摘要
南海仲裁案关乎我国南海诸岛及其海域的主权与主权权利,寻求法律应对,降低该案结果可能对国家合法权益的损害为目前研究的关键所在。针对南海九段线合法性,我国可通过国家实践丰富"历史性权利"的内涵与外延,适时表达南海九段线内水域"历史性权利"的法律确信并利用权威公法家学说的功能阻断对南海九段线性质的不利认定;针对岛礁法律地位,可增加部分岛礁的人类活动,通过常规巡航加强对南海岛礁的有效管辖,适时公布南沙群岛的领海基线;资源开发方面,以共赢为目标进行有序"共同开发";环境保护方面,积极引领以《南海各方行为宣言》为基础的南海环境合作机制,加快建立南海海洋保护区。我国有必要通过积极有效的法律应对,构建符合历史事实、顾及区域共同利益的南海法律秩序,维护国家海洋权益。
the South China Sea Arbitration is closely related to the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the Islands and waters in the South China Sea. The key task of the current research is to seek the legal response and reduce the possible damage to the legitimate rights and interests of the country. For the legitimacy of the nine-dash line of the South China Sea,China could clarify the context and meaning of"historic rights"through the practice of the state with the opinio juris. In addition,using the theory of the authority of the public law to supplement the explanation of the meaning of "historic rights". Concerning the status of the islands,it is necessary to increase the human activities on some islands and reefs,and cruise conventionally to strengthen effective jurisdiction over the islands in the South China Sea. In addition,the baseline of Spratly Island could be declared at appropriate time. So far as the resources exploitation is concerned,the insistence on the win-win cooperation mechanism is significant. In terms of environmental protection,the construction of the South China Sea Environmental Cooperation Mechanism could be initiated by China based on the Declaration on the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea. Nowadays,it is necessary to construct the legal regime in the South China Sea,which respects the historical facts and takes into account the regional common interests of the South China Sea,in order to safeguard the national maritime rights and interests.
出处
《河南财经政法大学学报》
2016年第4期155-166,共12页
Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law
基金
2015年度司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目"‘一带一路’战略背景下我国海洋法律法规体系的完善研究"(15SFB5042)
关键词
南海仲裁案
九段线
国际法后果
法律对策
The South China Sea Arbitration
nine-dash line
consequences under international law
response