【作者】 张卫彬；

【导师】 周洪钧；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 在任何一种法律制度之下,由于对争议事实的认定,在于对证据的占有、审查、评价和运用,因而证据对争端解决都是十分重要的。在领土争端解决程序中,证据问题涉及领土主权的最终归属和边界争端的解决,为此,国际法院在解决当事国领土争端中已经初步确立了一套证据规则体系。虽然国际法院并非超国家的司法机构,但在理论上对促进国际法治和国际习惯法的形成具有重要的推动作用。同时,国际法院在领土争端中所适用的一些具体证据规则已经为多数国家的领土争端提供了借鉴作用,并为之付诸于相关的实践。本文共分六章,主要内容包括:国际法院解决领土争端中证据的提供与获取;证据的可采性及排除规则;证明责任的分配、适用的证明标准和证据分量的审查、判断及分量大小的认定规则;口头证据和专家意见的运用;国际法院证据规则对我国领土争端解决的借鉴等。第一章关于国际法院解决领土争端中证据的提供与获取。其一,当事方权利与责任。国际法院在司法实践中基于国家主权平等原则和自治性的要求,始终坚持当事方提供证据自由原则。而对于当事人证据披露的义务,从某种程度上,仅具有一定的“自愿”性质,而非具有强制性。然而,鉴于争议领土主权的归属对于一国的极端重要性,因此,当事方根据证据自由的原则提供了过于繁杂的证据,给国际法院造成了沉重的证据审查负担。基于此,国际法院可以限制当事人提交证据的数量或卷数,以及在事实和证据问题审查上引入预先程序等,从而使得当事方在提供证据方面能够更有鉴别力,以便于争议的有效解决。其二,截止2010年底,在领土争端中共有4个案件涉及第三方申请参加之诉的情况。鉴于允许第三方参加诉讼,可能存在迟延当事方正常的诉讼程序的风险,因此,国际法院在申请书及所附证据提交的时间、参加诉讼的必要条件等方面作出了严格的限制。但是,“在申请书中附上可以佐证的文件目录,这类文件应随文送致”的规定,并没有要求一国申请参加之诉时必须提交书面证据。质言之,只有一国被允许参加之诉,或者申请书中列明支持其参加诉讼主张的证据,才能要求申请参加诉讼者附上可以佐证的文件目录,而不是其相反。其三,国际法院享有对于证据的收集采取相应措施的权力,如要求当事方补充文件、解释相关的证据、询问证人、传唤证人,委派专家和实地调查等。尽管国际法院享有自行补充证据的权力,以弥补当事方提供证据所存在的缺陷或不足,但国际法院基于当事国主权平等的原则,仅将自己的功能限制在对当事方提交证据的审查、判断基础之上,因而很少行使传唤证人,委派专家、实地调查等权力。因此,国际法院可以借鉴其他领域争端解决的具体规则,积极行使《国际法院规约》以及《国际法院规则》所赋予的各项权力,以利于查明事实,进而作出准确的判决等。第二章主要论述国际法院解决领土争端中的证据可采性问题。主要内容包括证据提交一般程序对证据可采性的影响;证据的可采性规则;关键日期与证据可采性;证据的分量与证据的可采性,以及证据的排除规则等。通常,书面证据应按照国际法院规定的顺序和时限内提交,只要当事方按照规定的要求,证据一般是可采的。否则,迟延提交的证据不具有可采性,除非另一方同意或未表示反对,法院在听取双方的意见后,如认为必要,可以授权提供该文件。在领土争端的实践中,国内证据法中规定的可采性条件一般得以被国际法院所承认并适用。而且,基于领土争端性质的特殊性,也产生了一些具体的限制规则。对于国际法院而言,关键日期的选择对当事方所提供的关于领土争端的证据的相关性非常重要。关键日期一般决定着证据的可采性。对于在关键日期之后当事方的行为,国际法院通常不予以考虑,除非该行为是先前行为的正常继续。而且,国际法院强调,在关键日期之后的当事方提供的利己证据,同样不具有可采性,并不存在分量较小的问题。