中印领土东段边界争端中的证据分量问题——基于国际法院解决领土争端判案证据规则视角  

The Issue of Weight of Evidence on Territorial Dispute between China and India: From the Perspective of Evidentiary Rules before International Court of Justice

作　　者：张卫彬[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽财经大学法学院,安徽合肥233030

出　　处：《法学论坛》2015年第1期45-53,共9页Legal Forum

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目<中国拥有南沙群岛主权证据问题研究>(14BFX189);国家教育部人文社科规划基金项目<国际法院解决领土争端中的证据问题研究>(11YJC820169)阶段性成果

摘　　要：近年来,中印领土边界纠纷呈现升温趋势。从证据分析角度,1914年"西姆拉条约"因西藏地方政府没有缔约权,以及没有反映当时中国政府明确的意思表示而缺乏证据效力,没有任何分量。同样,"西姆拉条约"的"附属地图"及尼赫鲁私人日记缺乏证明价值。与之相比,历史证据证明我国对东段地区具有领土主权。对于印度以实际控制证据为据企图对抗我国对藏南地区的领土主权,因1914年关键日期已"固化"其归属于中国,所以印度采取的任何嗣后利己行为不具有可采性。鉴于国际司法仲裁实践日益重视实际控制的效力,我国应采取切实的管控措施,进而为通过谈判解决领土争端提供事实主张的证据基础。In recent years, territorial dispute between China and India presents a warming trend. From the perspective of eviden- tiary analysis, the Simla agreement of 1914 has no weight because the Tibet local government is lack of contracting rights. Moreo- ver, the Simla agreement did not reflect clear will of the Chinese government, thus it has no probative force. Similarly, affiliated map of the Simla agreement and Nehru private diary have no probative value. In contrast, historical evidence proves that China has territorial sovereignty over the Easter sector. Though India attempted to rebut China~ territorial Claims in the light of evidence of actual control, critical date of 1914 froze that the Easter sector was attributed to China. Based on the theory, India self- ser- ving subsequent behavior is inadmissible. At the same time, because the International Court of Justice and arbitration institutions were placing more importance on weight of actual control, we should positively take the necessary measures to strengthen sover- eign acts for the Easter sector in response to India＇s illegal acts, and then provide China factual evidence of territorial sovereignty through negotiation with India so as to solve the territorial dispute.

关 键 词：证据分析 领土争端 藏南地区 

分 类 号：D99[政治法律—国际法学]