Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136985| 題名: | 從查戈斯群島諮詢意見觀察民族自決之司法實踐 Reviewing Judiciary Practices of Self-Determination in Light of the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion in the Chagos Case |
作者: | 陳芃叡 | 貢獻者: | 陳純一 陳芃叡 |
關鍵詞: | 查戈斯群島諮詢意見 民族自決 |
日期: | 2021 | 上傳時間: | 2-Sep-2021 | 摘要: | 國際法院於2019年發布以民族自決為重點之查戈斯群島諮詢意見，距離美國總統Woodrow Wilson於1918年十四點和平計畫中提出民族自決概念約為百年。在百年民族自決司法實踐史上，出現許多重要的代表性案例，如法學家委員會1921年亞蘭島案、國際法院1971年西南非諮詢意見、國際法院1975年西撒哈拉諮詢意見、國際法院1995年東帝汶案、加拿大最高法院1998年魁北克諮詢意見、國際法院2004年巴勒斯坦圍牆案諮詢意見、國際法院2010年科索沃諮詢意見等，而近年與查戈斯群島相關之案件則有歐洲人權法院2012年查戈斯島民訴英國案、常設仲裁法院2015年查戈斯海洋保護區仲裁案、國際海洋法法庭2021年關於模里西斯與馬爾地夫就印度洋海洋邊界劃界之爭端案、以及一系列英國法院對查戈斯島民作成之判決。本論文之研究目的，乃欲從事實、程序與實體面扼要考察上開廣義民族自決議題相關司法決定發展脈絡，復從查戈斯群島諮詢意見之特點出發，與前後各案及學說見解作一綜合觀察、比較、歸納、推理，基此指出待決問題，由個案切入整體，觀察民族自決司法實踐整體發展走向，最終以查島諮詢意見為核心，指出本文所發現之民族自決司法實踐發展特點、問題、看法與建議。\n 本文發現，民族自決司法實踐在近百年來大有進展，其事實背景橫跨分離、非殖民化、其他爭取獨立之民族等議題，且各法庭多半選擇跨越民族自決爭議伴隨之典型程序障礙以盡可能積極行使管轄，而實體爭議重心更是不斷轉換，民族自決法律性質爭議、民族意願與表達、領土主權完整、大會職能、自決權對世性、國內法下片面分離問題、片面宣布獨立合法性等問題都逐漸進入司法議程。出於對以上司法實踐脈絡之認識，本文進一步觀察2019年查戈斯群島諮詢意見，發現該諮詢意見具繼往開來之六大創新特點，此六大特點為：跨越程序障礙之努力於查島諮詢意見達到高峰、非殖民化問題於查島諮詢意見再成焦點、民族意願與表達問題於查島諮詢意見成為核心、民族自決規範法律化進程於查島諮詢意見持續推進、聯合國大會在民族自決議題上之功能於查島諮詢意見更加明確、民族自決與領土完整之糾葛於查島諮詢意見再現。本文以此六大特點出發，就各案與學說作一綜合研討，指出民族自決司法實踐所存在之問題並給予細節建議，最後本文從宏觀角度認為，國際法院應更勇於為民族發聲，各法庭應注意國際法與國內法之連動性，而結合法律與政治、理論與實踐乃研究廣義民族自決議題所必需。 | 參考文獻: | 一、中文部分\n\n（一）書籍\n\n丘宏達、陳純一（2014）。《現代國際法》，3版。台北：三民。\n丘宏達、陳純一（2019）。《現代國際法參考文件》，2版。台北：三民。\n邵津（2008）。《國際法》，3版。北京：北京大學出版社。\n姜皇池（2012）。《國際公法導論》，2版。台北：新學林。\n\n（二）期刊論文\n\n王佳，〈國際法院查戈斯群島咨詢意見案述評〉，《大連海事大學學報(社會科學版)》，第4期，2019年，12-18頁。\n王淑敏、朱曉晗，〈“查戈斯群島咨詢意見案”的國際法問題研究〉，《大連海事大學學報(社會科學版)》，第3期，2018年，9-12頁。\n王淑敏、吳昊南，〈國際法院關于“查戈斯群島從毛里求斯分裂案”的咨詢管轄權研究〉，《法律適用》，第17期，2018年，98-104頁。\n王淑敏、何悅涵，〈國際法院對于民族自決權問題的咨詢意見法理分析及實證研究〉，《政治與法律》，第4期，2018年，91-101頁。\n朱利江，〈在能動與克制之間──“查戈斯群島案”中的國際司法政策探析〉，《當代法學》，第2期，2020年，140-151頁。\n任虎，〈國際強行法和普遍義務關系之爭論及其辨析〉，《中國政法大學學報》，第1期，2021年，66-80頁。\n何志鵬、鮑墨爾根，〈主權與職權之爭——國際法院咨詢管轄權與當事國同意原則關系的爭議與解決〉，《北方法學》，第6期，2018年，125-135頁。\n何海榕，〈論“適當顧及”的國際法義務及其對中國的啟示〉，《武大國際法評論》，第4期，2020年，34-52頁。\n宋岩，〈國家同意原則對國際法院行使諮詢管轄權的限制——兼論“查戈斯群島諮詢意見案”的管轄權問題〉，《國際法研究》，第1期，2018年，3-13頁。\n周明園，〈試論國際強行法對國家同意原則的沖擊〉，《長春大學學報》，第3期，2021年，67-72頁。\n徐奇，〈貨幣黃金案原則在國際司法實踐中的可適用性問題研究〉，《武大國際法評論》，第6期，2019年，51-71頁。\n黃影，〈聯合國框架下非殖民化問題的最新進展——國際法院“查戈斯群島諮詢意見案”述評〉，《國際法研究》，第6期，2019年，28-40頁。\n葉強，〈國際法院就＂查戈斯案＂發表諮詢意見〉，《世界知識》，第8期，2019年，38-39頁。\n葉強，〈同意原則在國際法院咨詢程序中的地位再考〉，《中國海洋大學學報(社會科學版)》，第2期，2020年，124-134頁。\n鄧華，〈國際法院認定習慣國際法之實證考察——對“兩要素”說的堅持抑或背離？〉，《武大國際法評論》，第1期，2020年，20-34頁。\n盧婧，〈從“查戈斯群島咨詢案”看國家主權權益的維護問題〉，《法治社會》，第1期，2020年，31-38頁。\n羅國強、于敏娜，〈國際法庭咨詢管轄權的擴張傾向與中國策略〉，《學術界》，第10期，2019年，133-147頁。\n\n二、英文部分\n\n（一）書籍\n\nGideon Boas (2012). Public International Law: Contemporary Principles and Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.\nShaw, M. N. (1986). Title to Territory in Africa: International Legal Issues. Oxford: Clarendon Press.\nShaw, M. N. (2017). International Law, 8th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nOppenheim, L.; Robert Jennings; Arthur Watts (1996). Oppenheim`s International Law, 9th ed., Vol. 1. London: Longman.\nJ. G. Starke (1972). Introduction to International Law, 7th ed. London: Butterworth.\nWilliam R. Slomanson (2011). Fundamental Perspectives on International Law, 6th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.\n\n（二）期刊論文\n\nAdvisory Opinion Regarding Mauritius and the Chagos Archipelago. (2019). Environmental Policy and Law, 49(2), 117-120.\nAllen, S. (2020). Self-determination, The Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Chagossians. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(1), 203-220.\nAmann, D. (2019). Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. American Journal of International Law, 113(4), 784-791.\nBordin, F. (2019). Reckoning with British Colonialism: The Chagos Advisory Opinion. The Cambridge Law Journal, 78(2), 253-257.\nBordner, A. (2019). Climate migration & self-determination. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 51(1), 183-252.