跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.201.97.0) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/13 11:35
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:陳伯青
研究生(外文):Chen, Bo Ching
論文名稱:國際法院之先決異議決定類型化分析
論文名稱(外文):A Classification Analysis of Decisions on Preliminary Objections of the International Court of Justice
指導教授:黃居正黃居正引用關係
指導教授(外文):Huang, Chu Cheng
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:科技法律研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:專業法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2016
畢業學年度:104
語文別:中文
論文頁數:195
中文關鍵詞:先決異議國際法院管轄權可受理性
外文關鍵詞:preliminary objectionInternational Court of Justicejurisdictionadmissibility
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:435
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:28
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
「先決異議」是對國際法院在對系爭案件是否要進行實質審理的首先應該考慮的抗辯。在「先決異議」進行的過程中,法院並不會考慮證據以認定被訴國是否真的違反控訴國所主張違反國際法之事實,而是如國際法院所稱:「先決異議不僅僅只是避免法院就案件做出實質裁決,更可避免任何對於案件實體事項的討論」。當事國必須提出「先決異議」之相關文件於法庭,文件中可能包含一個或多個「先決異議」問題。而法院會暫停審理控訴國主張之實體事項,優先聽取兩造當事國間就被訴國所提出的「先決異議」的意見,只有在法院認定「先決異議」主張無理由時,才會續行審理。因為一旦「先決異議」有理由成立,將使後續的實體審理既不必要甚至不可能。
「先決異議」是一種被訴國對於國際法院對系爭繫屬案件主張不具有「管轄權」或「可受理性」之異議。本論文則是為了研究國際法院對「先決異議」的決定。研究結果重點則放在國際法院的「先決異議」決定的類型化分析,以及國際法院對於「先決異議」中的「管轄權」或「可受理性」之異議其下多種異議主張的判準。冀能對國際法理論、研究和實務皆有所貢獻。

A preliminary objection is an objection to an international tribunal's consideration of a case. At the preliminary objections phase of the proceedings, the court does not consider evidence as to whether the respondent State is responsible for the alleged violations of the international law. As articulated by the International Court of Justice, “the object of a preliminary objection is to avoid not merely a decision on, but even any discussion of the merits.” Essentially, the respondent who files preliminary objections in international proceedings contends that one or more preliminary questions should be examined initially and decided by the court before it reaches the merits of the claim, because a decision upholding a particular objection could make it unnecessary, or even impossible, to deal with the merits of the case.
Preliminary objections by the respondent should be differentiated into “the jurisdiction of the Court” and “the admissibility of the application”. This paper is intended as an investigation of the decisions on preliminary objections of the International Court of Justice. Results of this study shows the classification analysis of decisions on preliminary objections and criteria of the subcategories of jurisdiction and admissibility. The paper concludes with implications for theory, research, and practice.

目錄

第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究背景與動機 1
一、中菲南海仲裁案簡介 3
二、先決異議 5
三、中菲南海仲裁案程序仲裁判斷簡析 6
四、本文動機 7
第二節、研究目的 9
第三節、研究方法 9
第四節、論文架構 10
第二章、國際爭端解決 11
第一節、國際爭端 11
一、爭端之意義 11
二、國際爭端之種類 12
三、解決國際爭端之方式 14
第二節、和平解決國際爭端原則 15
一、傳統國際法觀點 15
二、聯合國憲章 15
第三節、政治性解決 16
一、談判 16
二、斡旋 17
三、調停 18
四、調查 19
五、調解 19
第四節、司法解決 22
一、仲裁裁判 23
二、司法裁判 32
第五節、小結 42
第三章、先決異議 46
第一節、先決異議的制定歷史 46
第二節、先決異議之概念 47
一、國家同意原則 47
二、自訂管轄原則 48
第三節、提出先決異議之主體 49
一、被訴國 49
二、起訴國 49
三、參加國 50
四、特別協議之情形 50
第四節、先決異議之程序 50
一、期間 51
二、標的 52
三、書狀 52
四、審理 53
五、判決 54
第五節、先決異議之性質 55
一、性質 55
二、種類 56
三、涉及實體問題 59
四、與「臨時辦法」之關係 60
第六節、先決異議判決之性質 61
一、羈束力 61
二、既判力 63
第七節、小結 66
第四章、國際法院「先決異議」之類型化分析 68
第一節、管轄權 69
一、人的管轄權 70
二、事物的管轄權 72
三、時間的管轄權 74
第二節、可受理性 75
一、訴訟程序一般原則之抗辯 76
二、「外交保護」的國際法原則之抗辯 95
第三節、其他 111
第四節、小結 111
第五章、結論 115
第一節、國際法爭端解決與「先決異議」之關聯 115
第二節、「先決異議」之類型化及判準 116
第三節、南海仲裁實體判決簡析(程序部分) 119
一、仲裁庭關於管轄權範圍的裁決 119
二、先決異議 120
三、涉及對《公約》解釋和適用的爭端的存在 120
四、 必要第三方的參加 121
五、管轄權的先決條件 121
六、管轄權的例外和限制 122
第四節、分類方法的限制及貢獻 123
第五節、未來展望 124
國際法規與判決 127
一、國際條約及國際法院規約、審理規則 127
二、常設國際法院 127
三、國際法院 129
四、國際海洋法法庭 134
五、仲裁 134
六、判決 135
參考文獻 136
中文文獻 136
一、期刊論文 136
二、一般書籍、參考工具書 137
三、網路資訊 138
日文文獻 139
一、期刊論文 139
二、一般書籍、參考工具書 140
英文文獻 141
一、期刊論文 141
二、一般書籍、參考工具書 142
三、研究報告 144
四、網路資訊 144
法文文獻 147
一、期刊論文 147
二、一般書籍、參考工具書 147
三、網路資訊 147
附錄一:《國際法院規約》 149
附錄二:《國際法院審理規則》 160
國際法規與判決

