發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-04-25 22:59

【摘要】：中菲南海爭端,主要是圍繞島礁主權(quán)歸屬及海域劃界問題而引發(fā)的爭議。爭端始于20世紀(jì)50年代初,駐菲律賓蘇比克灣的美國軍隊(duì)無視中國主權(quán),擅自將黃巖島開辟成為靶場(chǎng)。在此后超過半個(gè)世紀(jì)的時(shí)間里,中菲兩國就南海問題不斷交涉,但始終沒有取得實(shí)質(zhì)性的成果,菲律賓也不顧中方勸阻,一次次做出侵犯中方主權(quán)的行為。為南海問題建立長效穩(wěn)固的法律機(jī)制是解決南海問題的必由之路,也是雙方共同的需要。2013年3月26日,菲律賓單方面將南海爭端提交國際海洋法法庭,而國際法庭欲“強(qiáng)行”仲裁南海爭端。2013年4月初,中菲南海爭端并未提交至國際海洋法法庭,而是遵照《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》的規(guī)定,并在爭端一方菲律賓的要求下,進(jìn)入到爭端解決機(jī)制之一的“仲裁”程序中。中菲南海問題的性質(zhì)如何,菲律賓是否可以將中菲南海爭端提交國際海洋法法庭,這一切的法律問題都需要解決,這一切的問題都是由于未能明確強(qiáng)制爭端解決機(jī)制的適用對(duì)象而導(dǎo)致的。中方堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為:菲律賓提請(qǐng)仲裁事項(xiàng)的實(shí)質(zhì)是南海部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題,超出《公約》的調(diào)整范圍,不涉及《公約》的解釋或適用;以談判方式解決有關(guān)爭端是中菲兩國通過雙邊文件和《南海各方行為宣言》所達(dá)成的協(xié)議,菲律賓單方面將中菲有關(guān)爭端提交強(qiáng)制仲裁違反國際法;即使菲律賓提出的仲裁事項(xiàng)涉及有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的問題,也構(gòu)成中菲兩國海域劃界不可分割的組成部分,而中國已根據(jù)《公約》的規(guī)定于2006年作出聲明,將涉及海域劃界等事項(xiàng)的爭端排除適用仲裁等強(qiáng)制爭端解決程序。明確國際仲裁庭的管轄范圍,確定國際仲裁庭的行為是否違反了《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》的規(guī)定是判定中菲南海仲裁是否合法的前提和依據(jù),也是中國應(yīng)對(duì)提供了參考。根據(jù)國際法,各國享有自主選擇爭端解決方式的權(quán)利。任何國際司法或仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)針對(duì)國家間爭端行使管轄權(quán)必須以當(dāng)事國的同意為基礎(chǔ),即“國家同意原則”。在具體的國際爭端解決中,國際仲裁法院對(duì)中菲南海爭端不具有管轄權(quán),國際仲裁法院的仲裁也無法為中方所接受。本文探討的一個(gè)重要話題就在于國際仲裁法院的管轄邊界在哪里?對(duì)于此次中菲南海爭端究竟是否有管轄權(quán)。只有明確了這個(gè)問題才可以為我國的領(lǐng)土爭端提供有價(jià)值的參考,也可以為今后類似問題的解決提供學(xué)理上的支持,使得相關(guān)理論更加的完善,為同類國際爭端的解決提供參考。
[Abstract]:The dispute over the South China Sea between China and the Philippines is mainly caused by disputes over the sovereignty of islands and reefs and the delimitation of maritime areas. The dispute began in the early 1950s, when American troops in Subek Bay, Philippines, ignored Chinese sovereignty and opened Huangyan Island as a shooting range. For more than half a century since then, China and the Philippines have repeatedly negotiated the South China Sea issue, but have never achieved substantial results, and the Philippines has repeatedly violated China's sovereignty despite China's dissuasion. The establishment of a long-term and stable legal mechanism for the South China Sea issue is the only way to resolve the South China Sea issue and also a common need for both sides. On 26 March 2013, the Philippines unilaterally referred the dispute in the South China Sea to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In early April 2013, the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines was not referred to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, but in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and at the request of the Philippines, one of the parties to the dispute, Enter into the "arbitration" procedure of one of the dispute settlement mechanisms. What is the nature of the South China Sea issue between China and the Philippines and whether the Philippines can refer the dispute between China and the Philippines to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea? all these legal issues need to be resolved. All these problems are due to the failure to clarify the subject of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism. China maintains that the substance of the matters submitted by the Philippines for arbitration is the territorial sovereignty of some islands and reefs in the South China Sea, which goes beyond the scope of adjustment of the Convention and does not involve the interpretation or application of the Convention; The settlement of the dispute through negotiation is an agreement reached between China and the Philippines through bilateral documents and the Declaration on the Conduct of the parties in the South China Sea. The Philippines unilaterally submitted the related dispute between China and the Philippines to compulsory arbitration in violation of international law; Even if the arbitration matter raised by the Philippines concerns issues relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention, it constitutes an integral part of the delimitation of maritime areas between China and the Philippines, and China has made a declaration in 2006 in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, Exclusion of disputes involving maritime delimitation and other matters subject to compulsory dispute settlement procedures such as arbitration. Clarifying the jurisdiction of the international arbitral tribunal and determining whether the conduct of the international arbitral tribunal is in violation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the premise and basis for determining whether the arbitration in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines is lawful, and it is also a reference for China's response. Under international law, States have the right to choose their own dispute settlement methods. The exercise of jurisdiction by any international judicial or arbitral body in respect of disputes between States must be based on the consent of the parties, namely the principle of State consent. In the specific international dispute settlement, the International Arbitration Court has no jurisdiction over the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines, and the arbitration of the International Arbitration Court cannot be accepted by China. One of the important topics discussed in this paper is where is the jurisdictional boundary of the International Court of Arbitration? Whether or not there is jurisdiction over the Sino-Philippine dispute in the South China Sea. Only by clarifying this issue can we provide valuable reference for the territorial dispute in our country, and can also provide theoretical support for the settlement of similar problems in the future, so as to make the relevant theories more perfect. To provide reference for the settlement of similar international disputes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D993.5