证据的可采性与证据的分量也具有一定的关联。但是,与证据的可采性不同,证据的分量并非一个法律问题,而是一个事实问题。在英美证据法中,那些分量非常小的或没有任何分量的证据将予以排除。但是,国际法院在解决领土争端中,即使一项证据无任何分量,也没有明确将其排除。因而,从实质上而言,它们属于证据的可采信问题,而非可采纳问题。当然,无论是证据的可采纳抑或可采信问题,均涉及证据的分量问题。因为,在确定证据的相关性等问题时不可避免地要对证据的分量进行评价。虽然在领土争端解决的实践中,国际法院对当事方提交的证据可采性一般是相当宽松的。然而,国际法院同样受到国内法体系中的证据可采性限制规则的影响,并事实上将其予以适用。而且,国际法院针对领土争端性质的特殊性,已经通过其司法判例和相关的实践指南初步形成了若干证据的排除规则。如经谈判取得的证据、不相关的证据、缺乏形式上真实性的证据、未经证实的传闻证据,以及禁止反言的证据等,国际法院一般将其予以排除。无疑,这既减轻了国际法院甄别证据可采性的负担,也使得当事方在提交证据之前仔细考虑其证据的相关性、真实性等,从而主动排除一些不适格的证据。第三章国际法院解决领土争端中的证明问题。其一,在证明标准方面,国际法院主要秉承了大陆法系传统,但同时合理吸收了普通法系的传统。但是,鉴于当事国之间领土争端的复杂性,国际法院在解决领土争端实践中通常将“证据优势标准”置于主导地位。不过,国际法院在适用该标准时,经常陷入单纯比较相关证据的分量的游戏。这引起了国际社会对国际法院权威的一定质疑。实际上,国际法院内部也存在不同的声音。鉴于“证据优势标准”确定性程度相对较低,而“排除合理怀疑标准”定位过高,因此,今后一阶段国际法院在解决领土争端方面的证明标准应界定为“清晰和令人信服的标准”。这也是国际法院证明标准倾向灵活性和当事国要求确定性的意志相互协调的必然要求。其二,关于领土争端解决中的证明责任问题。一般由提出事实主张的一方承担证明责任。但是,在特殊情况下,国际法院在适用该项原则时,可以平等分配当事方的证明责任。显然,由于领土争端的特殊性和复杂性,国际法院不再单纯依赖于传统上的原告/被告二分法。一般来说,对于当事一方提交的领土争端诉讼案,证明责任由申诉方承担,辩诉方仅承担消极的主张责任。但是,对于那些当事方通过协议提交的领土争端,证明责任的分配并不依赖于当事人在其特别协定中规定条款,而由国际法院根据每一个领土争端的案件具体情况进行适当分配。而且,也不存在证明责任转移的问题。对于参加诉讼方而言,其证明责任的范围,与当事国之间存有不同。它仅需要证明可能,而非那些将要或一定影响其法律性质的利益,且该证明责任应由参加诉讼国承担,而非法庭的职责等。与此同时,对于当事方事实清楚的部分或没有争议的事项,或者因为法官知法,将不会产生证明责任的相关问题。其三,在解决领土争端方面,国际法院所适用的推定主要包括不可反驳的法律推定、可反驳的法律推定和事实推定等。通常,可反驳的法律推定可以通过证据推翻推定的事实,并且与证明责任的转移存在着关联性。但是,可反驳的法律推定的适用仅部分转移了当事人提出证据的责任,并非对全部证明责任的颠倒。不可反驳的推定不能通过其他证据予以推翻。而且,它可能解除或加重原告的证明责任。其效力在于结论性证明推定事实,它可以使得申诉方无需承担证明责任,或者如果推定支持相对方,申诉方将不可能解除证明责任。与之相比,事实推定对于国际法院评价当事人的主张是一个有用的证明方法。在那些没有直接证据可以利用的情况下,依赖于从相关的事实中得出的推论,可以有利于法院决定当事国的证明责任是否得以解除;同时,事实推定仅仅意味着事实已经得以证明,证明责任(说服责任)并没有被转移。