Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author李玉玲
dc.contributor.authorIvy Lee
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-05T07:16:42Z
dc.date.available2014-05-05T07:16:42Z
dc.date.issued2013-12-30
dc.identifier.citation中国海洋法学评论,2013(2):1-30zh_CN
dc.identifier.issn1813-7350
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.xmu.edu.cn/handle/2288/79804
dc.description李玉玲教授,美国洛杉矶加利福尼亚大学社会学博士。电子邮箱:ivylee@csus.edu。zh_CN
dc.description.abstract[文摘]中国和日本对东海一群岛屿和露出水面的岩礁都宣称拥有主权,中国称之为钓鱼岛或钓鱼台,日本称之为尖阁诸岛。2012年之前,两国达成默契,同意搁置主权问题,留待日后解决,因此几乎没有爆发过激烈的冲突。然而,2012年9月,日本单方面国有化该岛链的3个岛屿,拒绝承认争端和搁置争端默契的存在。目前,日本制造强大舆论,声称基于国际法,中国对这些岛屿的主权主张很薄弱。随着这股舆论甚嚣尘上,尤其是在西方,无论争端最终是否会提交国际仲裁,评估中国和日本主权主张的相对实力变得非常重要。本文分析了两国主权争端的关键点,探讨两国谁更有权利拥有主权。关键点是:日本在主张钓鱼岛为无主之地时,中国是否已拥有历史性主权;中国是否是在1895年《马关条约》中将群岛割让出去;以及日本签署接受《波茨坦公告》的投降书与《旧金山和约》,哪份文件更适用于解决该主权争端问题。据本文分析,在领土争端的国际法和国际判例法规定下,中国对钓鱼岛的主权主张更强有力。日本有效控制的主张则有很大问题,而将中国的动机归责于对潜在油气资源储备的渴望也同样适用于日本。中国更重视该群岛的原因可能是:在美国“重返亚洲”政策和日本首相安倍晋三公然意图修改日本和平宪法的背景下,该群岛的战略地位能确保中国沿海防御和海上安全。[Abstract]Both China and Japan lay claim in the East China Sea to a group of islands and rocky outcroppings called Diaoyu Dao or Diaoyutai in China and Senkaku Islands in Japan. Prior to 2012, the conflict was kept mostly at bay through an informal agreement between the countries to shelve the issue of sovereignty until a later date. However in September 2012, Japan unilaterally nationalized three islands of the island chain, refusing to acknowledge that a dispute and an agreement to shelve the dispute exist. The current controversy is infused with a strong Japan-driven narrative of China having a flimsy claim to the islands under international law. With this narrative taking hold, especially in the West, it is important to assess the relative strength of China's claim against Japan's, regardless of whether the dispute would eventually be submitted to international arbitration. This paper explores the question of which of these countries has the better right to title through analyzing critical points of contention with respect to these countries' sovereignty claims. These are: whether China had possessed a historic title at the time Japan claimed Diaoyu Dao/Senkaku Islands to be terra nullius, whether China ceded the island group in the Maguan/Shimonoseki Treaty in 1895,and which document, i.e., Japan's signed Instrument of Surrender accepting the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration or the San Francisco Peace Treaty, is relevant to the resolution of the dispute. Evidence suggests China to have the stronger claim under precepts of international law and international case law governing territorial disputes. Japan's assertion of having effective control is highly debatable while the imputation of China's motive to its thirst for the potential reserves of hydrocarbon resources could be applied to Japan equally. China, on the other hand, may value the island group more for its strategic location to ensure China's coastal defense and maritime security, in the context of the U.S. Pivot to Asia and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's avowed intention to re-write Japan's pacifist constitution.zh_CN
dc.language.isozhzh_CN
dc.publisher《中国海洋法学评论》编辑部zh_CN
dc.subject钓鱼岛zh_CN
dc.subject钓鱼台zh_CN
dc.subject领土争端zh_CN
dc.subject主权主张zh_CN
dc.subjectDiaoyu Daozh_CN
dc.subjectDiaoyutaizh_CN
dc.subjectSenkakuszh_CN
dc.subjectCompeting claimszh_CN
dc.subjectTerritorial disputezh_CN
dc.subjectSovereigntyzh_CN
dc.title国际法下钓鱼岛主权争端的评估zh_CN
dc.title.alternativeCompeting Claims to the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands under International Law:A Critical Evaluationzh_CN
dc.typeArticlezh_CN


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record