一、 國際條約及國際法院規約、審理規則

1. British-American Diplomacy Treaty of Ghent, Treaty Series, vol. 109 (Dec. 24, 1814).
2. Cameroons under United Kingdom Trusteeship, United Kingdom Treaty Series, No.20 (1947); Command Paper (cmd.), 7082. (Dec. 13, 1946).
3. International Law Commission, Convention on the Continental Shelf, , United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 499, p. 311 (Apr. 29, 1958).
4. The Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 April 1919.
5. The General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, League of Nations Treaty Series. vol. 93, p. 344-363 (Sep. 26, 1928).
6. The Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Dispute, Treaty Series, vol. 392 (July 29, 1899).
7. Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, for the Amicable Settlement of all Causes of Difference between the two Countries, Treaty Series, vol. 133 (May 8, 1871).
8. Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannic Majesty; and the United States of America, Treaty Series, vol. 105 (Nov. 19, 1794).
9. Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Nicaragua, 21, 367 U.N.T.S. 3 (Jan. 21 1956).
10. United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945.
11. United Nations, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982.

二、 常設國際法院

1. Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (Frontier between Turkey and Iraq), Advisory Opinion of 21 November 1925, [1925] P.C.I.J. Series B, No. 12.
2. Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Preliminary Objections, [1925] P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6.
3. Case Concerning the Administration of the Prince von Pless, Preliminary Objection, [1933] P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 52.
4. Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment of 13 September 1928, [1928] P.C.I.J., Series A, No.17.
5. Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, Judgment of 7 June 1932, [1932] P.C.I.J. Series A/B No.46.
6. Case of the S.S. WIMBLEDON", Judgment of 17 August 1923, [1923] P.C.I.J. Series A No.1
7. Case of the S.S. WIMBLEDON", Judgment of 28 June 1923 (Question of Intervention by Poland) , [1923] P.C.I.J. Series A No.1
8. Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, Advisory Opinion of 3 March 1928, [1928] P.C.I.J. Series B No.15.
9. Legal Status of the South-Eastern Territory of Greenland, Order of 3 August 1932 (Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection), [1932] P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No.48.
10. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, [1924] P.C.I.J., Series A, No.2.
11. Serbian Loans, Judgment of 12 July 1929, [1929] P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 20.
12. Status of Eastern Carelia, Advisory Opinion of 23 July 1923, [1923] P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 5.
13. The Borchgrave Case, Preliminary Objection, [1937] P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No.72.
14. The Borchgrave Case, Correspond, [1937] P.C.I.J., Series C, No.83.
15. The Case of the S.S. "Lotus", Judgment of 7 September 1927, [1927] P.C.I.J. Series A No.10.
16. The Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, Preliminary Objection, [1939] P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No.77.
17. The Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, Interim Measures of Protection, [1939] P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No.79.
18. The Losinger & Co. Case, Preliminary Objection, [1936] P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No.67.
19. The Pajzs‚ Czáky‚ Esterházy Case, Preliminary Objection, [1936] P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No.66.
20. The Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case, Judgment of 28 February 1939 , [1939] P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No.76
21. The Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case, Preliminary Objection, [1938] P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No.75.