\nBurchill, R. (1997). The ICJ Decision in the Case Concerning East Timor: The Illegal Use of Force Validated. Journal of Armed Conflict Law, 2(1), 1-22.\nChristakis, T. (2011). The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Has International Law Something to Say about Secession? Leiden Journal of International Law, 24(1), 73-86.\nChristophersen, J. (2019). General Assembly Resolutions in the Determination of Customary International Law: The ICJ`s Advisory Opinion in Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. Bristol Law Review, 2019, 2-9.\nde Hoogh, A. (1999). Australia and East Timor Rights Erga Omnes, Complicity and Non-Recognition. Australian International Law Journal, 1999, 63-90.\nDugard, J. (1996). 1966 and All That, the South West Africa Judgment Revisited in the East Timor Case. African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 8(3), 549-563.\nFadilah, I., & Adirespati, P. (2019). Self-determination and Territorial Integrity Revisited: Reflecting Chagos Advisory Opinion and Its Comparison with West Papua. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 17(1), 65-90.\nFord, C. L. (2001). In Search of the Qualitative Clear Majority: Democratic Experimentalism and the Quebec Secession Reference. Alberta Law Review, 39(2), 511-560.\nGiorgetti, C., & Dunoff, J. L. (2019). Ex Pluribus Unum: On the Form and Shape of Common Code of Ethics in International Litigation. AJIL Unbound, 113, 312-316.\nGurmessa, A. (2019). Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Case of Chagos Archipelago: Commentary. Hawassa University Journal of Law (HUJL), 3, 191-216.\nHerman, L. L. (1976). Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. reports 1975, p. 12 - An Analysis of the World Court Judgment in the Western Sahara Case. Saskatchewan Law Review, 41(1), 133-142.\nInternational Law Unilateral Secession International Court of Justice Concludes that Kosovo`s Unilateral Declaration of Independence Did Not Violate International Law Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion (July 22, 2010) (2011). Harvard Law Review, 124(4), 1098-1105.\nJacobs, D., & Radi, Y. (2011). Waiting for Godot: An Analysis of the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. Leiden Journal of International Law, 24(2), 331-354.\nJanis, M. W. (1976). International Court of Justice: Advisory Opinion on the Western Sahara. Harvard International Law Journal, 17(3), 609-622.\nKattan, V. (2020). The Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Law of Self-Determination. Asian Journal of International Law, 10(1), 12-22.\nKovac, K. Z. (2019). International Legal Aspects of the Chagos Archipelago Case. Zbornik Radova, 53(2), 739-VI.\nLaw, M. (2018). The Chagos Request: Does It Herald Rejuvenation of the International Court of Justice`s Advisory Function? Queen Mary Law Journal, 9(1), 25-48.\nMacLauchlan, H. (1997). Accounting for Democracy and the Rule of Law in the Quebec Secession Reference. Canadian Bar Review, 76(1-2), 155-185.\nMcCorquodale, R., Robinson, J., & Peart, N. (2020). Territorial Integrity and Consent in the Chagos Advisory Opinion. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(1), 221-238.\nMenon, S. (2020). The Rule of Law, the International Legal Order, and the Foreign Policy of Small States. Asian Journal of International Law, 10(1), 50-67.\nMichael Fordham (1996). What is “Anxious Scrutiny”? Judicial Review, 1:2, 81-87.\nNegm, N. (2019). Diverse Perspectives on the Impact of Colonialism in International Law: The Case of the Chagos Archipelago. Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, 113, 68-71.\nOnica Jarka, B. (2010). Several Reflections on the Significance of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo. Lex ET Scientia International Journal, 17(2), 49-58.\nRice, J. (1999). Culture, Postmodernism, and Canadian Legal Hermeneutis: Comment on Reference Re Secession of Quebec. Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 8, 183-206.\nRobertson, G. (2012). Who Owns Diego Garcia Decolonisation and Indigenous Rights in the Indian Ocean. University of Western Australia Law Review, 36(1), 1-30.