Op. Judge Krylov, p. 72.
2 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), I. C. J. Reports 2007, p. 76, para. 422.
3 Ruth Teitelbaum, Recent Fact-Finding Developments at the International Court of Justice, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 6, 2007, p. 127.
4 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Oral Hearing, CR 99/6, p. 12.
5 Counter-Memorial Submitted by the State of Bahrain (Questions of Jurisdiction and Admissibility), Vol. I, 11 June 1992, p. 24.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/31, p. 53, para. 15.
2 E Valencia Ospina, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, Intl L Forum du droit International, Vol.1, 1999, pp. 203-207.
3 Cn Brower, Evidence before International Tribunals: the Need for Some Standard Rules, International Layer, 1994, Vol. 28, p. 49.
2 James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International﹠ Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 58, 2009, pp. 168-174.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 137.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, p. 154, para. 3.
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 239-241.
2 Walter George, Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location, John Wiley﹠ Sons, 2002, p. 27.
3参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第327页。
1 Ruth Teitelbaum, Recent Fact-Finding Developments at the International Court of Justice, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 6, 2007, p. 128.
2转引自郭华、殷宪龙、李继刚著:《证据法学》,山东人民出版社2009年版,第393页。
3毕玉谦主编:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第497页。
4 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 211.
5 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 653-657.
6参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1084页。
7转引自龙宗智:《推理的界限及适用》,载《法学研究》2008年第1期。
8参见宋英辉、汤维建主编:《证据法学研究述评》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第388页。
1何家弘主编:《外国证据法》,法律出版社2003年版,第244页。
2 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 101.
3 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 141-142.
4 Lighthouses Case between France and Greece, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 62, 1934, p. 47.
1 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 250.
2 The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 48, 1933, p. 287.
3 The Minquiters and Ecrehos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 47.
4 The Minquiters and Ecrehos case, Memorial of the United Kingdom, p. 108, para. 199.
5 The Minquiters and Ecrehos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 61.
1 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Judge Fitzmaurice, p. 61.
2 The Minquiters and Ecrehos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 57.
3 Territorial Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1994, p. 28, para. 56.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge Franck, pp. 692-704.
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 219-220.
3 Ruth Teitelbaum, Recent Fact-Finding Developments at the International Court of Justice, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 6, 2007, p. 128.
1 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), I. C. J. Reports 1959, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, pp. 252-253.
2参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993年,第57页。
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993年,第59页。
2参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第375页。
3参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第725页。
4 Alan Taylor, Principles of Evidence, Canvendish Publishing Limited, 2000, pp. 41-42.
5 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 257.
1 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Judge Alfaro, p. 41.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment,I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 582-583, paras. 55-56.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, C4/CR 91/35, p. 31.
3 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 119, para. 44.
4 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 58-59.
5Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Joint Diss. Op. Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and Koroma, pp. 165-167.
1 Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996, p. 258. See also Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 223.
2参见宋英辉等主编《证据法学研究述评》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版,第195-196页。
3 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 656.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Kooijmans, p. 242, para. 68.
5 Territorial Dispute(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Counter-Memorial of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Vol. 1, pp. 343-344.
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, p. 223.
2 See Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks a South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 31, para. 44.
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Reply of the State of Qatar, Chapter IV, Section 4, p. 62.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Oral Hearing, CR 2000/11, p. 33, para. 69.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrehos case, Judgment of November 17th, 1953, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 66.
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, pp. 28-29.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 398, para. 188.
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Percy Spender, p. 109.
3转引自宋英辉、汤维建主编:《证据法学研究述评》,中国公安大学出版社2006年版,第392页。
4参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第731页。
5 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 655-656.
1 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, p. 18.
2参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第410页。
3参见[美]罗纳德·J.艾伦等:《证据法:文本、问题和案例》(第三版),张保生等译,满云龙校,高等教育出版社2006年版,第879页。
4 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 390.
5参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第276页。
1 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 160-161.
2 Island of Palmas (Netherlands/United States of America), 4 April 1928, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, pp. 841-842.
3该条规定:“法庭不应要求证明众所周知的事实,而应采取司法认知的方式。同时,对于官方政府的文件、联合国报告,以及包括各同盟国为了调查战争犯罪而形成的决议和文件、联合国某一军事或其他法庭的记录和调查结果等。”
4 Access to, or Anchorage in, the Port of Danzig, of Polish War Vessels, Advisory Opinion, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 43, 1931, p. 144.
5 Fisheries Jurisdiction case, (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland), I. C. J. Reports 1974, p. 9, para. 17.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Oral Hearing, CR 2001/1, p. 10. para. 7.
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Indi. Op. Judge Franck, pp. 654-655, para. 8.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Rejoinder of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, para. 14.2.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Diss. Op. Judge Dugard, p. 143, para. 22.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Application of the Republic of Nicaragua, pp. 1-4.
2 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgement, I. C. J. Reports 1991, p. 24.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, the Special Agreement for Submission to the International Court of Justice, p. 19.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 58.
2参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第58页。
3德国国际法学者英戈·冯·闵希认为,习惯国际法包括普遍的国际习惯法、特殊国际习惯法、区域国际习惯法等。参见[德]英戈·冯·闵希著:《国际法教程》,世界知识出版社1997版,第52页。李浩培先生也认为,国际习惯法是可以分为一般习惯法和特殊习惯法的。参见李浩培著:《国际法的概念与渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第94页。
4参见曾令良主编:《国际法学》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2003年版,第12页。
1 Case Concerning Asylum (Colombia v. Peru), I. C. J. Reports 1950, pp. 276-277.
2 Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), I. C. J. Reports 1951, Sep. Op. Judge de Castro, pp. 78-79.
3 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 645, para. 37; Territorial Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1994, pp. 21-22, para. 41; Qatar v. Bahrain case, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1995, p. 18, para. 33; Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1059, para. 18.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 668, para. 92.
1 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 93-94, paras. 174-176.
2参见[美]路易斯·亨金:《国际法:政治与法律》,张乃根等译,张乃根校,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第54页。
3参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第688页。
4参见张卫彬:《论海洋划界中的禁止反言原则》,载《常熟理工学院学报》(社科版)2008年第5期。
1转引自赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第15页。
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 81, para. 228.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Counter-Memorial of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Vol. 1, Bakassi, pp. 158-160.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 404-405, para. 205.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 36, para. 67.
1参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第431页。
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, p. 47, paras. 165-167.
3 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 233.
1 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 999-1002.
2 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 10.
3 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p.197.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 41, para. 86.
5 Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 128, para. 80.
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 47.
2英国证据法中的实物证据是指,法官对有关物体、人身、场所或环境通过其视觉、听觉、触觉等感官作用予以观察并得到结论的一切物体,如证物、人或动物的自身特征、证人的表现行为、现场勘查视察、文件的存在或外形特征等。参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第98页。
3 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 8.