三、 國際法院

1. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, [2010] I.C.J. Rep. 403.
2. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Interim Protection, Order of 11 September 1976, [1976] I.C.J. Rep. 3.
3. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, [1978] I.C.J. Rep. 3.
4. Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Order of 13 December 1989, [1989] I.C. J. Rep. 132.
5. Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Order of 22 February 1996, [1996] I.C. J. Rep. 9.
6. Aerial incident of March 10th, 1953, Order of March 14th, 1956 , [1956] I.C. J. Rep. 6.
7. Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (jurisdiction), Judgment of July 22nd, 1952, [1952] I.C. J. Rep. 93.
8. Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, [1985] I. C. J. Rep. 192.
9. Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina), Judgment, [2003] I.C.J. Rep. 3.
10. Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, [2003] I.C.J. Rep. 392.
11. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, [1996] I. C. J. Rep. 595.
12. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, 3 February 2015.
13. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, Advisory Opinion, [1988] I.C.J. Rep. 12.
14. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 5 February 2003, [2003] I. C. J. Rep. 77.
15. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain)(New Application, 1962), Preliminary Objections, [1964] I.C.J. Rep. 6.
16. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, [1970] I.C.J. Rep. 3.
17. Case concerning right of passage over Indian territory (Preliminary Objetions), Judgment of November 26th, 1957, [1957] I.C. J. Rep. 125.
18. Case concerning rights of nations of the United States of America in Morocco, Judgment of August 27th, 1952, [1952] I.C. J. Rep. 176.
19. Case Concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Order of October 31st, 1951, [1951] I. C. J. Rep.109.
20. Case concerning the Aerial Incident of September 4th, 1954 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Order of December 9th, 1958, [1958] I.C.J. Rep. 158.
21. Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Order of 10 April 1961, [1961] I.C. J. Rep. 9.
22. Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras, Nicaragua intervening), Judgment, [1992] I.C.J. Rep. 351.
23. Case Concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2 December 1963, [1963] I.C. J. Rep. 15.
24. Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 6.
25. Case of certain Norwegian Loans, Order of September 28th, 1956, [1956] I.C. J. Rep. 7.
26. Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943(Preliminary Question), Judgment of June 15th, 1954, [1954] I.C. J. Rep. 19.
27. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, [1992] I.C.J. Rep. 262.
28. Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, [2005] I. CJ. Rep. 6.
29. Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, [1985] I C.J. Rep. 13.
30. Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, [1982] I.C.J. Rep. 18.
31. Corfu Channel case, Judgment of April 9th, 1949, [1949] I.C. J. Rep. 4.
32. Corfu Channel case, Judgment on Preliminary Objection, [1948] I.C. J. Rep. 15.
33. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Judgment, [1984] I. C.J. Rep. 246.
34. East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I. C.J. Reports 1995, p. 90.
35. Fisheries case, Judgment of December 18th, 1951, [1951] I.C. J. Rep. 116.
36. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, [1973] I.C.J. Rep. 49.
37. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 175.
38. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland), Interim Protection, Order of 17 August 1972, [1972] I.C.J. Rep. 12.
39. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, [1973] I.C.J. Rep. 3.
40. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 3.
41. Frontier Dispute, Provisional Measures, Order of 10 January 1986, [1986] I. C.J. Rep3.
42. Haya de la Torre Case, Judgment of June 13th, 1951, [1951] I.C. J. Rep. 71.
43. Interhandel Case, Judgment of March 21st, 1959, [1959] I.C. J. Rep. 6.
44. Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Advisory Opinion, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 65.
45. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 March 1999, [1999] I. C. J. Rep. 9.
46. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, [2001] I. C. J. Rep. 466.
47. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, [1998] I. C. J. Rep. 275.
48. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, [1996] I. C. J. Rep.13.
49. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, [2002] I. C. J. Rep. 303.
50. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras), Application to Intervene, Judgment. IC.J. Reports 1990, p. 92.
51. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, [1971] I.C.J. Rep. 16.
52. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, [2004] I. C. J. Rep. 136.
53. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, [1996] I. C.J. Rep. 226.
54. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Merit, [2001] I.C.J. Rep. 40.
55. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, [1994] I. C. J. Rep. 112.
56. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 10 May 1984, [1984] I. C.J. Rep.169.
57. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, [1984] I.C.J. Rep. 392.
58. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 14.
59. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (1969), [1969] Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 3.
60. Nottebohm case (Preliminary Objection), Judgment of November 18th, 1953, [1953] I.C.J. Rep. 111.
61. Nottebohm Case (second phase), Judgment of April 6th, 1955, [1955] I.C. J. Rep. 4.
62. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, [1973] I.C.J. Rep. 99.
63. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 253.
64. Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, [1973] I. C.J. Rep. 135.
65. Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Judgment, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 457.
66. Right of Passage over Indian Territory, Portugal v. India, Merits, Judgment, [1960] I.C.J. Rep. 6.
67. Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, [1949] I. C. J. Rep. 174.
68. Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court S Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case, [1995] I. C. J. Rep. 288.
69. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon), Judgment, [1999] I. C. J. Rep. 31.
70. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2008, [2008] I.C.J. Rep. 311.
71. South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 December 1962, [1962] I.C. J. Rep. 319.
72. South West Africa, Second Phase, Judgment, [1960] I.C.J. Rep. 6.
73. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, [2007] I.C.J. Rep. 832.
74. The Minquiers and Ecrehos case, Judgment of November 17th, 1953, [1953] I.C. J. Rep. 47.
75. Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War, Order of 15 December 1973, I.C.J. [1973] Rep. 347.
76. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Order of 15 December 1979, [1979] I. C. J. Rep. 7.
77. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, [1980] I. C. J. Rep. 3.
78. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 9 April 1998, [1988] I. C. J. Rep. 248.
79. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, [1975] I.C.J. Rep. 12.

四、 國際海洋法法庭

1. The M/V “SAIGA” (No.2) Case (Saint Vincent & The Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment of July 1, 1999, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, 120 I.L.R. 143.

