政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/152891
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113311/144292 (79%)
造访人次 : 50942190      在线人数 : 992
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/152891


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152891


    题名: 當代國際法中自決權之發展——以分離權為中心
    The Development of Self-Determination in Contemporary International Law——Focus on the Right to Secession
    作者: 陳盈君
    Kuan, Tan Ying
    贡献者: 陳貞如
    Chen, Chen-Ju
    陳盈君
    Tan Ying Kuan
    关键词: 自決權
    領土完整原則
    分離權
    救濟性
    憲法
    Self determination
    Principle of Territorial Integrity
    Right to Secession
    Remedial
    Constitutions
    日期: 2024
    上传时间: 2024-08-05 14:41:27 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 自美國前總統伍德羅·威爾遜（Woodrow Wilson）在一九一八年提出的十四點和平原則中肯定少數民族擁有自決權（Right to Self-determination），自決權原則就在民族主義思潮的影響下，在國際法上漸漸興起討論甚至實踐。尤其在二次世界大戰後，由於去殖民化浪潮的發展，被殖民國家透過行使自決權與殖民國家分離，而成為一個主權獨立的國家，國際上對於此類自決權的主張大多抱持著肯認的態度。但到了近代，情況卻有所改變。如今在國際法上，自決權的行使不再像以往那麼順利，而最常被用來與自決權相抗衡的就是以維護國家主權為主的領土完整原則。為了維護一國領土的完整性，以及保持國家穩定與和諧，自決權的行使往往都會受到較嚴苛的限制。這就不禁令人反思，同為國際法原則的自決權和領土完整原則，誰先誰後，兩者之間的平衡該如何拿捏。直到晚進國際法對於自決權有了新的發展，那就是只要一國境內發生種族滅絕或人道危機的情況，受迫害的人民就擁有行使自決權的正當性，我們將這種權利稱之為救濟性自決權（Right to Remedial Self-determination）。而在國際法上，自決權的內容尚包含統一權與分離權，而本文除了針對爭議性較高的「救濟性分離權」（Right to Remedial Secession）的部分作討論，亦嘗試從當代國際法的角度去觀察分離權的發展，以及國家憲法是否應承認分離的權利。
    Under the influence of nationalist ideology, the principle of self-determination has been progressively discussed and even implemented in international law since former US President Woodrow Wilson recognized the right of certain minorities to self-determination in the 1918 Fourteen Points and Principles of Peace. The majority of the international community acknowledged this form of self-determination, which saw colonized countries exercise their right to self-determination and become sovereign, independent nations as a result of the decolonization movement that began especially after World War II. But in the present era, things are not the same. The principle of territorial integrity, which is predicated on the preservation of a state's sovereignty, is the most often employed counterbalance to the right of self-determination in modern international law, as the exercise of self-determination is no longer as straightforward as it once was. The exercise of the right to self-determination is frequently subject to stricter limitations in order to protect a nation's territorial integrity as well as national stability and harmony. It is impossible to avoid thinking about how to strike a balance between the norms of international law—the right to self-determination and territorial integrity—and who should have the upper hand. The right to self-determination did not undergo a new development until the late development of international law. In other words, as long as a country is experiencing a humanitarian crisis or genocide, its citizens will be entitled to exercise their right to self-determination, also known as the right to Remedial Self-determination. The right to secession and the right to unification are both included in the right to self-determination under international law. This article will concentrate on the more contentious aspect of "Remedial Secession" in an effort to examine how the right to secession has evolved in light of current international law and consider whether or not the right to secession should be incorporated into national constitutions.
    參考文獻: 一、英文文獻

    （一） 英文書籍
    1. Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States Oxford: Clarendon Press, (1963).
    2. James Mayall, "Nationalism, Self-determination, and the Doctrine of Territorial Unity" in Settling Self-determination Disputes: Complex Power-sharing in Theory and Practice Marc Weller & Barbara Metzger eds., (2008).
    3. Rosas, "Internal Self-Determination," in Modern Law of Self-Determination C. Tomuschat ed., (1993).
    4. Marc Weller, "Settling Self-determination Conflicts: An Introduction" in Settling Self-determination Disputes: Complex Power-sharing in Theory and Practice Marc Weller & Barbara Metzger eds., (2008).
    5. David Raic, Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination (2002).
    6. Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal Cambridge University Press, (1995).
    7. James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., (2006).
    8. James Crawford, The Creation Of States In International Law (1979).
    9. Jeffrey L. Dunoff, Steven R. Ratner & David Wippman, International Law: Norms, Actors, Process, 5th edition (2020).
    10. Marc Weller, "Why the Legal Rules in Self-determination Do Not Resolve Self-determination Disputes," in Settling Self-determination Disputes: Complex Power-sharing in Theory and Practice Marc Weller & Barbara Metzger eds., (2008).
    11. Georg Nolte, "Secession and External Intervention" in Secession International Law Perspectives M.G. Kohen ed., Cambridge University Press, (2006).
    12. Antonio Cassese, "Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal" ,Cambridge University Press, (December 1998).
    13. John Dugard & David Raic, "The Role of Recognition in the Law and Practice of Secession" in Secession: International Law Perspectives Marcelo G. Kohen ed., Cambridge University Press, (2006).