4周叔厚:《证据法论》,台湾三民书局1995年版,第11-12页。转引自何家弘主编:《外国证据法》,法律出版社2003年版,第174页。
1在民法体系,德国和意大利模式与法国存在不同。在某些情况下,需要全体法官出庭。See D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp.198-199.
2参见刁荣华主编:《比较刑事证据法各论》,台湾汉林出版社刊印1985年版,第322页。转引自齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第94页。
3 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), I. C. J. Reports 2007, p. 77, para. 211.
1 Island of Palmas (Netherlands/United States of America), 4 April 1928, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, p. 841.
2 South West Africa cases, Second phase, 1966, Pleadings-X, p. 122.
1根据《国际法院规约》第31条第3款规定,专案法官是指:“法院受理案件,如当事国均无本国国籍法官时,各当事国均得依本条第二项之规定选派法官一人。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1028页。
2 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge Franck, p. 696, para. 17.
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Sep. Op. Judge Fortier, pp. 451-453, paras. 1-11.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge Ad Hoc Franck, p. 692, para. 3.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Diss. Op. Judge ad hoc Dugard, p. 133.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, p. 153.
4 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge ad hoc Franck, pp. 694-695, paras. 10-12.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, I. C. J. Reports 2002, Diss. Op. Judge ad hoc Ajibola, p. 355.
2 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 192.
1 K Highet, Evidence, the Court and the Nicaragua Case, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, 1987, pp. 44-46.
2参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第381页。
1 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1794.
2 Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1959, p. 222.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, pp. 270-273.
2 Territorial Dispute (Libya/Chad), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1994, pp.12-13.
3 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, pp. 1802-1803.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 68, para. 89.
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1997-2002),联合国出版物2005,第40页。
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1997-2002),联合国出版物2005,第40页。
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 683-684, paras. 142-145.
2参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993年,第32页。
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 182-186.
1《常设国际法院出版物》,Series A/B, No.53.转引自赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第16页。
2 Land,Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Application by Nicaragua to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 118, para. 63.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Memorial of Singapore, Vol. 1, 25 March 2004, p. 155.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 74, para. 198.
5 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 79, para. 220.
6 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 80, para. 223.
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993,第31页。
1 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment of November 17th, I. C. J. Reports 1953, pp. 56-57.
2参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第356页。
3 R Higgins, Speech by H E Judge Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice, to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, 2 Nov. 2007, p. 2.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, pp. 298-299.
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 586, para. 63.
3 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 586, para. 63.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 399, para. 62.
2参见[联邦德国]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所主编:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》(国际公法百科全书第二专辑),陈致中、李斐南译,林致平校,中山大学出版社1989年版,第374-375页。
3参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1997-2002),联合国出版物2005,第251页。
4 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 57.
1 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Joint Diss. Op. Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and Koroma, pp. 155-158, paras. 150-162.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 584-585, paras. 58-61.
1 Island of Palmas (Netherlands/United States of America), 4 April 1928, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, pp. 852-854.
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, pp. 229-230.
3 Delimitation of the Polish/Czechoslovakian Frontier Advisory Opinion, 1923, P. C. I. J. Series B, No. 8, p. 33.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 582-583, paras. 54-56.
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 215.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 209.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 94, para. 267.
5 I. Brownlie, International law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations: General Course on Public International Law in Académie du Droit International, Recueil des Cours (1995), p. 159, cited in the Namibian Counter-Memorial, Annex 116, p. 126.
6 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 267.
7参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993,第57-59页。
2参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993,第68页。
3 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, pp. 133-134.
4 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 70.
1参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第61页。
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 362-364, paras. 87-91.
3 Colombia/Venezuela Arbitration 1891, British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 83, p. 387, cited in Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006, pp. 229-230.
1 Frontier Dispute(Benin/Niger), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 119, para. 44.
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 584-586, paras. 62-65.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Namibian Counter-Memorial, p. 4, para. 11.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Reply of the Republic of Botswana Vol. I, November 1998, pp.102-108.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1099-1100, paras. 85-88.
4 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 92-95, paras. 268-272.
5 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 267.
1参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第159页。
2 1982年我国制定的民事诉讼法(试行),第一次将视听资料作为独立的诉讼证据予以规定。此后,1989年制定的行政诉讼法和1991年修改的民事诉讼法,对此都有相同的规定。1996年3月17日颁布的新刑事诉讼法第42条也明确将视听资料列为一种独立的证据。参见毕玉谦主编:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版,第190页。
3 Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 145, 264, 317.
4 A aguilar Mawdsley, Evidence Before the International Court of Justice, in R St J Macdonald(ed), Essays in Honor of Wang Tieya, Martinus Nijhoff publishers, 1993, p. 547.
1 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 9.
2在该案中,双方均预先提供一份拷贝给登记员和对方当事人,并在庭审过程中播放了录像。See Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Pleadings, CR 1999/2 10, 1999, Para. 8.
3卡塔尔在向秘书处提交备忘录时,存放了20份关于卡塔尔人自中世纪以来,在海瓦尔群岛的行为和活动。See Qatar v. Bahrain case, Memorial of the Government of the State of Qatar, 50.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Pleadings, CR 2002/8, para. 30; CR 2002/11, para. 63.
5参见林惠敏:《白礁主权案开审我代表列大量证据证明拥有白礁》,《联合早报》,2007年11月7日。
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 13.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Counter-Memorial of Botswana, Annexs 47-51;Reply of Botswana, Vol. 1, Annexs. 20-22.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, 25 January 2005, para. 190.
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Diss. Op. Judge Torres Bernardezp, p. 273, para. 36.
1 Nicuruguu v. United States of America case, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 42, para. 68.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, Annex 4; Oral Hearing, CR 2007/22, p. 41, para. 13.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/22, paras. 8-16.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 244.
2该条第4款规定,口述程序过程中不得提及不按照规约第43条或本条提出任何文件的内容,除非该文件是公众易于得到的某出版物的一部分。
3 Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Merits) I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 40, para. 62.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 34-35, para. 57.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Counter-Memorial of Singapore, p. 59, paras. 4.38-4.45.
3 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 35, paras. 58-59.
4 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 40-41, paras. 62-63.
5 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge Ad Hoc Sreeniva Rao, pp. 155-156, para. 8.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, pp. 288-289.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 12.
1在该案中,博茨瓦纳在其辩诉状(counter-memorial)和专家报告中涉及了大量的卫星图像,以支持自己的论点:丘贝河(Chobe river)的主航道在北面。See Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Pleadings, CR 1999/2, pp. 29-30.
2针对巴林利用卫星图像显示争议区域的一条干涸线,卡塔尔则提交了不同的卫星图像,帮助确定一条自然形成的水道。See Qatar v. Bahrain case, Pleading, CR 2000/9, p. 51.