五、 仲裁

1. Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, October 29 2015
2. Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Award of 12 July 2016.
3. Administrative Decision No. V, 31 October 1924, VII RIAA 119-155.
4. Affaire de l’île de Clipperton (Mexique contre France), 28 janvier, 1931, ⅡRIAA 1105-1111.
5. Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (Espagne contre RoyaumeUni), 1er mai, 1925, II RIAA 615-742.
6. Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada claims (Great Britain v. Costa Rica), 18 October, 1923, I RIAA 369-399.
7. Alabama claims of the United States of America against Great Britain (US/UK), May 8, 1871, XXIX RIAA 125-134.
8. Case Concerning a Dispute between Argentina and Chile Concerning the Beagle Channel, 18 February 1977, IXX RIAA 53-264.
9. Case Concerning the differences between New Zealand and France arising from the Rainbow Warrior affair, 6 July, 1986, XIX 199-221.
10. Affaire Canevaro, Italy v Peru, Award, 1912, XI RIAA 397-410
11. Cayuga Indians (Great Britain) v. United States, 22 January 1926, VI RIAA 173-190.
12. Gentini Case (of a general nature), 1903, X RIAA 551-561.
13. Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, USA), 4 April, 1928, II RIAA 829-871.
14. Mergé Case—Decision No. 55, 10 June 1955, XIV RIAA 236-248.
15. S. S. “I'm Alone” (Canada, United States), 30 June 1933 and 5 January 1935, III RIAA 1609-1618.
16. The Ambatielos Claim (Greece, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) 6 March 1956. XII RIAA 83-153.
17. The Chamizal Case (Mexico, United States), 15 June 1911, XI RIAA 309-347.
18. Trail Smelter Case, United States v. Canada, 16 April 1938 & 11 March 1941, III RIAA 1905-1982.

六、 判決

1. 最高法院96年度台上字第1780號判決
2. Cosmos 954 Claim (Canada v. U.S.S.R.), (1979), 18 Int'l Leg. Mat (I.L.M.) 899.
3. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803)
4. United States v. State of Alaska 422 U.S. 184 (1975)

參考文獻
中文文獻
一、 期刊論文

1. 宋杰(2007)。〈國際法院司法實踐中的初步反對問題研究〉,《法學評論》,141期,頁46-51。
2. 李子文(2009)。〈從一九七○年國際法院對巴塞隆納牽引、光、電公司案判決探討國際法上對公司之外交保護〉,《育達學院學報》,19期,頁119-144。
3. 柳華文(2004)。《國際法院規則》第79 條、第80 條修訂評析,《環球法律評論》,2004年01期,頁84-92。
4. 黃居正(2011a)。〈印度領土通行地役權案:國際法的法源、習慣國際法、區域性習慣國際法〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,169期,頁93-98。
5. 黃居正(2011b)。〈國家領土之取得、時際法原則、去殖民化、鄰接原則、國際強行法〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,175期,頁97-102。
6. 黃居正(2011c)。〈科索沃片面宣布獨立案:國際法院之諮詢意見、人民自決權、分離權、聯合國決議案之法律效力〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,177期,頁113-118。
7. 黃居正(2011d)。〈聯合國雇員執行職務損害賠償請求權諮詢意見:國際組織作為國際法之主體、外交保護、國家責任〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,179期,頁41-46。
8. 黃居正(2011e)。〈諾特邦案:國籍的意義、得喪與承認〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,185期,頁37-44。
9. 黃居正(2012a)。〈巴塞隆納電力公司案:國際投資保障之基本原則〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,196期,頁1-7。
10. 黃居正(2012b)。〈磷酸鹽案:自然資源歸屬之國際法原則〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,200期,頁82-89。
11. 黃居正(2012c)。〈東帝汶案:國際法院的地位、組織與程序〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,202期,頁47-55。
12. 黃居正(2012d)。〈以軍事與軍事相關行動介入尼加拉瓜案:武力不行使原則、不干涉原則與自衛權〉,《臺灣法學雜誌》,第192期,頁41-46。
13. 黃居正(2012e),〈賽加號案:國際海洋法法庭、緊追權、專屬經濟區〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,214期,頁38-47。
14. 黃居正(2013a)。〈柬泰廟宇(柏威夏古寺)案:文明國家所承認之法律一般原則與禁反言效〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,216期,頁39-45。
15. 黃居正(2013b)。〈以核子武器進行威脅或使用核子武器之合法性案:和平權、武裝衝突法與國際人道法〉,《臺灣法學雜誌》,第222期,頁55-64。
16. 黃居正(2013c)。〈霍茹夫氮素工廠案:國家責任與其救濟〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,224期,頁96-103。
17. 黃居正(2013d),〈拉葛蘭兄弟案:國際法院指示之臨時辦法,台灣法學雜誌〉,226期,頁74。
18. 黃居正(2013e)。〈西古拉電子工業股份有限公司(ELSI)案:窮盡當地救濟原則〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,232期,頁39-47。
19. 黃居正(2014a)。〈彩虹戰士號案:仲裁〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,242期,頁45-54。
20. 黃居正(2014b)。〈Cosmos 954 號衛星損害賠償案:國際太空法原則〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,244期,頁35-44。
21. 黃居正(2014c)。〈領土、島嶼與海域劃界爭議案:歷史性海灣與歷史性水域〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,250期,頁53-63。
22. 黃居正(2014d)。〈巴勒斯坦圍牆案:佔領〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,254期,頁77-86。
23. 黃居正(2014e)。〈波士尼亞危害種族罪案:危害種族罪(兼論殘害人群治罪條例)〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,第258期,頁57-68。
24. 張彝鼎(1964)。〈北喀麥隆案與海牙國際法院〉,《國立政治大學學報》,第10期,頁87-96。
25. 廖福特(2005)。〈非聯合國會員國之國際法院當事國適格性─比較分析與臺灣借鏡〉,《台灣國際法季刊》,2卷2期,頁161-207。