    （二） 英文文章
    1. Amanda Cats-Baril, "Self-determination," Constitution Brief IDEA, (2018).
    2. Brygida Kuźniak & Danuta Kabat-Rudnicka, "Advisory Opinion or Judgment? The Case of the Chagos Archipelago" (2021).
    3. Rupert Emerson, "SELF-DETERMINATION," Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting 1921-1969, 60 (1966).
    4. Bruno Simma, Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary Supplement (1995).
    5. Russell S. Sobel, "The League of Nations Covenant and the United Nations Charter: An Analysis of Two International Constitutions," 5 Const Polit Econ (1994).
    6. Edward McWhinney, Declaration On The Granting Of Independence To Colonial Countries And Peoples, United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law (2008).
    7. Stephen Allen, "International Law and the Resettlement of the Outer Chagos Islands," Human Rights Law Review, 8(4), 683-702 (2008).
    8. Natalino Ronzitti, "The Current Status Of The Principle Prohibiting The Use Of Force And Legal Justifications Of The Use Of Force," Paper presented at the international conference on “Redefining Sovereignty. The Use of Force after the End of the Cold War: New Options, Lawful and Legitimate?” Frankfurt ,June (2002).
    9. Richard Nixon, U.S. Foreign Policy For The 1970's Building For Peace, A Report To The Congress, February 25, (1971).
    10. Brad R. Roth, "Secessions, Coups, and the International Rule of Law: Assessing the Decline of the Effective Control Doctrine" (2010).
    11. Michael P. Scharf, "Earned Sovereignty: Judicial Underpinnings," 31 DENy. J. INT'L L. & POLY (2003).
    18. Report of the Committee of Rapporteurs (Beyens, Calonder, Elkens), 16 April 1921: LN Council Doct. B7/2I/68/106 [VII].
    19. Heathcote S. Secession, self-determination and territorial disagreements: Sovereignty claims in the contemporary South Pacific, 34 Leiden J. INT'L L. 177 (May 2021).
    20. Lea Brilmayer, "Secession and Self-Determination: A Territorial Interpretation," 16 Yale J. INT'L L. 177 (1991).
    21. Peter Radan, "The Definition of 'Secession'" Macquarie Law Working Paper Series (2007).
    22. S. F. van den Driest, "Remedial Secession: A right to external self-determination as a remedy to serious injustices" Intersentia, (2013).
    23. Dietrich Mursweik, "The Issue of a Right of Secession" in Modern Law of Self-Determination Christian Tomuschat ed., (1993).
    24. C. Johanson & Märta Märta, "Self-Determination and Borders: The Obligation to Show Consideration for The Interest of Others" Åbo Akedemi University Printing House, Åbo, Sweden, (2004).
    25. David Copp, "International Law and Morality in the Theory of Secession," The Journal of Ethics 2 (1998).
    26. Obiora C. Okafor, "The International Law of Secession and the Protection of the Human Rights of Oppressed Sub-State Groups: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" (2017).
    27. Margaret Moore, "Introduction: The Self-Determination Principle and the Ethics of Secession" in National Self-Determination and Secession Oxford University Press, (1998).
    28. Alexander Martinenko, "The Right of Secession as a Human Right," 3 Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law 1 (1996).
    29. Nicolás Brando & Sergi Morales-Gálvez, "The Right to Secession: Remedial or Primary?" 18 Ethnopolitics 2 (2019).
    30. Allen Buchanan, "Theories of Secession," Philosophy & Public Affairs 26(1) (1997).
    31. Michel Seymour, "Secession as a remedial right," Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 50(4) (2007).
    32. Katherine Del Mar, "The Myth of Remedial Secession," in Statehood and Self-Determination Reconciling Tradition and Modernity in International Law, Duncan French ed., Cambridge University Press, (2013).
    33. Aleksandar Pavković & Peter Radan, Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession Aldershot: Ashgate, (2007).
    34. Okojie OS, "Between Secession and Federalism: The Independence of South Sudan and the Need for a Reconsidered Nigeria," 26 Glob Bus Dev L J (2013).
    35. Jure Vidmar, "Remedial Secession in International Law: Theory and Lack of Practice," 6 St Antony’s International Review 1 (2010).
    36. Stefan Oeter, "The Role of Recognition and Non-Recognition with Regard to Secession," Self-Determination and Secession in International Law Oxford University Press, (June 2014).
    37. Stefan Oeter, "The Kosovo case - An unfortunate precedent" (2015).
    38. Tom Ginsburg, Constitution Brief: Seccession, International IDEA publications (August 2018).
    39. Cass Sunstein, "Constitutionalism and Secession," 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. (1991).
    40. Tom Ginsburg & Mila Versteeg, "From Catalonia to California: Secession in Constitutional Law," Alabama Law Review, Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2019-15 (2019).
    41. Okojie OS, "Between Secession and Federalism: The Independence of South Sudan and the Need for a Reconsidered Nigeria," 26 Glob Bus Dev L J (2013).
    42. Shumet Amare Zeleke, "Self-determination, secession, and indigeneity in Ethiopia's federation," Social Sciences & Humanities Open 7(1) (2023).
    43. Ahmednasir M. Abdullahi, "Article 39 of the Ethiopian Constitution On Secession and Self-Determination: A Panacea to the Nationality Question in Africa?" 31 Verfassung Und Recht in Übersee / Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America 4 (1998).
    44. Jeffrey B. Meyers, "Rethinking ‘Constitutional Design’ and the Integration/Accommodation Dichotomy," 73 The Modern Law Review 4 (2010).
    45. OS Okojie, "Between Secession and Federalism: The Independence of South Sudan and the Need for a Reconsidered Nigeria," 26 Glob Bus Dev L J (2013).
    46. Daniel Weinstock, "On Some Advantages of Constitutionalizing the Right to Secede," University of Western Ontario (1999).
    47. Milena Sterio, "Secession: A Proposal for a New Legal Framework," German Yearbook of International Law, Forthcoming, Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 16-294 (2016).
    48. Matthew Saul, "The Normative Status of Self-Determination in International Law: A Formula for Uncertainty in the Scope and Content of the Right?" 11 Human Rights Law Review (2011).
    49. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, (1999).
    50. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, "Tilting horizons: the Integrated Review and the Indo-Pacific," Eighth Report of Session 2022–23.
    51. International Commission On Intervention And State Sovereignty, The Responsibility To Protect, (2001).

