論默認在國際領土爭端中之角色

Abstract

在20世紀以來大多數的國際領土爭端判決中，國際法庭經常以默認作為決定領土歸屬之理由。本文為探詢默認在領土爭端中的角色，具體而言目標有三：第一，探討默認之樣態；第二，檢視默認與各個領土取得方式（理論）的關係，並嘗試驗證傳統的領土取得理論在案例中實際應用的情形；第三，歸納默認在領土爭端中之應用規律。\n經研究案例，本文發現默認是國家面對「需要積極回應的情勢」，以正式程度較低的舉措表示同意。默認可應用於詮釋各類權利根據（即條約、保持占有主義、先占）以及轉移主權，但在轉移主權之情形，默認需明確、可證明，方可能轉移主權，換言之，對逆權侵佔保持沉默不構成默認，時效應不存在。\n本文認為在國際法庭實踐中，有三種方式可證明默認存在以決定權利根據歸屬，分別是：(1)比較主權伸張的相對強弱；(2)獨立證據證明爭端方知情或同意；(3)國家對特定之國際或國內情勢疏於回應。

In most of international territorial disputes since 20th century, international tribunals constantly refer to acquiescence as rationale of judicial rule. This thesis is designated to examine the role of acquiescence in international territorial disputes. Specifically, the object is three-fold: First, exploring the extension and definition of acquiescence; Second, to examine the relationship between acquiescence and "the modes of acquisition", and utility of these modes in tribunal practices. Third, to summarize the rules of acquiescence in territorial disputes.\nBy examining cases, we find acquiescence is consent in the form of informal state conduct, while the state face a circumstance which calls for a positive reaction. Acquiescence is also an interpretative tool of territorial titles (i.e. treaty, uti possidetis and occupation) and transfer of sovereignty, and it should be manifested "clearly and without any doubt" in the latter situation. In other words, remaining silent in the face of adverse possession does not constitute acquiescence, it also implied that the so called "prescription" in strict sense does not exist in any judicial decision of international territorial disputes.\nLastly, according to my studies on cases of territorial disputes, there are three types of method (or analysis) could lead to acquiescence, they are: (1) to appraise the relative strength of the sovereign stretch relating to disputing territory; (2) to issue evidence directly proving knowledge or consent; (3) to prove the circumstance (internal or external) called for reaction.