二、 一般書籍、參考工具書

1. 丘宏達(1995)。《現代國際法》,一版。台北:三民。
2. 丘宏達(著)、陳純一(修訂)(2012)。《現代國際法》,三版。台北:三民。
3. 丘宏達(編)(1982)。《現代國際法基本文件》。台北:三民。
4. 丘宏達(編)、陳純一(助編)(1996)。《現代國際法參考文件》。台北:三民。
5. 王鐵崖等(編)(1992)。《國際法》。台北:五南。
6. 姜皇池(2008)。《國際公法導論》,修訂二版。台北:新學林。
7. 陳治世(1990)。《國際法》,初版。台北:台灣商務印書館。
8. 許慶雄、李明峻(2001)。《現代國際法》,初版。台北:元照。
9. 許慶雄、李明峻(2012)。《國際法概論(修訂版)》,初版。台中:明目文化。
10. 傅崑成(1992)。《國際海洋法:衡平劃界論》。台北:三民。
11. 傅崑成(2001)。《聯合國海洋法公約暨全部附件中英文對照本詳盡索引》,台北:協容國際顧問。
12. 黃居正(2006)。《國際航空法的理論與實踐》,台北:新學林。
13. 黃居正(2013)。《判例國際公法I》,初版。新竹:自版。
14. 黃居正(2016)。《判例國際公法Ⅱ》,初版。台北:台灣本土法學雜誌。
15. 黃異(2000)。《海洋秩序與國際法》,一版。台北:新學林。
16. 黃異(2010)。《國際法》,一版。台北:新學林。
17. 彭明敏(1962)。《平時戰時國際公法》。台北:三民。
18. 趙明義(2001)。《當代國際法導論》。台北:五南。
19. 劉月琴(2010)。《伊拉克:伊甸園的故鄉》。台北:臺灣商務印書館。
20. 魏靜芬(2011)。《國際法》。台北:五南。
21. 蘇義雄(1996)。《平時國際法》,四版。台北:三民。

三、 網路資訊

1. 中央社(2016年1月29日)。菲提仲裁 總統:此刻更該去太平島【新聞群組】。取自
https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E8%8F%B2%E6%8F%90%E4%BB%B2%E8%A3%81-%E7%B8%BD%E7%B5%B1-%E6%AD%A4%E5%88%BB%E6%9B%B4%E8%A9%B2%E5%8E%BB%E5%A4%AA%E5%B9%B3%E5%B3%B6-123702617.html
2. 中央通訊社(2016年04月19日)。日本硬拗沖之鳥 馬總統:國際仲裁【新聞群組】。取自http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201604290223-1.aspx 
3. 仇佩芬(2016年3月23日)。痛斥菲律賓荒謬 馬英九:難道香港、新加坡都不是島嶼?【新聞群組】。取自http://www.storm.mg/article/92737
4. 宋承恩(2016年2月1日)。自由廣場》南海仲裁案台灣不願面對的真相【線上論壇】。取自http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/955024
5. 邵智傑(2016年1月30日)。美艦西沙中建島12海里內挑戰中國【新聞群組】。取自
http://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/world/2016/01/160130_usa_south_china_sea_navigation
6. 林濁水(2016年4月7日)。林濁水觀點》中國的南海幻夢VS.台灣與太平島的現實(中):浮沈在國際現實變幻中的太平島戰略地位【線上論壇】。取自http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/1656148 
7. 曹郁芬(2016年1月30日)。美再派艦航行西沙 挑戰台、中、越海權聲索【新聞群組】。取自http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1590087
8. 新华网(2014年12月7日)。中国政府关于菲律宾所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件【新聞群組】。取自http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-12/07/c_1113547390.htm
9. 蘋果日報大陸中心(2016年1月28日)。馬登太平島 中:兩岸有責維護中華民族祖產【新聞群組】。取自
http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20160128/785670/
日文文獻
一、 期刊論文

