论文部分内容阅读
针对日本石垣市《尖阁诸岛[中国钓鱼岛]开拓日》纪念日条例及其立法依据的《关于尖阁诸岛[中国钓鱼岛]领有权的基本见解》,本文尝试在德语区地图学家及日本学家工作成果的基础上,从德语区法学家的视角对钓鱼岛案例进行研究,以期在这一案例分析的过程中,展示互为依存、不可分离的欧洲德语区包括地图学家、日本学家和法学家在内的学者们在钓鱼岛归属问题上的研究。其结论是:日方在上述纪念日条例及其立法依据的主权基本见解中提及的有关主观历史事实,被来自第三方的德语区可以作为钓鱼岛证据的史地知识或称为证据证否,因而不能被认为是真实的;依据以凯尔森为代表的法学理论维也纳学派的观点,日本国1895年1月14日内阁会议涉及钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿的决定是非法的,日本国关于钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿不是依据《马关条约》割让给日本的陈述,是不真实的,日本国主观认为钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿被置于美国施政之下的国际法依据——“旧金山和约”第三条是非法的。
In view of the “Japan Diaoyu Islands [China Diaoyu Islands] the basic knowledge of the Senkaku Islands [China Diaoyu Islands] the right to take possession of the Seagull Islands [China Diaoyu Islands] pioneering day” and the legislative basis for this Ishigaki city, And Japanese scholars on the basis of the work of the German jurisdictions from the perspective of the Diaoyu Islands case studies in order to analyze the case in the process of demonstrating the interdependent and indivisible European German region including mapographers, Japan Scholars and jurists, including the study on the ownership of the Diaoyu Islands. The conclusion is: The subjective historical fact mentioned by Japan in the basic sovereignty opinion on the memorial day regulations and its legislative basis is that the German-speaking area from a third party can be used as the historical knowledge or dialect of the Diaoyu Island evidence, Therefore, according to the view of the Vienna School of Law, represented by Kelsen, the decision of the Japanese State Council on the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands on January 14, 1895, is illegitimate. The Japanese government’s decision on the Diaoyu Island It is untrue that its affiliated islands are not surrendered to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki and Japan’s subjective belief is that the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands are under the jurisdiction of the United States under international law - “Treaty of San Francisco,” the third Article is illegal.