规范依据
NORMATIVE BASIS规范命题、原文与来源 · Rule and sources收起 · Collapse展开 · Expand
规范命题与识别入口
“一般接受”与习惯性规则的证明；沿海国/特别受影响国的实践。
触发事实
- 2018 Q3 展示了本规范在“核裁军义务”事实结构中的用法。
- 2019 Q2 展示了本规范在“濒危物种与环境义务”事实结构中的用法。
- 2021 Q1 展示了本规范在“入境规制、离境/返回与赔偿”事实结构中的用法。
- 2021 Q4 展示了本规范在“民航机击落”事实结构中的用法。
裁判与程序背景
Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK/Germany v Iceland, 1974)源于一项具体争端：冰岛逐步扩大专属渔区并排除英国和德国船舶，理由是本国经济对近海渔业高度依赖。英国和德国依据既有协定和习惯法挑战冰岛单方面扩张。 法院不是先写出抽象规则再寻找事实，而是在当事方相反主张、可用证据和程序请求的限制内形成了以下命题：“一般接受”与习惯性规则的证明；沿海国/特别受影响国的实践。
裁判规则原句
中文译文 · Chinese translation冰岛政府与联合王国政府负有相互义务，应真诚进行谈判，以公平解决双方就各自渔业权利产生的分歧……鉴于冰岛人民为其生计与经济发展对沿海渔业存在特殊依赖，冰岛有权获得优惠份额。
英文原文 · English[T]he Government of Iceland and the Government of the United Kingdom are under mutual obligations to undertake negotiations in good faith for the equitable solution of their differences concerning their respective fishery rights ... Iceland is entitled to a preferential share to the extent of the special dependence of its people upon the fisheries in the seas around its coasts for their livelihood and economic development.
中文译文 · Chinese translation优惠权利这一概念，与排除他国一切捕鱼活动的做法并不相容。享有优惠权利的沿海国，无权单方面依其自身不受约束的裁量确定该权利的范围。
英文原文 · EnglishThe concept of preferential rights is not compatible with the exclusion of all fishing activities of other States. A coastal State entitled to preferential rights is not free, unilaterally and according to its own uncontrolled discretion, to determine the extent of those rights.
关联权威原文
渔业管辖权案（联邦德国诉冰岛）
判例原文节选
Selected passages from the judgment中文译文 · Chinese translation冰岛政府与德意志联邦共和国政府相互负有义务，应就双方在有关海域各自的渔业权利进行善意谈判，以公平解决其分歧。
英文原文 · EnglishThe Government of Iceland and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany are under mutual obligations to undertake negotiations in good faith for the equitable solution of their differences concerning their respective fishery rights in the areas specified in subparagraph 2.
标记后，四段进度条与首页复习清单会同步更新。