    二、中文文獻

    1. 白桂梅，「論內部自決與外部自決」，《法學研究》，第3期， 1997年。
    2. 趙建文，「人民自決權與國家領土完整的關係」，《法學研究》，第6期，2009 年。
    3. 曾璐，「民族自決權與國家主權」，《國際觀察》，第2期，2002 年。
    4. 盧婧，關於自決權爭端的國際法思考，《國際法研究》第1期，2015年。
    5. 姜皇池，論“人民自決”適用於台灣之可行性：實質要件之考察，《臺大法學論叢》 26卷2期，1997年1月
    6. 林廷佳，以科索沃片面宣佈獨立討論國際法下的人民自決權，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文，2013年。

    三、新聞暨網路資料

    1. 香港貿發局,斯裡蘭卡市場概況,2021年10月18日,https://research.hktdc.com/tc/article/MzU3OTUwODY3，最後瀏覽日：2024年3月30日。
    2. 吳瑟致,斯裡蘭卡宣佈破產 中國債務陷阱加速經濟崩盤,新頭殼newtalk,2022年7月7日,https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2022-07-07/782191，最後瀏覽日：2024年3月30日。
    3. 中央廣播電台,援助團體：每天有5千名阿富汗難民逃到伊朗,2021年11月10日,https://www.rti.org.tw/news/view/id/2116488，最後瀏覽日：2024年3月30日。
    4. 李言,中共考察船駛向斯裡蘭卡 印度憂國家安全,大紀元,2022年7月29日,https://www.epochtimes.com/b5/22/7/28/n13791125.htm ，最後瀏覽日：2024年3月30日。
    5. BBC, 黃之鋒因涉「民主自決」被剝奪香港區議員參選資格,2019年10月29日,https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-50217675 最後瀏覽日：2024年3月30日。
    6. 大陸委員會，中華民國臺灣地區民眾對兩岸關係的看法，2024年4月， https://www.mac.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=705BE728E39B547B&s=7D25FABD0D5BE370 ，最後瀏覽日：2024年4月25日。
    7. 德國之聲中文網，法新社：2022年中國軍機擾台次數翻倍 高達1727架次，2023年1月2日，https://www.dw.com/zh-hant/法新社：2022年中國軍機擾台次數翻倍 高達1727架次 ，最後瀏覽日：2024年4月25日。
    8. 中華民國外交部，有關英國國會下議院外交事務委員會8月30日公佈報告要求英國政府力抗中國威脅及維護台灣主權事，外交部回應如下：，2023年8月，https://www.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=97&s=115369 ，最後瀏覽日：2024年4月25日。
    9. Bloomberg, Can Taiwan’s Next Leader Keep the Peace? , Aug 2023, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-08-15/taiwan-vice-president-lai-ching-te-on-the-status-quo-with-china , last accessed: 2024/4/25.
    10. Kosovo thanks you, https://www.kosovothanksyou.com/ , last accessed: 2024/4/25.
    11. CIA government, The World Checkbook, Kosovo, https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/kosovo/ , last accessed: 2024/4/24.
    12. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, History of Kosovo, https://www.britannica.com/place/Kosovo/History , last accessed, 2024/04/25.
    13. 曹長青，“種族清洗﹕20世紀末最大悲劇”科索沃難民實地採訪錄，大紀元，2001年6月30日，https://cn.epochtimes.com/b5/1/6/30/n104902.htm ，最後瀏覽日：2024年4月30日。
    14. Human Rights Watch, Kosovo: Rape as a Weapon of "Ethnic Cleansing",March 2000, https://www.hrw.org/report/2000/03/01/kosovo-rape-weapon-ethnic-cleansing , last accessed:2024/4/23.
    15. The British Indian Ocean Territory, history section, https://www.biot.gov.io/about/history/ , last accessed: 2024/6/26.
    16. UK Parliament, Loss of ICJ judge is a failure of UK diplomacy, 28 February 2018, https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/78/foreign-affairs-committee/news/103324/loss-of-icj-judge-is-a-failure-of-uk-diplomacy/ , last accessed: 2024/6/26.
    17. The Telegraph, UK drops plans to hand Chagos Islands back to Mauritius, 1 December 2023, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/12/01/uk-drop-plan-to-hand-chagos-islands-back-mauritius/ , last accessed:2024/6/27.
