解決領土爭端的一條出路：折衷安排及其背後領土原則之建構

One Way to Resolve Territorial Disputes: Compromise Arrangements and the Construction of Their Underlying Territorial Principles

本文闡明，在現有政治和法律體系下，基於領土排他性原則來處理領土爭端，其潛藏著結構性矛盾，且具有以相對價值阻礙爭端解決的結構效應，最終把某些爭端引入結構性困境之中。於是，從結構上審視爭端，就自然衍生了這樣一個內合理論對話的問題：是否有其它方案比由其中某一方獨佔爭端地區更為合理？但這是一個偽問題，因為在現有體系中其它方案不存在進行理論對話的身份。於是，本文以折衷安排為切入點來分析領土爭端，逐層深入，建立了一個領土原則的理論架構，並最終定義了「爭端地區領土非互斥原則」。在各方面能夠對上述新原則進行支撐，以擴展現有政治和法律體系的情況下，上述偽問題就成為了真問題。整體來看，包括折衷安排在內的更多爭端解決措施具有了實踐自身的基礎和空間；具體來看，爭端地區領土非互斥原則在特定意義上可以理解成領土排他性原則的一種特殊形式，弱化的形式，在此基礎上，比較折衷安排與排他性措施，它們沒有領土原則上的本質矛盾，前者同樣是後者的一種特殊和弱化形式－這開闢了路徑，藉此理解並實現了對這兩類措施之間對立的調和。這兩方面顯示出本文關於自身目標的整體規劃是，以個例性的具體措施引導制度建構，並以制度之邏輯和力量為具體措施的現實實踐提供制度性推動。

This article argues that under the existing political and legal system, the application of the principle of territorial exclusivity to deal with territorial disputes leads to hidden structural contradictions. In addition, the same values hinder the resolution of disputes. meaning that many disputes end up in structural quagmires. Therefore, when we look at disputes from a structural perspective, an important question naturally arises: are there any solutions that are more reasonable than either side simply occupying the disputed territory? However, this is only a theoretical question, as under the current international system, other proposals are not represented in the dialogue. Therefore, this paper uses compromise arrangements as a starting point to analyze territorial disputes, and on this basis, puts forward a theoretical framework for the territorial principle, establishing the ”principle that territorial disputes are non-exclusive.” When each side supports the above principle and the expansion of existing political and legal systems, the theoretical question above becomes a real question. Overall, space is created for alternative dispute resolution proposals, including compromise arrangements. Specifically, the non-exclusivity principle for disputed territory can be understood as a special or weakened form of the principle of territorial exclusivity. On this basis, there is no essential contradiction between compromise arrangements and exclusivity. The former is simply a special and weakened version of the latter. From this perspective, we can understand how these two conflicting approaches are reconciled. These two approaches reveal the overall goal of this article to use specific measures to guide the construction of the system, and apply the power and logical of the current system to promote concrete practice.