中越南沙群岛之争的证据分量比较--基于国际法院解决领土争端判案规则视角

摘要

The International Court of Justice gradually develops a multiple-level hierarchical evidence rule in the practice of territorial dispute settlement.While the Court often ignores evidence of initial rights,it does not mean that historical evidence has no probative value in any case.China has sufficient historical ev-idences,treaties,and reasonably effective governance to prove its sovereignty over the Nansha Islands.At the same time,Philippines,Malaysia and Vietnam and other involved countries use ambiguous evidence to make their claims.In terms of the precedential judgment of the International Court,their claims not only vi-olate international law,but also are lack of the support of evidence rules.In order to make preparation for bilateral political negotiations or possible judicial proceedings,China should fully draw on applicable legal principles and rules of evidence.At the same time,it must adopt some measures to counter some countries’ illegal behavior in order to further strengthen the declaration of sovereignty over the Nansha Islands.%国际法院在解决领土争端的司法实践中，逐渐确立了多重分级判案的证据规则，虽然时有漠视当事国的初始性权利证据的情况，但这并不意味着历史证据没有证明价值。中国对南沙群岛拥有主权有着充分的历史证据、条约证据和有效管辖证据。菲律宾、越南等国以模糊不清的历史证据、实际控制等主张作为其声索主权的依据，从国际法院司法判例的角度分析，不仅有违时际法理论，也缺乏相应的证据支持。为了在今后双边政治谈判中能够做到有理有据或应对司法诉讼，我国应借鉴国际法院适用的判案法理及相关证据规则，充分重视相关条约对证明拥有南沙群岛主权所具有的决定性作用。同时，进一步加强对南沙群岛主权宣示的行为，并对他国违反国际法的行为采取必要的反制措施。