中国南海的“历史性所有权”主张:被南海仲裁裁决忽略的证据  

China’s “Historic Titles” Claims in the South China Sea:the Overlooked Evidence in the South China Sea Arbitration

作　　者：高圣惕 刘瑞阳 Sheng-ti Gau;LIU Ruiyang(Wuhan University)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学国际法研究所,湖北武汉430072 [2]海南大学法学院,海南海口570208

出　　处：《边界与海洋研究》2020年第3期5-26,共22页Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies

基　　金：国家社科基金重点项目“南海仲裁案后的南海法律问题研究”(18AFX026);“基于中国立场的海洋争端解决机制实证研究”(19VHQ008)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：2016年7月公布的菲律宾南海仲裁案的实体裁决错误地宣判了"中国从未在南海断续线内主张过历史性所有权"。"裁决"解决了一个仲裁庭管辖权的障碍,也就是仲裁庭自行错误解释的《公约》第298(1)(a)(i)条里头的"历史性所有权"条款适用到被仲裁庭曲解的事实当中的结果。然而,中国台湾当局在过去70多年曾经出台一系列的法律文件。这些文件表明,中国对于南海断续线内主张"历史性所有权"。南海仲裁案的仲裁庭忽略了这一系列关键文件,导致做出上述的错误裁决。本论文将系统地梳理台湾当局自1947年开始主张南海领土及海域权利的法律文件,阐述这些文件的内容,分析这些文件的法律意义,并且揭露台湾当局在菲律宾南海仲裁案当中扮演的极具冲突性的角色。In 2016,the Merits Award of the South China Sea Arbitration was released in favour of the Philippines. The Award resolved that,inter alia,China has never claimed ‘historic titles’ in the waters enclosed by the U-Shaped Line. This decision made it unnecessary for the Tribunal to apply the related clause that may exclude its jurisdiction under Article 298(1)(a)(i) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,as interpreted by the Tribunal. However,Taiwan Authority of China has for 70 years published several documents expressing its ‘historic titles/waters’ claims on behalf of China within the U-Shaped Line it drew in 1947. Overlooking these profound documents,the Tribunal made the foregoing conclusion. This paper will systematically explore each of these ignored Post-1947 documents,elaborate their coherent legal meanings and implications,and disclose the ambivalent roles played by Taiwan in this arbitration.

关 键 词：历史性所有权 南海仲裁裁决 固有疆域界线 证据 

分 类 号：D993.5[政治法律—国际法学]