论文部分内容阅读
时效是否构成传统国际法上领土取得模式之一,是一个极具争议的问题。如果时效指涉一种明显不同于其他取得模式的情势,且时效的构成条件能明确界定,则时效可与先占、征服、割让、添附等并列为领土取得模式之一。在领土争端中,当事方可能主张历史上某一时刻形成的权利,这种权利不以先占、征服、割让等为据。当事方也可能基于某些事实和情势主张原主权者的权利被取代。时效概念所指正是这两种实质上明显不同的情势。历史性权利的基础是国际社会的一般意见,主权转移的基础则是争端当事方之间某种形式的协议。因此,国际法上确实需要一些概念来描述这两种情势,但时效显然不是合适的术语。若以历史性权利、默示协定来描述时效所指的情势,传统国际法上的“五种取得模式”可重新列举。深入剖析时效概念,有助于我们准确把握现存各种领土争端中可能涉及的时效问题。
Whether timeliness constitutes one of the territorial acquisitions of traditional international law is a highly controversial issue. If limitation refers to a situation that is significantly different from other modes of acquisition and the constitutional conditions of limitation can be clearly defined, then limitation may be tied to preemption, conquest, cession, attachment, etc., as one of the modes of territorial acquisition. In territorial disputes, the parties may claim the right formed at some point in history, not based on preemption, conquest, cession or the like. The parties may also claim that the rights of the original sovereign be replaced on the basis of certain facts and circumstances. The notion of limitation implies that these two essentially distinct situations. The historical rights are based on the general opinion of the international community and the basis for the transfer of sovereignty is some form of agreement between the parties to the dispute. Therefore, there is indeed a need in international law for some concepts to describe both situations, but timeliness is clearly not a suitable term. If historical rights and implied agreements are used to describe the circumstances of the limitation, the “five modes of acquisition” in traditional international law may be re-enumerated. Profound analysis of the concept of limitation helps us to accurately grasp the limitation issues that may be involved in various existing territorial disputes.