Literature and Arguments concerning Continental Shelf Delimitation in Japanese International Law Academia
【中文摘要】本文作为对日本海洋划界理论实证研究的初步，首先介绍研究对 象获取的方法及文献目录。从初步的文献读解中看出，与个案介绍和分析相比， 曰本学者对大陆架划界问题进行系统性总结的论著并不是很多，敢于挑战的学者也寥寥无几。这从一个侧面多少反映了日本国际法学界主流的实证主义学派在识 别和归纳划界规则中的困难。 尽管日本国际法学界的研究结论是否定自然延伸原则并强调中间线一特殊 情形作为划界规则，但是其依据在不同的时期是不同的。作为进一步评析的准备， 本文将日本学界中的自然延伸否定论的形成分为3个阶段并识别各自阶段的理论依据。第一为“自然延伸后退论”（大致到突尼斯一利比亚案前后）。第二是以突 尼斯一利比亚案中小田滋法官和埃文森反对意见为代表的，由第三次联合国海洋 法大会的200海里专属经济区制度的冲击而带来的“自然延伸对抗论”。最后是 利比亚一马耳他案及其之后的彻底的“自然延伸否定论”。 【Abstract】The paper makes a preliminary summary of Japanese theoretical and empirical research on maritime delimitation. Firstly, it introduces the ways to access the objects of the research, and the catalogue of literature. After preliminary reading of the literature, we can see that compared with introduction to and analysis of cases, there are relatively fewer works on the systematic summary of continental shelf delimitation by Japanese scholars, and very few of them dare to challenge the existing theories. This more or less has indicated the difficulty for the positivist school, who dominates Japanese international law academia, to identify and induce the rules for delimitation. The Japan’s international law academia denies the natural prolongation principle and underlines the “median line/special circumstances” as the rule for maritime delimitation. And this viewpoint has been based on variant arguments in different periods. The paper divides the formation of their denial of the natural prolongation principle into three phases, and identifies the theoretical bases in respective phases. The first phase would be the retreat from the natural prolongation theory (up to around the Tunisia-Libya Case), The second would be the opposition against the natural prolongation theory, represented by the dissenting opinions of the Judge Shigeru Oda and the Judge Evensen in the Tunisia-Libya Case and impacted by the regime of 200-nautial-mile exclusive economic zone created in the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. The third would be the absolute denial of the natural prolongation theory in and after the Libya-Malta Case.