3 Cameroon v Nigeria case, preliminary Objections Pleadings, CR 1998/1, para.30.
4双方均提出了大量的卫星图像,以显示沿海岸泥沙沉积增长的进程,以及说明各自海岸基点的确定的考虑因素。See Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Pleadings, CR 2007/1, para. 55; CR 2007/2, para. 7; CR 2007/8, paras. 52-59.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Pleadings, CR 1999/3, p. 69.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Oral hearing, CR 2000/14, p. 42, para. 42.
1 Cameroon v Nigeria, preliminary Objections, Pleadings, CR 1998/1, para. 30.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Counter-Memorial of the Republic of Botswana, paras. 59-60.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Declaration of Higgins, p. 1115, para. 9.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Diss. Op. Judge Parra- Aranguren, p. 1229, para. 78.
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Memorial of the Republic of Honduras, p. 195.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 277-280.
4该公约第15条规定:“如果两国海岸彼此相向或相邻,两国中任何一国在彼此没有相反协议的情形下,均无权将其领海伸延至一条其每一点都同测算两国中每一国领海宽度的基线上最近各点距离相等的中间线以外。但如因历史性所有权或其他特殊情况而有必要按照与上述规定不同的方法划定两国领海的界限,则不适用上述规定。”傅崐成编校:《海洋法相关公约及中英文索引》,厦门大学出版社2005年版,第6页。
5 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Memorial of Republic of Honduras, para. 93.
1 Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, p. 17.
2 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, pp. 1089-1091, paras. 65-69.
1参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第114-115页。
2 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1780.
1 The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 5, 1933, p. 45, at http://www.I CJ-cij.org/pcij/serie_AB/AB_53/01_Groenland_Oriental_Arret.pdf, Nov. 30, 2009.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp, 80-85, paras. 128, 147.
3 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 454, para. 325.
4 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 68, para. 89.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 683-684, paras. 142-145.
2 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed. Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, p. 1243.
1参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993,第31-32页。
2 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 568, para. 30.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, para. 208.
2 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 95-96, paras. 273-277.
3 Mark J. Valencia, the Spratly Islands Dispute, Far Eastern Economic Review, January 9, 2003, p. 21.
4 The Minqttiers and Ecrehos case, I. C. J. Pleadings, Oral Argument of Sir L.Heald(U.K.), p. 54.
1 Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 683-684, paras. 141-145.
2转引自赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第9页。
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Diss. Op. Judge Rezek, p. 1237, para. 14.
1 Anthony Connerty, A Mannual of International Dispute Resolution, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2006, p. 34.
1 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1792.
2万鄂湘等主编:《国际法:领悟与构建—W.迈克尔.赖斯曼论文集》,法律出版社2007年版,第352页。
1 Helen Ghebrewebet, Identifying Units of Statehood and Determining International Boundaries, Perer Lang GmbH, 2006, p. 21.
2 Helen Ghebrewebet, Identifying Units of Statehood and Determining International Boundaries, Perer Lang, 2006, p. 21.
1 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1791.
1参见[英]伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良等译,法律出版社2003年版,第70-76页。
2相反占有权是指取得不动产所有权的一种方法。凡无法律根据而占有不动产,根据时效在一定条件下依法可取得此项不动产的所有权,在发生纠纷时,对此项占有权称为相反占有权。即因非法占有取得时效。具体参见夏登峻、何联升主编:《英汉法律词典》,法律出版社1999年版,第29页。
1 Hill, Claims to Territory in International Law and Relations, Oxford University Press, 1945, pp. 146-149.
2 Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 6th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 506.
3 James Thuo Gathii, Geographical Hegelianism in Territorial Disputes Involving Non-European Land Relations: An Analysis of the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), at http://SSRN-id655922.pdf, Dec. 28, 2010.
1 Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004, p. 1810.
1 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 355, para.70.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, I. C. J. Reports 2008, Sep. Op. Judge ad hoc Sreenivasa Rao, p. 156, para. 5.
1 Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, pp. 50-51, paras. 120-121.
2 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1984, p. 305, para. 130.
3 Coalter G. Lathrop, Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, 2008, pp. 833-834.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 288.
2参见何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》(第三版),法律出版社2008年版,第125-126页。
3 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 564, para. 18.
4 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 388, para. 45.
1 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 72.
2 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 524, para. 276.
1参见卞建林主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第489页。
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 73.进一步的讨论详见下一节的内容。
3专家证人的概念首次出现在国际常设法院1927年波属上西里西亚德国利益案之中。
4 Temple of Preab Vibear case, Oral Proceedings on the Merits, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 331.
5 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 291.
1 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, Rejoinder of Mr de Villiers, p. 85.
2 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, Rejoinder of Mr de Villiers, p. 123.
3 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1020.
4 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, Rejoinder of Mr de Villiers, p. 123.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 307.
2参见齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版,第89页。
1 S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court (1920-2005), 4th ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, p. 1343.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Pleadings, Vol. II, 1962, pp. 332-333.
1 South West Africa cases, I. C. J. Pleadings, Vol. X, 1966, pp. 122-123, 175.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 574-575, para. 361.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Oral Hearing, 1991, C 4/CR 91/34, pp. 11-49.
1 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Diss. Op. Judge Torres Bernardez, p. 273, para. 36.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Counter-Memorial of the Republic of Honduras, pp. 104-106.
2 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 190-193.
3 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 194-196.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Judgment of 8 October 2007, paras. 200-201.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Judge Moreno Quintana, p. 73.
3 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Judge Gerald Fitzmaurice, p. 60.
1参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1057-1058页。
2参见王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1059页。
1 K Highet, Evidence, the Court, and the Nicaragua Case, America Journal of International Law, Vol. 81, 1987, p. 26.
2 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundaries in the Gulf of Marine Area, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1984 , pp. 273-278.
3 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 142, para. 142.
1 Nicaragua v. Honduras case, Oral Hearing, CR 2007/13, pp. 27-28, paras. 28-31.
1 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) and North Sea Continental Shelf(Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark), I. C. J. Reports 1969, Diss. Op. Judge Koretsky, p. 160.
1 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, President Sir Percy Spender, p. 515.
2参见夏登峻、何联升主编:《英汉法律词典》,法律出版社1999年版,第871-872页。
3 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1021.
4 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, President Sir Percy Spender, p. 340.
5 South West Africa cases, Pleading, Vol. X, pp. 335-342; Vol. XI, p. 456-457.
1 P. C. I. J. Series D, No. 2, 1936, p. 247, cited in Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 333.
1 G White, the Use of Experts by International Tribunals, Syracuse University Press, 1965, p. 73.
2 Temple of Preab Vibear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Diss. Op. Wellington Koo, p. 100.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namihia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, Sep. Op. Judge Oda, p. 1119, para.6.