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 羅國強(qiáng);;多邊路徑在解決南海爭端中的作用及其構(gòu)建——兼評(píng)《南海各方行為宣言》[J];法學(xué)論壇;2010年04期

2 許利平;;調(diào)整南海戰(zhàn)略 重在防止惡化[J];黨政論壇(干部文摘);2011年08期

3 汪翱;;《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》與南海爭端的解決[J];黑龍江教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年06期

4 呂曉偉;;南海爭端的現(xiàn)狀、原因及對(duì)策[J];當(dāng)代社科視野;2009年Z1期

5 紀(jì)源卿;;中國南海爭端的政治學(xué)分析[J];學(xué)理論;2009年31期

6 王炫;;中國在南海爭端中的有所為與有所不為之分析[J];陰山學(xué)刊;2009年06期

7 何志工;安小平;;南海爭端中的美國因素及其影響[J];當(dāng)代亞太;2010年01期

8 李開盛;;求解南海爭端[J];學(xué)習(xí)月刊;2010年23期

9 張宇;;南海爭端中的日本因素及其影響[J];工會(huì)論壇(山東省工會(huì)管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2010年05期

10 馬為民;;美國因素介入南海爭端的用意及影響[J];東南亞縱橫;2011年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 張春;越南為何在南海爭端中充當(dāng)“帶頭大哥”?[N];國防時(shí)報(bào);2011年

2 張?zhí)焐?南海爭端再起，是慣例還是挑釁？[N];中國水運(yùn)報(bào);2013年

3 特約評(píng)論員 劉波;中菲南海爭端應(yīng)重回雙邊軌道[N];21世紀(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào)道;2013年

4 華東政法大學(xué)國際法學(xué)院教授 丁成耀;東南亞之行展示南海爭端法律基調(diào)[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

5 特約撰稿人 余永勝;中菲南海爭端轉(zhuǎn)向行動(dòng)之爭[N];東方早報(bào);2012年

6 余永勝;中越協(xié)議昭示解決南海爭端大方向[N];國防時(shí)報(bào);2011年

7 蕭琴箏;日本介入南海爭端是圍魏救趙[N];國防時(shí)報(bào);2011年

8 特約撰稿人 余永勝;南海爭端的美國考量[N];東方早報(bào);2012年

9 吉林大學(xué)國際關(guān)系研究所博士 孫興杰;解決南海爭端不能只靠宣言[N];經(jīng)濟(jì)觀察報(bào);2013年

10 本報(bào)高級(jí)編輯 丁剛;解決南海爭端須從“冷處理”起步[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào)海外版;2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 董娟娟;中菲南海爭端仲裁研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

2 劉冰艷;南海爭端中海峽兩岸英語新聞互文性分析[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2015年

3 呂慧;《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》強(qiáng)制仲裁管轄權(quán)問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

4 莊永亮;話語策略與身份認(rèn)同：海峽兩岸三家主流報(bào)刊南海爭端報(bào)道研究[D];南京大學(xué);2016年

5 尹鳳云;2015年菲律賓主流媒體網(wǎng)站南海爭端報(bào)道研究報(bào)告[D];南京大學(xué);2016年

6 高桂芳;南海爭端視域下的中越關(guān)系[D];中共中央黨校;2016年

7 符昌敏;冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期中越南海爭端的地緣政治研究[D];華僑大學(xué);2016年

8 王自躍;框架理論下中美媒體中菲南海爭端報(bào)道比較研究[D];河北大學(xué);2016年

9 朱曉婉;和平發(fā)展背景下中越南海爭端與對(duì)策研究[D];武漢工程大學(xué);2016年

10 賴燕梅;冷戰(zhàn)后美國在南海爭端中的聯(lián)盟戰(zhàn)略[D];深圳大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號(hào)：2465540