论历史性权利法律基础的二重性

On Dual Nature of Legal Base of Historic Rights

南海仲裁案仲裁庭将中国南海历史性权利的法律基础仅限定为《联合国海洋法公约》(《公约》),并以此为论证起点,进而推出中国南海的历史性权利主张因超出《公约》调整范围,而裁定其不具法律效力。该观点适法明显错误。历史性权利的法律基础并非仅限于《公约》。历史性权利的法律基础既包括以《公约》、《领海和毗连区公约》为代表的条约法,还包括国际习惯法,历史性权利的法律基础具有二重性。历史性权利的不同法律基础决定了其在适用中亦有不同的适用方式,其为未来我国利用历史性权利与南海相关国家解决海洋争端提供适法导引。

South China sea arbitration Tribunal limit legal basis of chinese historic rights in the＂United Nations Convention on the law of the sea＂（＂the Convention＂）. As a starting point for the argument,tribunal ruled that chinese historic rights was no legally binding as China＇s historical claims for the South China Sea beyond the scope of the Convention. This view is obviously wrong. The legal basis for historic rights is not limited to the Convention. The legal basis of historic rights includes both treaty law,represented by the Convention,as well as customary international law. the legal basis for historic rights has a dual nature. The different legal bases of historical rights have different ways of application,which provides a proper guidance for the future of our country to utilize of the historical rights to settle maritime disputes in the South China Sea.