|
|
|
篇目详细内容 |
|
【篇名】 |
THE LEGAL STATUS OF SOVEREIGNTY-DISPUTED ISLANDS IN MARITIME |
|
【刊名】 |
Frontiers of Law in China |
|
【刊名缩写】 |
Front. Law China |
|
【ISSN】 |
1673-3428 |
|
【EISSN】 |
1673-3541 |
|
【DOI】 |
10.3868/s050-003-014-0004-1 |
|
【出版社】 |
Higher Education Press and Thomson Reuters |
|
【出版年】 |
2014 |
|
【卷期】 |
9
卷1期 |
|
【页码】 |
65-81
页,共
17
页 |
|
【作者】 |
Steel Rometius;
|
|
【关键词】 |
|
【摘要】 |
|
Sovereignty-disputed islands have special effect on maritime delimitations, whereas positive international law has no regulation on such matters. The legal status of sovereignty-disputed islands on maritime delimitation fall into three categories: full status, partial status and zero status. Full and partial status suggest the cases in which the sovereignty of the islands can be decided un-ambiguously in legal terms, while zero status means the circumstances to which islands under sovereignty dispute are not clearly subject to legal adjudication. Partial and zero status are commonly seen in international cases. The willingness of the disputed parties to a considerable extent defines the relevance of the legal status. Natural circumstances of islands affect not only the nature of the disputed islands and their legal status, but also the willingness of parties greatly. Geographic position of islands may lead to different legal status and affect the willingness of parties. The principle of equity is supposed to play an important role in the determination of legal status of disputed islands. In the case of the Diaoyu Islands for instance, if sovereignty issue can be decided in legal terms, then some extent of partial or full status will take place in the maritime delimitation of East China Sea; if sovereignty issue cannot be decided in legal terms, then only zero status can be granted. “Putting aside disputes and developing jointly” should not be treated as the preferred option and should be transited to certain real dispute resolution such as delimitation agreements or judicial judgments. |
|