\nRochel, J. (2020). For They Have Sown Non-domination. Towards Republican Account of Self-determination. European Journal of Legal Studies, 12(2), 359-394.\nRrecaj, B. T. (2020). Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (ICJ Advisory Opinion, 25 February 2019, General List No.169). Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 35(1), 50-55.\nScobbie, I., & Drew, C. J. (1996). Self-determination Undetermined: The Case of East Timor. Leiden Journal of International Law, 9(1), 185-212.\nStephen Minas (2019). Why the ICJ’s Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion Matters for Global Justice—and for ‘Global Britain’, Transnational Legal Theory, 10:1, 123-136.\nTricot, R., & Sander, B. (2011). Recent Developments: The Broader Consequences of the International Court of Justice`s Advisory Opinion on the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 49(2), 321-364.\nVine, D., Harvey, P., & Sokolowski, S. (2012). Compensating People for the Loss of their Homeland: Diego Garcia, the Chagossians, and the Human Rights Standards Damages Model. Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights, 11(1), 149-182.\nWeismann, P. (2019). Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination, International Community Law Review, 21(5), 463-479.\nWhites, C. (1999). Reference Re Secession of Quebec: Secession by Quebec is Nearly Impossible Task. New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, 19(2), 323-346.\nWong, J. (2019). Comparative Legal Methodology and Its Relation to the Identification of Customary International Law. Perth International Law Journal, 4, 81-110.\nYee, S. (2017). Notes on the International Court of Justice (part 7) the Upcoming Separation of the Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion: Between the Court`s Participation in the UN`s Work on Decolonization and the Consent Principle in International Dispute Settlement. Chinese Journal of International Law, 16(4), 623-642.\n\n（三）司法決定與意見書\n\nAccordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 403.\nApplication for Review of Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 172.\nApplication for Review of Judgement No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 348.\nCase concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962: I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 6.\nChagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration, Mauritius v United Kingdom, Final Award, ICGJ 486 (PCA 2015), 18 March 2015.\nChagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration, Mauritius V. United Kingdom, Dissenting and Concurring Opinion of Judges Kateka and Wolfrum, 18 March 2015.\nChagos Islanders v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR, Application no. 35622/04 (11 December 2012).\nCorfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 23.\nDispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean, Mauritius v. Maldives, Preliminary Objections, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, No. 28, Judgment (Jan. 28, 2021).\nEast Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I. C.J. Reports 1995, p. 90.\nGabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary / Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 7.\nHoareau & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs [2019] EWHC 221 (Admin) (08 February 2019).\nHoareau & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs [2020] EWCA Civ 1010 (30 July 2020).\nInternational status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 128.\nInterpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 71.\nInterpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 89.\nInterpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement of 1 December 1926 (Final Protocol, Article IV), Advisory Opinion, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 16.\nIsland of Palmas Case (Netherlands/USA), 1928 R.I.A.A. 829 (Apr. 4).