本文選題：南海仲裁案　切入點：權(quán)利來源　出處：《政治與法律》2016年04期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：中菲南海仲裁案由菲律賓單方面提起,該案關(guān)于管轄權(quán)的裁決至關(guān)重要。菲律賓的仲裁請求可以分為權(quán)利來源、島礁地位和行為活動三個部分的內(nèi)容,其中關(guān)于權(quán)利來源部分是菲律賓仲裁申請的核心,因為它試圖從根本上徹底否定我國在"九段線"內(nèi)海洋性權(quán)利的合法性。菲律賓認(rèn)為,中國在"九段線"內(nèi)主張的主權(quán)權(quán)利、管轄權(quán)和歷史性權(quán)利超過《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》在地理和實體上允許的范圍,因此不具有法律效力。為了避開領(lǐng)土主權(quán)與海域劃界,菲律賓希望將仲裁庭的目光引向兩個焦點,即海洋地形的法律地位和歷史性權(quán)利的范圍。在這兩個焦點問題上,菲律賓請求確認(rèn)的不單純是權(quán)利的存在,實質(zhì)是權(quán)利的范圍,而確認(rèn)權(quán)利的范圍是海域劃界的關(guān)鍵性因素,所以仲裁庭不能將其剝離后單獨裁決,否則就破壞了海域劃界的整體性。同時,上述焦點既涉及相關(guān)島礁的主權(quán)歸屬,也屬于《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》第298條關(guān)于"歷史性海灣或所有權(quán)"的強制管轄權(quán)例外情況。因此,菲律賓的規(guī)避企圖是徒勞的,仲裁庭對其請求中關(guān)于權(quán)利來源的部分仍然不具有管轄權(quán)。
[Abstract]:The arbitration case in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines was initiated unilaterally by the Philippines. The award on jurisdiction in this case is of paramount importance. The arbitration request of the Philippines can be divided into three parts: the source of rights, the status of islands and reefs, and the activities of conduct. The source of the right is at the heart of the Philippine arbitration application because it seeks to fundamentally deny the legitimacy of China's maritime rights in the "nine-dash line". The Philippines believes that China's sovereign rights in the "nine-dash line", Jurisdiction and historical rights go beyond the geographical and substantive scope permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and therefore have no legal effect... in order to avoid territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, the Philippines wishes to draw the attention of the arbitral tribunal to two focal points, That is, the legal status of the maritime terrain and the scope of historic rights. On these two focal issues, the Philippines' request for confirmation is not simply the existence of rights, but in essence the scope of rights, which is the key factor in the delimitation of maritime areas, Therefore, the arbitral tribunal cannot separate the decision after stripping it, otherwise it will undermine the integrity of the delimitation of the maritime area. At the same time, the above focus is related to the sovereignty of the relevant islands and reefs. Also falling within the compulsory jurisdictional exception of article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to "historic bay or title"... therefore, the Philippines' attempts to circumvent are futile, The arbitral tribunal still does not have jurisdiction over the part of its application relating to the source of the right.
【作者單位】： 華東政法大學(xué)國際法學(xué)院;
【基金】：教育部人文社會科學(xué)規(guī)劃基金項目“海洋自由航行的國際法理論與實踐研究”(項目編號:14YJ A820030)的階段性成果 上海市教育委員會重點學(xué)科建設(shè)項目“國際法學(xué)”(項目編號:國際法學(xué)J51103)資助
【分類號】：D993.5

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 雷海;陳智;;人權(quán)、主權(quán)與“球權(quán)”:國際公共管理的權(quán)利來源及其限度[J];人權(quán);2014年01期

，

本文編號：1564885