1 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namihia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1063, para. 28.
2 Qatar v. Bahrain case, I. C. J. Reports 2001, Diss. Op. Judge ad hoc Torrez Bernardez, p. 275, para. 41.
3 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, pp. 361-362, para. 22. See also Oral Hearing, C 4/CR 91/30, p. 24.
4 M Lachs, Evidence in the Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Role of the Court, in E. G. Bello﹠ B. A. Ajibola (eds), Essays in Honor of Judge Taslim Olawle Elias, Vol. II, Contemporary International Law and Human Rights, 1993, p. 273.
1 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 558.
2 Gillian White, the Use of experts by the International Court, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 533-534.
1 R Jennings, International Lawers and the Progressive Development of International Law, in J Makarczyk(ed), Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of Krzystof Skubiszewski, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, p. 416.
2 Western Sahara cases, I. C. J. Reports 1975, Sep. Op. Judge Petrén, p. 113.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 337.
1 M Lachs, Evidence in the Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Role of the Court, Essays in Honor of Judge Taslim Olawle Elias, Vol. II, Contemporary International Law and Human Rights, 273.
1 Elettronica Sicula S. p. A.(ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Pleading-III, I. C. J. Reports 1987, p. 301.
2 Elettronica Sicula S. p. A.(ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Pleading-III, I. C. J. Reports 1987, p. 313.
1参见张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第226页。
1 Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 97-98, paras. 188-190.
2 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 303, para. 102.
1 CM Schofield﹠ CH Carleton, Technical Considerations in Law of the Sea Dispute Resolution in AG Oude Elferink and D R Rothwell(eds), Oceans Management in the 21st Century, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004, p. 251.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Sep. Op. Judge Gerald Fitzmaurice, pp. 58-59.
3 Continental Shelf case (Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya/Malta), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1985, p. 36, para. 41.
1 Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009, p. 324.
1 Andreas Zimmermann﹠ Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 1018.
1第62条第1款规定:“为了阐明争执事项的任一方面,法院得随时要求当事国双方提出法院认为必要的证据,或者作出法院认为必要的解释或法院为此目的自己搜集其他情报。”王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第1058页。
2 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 338.
1 South West Africa cases, Pleadings X, I. C. J. Reports 1966, President Sir Percy Spender, p. 341.
1 D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia, 1975, p. 344.
2 Diversion of Water from the Meuse, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 70, 1937, p. 9.
3 Gillian White, the Use of experts by the International Court, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 528.
4 South West Africa cases, Pleadings, 1965, p. 98.
3 Procedural Order No. 1 of the Tribunal, 18 July 2005; Procedural Order No. 3, 4 of 12 Oct. 2005; Procedural Order No. 5 of 16 Feb. 2006.
1 Procedural Order No. 6 of the Tribunal, 27 Nov. 2007.
2 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal of 17 September 2007 in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname, para. 110.
3 Procedural Order No. 7 of 12 March 2007; Procedural Order No. 8 of 21 May 2007.
4 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal of 17 September 2007 in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname, para. 309.
1 Rongxing Guo, the Land and Maritime Boundary Disputes of Europe, Nova Science Publishers, 2009, p. 88. See also Gideon Blger, the Encyclopedia of International Boundaries, the Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd., 1995, p. 156.
1参见江国青主编:《国际法》,高等教育出版社2005年版,第176页。
2 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publicationas, 1971, pp. 9-10.
3参见万鄂湘等主编:《国际法:领悟与构建—迈克尔·赖斯曼论文集》,法律出版社2007年版,第356页。
1参见《元以来西藏地方与中央政府关系档案史料汇编》(第6册),中国藏学出版社1994年版,第2419页以下。
2 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987, p. 280.
3卡塔尔认为,该条约未被批准的原因在于第一次世界大战的爆发,而巴林认为,1913年条约没有被批准的原因为“一系列复杂而相互依存的提议......最后(批准,作者注)停止了。”See Qatar v. Bahrain case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 57, paras. 46-47.
1 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987, p. 280.
2参见[印]卡·古普塔著:《中印边界秘史》,王宏纬、王至亭译,中国藏学出版社1990年版,第48页。
3 Rubin, the Sino-India Border Dispute, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1960, p. 105.
4 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, p. 5.
5 Gideon Blger, the Encyclopedia of International Boundaries, Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd., 1995, pp. 158-159.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear case, I. C. J. Reports 1962, Counter-Memorial of the Royal Government of Thailand, p. 194, para. 75.
3 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, p. 6.
4参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第635-636页。
5参见周鲠生著:《国际法》(下册),武汉大学出版社2007年第1版,第517页。
1 India Year Book of International Affairs, 1956, pp. 172-173, cited in Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 40-41.
2 Rubin, A Matter of fact, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 59, 1965, p. 586; David A. McCabe, Tibet’s Declaration of Independence, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 60, 1966, p. 812.
3参见《中华民国临时约法》总纲部分。
4参见世界知识出版社编辑:《中印边界问题》,世界知识出版社1959年版,第47-48页。
5 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987, p. 280.
1 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 40-41.
1转引自[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第134页。
2参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第626页。
1 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987, p. 280.
2 Government of India Notes, Memoranda and Letters exchanged and Agreements signed between the Government of India and China, White Paper I, 1954-1959, pp.49-50.
3 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 9-10.
1 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 18-19.
2参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第610页。
1在东格陵兰岛案中,挪威和丹麦均提出了大量的历史证据。但是,常设国际法院认为,丹麦的历史证据更令人信服。See Janice Cavell, Historical Evidence and the Eastern Greenland Case, the Arctic Institute of North America, Vol. 61, 2008, p. 433.
2参见黄盛璋、王士鹤:《清代中印东段边界的历史研究》,载《边界历史地理研究论丛》,中国社科院地理研究所编,第74页。
3 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 280.
4转引自康民军:《地理原则能论证“麦克马洪线"的有效性吗?——评析20世纪五六十年代印度政府对“麦克马洪线"的一个观点》,载《南亚研究》2009年第3期。
5 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 31-34.
1 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1992, p. 422, para. 101.
3参见《国际法院判决、咨询意见和命令摘要》(1948-1991),联合国出版物1993年,第68页。
4参见中国科学院青藏高原综合考察队:《西藏自然地理》,科学出版社1982年版,第20页。
1 Neville Maxwell, India’China War, Jonathan Cape, 1970, p. 39.
2 Alastair Lamb, the China-India Border: The origin of the Disputed Boundaries, Oxford University Press, 1964, p. 126.
3 Gideon Blger, the Encyclopedia of International Boundaries, the Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd., 1995, pp. 158-159.
4参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第二分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第75页。
3 Frontier Dispute (Burking Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 587, para. 63.
4 Cameroon v. Nigeria case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 355, para. 70.
1 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 9-10.
