 |
先生は、1905年の日本の竹島編入を通知義務を果たしてないので無効とされました。そして、その論証として「通知義務」
を支持している国際法学者を紹介して下さいました。大変頼もしい限りです。先生は、「M.F. Lindley viewed it proper
to regard notification and effective
occupation as the necessary conditions for occupation, before and after
the signing of the 1885 Berlin
Act」とおっしゃいました。先生を信頼してないわけではないのですが、念のため原文を確認してみました。
CHAPTER: EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION←実効的先占の章
p143
Article 34 will be dealt with in the Capter on 'Notification.' Article 35 calls for several observations.←わざわざ通知義務は違う章とことわっている。
(中略)
p157
According
to views adopted by Britain, Germany, France and the United States, at
the time of before and after the Berlin conference, there were no
colonial states which took exception to the application of new rule of
occupation, and it seems to be justified to say that all recent
acquisition of territory obeys to this rule irrespective of whether it
is the African coast or not ←このあたりの「実効的先占」に関する記述に「通知義務」を脳内挿入したものと思われる。
CHAPTER: NOTIFICATION←通知義務の章
p295
These
isolated special agreements, when taken into conjunction with the fact
that, apart from the region dealt with in Article 34, notifications
have been the exception rather than the rule, seve to emphasize the
point that such notifications were not required by general
law.←明確に慣習法ではないと記述。
先生！！ 引用するところが間違ってます。しかし、通知義務を主張している学者は他にも沢山いるので安心です。先生は、「William E. Hall also argues that the Act of Berlin is not only valid
for the contracting parties but should be considered as having a
general binding power under international law .He says ...an agreement,
made between all the states which are likely to endeavour to occupy
territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast, which, at the
date of the declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but
have great influence upon the development of a generally binding rule」とおっしゃいました。HALLがそのように言ってくれているのは嬉しいです。失礼かと思いましたが、これも念のため調べてみました。
The
declaration it, it is true, affects only the coasts of the Continent of
Africa; and the representatives of France and Russia were careful to
make formal reservations directing attention to this fact; the former,
especially, placing it on record that island of Madagascal was
excluded.
Nevertheless(←これを削除するのは反則技だろ） an agreement,
made between all these states which are likely to endeavour to occupy
territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast which, at the
date of declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have
great influence upon the development of generally binding rule.*
*France,
on taking possession of Comino Islands, and England with regard to
Bechuana Land, have already made notification which were not obligatory
under the Berlin Declaration. These notifications were, however,
evidently made form motives of convenience and not with a view of
establishing a principle; France having placed upon record the
reservations mentioned above, and England not having notified, at a
later date, her assumption of a protectorate over the Island of Socotra.
先
生！！これは何かの勘違いですよね。しかし、まだ他にも学者はいます。先生は、「John B. Moore also advocates the
obligation of notification by citing Hall' s above-mentioned
argument」とおっしゃいました。モアーの本を読みました。HALLをそのまま引用してました・・・・・・。
先生！！疲れてたんだね。
僕も疲れたんだ。
なんだかとても眠いんだ。先生.......
IP xxx.251.xxx.2
|
|
|
