历史性权利的意涵与南海断续线--对美国国务院关于南海断续线报告的批驳  

Semanteme of Historic Rights and Dashed Line in the South China Sea

作　　者：贾宇[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]国家海洋局海洋发展战略研究所 [2]国家领土主权与海洋权益协同创新中心

出　　处：《法学评论》2016年第3期85-94,共10页Law Review

摘　　要：美国国务院发布的关于中国南海断续线的报告,分析和推演了断续线的三种可能解释:岛屿归属线、国界线和历史性权利线。报告认为后两者解释均不符合国际法,中国应将南海断续线定性为岛屿归属线,依据《联合国海洋法公约》主张领海、专属经济区和大陆架的管辖海域,并与相邻国家进行海域划界。然而,报告忽略中国对南海诸岛领土主权和南海海洋权益的历史经纬,以《联合国海洋法公约》否定历史性权利的习惯国际法规则,分析论证本身也存在诸多疏漏之处。报告得出的结论不是全面、客观和科学的结论,是难以成立的。The newly issued study on China＇s maritime claims in the South China Sea, No.143 of the Limits in the Seas series by United States Department of State, analyzes three possible interpretations of the dashed--line claim, namely, Dashed Line as a Claim to Islands, as a National Boundary, or as a Historic Claim. The State Department study finds that the last two interpretations are inconsistent with international law and concludes that China should clarify that the dashed--line claim re- flects only a claim to islands and any maritime zones that are generated from those island features in accordance with UNCLOS, and China should delimit the maritime boundaries with adjacent countries. However, the study omits China＇s historic evidence on territorial sovereignty and maritime interests in South China Sea. Meanwhile, analytic demonstration based on UNCLOS de- nies historic rights as a customary international law.So, it is full of defects, and it follows that in light of its unpersuasive rea- soning, the related conclusion drawn by the State Department study is hardly tenable.

关 键 词：南海断续线 历史性权利 传统捕鱼权 联合国海洋法公约 

分 类 号：D993.5[政治法律—国际法学]