\nLaguna del Desierto (Argentina/Chile) case, Arbitral Award of 21 October 1994, International Law Reports (ILR), Vol. 113.\nLand, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Application to Intervene, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1990, p. 92.\nLegal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p.16.\nLegal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 136.\nLegal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins, 9 July 2004.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 95.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Donoghue, 25 February 2019.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Declaration of Judge Gevorgian, 25 February 2019.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Declaration of Judge Iwasawa, 25 February 2019.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Declaration of Judge Tomka, 25 February 2019.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Separate Opinion of Judge Gaja, 25 February 2019.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson, 25 February 2019.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Separate Opinion of Judge Sebutinde, 25 February 2019.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Written Comments of the Republic of Mauritius, 15 May 2018.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Written Comments of the United Kingdom, 15 May 2018.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Written Statement of the Republic of Mauritius, 1 March 2018.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Written Statement of the People＇s Republic of China, 1 March 2018.\nLegal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Written Statement of the United Kingdom, 27 February 2018.\nLegal Status of Eastern Greenland Case (Norway/Denmark), Judgment, 1933 P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 53 (Apr. 5).\nLegality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.\nMilitary and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1984, p. 392.\nMonetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1954, p. 32.\nNorth Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 44.\nR v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61 (22 October, 2008).\nR (Bancoult No 3) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2018] UKSC 3 (8 February, 2018).\nReference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217 (20 August, 1998).\nReport of the Committee of Jurists on the Aaland Islands Question, League of Nations, 1920 (LN Doc. B.7 21/68/106).\nSouth West Africa, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6.\nTexas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868).\nThe Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (Germany v. Poland), Merits, Judgment, September 13, 1928, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 17.\nWestern Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12.\n\n（四）聯合國決議\n\nG. A. Res. 66(I). (Dec. 14, 1946).\nG. A. Res. 181(II). (Nov. 29 ,1947).\nG. A. Res. 1514(XV). (Dec. 14, 1960).\nG. A. Res. 1541(XV). (Dec. 15, 1960).\nG. A. Res. 1542(XV). (Dec. 15, 1960).\nG. A. Res. 1654(XVI). (Nov. 27, 1961).\nG. A. Res. 2066(XX). (Dec. 16, 1965).\nG. A. Res. 2145(XXI). (Oct. 27, 1966).\nG. A. Res. 2232(XXI). (Dec. 20, 1966).\nG. A. Res. 2229(XXI). (Jan. 5, 1967).\nG. A. Res. 2372(XXII). (June 12, 1968).\nG. A. Res. 2625(XXV). (Oct. 24, 1970).\nG. A. Res. 2983(XXVII). (Dec. 14, 1972).\nG. A. Res. 3162(XXVIII). (Dec. 14, 1973).\nG. A. Res. 3292(XXIX). (Dec. 13, 1974).\nG. A. Res. 3485(XXX). (Dec. 12, 1975).\nG. A. Res. 31/53. (Dec. 1, 1976).\nG. A. Res. 53/164. (Feb. 25, 1999).\nG. A. Res. ES-10/14. (Dec. 8, 2003).\nG. A. Res. 63/3. (Oct. 8, 2008).\nG. A. Res. 65/118. (Dec. 10, 2010).\nG. A. Res. 71/292. (July 22, 2017).\nG. A. Res. 73/295. (May 22, 2019).\nS. C. Res. 242. (Nov. 22, 1967).\nS. C. Res. 276. (Jan. 31, 1970).\nS. C. Res. 284. (July 29, 1970).\nS. C. Res. 384. (Dec. 22, 1975).\nS. C. Res. 389. (Apr. 22, 1976).