中国在南海的《公约》以外历史性权利的合法性问题

Renyuan Li
{"title":"中国在南海的《公约》以外历史性权利的合法性问题","authors":"Renyuan Li","doi":"10.1163/22134484-12340127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn the Award of the South China Sea Arbitration, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention had superseded any historic rights in excess of the limits imposed by the Convention. Consequently, China’s claim of historic rights in the relevant part encompassed by the nine-dashed lines in the South China Sea exceeded the limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention. But an analysis on the context and negotiation history of paragraph 8 of the preamble and issues related to historic rights in the Convention leads to an opposite conclusion. For the issues related to historic rights, the negotiation history of the Convention indicated that the Convention does not supersede any historic rights but left lacunae on related issues. According to the text and negotiation history of paragraph 8 of the Convention, historic rights were not superseded but were regulated by general international law.","PeriodicalId":325796,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legality of China’s Entitlements of Historic Rights beyond the UNCLOS in the South China Sea\",\"authors\":\"Renyuan Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/22134484-12340127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn the Award of the South China Sea Arbitration, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention had superseded any historic rights in excess of the limits imposed by the Convention. Consequently, China’s claim of historic rights in the relevant part encompassed by the nine-dashed lines in the South China Sea exceeded the limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention. But an analysis on the context and negotiation history of paragraph 8 of the preamble and issues related to historic rights in the Convention leads to an opposite conclusion. For the issues related to historic rights, the negotiation history of the Convention indicated that the Convention does not supersede any historic rights but left lacunae on related issues. According to the text and negotiation history of paragraph 8 of the Convention, historic rights were not superseded but were regulated by general international law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":325796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340127\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在南海仲裁案的裁决中,仲裁庭认定《公约》取代了任何超出《公约》规定限制的历史性权利。因此,中国对南海“九段线”所包含的有关部分提出的历史性权利主张,超出了《公约》规定的中国海洋权利范围。但是,对序言部分第8段的背景和谈判历史以及与《公约》历史性权利有关的问题的分析得出了相反的结论。对于历史性权利问题,《公约》的谈判历史表明,《公约》并没有取代任何历史性权利,而是在相关问题上留下了空白。根据《公约》第8款的案文和谈判历史,历史性权利没有被取代,而是受到一般国际法的管制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Legality of China’s Entitlements of Historic Rights beyond the UNCLOS in the South China Sea
In the Award of the South China Sea Arbitration, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention had superseded any historic rights in excess of the limits imposed by the Convention. Consequently, China’s claim of historic rights in the relevant part encompassed by the nine-dashed lines in the South China Sea exceeded the limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention. But an analysis on the context and negotiation history of paragraph 8 of the preamble and issues related to historic rights in the Convention leads to an opposite conclusion. For the issues related to historic rights, the negotiation history of the Convention indicated that the Convention does not supersede any historic rights but left lacunae on related issues. According to the text and negotiation history of paragraph 8 of the Convention, historic rights were not superseded but were regulated by general international law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Indo-Pacific Strategy: Korea and the World Korean Judicial Decision Korean Judicial Decision Korean Judicial Decisions Korean Judicial Decision
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1