驳“历史性权利属一般海洋法规则之例外”说

Refuting the Theory of “Historical Rights Are Exceptions to the General Law of the Sea”

"一般海洋法规则之例外"说要求历史性权利的成立须获得"国际社会的认可",但持此说的学者却仅提出了"利害关系国的默认"。"利害关系国的默认"与"习惯国际法"说法下,历史性权利之"利害关系国的容忍"这一要件虽有不同,但较为相似,故而持"一般海洋法规则之例外"说的学者并未跳出"习惯国际法"说的框架,其论证是自相矛盾的。在"一般海洋法规则之例外"说提出之初,由于一般海洋法规则具体内容并不明确,历史性权利实际上属于独立于一般海洋法规则的另一种习惯国际法体系,且这两种法律体系之间应当并行不悖。即便一般海洋法规则的具体内容被条约确定之后,历史性权利也未被这些条约规定成为一般海洋法规则的例外。

The theory of“the exception of the general law of the sea”requires that the establishment of historical rights be recognized by the international community,but the scholars who hold this theory only put forward the“acquiescence of the interested states”.Compared with the“tolerance of the interested states”,which is one of the constitutive requirements of historic rights under the theory of“customary international law”,the“acquiescence of the interested states”is different but similar to it.So the arguments of the scholars who support the theory of“the exception of the general law of the sea”are contained in the theory of“customary international law”and selfcontradictory.When those scholars first advanced the idea of“the exception of general law of the sea”,historic rights actually belonged to another kind of customary international law system which was independent of the general law of the sea,and the two legal systems should run in parallel relationship due to fact that the specific content of the general law was not clearly defined.Even if the specific content of the general law of the sea is determined by treaties,the historic rights are not defined as exceptions to the general law of the sea.