Tunghai University Institutional Repository:Item 310901/15001
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 21921/27947 (78%)
造访人次 : 4238019      在线人数 : 443
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧:
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号",以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻,建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段,可获得较完整数据
  • 进阶搜寻


    jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://140.128.103.80:8080/handle/310901/15001


    题名: 琉球群島主權歸屬--歷史角度與國際法
    其它题名: The Legal Status of under the Historical Stand and International Law
    作者: 陳荔彤
    Chen, Robert Lih-torng
    贡献者: 東海大學法律系
    关键词: 琉球群島;領土主權;國際法
    Okinawa islands;Territorial sovereignty;International law
    日期: 2005-06-00
    上传时间: 2012-06-12T09:02:35Z (UTC)
    出版者: 台中市:東海大學
    摘要: 琉球主權之歸屬,雖於歷史、政治與經貿的角度之研究甚少,但其在國際政治與法律地位的層面上之關係卻不單純。首先,基於歷史傳統面向探討之,可知琉球雖自明朝為我國藩屬國,卻於「分島政約」協議不成後日本廢藩改縣而告亡國,及「馬關條約」更使日本對琉球之佔領事實已告歷史主權而確立。再者,就政治現實面向探討,可知二次戰後美國「託管」琉球群島,但美日間亦有默契,使得美國以日本對琉球保有「剩餘主權(residual sovereignty)」為由而預留日後依主權歸還原則(the principle of return)移轉予日本之伏筆;另一方面,我國於「中日和平條約」亦未對琉球自治或獨立有所主張,使得此後無法再於琉球主權歸屬議題上據理力爭。最後,毋寧由國際地位與國際法面向探討,可知我國對琉球主權地位以難能置喙,而國際法上日本藉由「征服(conquest)」手段取得琉球領土主權亦為合法,在無其他國家反對之時,已逐漸建立其正當性,職是之故,在臺灣的中華民國不應對琉球群島主權爭議上做無謂的爭執,而以交流發展多方合作為是。
    The research of the Okinawa’s sovereignty from the stands of the historical political and trade has not too much, while its relationship between the international political and legal status is so complicated. Firstly, based on the traditional history, Okinawa was a vassal state in the Ming Dynasty. However, Japan terminated its vassal state status and established County status under “the Discrete Islands” agreement, and eventually the islands became the Japanese historical sovereignty under “the Shimonoseki Treaty” with Japan’s occupation fact. Secondly, in terms of the political practice, the United States, which enjoyed the residual sovereignty, transferred the Okinawa’s sovereignty to Japan in accordance with the principle of return in international law. On the other hand, the ROC did not claim the Okinawa’s sovereignty which belongs to whom. Finally, the ROC, therefore, is quite hard to claim the Okinawa’s sovereign status in the international legal principle, while Japan legimately enjoys the Okinawa’s territorial sovereignty by means of the conquest rule without objection by other states. Currently, the Republic of China of Taiwan seems to have no legal status of Okinawa. Therefore, it is significant that Taiwan should establish the mutual cooperation in many fields with the Okinawa islands.
    關聯: 東海大學法學研究第22卷
    显示于类别:[法律學系所] 校內出版品(東海大學法學研究)

    文件中的档案:

    没有与此文件相关的档案.



    在THUIR中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    本網站之東海大學機構典藏數位內容,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