1. 小田滋、杉原高嶺(1980)「国際司法裁判所における仮保全措置の先例-一九七〇年代(資料)」,『国際法外交雑誌』78巻 6 号、p.38~56。
2. 小和田恒(1985)「国際司法裁判所判例評釈 ニカラグヮに対する軍事的活動事件―仮保全措置指示要請」、『国際法外交雑誌』83 巻 6 号、 p.33~65。
3. 山形英郎(1989a)「国際司法裁判所における欠席裁判(一)」、『法学論叢』 125 巻 2 号、p.20-42。
4. 山形英郎(1989b)「国際司法裁判所における欠席裁判(二・完)」,『法学論叢 』126巻 1 号、p.24-57。
5. 石塚智佐(2007)「近年における常設仲裁裁判所(PCA)の展開(1)」、『一橋法学』06巻2号、p.1055-1079。
6. 石塚智佐(2013)「国際司法裁判所の管轄権審理手続―実行と裁判所規則改正の交錯―」、『一橋法学』12巻2号、p.167-197。
7. 杉原高嶺(1981)「国際司法裁判所の仮保全権限-本案管轄権との関係について-」、『北大法学論集』31(3-4下)、p.295~316。
8. 酒井啓亘(2001)「国際司法裁判所における仮保全措置の目的の展開―最近の判例の検討を中心として―」、『外務省調査月報』2001年度第2号、p.44-91。
9. 酒井啓亘(2010)「国際司法裁判所における紛争処理手続-訴訟当事国と裁判所の間の協働プロセスとして」、『国際問題』No.597、p.6-20。
10. 皆川洸(1975)「核実験に関する事件(仮保全措置の指示の要請)」、『国際法外交雑誌』74巻 4 号、p.66~87。
11. 皆川洸(1977)「エーゲ海大陸棚事件(仮保全措置の指示の要請) 」、『国際法外交雑誌』76巻 3 号、p. 78~86。
12. 兼原敦子 (1998)「訴訟参加の要件としての『影響を受ける』法的利益」、『立教法学』50号、p.141~185。
13. 奥脇直也(1998) 「国際調停制度の現代的展開」、『立教法学』50号、p.34~96。
14. 奥脇直也(2004) 「現代国際法と国際裁判の法機能--国際社会の法制度化と国際法の断片化」、『法学教室』通号 281、p.29-37。

二、 一般書籍、參考工具書

1. 小寺彰,岩沢雄司,森田章夫(編)(2010)『講義国際法』、2版、東京:有斐閣。
2. 山本草二(2003)『囯際法【新版】』、東京:有斐閣。
3. 山本草二、古川照美、松井芳郎編(2001)『囯際法判例百選』、東京:有斐閣。
4. 田畑茂二郎、竹本正幸、松井芳郎編(2004)『判例国際法』東京:東信堂。
5. 西川吉光(1996)『纷争解决と国連、国際法』、東京:晃洋書房。
6. 杉原高嶺(1996)『囯際司法裁判制度』、東京:有斐閣。
7. 杉原高嶺(2008)『囯際法学講義』,一版、東京:有斐閣。
8. 杉原高嶺(1999)「国際司法裁判所と政治問題の法理」、p.337~365,『京都大学法学部創立百周年記念論文集』第2巻、東京:有斐閣。
9. 杉原高嶺、水上千之、臼杵知史、吉井淳、加藤信行、高田映 (2008)『現代国際法講義』、東京:有斐閣。
10. 松井芳郎(2006)『判例囯際法』、東京:東信堂。
11. 長谷川正国(1997)「国際司法裁判所による国際仲裁裁判の位置づけ一仲裁裁判と司法的解決の並立的共存論に関する一考察」、p.448~480,杉原高嶺編『紛争解決の国際法』、東京:三省堂。
12. 皆川洸(1963)『国際訴訟序說』、東京:鹿島研究所出版会。
13. 皆川洸(1975)『国際法判例集』、東京 : 有信堂。
14. 柳原正治、森川幸一、兼原敦子編(2010)『プラクティス国際法講義』、東京:信山社。
15. 酒井啓亘、寺谷広司、西村弓、濵本正太郎(2011)『国際法』、東京:有斐閣。
16. 橫川新、佐藤文夫(1993)『囯際法講義』、東京:北樹出版。
17. 瀨川博義(1998)『テキスト国際法』、京都:嵯峨野書院。
英文文獻
一、 期刊論文

