頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | ICJ Opinion on Kosovo Independence and Its Implications for Taiwan's Self-Determination=臺灣獨立與國際法庭關於科索夫獨立的意見書 |
---|---|
作 者 | 郭承天; | 書刊名 | 臺灣人權學刊 |
卷 期 | 2:3 2014.06[民103.06] |
頁 次 | 頁53-78 |
分類號 | 573.07 |
關鍵詞 | 臺灣獨立; 中國統一; 國際法庭; 民主化補救分離; Taiwan independence; China unification; International Court of Justice; Democratic remedial secession; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 2010 年7 月22 日,國際法庭回覆聯合國大會對科索夫獨立的提問,認為科索 夫單方面宣告獨立並沒有違反國際法。相對於該意見書發佈之前在政治和法律 上引起的劇烈爭議,支持與反對科索夫獨立的雙方,在意見書發佈之後,都展 現了相當的自制。本文主張,由於國際法庭在這個民族自決議題上,採取了一 個創新的國際法原則,也就是「民主化補救分離原則」,因此有效解決過去幾 世紀以來造成國際政治動亂的民族自決議題。若是應用在臺海兩岸關係上,國 際法庭這個意見書可能會同時限制臺灣獨立以及中國統一的意圖,而支持相互 包容的折衷方案,例如類似歐盟的制度。 |
英文摘要 | On 22 July 2010, in response to a request by the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an opinion on the Kosovo case, stating that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is not in violation of international law. In contrast to the extravagant political and legal controversies concerning Kosovo’s independence before the ICJ opinion was issued, both supporters and opponents of Kosovo’s independence have revealed remarkable self-restraint in their reaction to the opinion. This paper will argue that the ICJ’s actual application of an innovative principle of international law concerning national self-determination, the “democratic remedial secession” principle, effectively resolves the political and legal problems surrounding national self-determination that have wrecked havoc to international political stability for centuries. If applied to China- Taiwan relations, the ICJ opinion would restrain both Taiwan independence and China-unification claims, while endorsing mutually accommodating alternatives, such as a quasi-European Union arrangement. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。