【摘要】 领土边界条约涉及一国的核心利益问题。虽然当事国都依据《维也纳条约法公约》第31-32条规定的解释规则或习惯法规则,但由于采取的方法和逻辑进路不同,分别作出符合本国利益的自行解释。即使采取相同的解释方法,也可能因选取的要素不同或者主张的理据各异,其得出的结果也有所不同。理论和实践表明,对于领土边界条约的解释,可根据个案情况采取静态或演进解释方法,但并未厘清具体的解释规则或实践指南。基于此,应区分领土主权性质的条约和非主权性质的条约,适用二元解释规则:涉及主权归属和陆地边界划分性质的条约采取静态解释方法,不得适用演进解释的方法;与领土权利有关的条约可视具体争议事项、国家同意等要件,决定是否采取演进解释方法。这对于我国解决与相关邻国的领土边界条约解释问题,进而维护国家的领土主权具有启示意义,值得深入研究。更多还原

【Abstract】 There are two critical moments in the interpretation of a treaty:the moment of its conclusion and the moment of its application.For territorial boundary problems,whether sovereign or nonsovereign dispute,which are often rooted in old treaties,it is also necessary to take into account the influence of the time factor on treaty interpretation.Since territorial issues involve core interests for a State,the interpretation of the relevant provisions of treaties,including territorial boundary treaty prior to the adoption of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,generally followed the ancient maxim contemporanea expositio.Even after the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties(Done at Vienna on 23 May1969),the parties have relied on the rules of interpretation set forth in articles 31-32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties or on the rules of customary law,but the result has varied according to the methodology and logical progression adopted.Even if the same method of interpretation is adopted,different structural elements may be chosen or different arguments may be asserted,leading to different results.Even some countries interpret the relevant terms of territorial boundary treaties by taking the so-called effective control or possession as the logical premise of interpretation in order to make their own interpretation in line with their own interests.Although the application of the rule of dualistic interpretation of territorial boundary treaties has a legal and semantic basis and is in line with the logic of practice,no specific rules or practical guidelines have been formulated or clarified.Even in individual cases,the International Court of Justice breached the principle of consent of the parties and adopted the presumption of consent in applying evolutionary interpretation.For this reason,the issue of the interpretation of provisions or terms related to territorial treaties should not be limited to pure semantic monism,but should be shaped into a "semantic/pragmatic" dichotomy by taking into account pragmatic factors.At the same time,specific rules of application should be defined or corresponding norms of practice developed.In particular,for treaties involving non-territorial sovereignty nature,if there was subsequent consent of the parties(subsequent agreement or practice),evolutionary interpretation approach should be taken.In contrast,the presumption of consent of the parties based on the object and purpose of the treaty or the " generic term+continuity" element would be subject to evolutionary interpretation approach,which would be static only if the parties were able to provide rebuttable evidence of their disagreement,and evolutionary if it was irrebuttable.In other words,the two-pronged theory of " generic term+continuity" of the rules of evolutionary interpretation should be reshaped and replaced by the three-pronged theory of " generic term+continuity+state perception".The interpretation of treaties is crucial to the settlement of territorial disputes,both in political negotiations and in the legal framework.The application of the rule of dualistic interpretation to territorial boundary treaties is based on jurisprudence and " semantic/pragmatic " dichotomy,as well as on practical logic.Undoubtedly,this is instructive for China in resolving its territorial boundary disputes with relevant neighboring countries,refuting the attempts of Japan,India and other relevant countries to make use of the evolutionary interpretation of treaties to claim territorial sovereignty over China,and thus safeguarding our country’s territorial sovereignty,which is worthy of in-depth study.更多还原