九段线和中国在南海的权利主张

发布时间：2018-07-03 05:51

本文选题：九段 + 中国　；参考：《南京大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：南海有重要的战略价值和经济价值,现在是世界上最具争议的地区之一。当下共有六个国家和地区在南海地区主张权利,包括中国,台湾,越南,马来西亚,文莱和菲律宾。这些国家和地区既对南海的岛礁主张权利,也对南海水域主张权利。南海纠纷总体上包括两个方面：一方面是各方对南海岛礁的主权归属争议；另一方面是各方在南海水域主张的海洋权利的冲突。中国作为六方之一,以九段线为依据对线内的全部南海岛礁主张主权。九段线在中国的南海地图上已经存在了半个多世纪。中国将其作为在南海主张权利的一个重要依据。但是至今为止,中国对九段线并没有一个官方的解释和定义。中国学术界对九段线的解释和法理依据主要有四种理论：(1)九段线是中国在南海的海疆线；(2)九段线内的水域是中国的历史性水域：(3)九段线的作用是南海岛屿归属线；(4)中国在九段线内的水域享有历史性权利。本文主要有两项任务。一是分析这四种理论的国际法依据。另一项任务是根据中国在南海纠纷中的相关国家实践,试图理解中国在南海究竟主张什么权利。根据本文的分析,以下几点是明确的。其一,中国主张九段线内的所有岛礁都是中国的领土,并且根据国际海洋法公约对邻近的水域主张海洋权利；其二中国并没有主张九段线内的全部水域是中国的领海或者历史性水域。但还不能确定的是中国是否根据历史证据主张国际海洋法公约规定之外其它海洋权利。最新的中国官方行为显示中国现在正努力使其在海洋上的权利主张符合国际法,尤其是建立了海洋权利制度的国际海洋法公约。事实上这正是中国需要做的,而且有益于中国自身的利益。根据对关于九段线的四种理论的分析,九段线在国际法上的证明效力很弱。但中国可能出于一些政治上的考虑而继续保留九段线。比如说,它可以把九段线作为与其它在南海主张权利的国家进行谈判的筹码。但无论如何,中国都应该澄清九段线的法律性质和它以此为据在南海所主张的权利,因为这是中国与其它主张权利的中国进行双边或多边合作的前提。
[Abstract]:The South China Sea has important strategic and economic values and is now one of the most controversial regions in the world. Six countries claim rights in the South China Sea, including China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines. These countries and regions claim not only the islands and reefs in the South China Sea, but also the waters of the South China Sea. The dispute in the South China Sea generally includes two aspects: one is the sovereignty dispute over the islands and reefs in the South China Sea; the other is the conflict of the maritime rights claimed by the parties in the waters of the South China Sea. China, as six Fang Zhi one, claims sovereignty over all the islands and reefs in the South China Sea on the basis of the nine-dash line. The Nine-Duan Line has existed on China's South China Sea map for more than half a century. China regards it as an important basis for asserting rights in the South China Sea. But so far, China has no official interpretation and definition of the nine-dash line. There are four theories on the interpretation and legal basis of JiuDuan Line in Chinese academic circles: (1) Nine Duan Line is China's maritime boundary line in the South China Sea; (2) the waters within Nine Duan Line are historical waters of China; (3) the function of Nine Duan Line is the belonging line of South China Sea Islands; (4) China enjoys historic rights in the waters within the Nine Duan Line. There are two main tasks in this paper. The first is to analyze the international law basis of these four theories. Another task is to try to understand what rights China claims in the South China Sea, based on state practice in disputes over the South China Sea. According to the analysis of this paper, the following points are clear. First, China maintains that all islands and reefs within the nine-paragraph line are China's territory, and claims maritime rights to adjacent waters in accordance with the International Convention on the Law of the Sea; Second, China does not claim that all the waters within the Nine Duan Line are China's territorial waters or historic waters. But it is not certain whether China claims maritime rights other than those stipulated in UNCLOS on the basis of historical evidence. The latest official Chinese action shows that China is now trying to bring its maritime claims into line with international law, in particular the International Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has established a maritime rights regime. In fact, this is exactly what China needs to do, and it is in China's own interest. According to the analysis of four theories about nine-dash line, the proof effect of nine-dash line in international law is very weak. But China may keep the nine-dash line for some political reasons. For example, it could use the nine-dash line as a bargaining chip in negotiations with other states claiming rights in the South China Sea. But in any case, China should clarify the legal nature of the nine-dash line and the rights it claims in the South China Sea, because it is a prerequisite for bilateral or multilateral cooperation with other rights-asserting China.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D815.3;D820

【参考文献】