论单方面石油活动在海洋划界中的意义  

Discussing of the Role of Unilateral Petroleum Activities in Maritime Delimitation

作　　者：董世杰[1] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学中国边界与海洋研究院"国家领土主权与海洋权益协同创新中心"

出　　处：《北方法学》2017年第2期140-148,共9页Northern Legal Science

基　　金：教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目"海上共同开发国际案例与实践研究"(13JZD039);中国博士后科学基金第60批面上项目(2016M602332)的阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：争端当事国的单方面石油活动要想成为海洋划界的考虑因素,必须通过其单方面石油活动证明存在临时协议、默认、明示或默示协议。由于临时协议仅具有历史意义,而明示协议在实践中又不可能出现,那么只能寄希望于默认和默示协议。主张默认或默示协议的当事国,负有很高的举证责任,而成功的先例更是寥寥无几。其他声索国在南沙群岛附近海域非法实施的单方面石油活动,一直为中国政府所反对,自然不能作为日后海洋划界的考虑因素。If one state party wants to take the unilateral activities into account in the delimitation ofmaritime boundary, it must prove there is modus vivendi, acquiescence, express or tacit agreement between state parties through unilateral activities. Because modus vivendi just has historical significance, and it is impossible to find express agreement in practice, then we just hope that acquiescence or tacit agreement can be found. State party who wants to find the existence of acquiescence or tacit agreement should assume high burden of proof, while successful precedents is very few. The illegal unilateral activities of other claimants around Nansha Islands are objected by the government of China all the time, consequently these activities can not be taken into account in the future delimitation.

关 键 词：单方面石油活动 海洋划界 临时协议 默认 明示或默示协议 

分 类 号：DF935[政治法律—国际法学]