2参见邵津主编:《国际法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2008年版,第118页。
3 The Minquiers and Ecrelzos case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1953, p. 58.
4 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 283.
1以上内容参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第633页以下。
2 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 19-20.
1参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第633-635页。
2 Alastair Lamb, the Sino-Indian Border in Ladakah, Australian National University Press, 1973, p. 35.
3参见《中华人民共和国政府官员和印度政府官员关于边界问题的报告》,第2-3页。转引自吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第642页。
1参见《中华人民共和国政府官员与印度政府官员关于边界问题的报告》,中国外交部,第1页。转引自吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第643页。
2 Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971, pp. 21, 47.
3 Parshotam Mchra, An“agreed”Frontier Ladakh and India’s Northernmost Borders(1846-1947), Oxford University press, 1992, p. 18.
1 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 283.
1 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, pp. 283-284.
2参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(下卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第645-646页。
3 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 284.
1 John Lall, Akasichin and Sino-Indian Conflict, Allied Pub. Pvt. Ltd., 1989, p. 59.
2参见王宏纬:《喜马拉雅山情结:中印关系研究》,中国藏学出版社1998年版,第43页。
3 A. P. Rubin, Sino-India Border Dispute, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 9, p. 124.
2 Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000, pp. 79-80.
1我国于1971年12月30日曾发表声明,钓鱼岛列屿附属于台湾岛。1972年2月台湾省将其纳入宜兰县管辖。See Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, p. 287.
2参见郑海麟著:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,中华书局2007年版,第119-120页。
3 Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010, p. 48.
4 Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000, pp. 85-86.
5参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第91页。
1参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第78页。
2 Steven Wei Su, the Territorial Dispute over the Tiaoyu/Senkaku Islands: An Update, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 36, 2005.
3 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), I. C. J. Reports 1999, p. 1075, para. 48.
4 Kimie Hara, Cold War Frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: Divided Territories in the San Francisco System, Routledge, 2007, p. 17.
1 Min Gyo Koo, Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia, Springer, 2009, pp. 69-70.
2 Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010, pp. 49-50.
1参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第117页。
1参见李浩培著:《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版,第502页。
2参见张暄主编:《当代中日关系四十年》,时事出版社1993年版,第317页。
3参见郑海麟:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,中华书局2007年版,第155-156页。
1 Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000, p. 86.
2参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第5页以下。
3参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第47页。
1参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第288页。
2参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第71页。
3参见郑海麟著:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,中华书局2007年版,第135页。
1参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台-中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第86页。
2参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第137页。
1 Daniel Bodansky, Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, 2008, p. 115.
1参见鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版,第47页。
2 Steven Wei Su, the Territorial Dispute over the Tiaoyu/Senkaku Islands: An Update, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 36, 2005, p. 55.
3参见丘宏达:《日本对于钓鱼岛列屿主权问题的论据分析》,载《钓鱼台—中国的领土》,明报出版社有限公司1996年版,第101页。
1 Dai Tan, J. D, the Diaoyu/Senkaku Dispute: Bridging the Cold Divide, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Vol. 1, 2006, pp. 157-158.
2 J. Craig Barker, Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals, International and Comparative Quarterly, Vol. 57, 2008, p. 705.
3参见李金明著:《南海波涛》,江西高校出版社2005年版,第2页。
4 Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Kluwer Law International, 2000, p. 256.
5参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第2页。
6参见邵津主编:《国际法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2008年版,第116页。吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第1048-1049页。
1参见李金明著:《南海波涛》,江西高校出版社2005年版,第3页。
2参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第1051页。
3参见赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第12页。
4参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第1051-1055页。
5参见赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第11页。
6 Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010, p. 67.
7 Lee G. Cordner, the Spratly Islands Disputes and the Law of the Sea, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 25, 1994, p. 65.
1参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第13页。
2 Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000, pp. 92-93.
1 Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Kluwer Law International, 2000, p. 256.
2 Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010, p. 67.
1自1933年4月起,法国殖民者陆续侵入南沙群岛的九个小岛。1933年7月法国在一份政府公报中声称,已经占领南沙群岛的九个小岛,并将其置于法国的主权管辖之下。当时我国的渔民即展开了反抗斗争,如砍掉法国的国旗,插上中国的国旗等。随后,中国政府采取了积极的应对措施。
2参见吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》(卷),四川人民出版社2007年版,第1051-1055页。
3参见李金明著:《南海波涛》,江西高校出版社2005年版,第90-91页。
4参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第8页。
1参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第2页。
2 Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK limited, 1987, pp.374-375.
3参见赵理海:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第14页。
4参见《中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩》(中华人民共和国外交部文件),载《西沙群岛和南沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土》,人民出版社1981年版,第10-11页。
1参见傅崐成著:《海洋法专题研究》,厦门大学出版社2004年版,第381页。
2 Anthony Connerty, A Manual of International Dispute Resolution, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2006,p. 41.
1参见邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版,第249页。
2 J. Craig Barker, Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals, International and Comparative Quarterly, Vol. 57, 2008, p. 704.
