本文選題：歷史性權(quán)利 + 海洋法　； 參考：《遼寧大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在國(guó)際海洋上越來越得到重視的一項(xiàng)權(quán)利之一,即歷史性權(quán)利,然而直至今日無論國(guó)際海洋法還是任何的聯(lián)合國(guó)公約中,對(duì)于歷史性權(quán)利都沒有明確的定義,在學(xué)術(shù)界也沒有統(tǒng)一的定義,甚至對(duì)于其構(gòu)成要件都存在不同的學(xué)說。從而也是導(dǎo)致了歷史性權(quán)利與歷史性水域、歷史性所有權(quán)、歷史性捕魚權(quán)等相關(guān)的概念之間模糊又相互混淆,在運(yùn)用中則相互模糊互用,從而使維護(hù)主權(quán)國(guó)家應(yīng)有的權(quán)利出現(xiàn)困難。有的學(xué)者認(rèn)為歷史性權(quán)利在《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》中也沒有明確的規(guī)定,因此《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》并不承認(rèn)歷史性權(quán)利,但依據(jù)《維也納條約法》的解釋規(guī)則對(duì)于歷史性權(quán)利進(jìn)行解釋,歷史性權(quán)利在《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》中實(shí)際上是有其地位并承認(rèn)其存在的。無論在國(guó)際實(shí)踐中還是在學(xué)術(shù)界,歷史性權(quán)利都沒有統(tǒng)一而又明確的定義,但是國(guó)際委員會(huì)對(duì)于歷史性權(quán)利有初步的界定,也就是首先主張權(quán)利國(guó)家對(duì)于相關(guān)的海域已經(jīng)行駛了管轄權(quán),其次是在公開持續(xù)的行使權(quán)力已經(jīng)有相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間,最后從其他國(guó)家得到了默認(rèn)。當(dāng)然對(duì)于國(guó)際委員會(huì)的構(gòu)成要件,學(xué)術(shù)界也有不同的學(xué)說。無論海洋法還是相關(guān)的國(guó)際法中,歷史性權(quán)利都是十分重要的一項(xiàng)權(quán)利。尤其是近些年來南海持續(xù)的爆發(fā)出各種問題,都是國(guó)際上關(guān)注的熱點(diǎn)與焦點(diǎn)。自從中國(guó)向世界公開表示了九段線的權(quán)利以后,通過在歷史進(jìn)程過程中一直對(duì)于權(quán)利的鞏固,從而對(duì)于南海擁有歷史性權(quán)利。但是由于歷史問題的原因,中國(guó)在九段線內(nèi)的權(quán)利,其持續(xù)性和排他性并不是十分的突出,因此就縱容了九段線周圍的國(guó)家為了其本國(guó)的權(quán)益肆無忌憚的擴(kuò)張,無視我國(guó)固有的海洋權(quán)利。自古以來中國(guó)就是海洋大國(guó),我們必須在不斷的鞏固自己原有權(quán)利的同時(shí),利用法律武器維護(hù)并主張應(yīng)有且應(yīng)得的權(quán)利,利用國(guó)際規(guī)則主張中國(guó)的歷史性權(quán)利,這不僅僅是對(duì)于我國(guó)維護(hù)本國(guó)海洋利益有推動(dòng),而且還是對(duì)于國(guó)際社會(huì)的規(guī)則更加的完善作出更多的幫助。
[Abstract]:One of the rights that has received increasing attention in the international oceans is the historic right, but until today there is no clear definition of historical rights in either the international law of the sea or in any United Nations convention, There is no uniform definition in academia, and there are different theories about its constituent elements. This also leads to ambiguity and confusion between historical rights and historical waters, historical ownership, historical fishing rights, etc. This makes it difficult to safeguard the rights due to sovereign states. Some scholars believe that historical rights are not explicitly provided for in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and therefore the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not recognize historical rights, However, according to the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Law of treaties, the historic right has its status and recognizes its existence in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There is no uniform and clear definition of historical rights in both international practice and academia, but the International Commission has a preliminary definition of historical rights, That is to say, first, the right state has exercised jurisdiction over the relevant sea area, the second is that the power has been exercised openly and continuously for quite a long time, and finally acquiesced from other countries. Of course, there are different theories about the constitution of international committee. Historical right is a very important right in law of the sea and relevant international law. Especially in recent years, the South China Sea continues to erupt a variety of problems, which are the focus of international attention. Ever since China publicly expressed its right to the nine-dash line to the world, it has had historic rights over the South China Sea through the consolidation of its rights in the course of history. However, due to historical problems, the persistence and exclusiveness of China's rights in the nine-dash line are not very prominent, so the countries around the nine-dash line are allowed to expand unscrupulously for the sake of their own rights and interests. Disregard for our country's inherent right to the sea. Since ancient times, China has been a major maritime power. We must constantly consolidate our original rights while using legal weapons to safeguard and claim due and deserved rights, and to use international rules to claim China's historic rights. This is not only for our country to protect the interests of the sea, but also for the international community to improve the rules of more help.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D993.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 雷筱璐;;歷史性權(quán)利對(duì)《海洋法公約》相關(guān)制度和規(guī)則的促進(jìn)作用[J];湖北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年03期

2 徐棟;;英挪漁業(yè)案中的歷史性權(quán)利研究及對(duì)中國(guó)實(shí)踐的啟示[J];中國(guó)海商法研究;2013年01期

3 曲波;;海洋法中歷史性權(quán)利構(gòu)成要件探究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2012年04期

4 曲波;;歷史性權(quán)利在《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》中的地位[J];東北師大學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

5 曲波;于天一;;歷史性權(quán)利的習(xí)慣國(guó)際法地位思考[J];大連海事大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年02期

6 黃偉;;論中國(guó)在南海U形線內(nèi)“其他海域”的歷史性權(quán)利[J];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年03期

7 王建廷;;歷史性權(quán)利的法理基礎(chǔ)與實(shí)證考查[J];太平洋學(xué)報(bào);2011年03期

8 李金明;;南海斷續(xù)線的法律地位:歷史性水域、疆域線、抑或島嶼歸屬線?[J];南洋問題研究;2010年04期

9 劉江萍;郭培清;;加拿大對(duì)西北航道主權(quán)控制的法律依據(jù)分析[J];中共青島市委黨校.青島行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年02期

10 劉惠榮;劉秀;;北極群島水域法律地位的歷史性分析[J];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條

1 ;菲律賓仲裁案能否撼動(dòng)中國(guó)的九段線[N];中國(guó)海洋報(bào);2014年

2 鄭志華;;中國(guó)南海歷史性權(quán)利主張于法有據(jù)[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

3 高楊;;兩岸應(yīng)聯(lián)合抵制“南海九段線”質(zhì)疑[N];人民政協(xié)報(bào);2014年

4 金永明;;中國(guó)基于南海U形線的主張果真毫無依據(jù)嗎[N];東方早報(bào);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 蔡雨諦;中菲南海仲裁案管轄權(quán)研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2015年

2 段娜;南海斷續(xù)線的內(nèi)涵研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2014年

3 李曉玲;論南海海域U形線的法律性質(zhì)[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2032103