德语区史地学家及以凯尔森为代表的法学家与钓鱼岛研究之关联考

发布时间：2018-06-01 15:50

本文选题：钓鱼岛 + 尖阁诸岛　；参考：《德国研究》2012年03期

【摘要】：针对日本石垣市《尖阁诸岛[中国钓鱼岛]开拓日》纪念日条例及其立法依据的《关于尖阁诸岛[中国钓鱼岛]领有权的基本见解》,本文尝试在德语区地图学家及日本学家工作成果的基础上,从德语区法学家的视角对钓鱼岛案例进行研究,以期在这一案例分析的过程中,展示互为依存、不可分离的欧洲德语区包括地图学家、日本学家和法学家在内的学者们在钓鱼岛归属问题上的研究。其结论是:日方在上述纪念日条例及其立法依据的主权基本见解中提及的有关主观历史事实,被来自第三方的德语区可以作为钓鱼岛证据的史地知识或称为证据证否,因而不能被认为是真实的;依据以凯尔森为代表的法学理论维也纳学派的观点,日本国1895年1月14日内阁会议涉及钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿的决定是非法的,日本国关于钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿不是依据《马关条约》割让给日本的陈述,是不真实的,日本国主观认为钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿被置于美国施政之下的国际法依据——"旧金山和约"第三条是非法的。
[Abstract]:In view of Ishigaki City's "Senkaku Islands [Diaoyu Islands] Day > Day of Remembrance" and its legislative basis "basic opinions on the right of Senkaku Islands [Diaoyu Islands] in China", this paper attempts to use the German-speaking cartographer as a cartographer. And the results of the work of Japanese scientists, The case of Diaoyu Islands is studied from the perspective of German-speaking jurists, with a view to showing that the interdependent and inseparable German-speaking region of Europe includes cartographers in the course of this case study. Japanese scholars and jurists in the Diaoyu Island on the issue of ownership. The conclusion is that the relevant subjective historical facts mentioned by the Japanese side in the above memorial day regulations and the basic opinions of the sovereignty on which the legislation is based are proved by the historical and geographical knowledge of the German speaking region from a third party or referred to as evidence of the Diaoyu Islands. Therefore, it cannot be considered true; according to the Vienna School of Jurisprudence represented by Kelsen, the decision of the Japanese Cabinet meeting of 14 January 1895 concerning the Diaoyu Islands and its affiliated islands was illegal. Japan's statement that the Diaoyu Islands and its affiliated islands were not ceded to Japan in accordance with the Treaty of the people's Republic of China is untrue. Japan subjectively believes that the Diaoyu Islands and its affiliated islands are under the administration of the United States on the basis of international law-article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is illegal.
【作者单位】：河海大学法学院;
【分类号】：D993.2

【参考文献】