韓国明知大学教授 金明基（国際法）２
投稿者： henchin_pokoider01 投稿日時： 2006/12/11 00:43 投稿番号： [15235 / 18519]
金明基の主張
"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."
-------------------------------- -
原典
BACKWARD TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONA LAW" by M.F.LINDLEY(1926)
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。
"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."
-------------------------------- -
原典
BACKWARD TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONA LAW" by M.F.LINDLEY(1926)
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。
固定リンク：https://yarchive.emmanuelc.dix.asia/1835396/cddeg_1/15235.html