论非主权性历史性权利与专属经济区和大陆架制度的并存与协调  

On Coexistence and Coordination between Non-Sovereign Historic Rights and EEZ and CS

作　　者：雷筱璐 

机构地区：[1]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95-105,共11页Law Review

基　　金：教育部人文社科青年项目(13YJC820040);国家社科基金重点项目(项目编号:11AZD115)阶段性成果之一

摘　　要：菲律宾在其单方面提起的南海仲裁案中,试图通过质疑专属经济区和大陆架制度不能与历史性权利并存而否认中国的南海海洋权利主张的合法性。《联合国海洋法公约》虽然没有为二者制定完善、具体的协调规则,但其规则处处体现对历史性权利的尊重和承认。从国际法理论、国家实践及国际司法与仲裁实践来看,非主权性历史性权利可以与专属经济区和大陆架制度并存协调,其协调方式具个案性,尚未形成统一的国际法实践。从目前国际司法实践来看,菲律宾有关诉求在管辖权上有较大的障碍,即使对此确立管辖权,在实体国际法层面也面临困境。南海争端的妥善解决不能依靠司法途径,更不能依赖《联合国海洋法公约》的强制仲裁程序,而必须借助于当事国之间的谈判、妥协与合作。The Philippines unilaterally initiated the South China Sea arbitration, attempting to doubt the validity of the historic rights under the UNCLOS in order to deny China＇s South China Sea claims. The UNCLOS does not provide any rules in details to reconcile the historic rights with the regime of EEZ and continental shelf, hut it does show its recognition and respect to the historic rights in general. Besides, the international law theory and practice demonstrates that the historic rights could co --exist with EEZ and continental shelf, with different patterns in various cases. There are both jurisdictional and substantive obstacles to the submissions relating to the historic rights in the arbitration. The resolution of the South China Sea disputes can- not be relied on the international courts or compulsory arbitration under the UNCLOS, but depends on the negotiations, com- promises and the cooperation between the parties.

关 键 词：《联合国海洋法公约》 历史性权利 并存 协调规则 南海仲裁案 

分 类 号：D993.5[政治法律—国际法学]