1参见张卫彬:《海洋划界的趋势与相关情况规则》,载《华东政法大学学报》2010年第2期。
1、[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨:《奥本海国际法》,王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版。
2、高忠智著:《美国证据法新解——相关性证据及其排除规则》,法律出版社2004年版。
3、[英]马尔科姆·N.肖著:《国际法》(影印版),北京大学出版社2005年版,第431页。
4、李浩培著:《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版。
5、何家弘、刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2008年第3版。
6、[英]伊恩·布朗利:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年版。
7、叶自强著:《举证责任及其分配标准》,法律出版社2005年版。
8、[德]莱奥·罗森贝克:《证明责任论》,庄敬华译,中国法制出版社2002年版。
9、[英]戴维·M.沃克:《牛津法律大辞典》,李元双等译,法律出版社2003年版。
10、[美]罗纳德·J.艾伦等:《证据法:文本、问题和案例》,张保生等译,高等教育出版社2006年版。
11、[德]汉斯·普维庭:《现代证明责任问题》,吴越译,法律出版社2000年版。
12、[德]马克斯·普朗克比较公法及国际法研究所:《国际法院、国际法庭和国际仲裁的案例》,陈致中、李斐南译,中山大学出版社1989年版。
13、[德]英戈·冯·闵希:《国际法教程》,李浩培译,世界知识出版社1997版。
14、李浩培著:《国际法的概念与渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版。
15、[美]路易斯·亨金:《国际法:政治与法律》,张乃根等译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
16、赵理海著:《海洋法问题研究》,北京大学出版社1996年版。
17、周叔厚著:《证据法论》,台湾三民书局1995年版。
18、[英]蒂莫西·希利尔:《国际公法原理》,曲波译,中国人民大学出版社2006年版。
19、[印]卡·古普塔:《中印边界秘史》,王宏纬、王至亭译,中国藏学出版社1990年版。
20、周鲠生著:《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
21、[英]内维尔·马克斯维尔:《印度对华战争》,陆仁译,世界知识出版社1981年版。
22、张荣祖、郑度、杨勤业著:《西藏自然地理》,科学出版社1982年版。
23、王宏纬著:《喜马拉雅山情结:中印关系研究》,中国藏学出版社1998年版。
24、郑海麟著:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,中华书局2007年版。
25、鞠德源著:《钓鱼岛正名—钓鱼岛列屿的历史主权及国际法渊源》,昆仑出版社2006年版。
26、李金明著:《南海波涛》,江西高校出版社2005年版。
27、马英九著:《从新海洋法论钓鱼台列屿与东海划界问题》,中正书局1986年版。
28、李静著:《证据裁判原则初论》,中国人民公安大学出版社2008年版。
29、段厚生著:《证明评价影响因素分析》,法律出版社2009年版。
30、段书臣、刘澍著:《证明标准问题研究》,人民法院出版社2007年版。
31、丛杭青著:《陈词证据研究》,人民出版社2005年版。
32、毛立华著:《论证据与事实》,中国人民公安大学出版社2008年版。
33、慕亚平等著:《当代国际法论》,法律出版社1998年版。
34、陈荣宗、林庆苗著:《民事诉讼法》,台湾三民书局1996年版。
35、傅崐成著:《海洋法专题研究》,厦门大学出版社2004年版。
36、张乃根著:《国际法原理》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
37、杨泽伟著:《国际法析论》(第二版),中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
38、[美]托马斯·伯根索尔、肖恩·D.墨菲:《国际公法》(第三版),黎作恒译,法律出版社2005年版。
1、曹建明、周洪钧、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,法律出版社1997年版。
2、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》(第二版),北京大学出版社、上海人民出版社2006年版。
3、曾令良、余敏友主编:《国际法》,法律出版社2004年版。
4、张保生主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版。
5、王铁崖、田如萱编:《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版。
6、邵沙平主编:《国际法院新近案例研究》(1990-2003),商务印书馆2006年版。
7、刘颖、吕国民编:《国际法资料选编》,中信出版社2004年版。
8、齐树洁主编:《英国证据法》,厦门大学出版社2002年版。
9、宋英辉、汤维建主编:《证据法学研究述评》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版。
10、薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版。
11、毕玉谦主编:《证据法要义》,法律出版社2003年版。
12、何主宇编著:《英美法案例研读全程指南》,法律出版社2007年版。
13、何家弘主编:《外国证据法》,法律出版社2003年版。
14、郭华、殷宪龙、李继刚主编:《证据法学》,山东人民出版社2009年版。
15、曾令良主编:《国际法学》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2003年版。
16、刁荣华主编:《比较刑事证据法各论》,台湾汉林出版社刊印1985年版。
17、万鄂湘、王贵国、冯华健主编:《国际法:领悟与构建》,法律出版社2007年版。
18、夏登峻、何联升主编:《英汉法律词典》,法律出版社1999年版。
19、卞建林主编:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
20、江国青主编:《国际法》,高等教育出版社2005年版。
21、邵津主编:《国际法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社2008年版。
22、吕一燃主编:《近代边界史》,四川人民出版社2007年版。
23、张暄主编:《当代中日关系四十年》,时事出版社1993年版。
24、边永民编著:《国际法》,对外经贸大学出版社2005年版。
25、王献枢主编:《国际法》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
26、屈广清主编:《海洋法》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版。
27、梁淑英主编:《国际法学案例教程》,知识产权出版社2003年版。
28、王铁崖主编:《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版。
29、邵沙平、余敏友主编:《国际法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2002年版
30、刘家兴主编:《北京大学法学百科全书》(诉讼法学、司法制度卷),北京大学出版社2001年版。
31、傅崐成编校:《海洋法相关公约及中英文索引》,厦门大学出版社2005年版。
1、梁淑英:《论国家领土主权》,载《法律适用》1997年第5期。
2、王圣扬:《论诉讼证明标准的二元制》,载《中国法学》1999年第3期。
3、龙宗智:《推理的界限及适用》,载《法学研究》2008年第1期。
4、姜作利:《WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的合理性分析》,载《现代法学》2010年第6期。
5、叶自强:《举证责任的确定性》,载《法学研究》2001年第3期。
6、康民军:《地理原则能论证“麦克马洪线"的有效性吗?——评析20世纪五六十年代印度政府对“麦克马洪线"的一个观点》,载《南亚研究》2009年第3期。
7、王之昌:《新马岛屿争端之判决:依据与启示》,载《东南亚研究》2009年第1期。
8、王学棉:《论推定的逻辑学基础》,载《政法论坛》2004年第1期。
9、裴苍龄:《再论推定》,载《法学研究》2006年第3期。
10、王可菊:《钓鱼岛及其在东海划界中的地位》,载《中国海洋法评论》2006年第1期。
11、朱利江:《马来西亚和印度尼西亚岛屿主权争议案评论》,载《南洋问题研究》2003年第4期。
12、朱利江:《试论解决领土争端国际法的发展与问题》,载《现代国际关系》2003年第10期。
13、韩占元:《试析解决领土主权争端的有效控制原则—兼论我国的无人岛屿主权争端问题》,载《太原师范学院学报》(社会科学版)2008年第2期。
14、孙传香:《有效控制理论在国际法院的运用及我国的对策》,载《平顶山学院学报》2008年第6期。
15、聂宏毅:《国际法院在解决领土争端中的作用及困境评析》,载《河北法学》2009年第1期。
16、刘芳雄:《国际法治与国际法院的强制管辖权》,载《求索》2006年第5期。
17、吴慧:《国际海洋法争端解决机制对钓鱼岛争端的影响》,载《国际关系学院学报》2007年第4期。
18、曲波:《有效控制原则在解决岛屿争端中的适用》,载《当代法学》2010年第1期。
19、郭渊:《晚清政府的海洋主张与对南海权益的保护》,载《中国边疆实地研究》2007年第3期。
20、金永明:《岛屿与岩礁的法律要件论析》,载《政治与法律》2010年第12期。
21、张新军:《法律适用中的时间因素—中日东海争端关键日期和时际法问题的考察》,载《法学研究》2009年第4期。
22、朱榄叶:《WTO争端解决中的证据问题》,载《当代法学》2007年第1期。
23、王虎华:《论我国和平解决国际争端的理论与实践》,载《河南师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2002年第4期。
24、管建强:《论中日东海划界、领土争端解决的法律方法》,载《学术界》2010年第4期。
25、刘冰:《先占原则与钓鱼岛主权》,载《天津市政法管理干部学院学报》2005年第4期。
1、黄盛璋、王士鹤:《清代中印东段边界的历史研究》,载中国社科院地理研究所编:《边界历史地理研究论丛》,中国科学院地理研究所1998年版。
2、高健军:《论冲绳海槽在中日东海大陆架划界中的作用》,载武汉大学国际法研究所:《武大国际法评论》(第二卷),武汉大学出版社2004年版。
3、邵津:《联合国国际法院在和平解决国际争端中起了什么作用》,载《中国国际法年刊》,法律出版社1986年版。
4、林金枝:《中国最早发现经营和管辖南海诸岛》,载吕一然主编:《南海诸岛地理、历史、主权》,黑龙江教育出版社1992年版。
1、李华:《论解决国际领土争端的基本法律原则》,湘潭大学硕士学位论文,2008年。
2、聂宏毅:《中国与陆地邻国领土争端问题研究(1949-2007)》,清华大学博士学位论文,2009年。
3、林明明:《解析也门与厄立特里亚领土争端》,外交学院硕士学位论文,2010年。
4、董妍:《论领土争端解决中的有效占领规则》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2008年。
5、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。
6、刘衡:《WTO争端解决机制中的证据问题》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,2008年。
1、林惠敏:《白礁主权案开审我代表列大量证据证明拥有白礁》,载《联合早报》2007年11月7日第3版。
1. Acts and Documents Concerning the Organization of the Court, P. C. I. J. Series D, Addendum to No. 2 Revision of the Rules of Court, 1926, p. 250.
2. Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962, I. C. J. Reports 1962, p. 36.
3. Case concerning territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, Judgment of 8 October 2007, pp. 32-35.
4. Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 632.
5. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, pp. 317-318.
6. Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2008, p. 272
7. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), the Republic of Honduras requests permission to intervene in the proceedings, Press Release (Unofficial), No. 2010/18, 16 June 2010.
8. Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) case, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2005, p. 90.
9. Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Application for Permission to Intervene, I. C. J. Reports 1990, pp. 92, 98.
10. Case concerning the Continental Shelf(Tunisia/Libya), Application to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2001, pp. 3, 12.
11. Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports, 1999, p. 1063.
12. Case concerning Frontier dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali),Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 587-588.
13. Case concerning Sovereignty over certain Frontier Land (Belgium/ Netherlands), Judgment of 20 June, I. C. J. Reports 1959, p. 252.
14. Diversion of Water from the Meuse(Netherlands/Belgium), Order of
13 May 1937, P. C. I. J. Series C, No. 81, pp. 553 et seq.
15. Gabcikovo Nagymaros case (Hungary/Slovakia), Order of 5 February 1997, I. C. J. Reports 1997, pp. 3 et seq.
16. South West Africa cases (Ethiopia/South Africa; Liberia/South Africa), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1966, p. 9.
17. Cameroon v. Nigeria, Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, I. C. J. Reports 1996, p. 22.
18. Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine area (Canada/United States of America), Appointment of Expert, Order of 30 March 1984, I. C. J. Reports 1984, p. 165.
19. Application for Revision of the Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf case, pp. 227-228.
20. Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 441.
21. Island of Palmas (Netherlands/ United States of America), 4 April 1928, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, p. 841.
22. Chorów Factory, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, P. C. I. J. Series A, No. 17, 1928, p. 51.
23. North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) and North Sea Continental Shelf(Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1969, p. 16.
24. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of American), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 33.
25. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A.(ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1989, p. 26.
26. Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), I. C. J. Reports 1957, Sep. Op. Judge Lauterpacht, p. 39.
27. Case concerning the India-Pakistan Western Boundary (Rann of Kutch), UNRIAA, Vol. XVII, 1968, pp. 10-11.
28. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (New Application: 1962), I. C. J. Reports 1970, Sep. Op. Judge Fitzmaurice, p. 65.
29. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), I. C. J. Reports 2003, p. 190.
30. Corful Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), I. C. J. Reports 1949, p. 18.
31. The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland,Judgment of 5 April 1933, P. C. I. J. Series A/B No. 53, 1933, p. 49.
32. Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1986, p. 24.
33. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), I. C. J. Reports 2007, p. 76.
34. Fisheries Jurisdiction case, (United Fisheries’Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1974, p. 9.
1. Suryap P. Sharma, Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law, Kluwer Law International, 1997.
2. D Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals, UniversityPress of Virginia, 1975.
3. Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press, 2005.
4. Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, Evidence in International Litigation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005.
5. S Rosenne, the Law and Practice of the International Court(1920-1996), 3rd ed., Martnus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997.
6. Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, British Institute of International and Comparative Law,2009.
7. Elizabeth A. Martin, Oxford Dictionary of Law, Oxford University Press, 1997.
8. G White, the Use of Experts by International Tribunal, Syracuse University Press, 1965.
9. Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat﹠ Karin Oellers Frahm, the Stature of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006.
10. Le Damrosch, the International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, Transnational Publishers, 1987.
11. R. Y. Jennings, the Acquisition of territory in International Law, Manchester University Press, 1961.
12. Hoffmann, the South African Law of Evidence, Durham, 1970.
13. Seoung-Yong Hong﹠ Jon M. Van Dyke, Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Process, and the Law of the Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
14. Gillian D Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006.
15. Michelle T. Grando, Evidence, Proof, and Fact-Finding in WTO Dispute Settlement, Oxford University Press, 2009.
16. Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad, Interpretation and Revision ofInternational Boundary Decisions, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
17. Js Al-Arayed, A Line in the sea-The Qatar V Bahrain Border Dispute in the World Court, North Atlantic, 2003.
18. Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2003.
19. Adrian Keane, the Modern Law of Evidence, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, 2008.
20. Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence, Blackstone Press Ltd., 2000.
21. P Herzoh﹠ M Weser, Civil Procedure in France, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1967.
22. Dr. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues, Kluwer law International, 1996.
23. R Cross, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th ed., Oxford University Press, 2007.
24. Alan Taylor, Principles of Evidence, Canvendish Publishing Ltd., 2000.
25. Park Hee Kwon, the Law of the Sea and Northeast Asia, Kluwer Law International, 2000.
26. Anthony Connerty, A Manual of International Dispute Resolution, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2006.
27. Hill, Claims to territory in International Law and Relations, Oxford University Press, 1945.
28. Malcolm. N. Shaw, International Law, 6th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2007.
29. Guoxing Ji, Maritime Jurisdiction in the Three China Seas: Options for Equitable Settlement, IGCC Publications, 1995.
30. AG Oude Elferink﹠ D R Rothwell, Oceans Management in the 21st Century, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004.
31. Mark J. Valencia﹠ Jon M. Van Dyke﹠ Noel A. Ludwig, Sharingthe Resources of the South China Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997.