\nS. C. Res. 446. (Mar. 22, 1979).\nS. C. Res. 1244. (June 10, 1999).\n\n（五）馬克斯普朗克國際公法百科全書\n\nChristian Tomuschat (2019). United Nations, General Assembly, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 10 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e555?rskey=cVvICl&result=1&prd=MPIL\nChristof Heyns, Magnus Killander (2007). South West Africa/Namibia (Advisory Opinions and Judgments), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 29 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e209?rskey=QiQK95&result=1&prd=MPIL\nClemens Feinäugle (2007). Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 29 April 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e233?rskey=A9zz8n&result=1&prd=MPIL\nDaniel Thürer, Thomas Burri (2008). Self-Determination, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873?rskey=6IfoNw&result=12&prd=MPIL\nDaniel Thürer, Thomas Burri (2009). Secession, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1100?rskey=kQN4ih&result=1&prd=MPIL\nEbrahim Afsah (2009). Diego Garcia (British Indian Ocean Territory), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e2071?rskey=bKUojk&result=1&prd=MPIL\nEmily Haslam (2011). Population, Expulsion and Transfer, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e861?rskey=Qewu6v&result=2&prd=MPIL\nEric Suy, Nicolas Angelet (2007). Promise, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e2009?rskey=ETJq9D&result=6&prd=MPIL\nGregor Novak (2017). Overseas Territories, Australia, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States of America, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1076?rskey=ASKBVH&result=2&prd=MPIL\nGudmundur Alfredsson (2007). Peoples, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1454?rskey=U3tpJl&result=1&prd=MPIL\nJutta Brunnée (2010). Consent, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1388?rskey=QtLiqT&result=1&prd=MPIL\nRahmatullah Khan (2011). Decolonization, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e922?rskey=G9dpVa&result=1&prd=MPIL\nRalph Wilde (2011). Kosovo (Advisory Opinion), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 29 April 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1307?rskey=N5tEeu&result=2&prd=MPIL\nSir Arthur Watts, Remy Jorritsma. (2019). Israeli Wall Advisory Opinion (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 29 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e150?rskey=v5guRk&result=1&prd=MPIL\nSten Harck (2008). Aland Islands, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 20 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1884?rskey=QaHvDC&result=1&prd=MPIL\nVictor Kattan (2019). Partition, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn.). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from: https://opil-ouplaw-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/view/10.1093/law-epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e2189?rskey=o9fSc0&result=3&prd=MPIL\n\n（六）網際網路\n\nBloomberg (2020). U.K. Faces Court Fight as Islanders Want Their Home Back. Retrieved 6 May 2021, from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-31/u-k-faces-supreme-court-fight-as-islanders-want-their-home-back\nGoogle Map (2021). Chagos Archipelago. Retrieved 3 April 2021, from: https://www.google.com.tw/maps/place/%E6%9F%A5%E6%88%88%E6%96%AF%E7%BE%A4%E5%B3%B6/@-16.6714687,48.1224246,5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x249403cb572dda01:0x780c3c63f9d4fb9c!8m2!3d-6.3365899!4d71.8564808?hl=zh-TW\nReuters (2019). African Union urges Britain to cede Chagos Islands, end `colonial` rule. Retrieved 6 May 2021, from: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-mauritius/african-union-urges-britain-to-cede-chagos-islands-end-colonial-rule-idUKKBN1XW1GN | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 法律學系 107651050 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107651050 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 105001.pdf | 7.53 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.