1. Charney, J. I. (1987), Compromissory Clauses and the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. American Journal of International Law, 81, 855-887.
2. Crawford, J. (1979), The Legal Effect of Automatic Reservations to the Jurisdiction of the International Court. British Yearbook of International Law, 50, 63-86.
3. Fischer, D. D. (1982), Decisions to Use the International Court of Justice: Four Recent Cases. International Studies Quarterly, 26 (2), 251–277.
4. Fitzmaurice, G. (1957), The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1951-4: Treaty Interpretation and Certain Other Treaty Points, British Yearbook of International Law, 33, 203-293.
5. Gill, T. (1990), ELSI Case, American Journal of International Law, 84, 249-258.
6. Gross, L. (1963). Jurisprudence of the World Court. American Journal of International Law, 57, 751-780.
7. Hambro, E. (1975), Intervention under Article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Comunicazioni e studi, 14, 387–400.
8. Jonkman, H. (1999), The Role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in International Dispute Resolution. Recueil des cours, 279, 16-47.
9. Kulick, A. (2016), About the Order of Cart and Horse, among other Things: Estoppel in The Jurisprudence of International Investment Arbitration Tribunals. European Journal of International Law, 27, 107-128.
10. Kwiatkowska, B, (1996). New Zealand v. France Nuclear Tests: the dismissed case of lasting significance. Virginia Journal of International Law, 37, 107-190.
11. Kwiatkowska, B, (1999). ICJ Jurisdiction under the Optional Clause-Relevance of Legality of Acts to Validity of Reservation to Jurisdiction Made in Contemplation of Such Acts-High Seas-Conservation and Management Measures. American Journal of International Law, 93, 502-507.
12. Lillich, R. B. (1971), The Rigidity of Barcelona. American Journal of International Law, 65, 522-532.
13. Llamzon, A. P. (2007), Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the. International Court of Justice. European Journal of International Law, 18, 815-852.
14. Metzger S. D. (1971), Nationality of Corporate Investment under Investment Guarantee Schemes—The Relevance of Barcelona Traction, American Journal of International Law, 65, 532-543.
15. Pasqualucci, J. M. (1999), Preliminary Objections before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Legitimate Issues and Illegitimate Tactics. Vancouver Journal of International Law, 40, 1-114.
16. Preuss, L. (1946), The International Court of Justice, the Senate, and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction. American Journal of International Law, 40, 720–36.
17. Reisman, W. M. (1986), Has the International Court Exceeded its Jurisdiction?. American Journal of International Law, 80, 128-134.
18. Rogers, W. D. & Beat, J.A. & Wolf, C. (1984), Application of El. Salvador to Intervene in the Jurisdiction and Admissibility. Phase of Nicaragua v. USA. American Journal of International Law, 78, 929-936.
19. Rosenne, S. (2001), The International Court of Justice: Revision of Articles 79 and 80 of the Rules of Court. Leiden Journal of International Law, 14, 77-87.
20. Scott, G., & Carr, C. (1987), The ICJ and Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case for Closing the Clause. The American Journal of International Law, 81(1), 57-76.
21. Sztucki, J. (1985), Intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute in the Phase of Preliminary Proceedings: The Salvadoran Incident. American Journal of International Law, 79, 1005-1036.

二、 一般書籍、參考工具書

1. Brownlie, I. (2003), Principles of public international law (6th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2. Cancado Trindade, A. A. (1983), The Application of the Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Cassesse, A. (2005), International law (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Collier, J. & Lowe, A.V. (1999), The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions and Procedures (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5. Hackworth, G. H. (1940), Digest of international law. Washington, D.C: U.S. G.P.O
6. Harris, D. J. (1999), Cases and materials on international law (4th ed.). London, UK: Sweet & Maxwell.
7. Hudson, M. O. (1934), The Permanent Court of International Justice. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.
8. Hudson, M. O. (1943), The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920-1942. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.
9. Hyde, C. C. (1922), International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by The United States Vol.2. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
10. Lauterpacht H. (1933), The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
11. Malanczuk, P. (1997), Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th Edition. London/New York, UK/NY: Routledge.
12. Mani, V. (1980), International Adjudication: Procedural Aspects. The Hague, NL: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
13. Merrills, J. G. (2005), International Dispute Settlement (4th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14. Mohamed Sameh, M. A. (2003), The Role of the International Court of Justice As the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations. The Hague, NL: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
15. Moore J. B. (1898), History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States Has Been a Party. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16. Rosenne, S. (1983), Procedure in International Court: A Commentary on the 1978 Rules of the International Court of Justice (Legal aspects of international organization). The Hague, NL: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
17. Rosenne, S. (1985), The Law and Practice of The International Court. 2th Edition. Boston/Leiden, MA/NL: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
18. Shaw, M. N. (2008), International Law (6th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19. Starke, J. G. (1994), Starke's International Law (11th ed., 1994 / I.A. Shearer). London UK:Butterworths.

三、 研究報告

1. International Law Commission (1962, March 9). Report of the ILC on the Work of its Twelfth Session in 1960 on the study of the Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, Including Historic Bays, UN Doc A/CN.4/143. Retrieved from http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_143.pdf&lang=EFS
2. Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International, Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State (2014, Dec. 5). Limits in The Seas, China, Maritime Claims In The South China Sea (No. 143.). Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf
3. Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217, 37 ILM 1342.