32. Rongxing Guo, the Land and Maritime Boundary Disputes of Europe, Nova Science Publishers, 2009.
33. Alan J. Day, Border and Territorial Dispute, 2nd ed., Longman Group UK Ltd., 1987.
34. Surya P. Sharma, India's Boundary and Territorial Disputes, Vikas Publications, 1971.
35. Gideon Blger, the Encyclopedia of International Boundaries, the Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd. 1995.
36. Alastair Lamb, the China-India Border: The origin of the Disputed Boundaries, Oxford University Press,1964.
37. Parshotam Mchra, An“agreed”Frontier Ladakh and India’s Northernmost Borders (1846-1947), Oxford University press, 1992.
38. Kimie Hara, Cold War Frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: Divided Territories in the San Francisco System, Routledge, 2007.
39. Ralf Emmers, Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia, Routledge, 2010.
40. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Kluwer Law International, 2000.
41. John O’Brien, International Law, Cavendish Publishing Ltd., 2001.
42. Wallace, International Law, 2nd ed., Sweet﹠ Maxwell Limited, 2002.
43. Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press, 2001.
44. Terence Anderson, David Schum﹠ William Twining, Analysis of evidence, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2005.
45. Chester Brown, A Common Law of International Adjudication, Oxford University Press, 2007.
46. H. Dennis, the Law of Evidence, Sweet﹠ Maxwell, 1999.
47. Alan Taylor, Principle of Evidence, Cavendish Publishing Ltd., 2000.
48. Ulf Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties, Springer, 2007.
49. Richard K Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 2008.
50. Helen Ghebrewebet, Identifying Units of Statehood and Determining International Bounaries, Peter Lang, 2006.
51. Michelle L. Burgis, Boundaries of Discourse in the International Court of Justice, Martinus Nijuoff Publishers, 2009.
1. Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Thomson West, 2004.
2. Aguilar Mawdsley, Evidence before the International Court of Justice, in Macdonald (ed), Essays in Honor of Wang Tieya, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.
3. Walter George,Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location, John Wiley﹠ Sons, 2002.
4. Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
5. J Makarczyk, Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the
21st Century: Essays in Honor of Krzystof Skubiszewski, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996.
6. E. G. Bello﹠ B. A. Ajibola, Essays in Honor of Judge Taslim Olawle Elias, Vol. II, Contemporary International Law and Human Rights, 1993.
1.J. Craig Barker, Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals, International and Comparative Quarterly, Vol. 57, 2008.
2. Brian Taylor Sumner, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53, 2004.
3. Palchetti, Opening the International Court of Justice to Third States, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 6, 2002.
4. J. M. Ruda, Intervention before the International Court of Justice, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
5. Gillian White, the Use of experts by the International Court, in Vaughan Lowe﹠ Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
6. Fitzmaurice, British Year Book of International Law, Vo1. 32, 1955-1956.
7. Cn Brower, Evidence before International Tribunals: the Need for Some Standard Rules, International Layer, Vol. 28, 1994.
8. K Highet, Evidence, the Court and the Nicaragua Case, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, 1987.
9. R Higgins, Respecting Sovereign States and Running a Tight Courtroom, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 50, 2001.
10. K M Clermont and E Sherwin, A Comparative View of Standards of Proof, American journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 50, 2002.
11. James A. Green, Fluctuating Evidentiary Standards for Self-Defence in the International Court of Justice, International﹠Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 58, 2009.
12. Valencia Ospina, Evidence Before the International Court ofJustice, International Law Forum du droit international, Vol. 1, 1999.
13. Ruth Teitelbaum, Recent Fact-Finding Developments at the International Court of Justice, the Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 6, 2007.
14. Rubin, A Matter of fact, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 59, 1965.
15. David A. McCabe, Tibet’s Declaration of Independence, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 60, 1966.
16. Pauwelyn, Evidence, Proof and Persuasion in WTO Dispute Settlement, Who Bears the Burden? Journal of International Economic Law,Vol. 27, 1998.
17. Simone Halink,All Things Considered: How the International Court of Justice Delegated Its Fact-Assessment to the United Nations In the Armed Activities Case International Law and Politics, Vol. 40, 2008.
18. Janice Cavell, Historical Evidence and the Eastern Greenland Case, The Arctic Institute of North America, Vol. 61, 2008.
19. Zou Keyuan, the Sino-Vietnamese Agreement on Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Gulf of Tonkin, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 36, 2005.
20. Lee G. Cordner, the Spratly Islands Disputes and the Law of the Sea, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 25, 1994.
21. Guyen Hong Thao, the Settlement Disputes in the Bac Bo (Tonkin) Gulf, Vietnam Law & Legal Forum, Vol. 7, 2001.
22. Martin Pratt, Case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Hague Justice Journal, Vol. 2, 2007.
23. CM Schofield and CH Carleton, Technical Considerations in Law of the Sea Dispute Resolution in AG Oude Elferink and D R Rothwell (eds), Oceans Management in the 21st Century, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004.
24. Daniel Bodansky, Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, 2008.
25. Posner, Eric A.﹠ Miguel FP de Figueiredo, Is the International Court of Justice Biased? Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 34, 2005.
26. Steven Wei Su, the Territorial Dispute over the Tiaoyu/Senkaku Islands: An Update, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 36, 2005.
27. Dai Tan, J. D., the Diaoyu/Senkaku Dispute: Bridging the Cold Divide, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Vol. 1, 2006.
1.Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 1 November 2007, at http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/3/14113.pdf, Oct. 10, 2010.
2. The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case, P. C. I. J. Series A/B, No. 5, 1933, p. 45, at http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_AB/AB_53/01_Groenland_Oriental_Arret.pdf, Oct. 12, 2010.
3. Summary of Frontier Dispute Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali Judgement-22 December 1996, at http://www.icj-cij.org/I.C.Jwww/Icases/iHVM/ihvm_isummary_19861222.htmSummary, Dec. 2, 2010.
4. Eric A. Posner, Decline of the International Court of Justice, at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=629341, Dec. 12, 2010.
5. James Thuo Gathii, Geographical Hegelianism in Territorial Disputes Involving Non-European Land Relations: An Analysis of the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), at http://SSRN-id655922.pdf, Dec. 28, 2010.
6. Robin Geib, Revision Proceedings before the International Courtof Justice, at http://www.zaoerv.de.63_2003_1_a_167_194-pdf, Feb. 22, 2011.
7. Drifte Reinhard, Japanese-Chinese territorial disputes in the East China Sea—between military confrontation and economic cooperation, at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/20881/, Feb. 28, 2011.
8. Gillian Triggs, Maritime Boundary Disputes in the South China Sea: International Legal Issues, at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1401189, Feb. 28, 2011.
9. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 4 May 2011, the application by Costa Rica and Honduras for Permission to intervene, at http://www.icj-cij/homepage/index.php, May 8, 2011.