    18. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) on the situation relating Kosovo, https://peacemaker.un.org/kosovo-resolution1244 , last accessed: 2024/4/23.
    19. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA,The recognition of states and governments,May 2022, https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/foreign-policy/international-law/respect-promotion/the-recognition-of-states-and-governments.html, last accessed: 2024.03.30.
    20. U.S. Department of the Interior, Compact of Free Association Act of 1985, https://www.doi.gov/oia/compacts-of-free-association, last accessed: 2024.03.30.

    四、判決資料
    1. Reference re Secession of Quebec, 2 SCR 217, August 1998.
    2. Reference by the Governor-General concerning Certain Questions relating to the Secession of Quebec from Canada, ([1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 161 D.L.R. (4th) 385; 115 Int. Law Reps. 536).
    3. The Quebec case(n 5), 1998.
    4. International Court Of Justice, Reports Of Judgments, Advisory Opinions And Orders Legal Consequences Of The Separation of The Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius In 1965, Advisory Opinion Of 25 February 2019.
    5. Loizidou v Turkey, 23 EHRR 244 (European Commission of Human Rights), Judge Wildhaber concurring, joined by Judge Ryssdal, 1997.
    6. Judge Cançado Trindade, Separate Opinion in the Advisory Opinion Regarding the Independence of Kosovo:
    7. Kosovo advisory proceedings, Verbatim Record, December 2009, CR2009/30.
    8. 加拿大最高法院判決,判決連結：https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do ，最後瀏覽日：2024年3月30日。
    9. International Court Of Justice Reports Of Judgments, Advisory Opinions And Orders Accordance With International Law Of The Unilateral Declaration Of Independence In Respect Of Kosovo,Advisory Opinion Of 22 July 2010.


    五、國際規範/文件
    1. 聯合國大會第61/295號決議,《聯合國原住民族權利宣言》
    2. Rights of Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples
    3. 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
    4. UNGA, An Agenda for Peace, A/RES/47/120B, 1993.
    5. United Nations Charter
    6. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
    7. Declaration of Independence
    8. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    9. Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
    10. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
    11. United Nations, General Assembly 71/292, Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, 22 June 2017.
    12. United Nations, General Assembly 73/295, Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, 24 May 2019.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學系
    107651065
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107651065
    数据类型: thesis
    显示于类别:[法律學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    106501.pdf1188KbAdobe PDF0检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