四、 網路資訊

1. 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/01/1907-Convention-for-the-Pacific-Settlement-of-International-Disputes.pdf
2. Administrative Council of the PCA. Retrieved from
https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/structure/administrative-council/ 
3. Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada claims (Great Britain v. Costa Rica), 18 October, 1923. Retrieved from http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_I/369-399.pdf
4. Alabama claims of the United States of America against Great Britain (US/UK), May 8, 1871. Retrieved from http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXIX/125-134.pdf 
5. Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Award of 12 July 2016, Permanent Court of Arbitration (2016, July 12), Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf
6. Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2015, Oct. 29). Retrieved from http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7
7. Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Eighth Press Release, November 24 2015,Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2015, Nov. 24). Retrieved from http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1506
8. Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Tenth Press Release, June 29 2016,Permanent Court of Arbitration (2016, June 26), Retrieved from http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1782
9. Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China, Sixth Press Release, July 13 2015, Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2015, July 13). Retrieved from http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1304
10. Bender, J. (2016, May. 17). Re: China isn't the only one building islands in the South China Sea [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
http://www.businessinsider.com/vietnam-buildin.g-islands-in-south-china-sea-2016-5?utm_content=buffer66b30&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer 
11. British-American Diplomacy Treaty of Ghent. Retrieved from
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jay.asp 
12. Case Concerning a Dispute between Argentina and Chile Concerning the Beagle Channel, 18 February 1977. Retrieved from
http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/53-264.pdf
13. Case Concerning the differences between New Zealand and France arising from the Rainbow Warrior affair, 6 July, 1986. Retrieved from
http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XIX/199-221.pdf
14. Cameroons under United Kingdom Trusteeship, Retrieved from http://treaties.fco.gov.uk/docs/fullnames/pdf/1947/TS0020%20(1947)%20CMD-7082%201946%2013%20DEC,%20NEW%20YORK%3B%20CAMEROONS%20UNDER%20UNITED%20KINGDOM%20TRUSTEESHIP%20TEXT%20OF%20TRUSTEESHIP%20AGREEMENT%20AS%20APPROVED%20BY%20GENERAL%20ASSEMBLY%20OF%20UNITED%20NATIONS.pdf
15. Financial Assistance Fund. Retrieved from
https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/structure/faf/
16. History of the PCA. Retrieved from
https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/introduction/history/
17. Hurst, D. & Holmes, O. & McCurry, J. (2016, Feb. 17). Re: Beijing places missile launchers on disputed South China Sea Island [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/17/china-places-missiles-woody-south-china-sea-islands
18. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development General Conditions for Loans 2012. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLAWJUSTICE/Resources/IBRD_GC_English_12.pdf 
19. International Bureau of the PCA. Retrieved from
https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/structure/international-bureau/ 
20. Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, USA), 4 April, 1928. Retrieved from http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/829-871.pdf 
21. Mauritius Office. Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/structure/pca-mauritius-office/
22. Members of the Court of the PCA. Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/structure/members-of-the-court/ 
23. Panels of Arbitrators and Experts for Environmental Disputes. Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/structure/panels-of-arbitrators-and-experts-for-environmental-disputes/
24. Panels of Arbitrators and Experts for Space-related Disputes. Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/structure/panels-of-arbitrators-and-experts-for-space-related-disputes/
25. Permanent Court of Arbitration Rules 2012. Retrieved from https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2015/11/PCA-Arbitration-Rules-2012.pdf
26. The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China, Permanent Court of Arbitration. Retrieved from http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/7
27. Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, for the Amicable Settlement of all Causes of Difference between the two Countries. Retrieved from http://www.marshall.edu/special-collections/css_alabama/pdf/treaty_washington.pdf 
28. Treaty of Amity Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannic Majesty; and the United States of America. Retrieved from
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jay.asp 
29. Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Nicaragua, Retrieved from
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280139d26
30. Whaley, F. (2016, March 7). Re: With Impounding of Ship, Philippines Set to Be First Enforcer of New North Korea Sanctions [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://cn.nytimes.com/asia-pacific/20160307/c07philippines/en-us/
法文文獻
一、 期刊論文

1. Abi-Saab, G. (1987). Cours général de droit international public, Recueil des cours de l'Acade'mie de droit international, 207, p. 9-463.
2. Caflisch, L. (1979). L'avenir de l'arbitrage interétatique, Annuaire Français de Droit International, 25, 9-45.
3. Chang-Tung, L. (2007). Les exceptions préliminaires devant la CIJ :Les clairs-obsucurs d’une théorie, Revue belge de droit international, 40, 437-473.

二、 一般書籍、參考工具書

1. Cavaré, L. (1969). Le droit international positif, Les Modalités des relations juridiques internationales, les compétences respectives des États, tome II., 3ème édition , Paris: Pedone.
2. Delbez, L. (1964) Les principes généraux du droit international public, 3ème édition, Paris: Pichon et Durand-Auzias.
3. Dupuy, P. M. (2004). Droit international public. Paris: Dalloz.
4. Guyomar, G. (1983). Commentaire du Règlement de la Cour internationalede Justice, adopté le 14 avril 1978, Interprétation et Pratique. Paris: Pedone,
5. Herczegh, G. (2003). Les exceptions préliminaires à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice (1994-2000). in Vohrah, L. C. et al.(Eds.), Man’s Inhumanity to Man (Kluwer Law International, 2003)(pp.399-421). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
6. La Fontaine H. (1902) Histoire sommaire et chronologique des arbitrages internationaux (1794-1900). Revue de droit international et de législation compare, deuxième série, tome IV(pp. 349-380, 558-582 et 623-649.), Bruxelles: Bureau de la Revue.
7. Salmon, J. (dir.) (2001). Dictionnaire de droit international public. Bruxelles: Bruylant/AUF.
8. Santulli, C. (2005). Droit du contentieux international. Paris: Monographie imprimée.

三、 網路資訊

1. Affaire de l’île de Clipperton (Mexique contre France), 28 janvier, 1931. Récupérée de http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/1105-1111.pdf
2. Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (Espagne contre RoyaumeUni), 1er mai, 1925. Récupérée de http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/615-742.pdf 


連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top