第四章主要涉及证据的种类、证据分量的审查判断及分量大小的认定规则。一般而言,国际法院庭前证据主要包括书面证据、证词和专家证据。书面证据为一般原则,证词和专家证据则为例外。在实践中,国际法院已经根据个案的情况赋予了这些证据不同的分量。而且,在证据分量大小的认定方面,国际法院在解决领土争端时,隐含适用了一项相应的证据规则。即国际条约的分量大于其他书面证据的分量;其他书面证据的分量一般大于初始性证据的分量;官方行为的分量一般大于私人行为。但是,国际法院在具体的司法判例中,审查判断当事国提交的证据证明价值时过于灵活。甚至,将未经批准的条约赋予法律效力,作为判案的可采信证据。无疑,这侵蚀了当事国的国内宪法性功能。与条约的适用类似,保持占有原则也没有带来更加稳定的国际边界。确切的说,尽管保持占有原则在非洲和拉丁美洲取得了较大成功,但并没有有效解决领土争端的根本问题,它仅迟延了问题出现表面化而已。而且,有效控制原则趋于滥用。对于国际法院初具雏形的证据分量大小的认定规则,应当进行辩证分析。一则,对国际法院赋予未经批准的条约以法律效力应当持否定态度;二则,对于那些建立在保持占有法律和有效控制原则基础上的证据应区别看待。证据分量大小的认定规则一般应为:有效的国际条约>初始性权利证据/有效控制证据>有效控制证据>初始性权利证据>未生效条约、瑕疵法律行为等其他证据。而对于那些曾为殖民地国家,其分量大小的认定规则如下:有效的国际条约>殖民时期立法及其他法律文件>殖民期间的有效控制证据>后殖民时期的有效控制证据>初始性权利证据>未生效条约、瑕疵法律行为等其他证据等。第五章国际法院解决领土争端中的言词证据问题。毋庸置疑,在解决领土争端的过程中,根据国际法院规约及法庭规则,当事方有权通过安排证人和专家的方式提供所有的证据。国际法院不得排除此类证据,除非它没有相关性、缺乏真实性等;法院也不能通过命令的方式取消当事方的这种权利。从既往的司法判例来看,尽管国际法院允许当事人提供言词证据,但仍存在若干使用的不足之处。究其原因,主要包括:国际法院自身的本质属性所决定;基于司法实践因素的考虑;案件本身的性质也是决定因素之一。此外,国际法院询问证人的程序过于灵活。总体而言,证人证言尽管在一些领土案件中具有一定的分量,但并没有发挥其应有的证明价值。然而,如果书面证据能够用于补充证人证言和专家意见,无疑这将有利促进证词程序,从而消除一些言词证据相关的问题。通过证人陈述和庭外作证两者合并的方式的潜在适用值得国际法院进一步探究。与此同时,国际法院也没有积极行使委派自己的专家的权力。国际法院可以借鉴国内法程序,同时参考世界贸易组织(WTO)等其他机构的模式,设立专家库或指示名单。这些专家可以由各国推荐,国际法院进行遴选;或者由国际法院直接指派一些具有国际威望的各个领域的专家组成专家委员会,以供国际法院进行咨询,或为了案件的需要委派专家进行实地调查、收集情报和提交报告等。无疑,这在证据的收集方面对领土争端的解决具有重要的价值。第六章国际法院证据规则对我国解决领土和边界争端的借鉴。目前,我国陆地边界多数已经解决,仅有与印度和不丹等国陆地争端仍长期悬而未决。同时,我国是一个海洋地理位置不利的国家。尤其,东海和南海海域划界属于“双重性”争端,其中岛屿的主权归属阻碍了这些海域边界的划分。传统上,我国相对重视历史证据,强调对于这些岛屿享有不可辩驳的主权。然而,我国藏南地区、钓鱼岛列屿、南沙群岛部分岛礁等领土正分别遭到印度、日本、越南、马来西亚、菲律宾等邻国蚕食及实际控制。因此,从有效控制的角度,我国处于不利的情势。本章借鉴了国际法院“条约的分量大于有效控制证据的分量”的认定规则,结合相关的司法判例,提出了国际法院采信有效统治证据,将领土的主权判决给实际控制方的趋势日益明显的观点。基于此,我国在以后处理与邻国的领土争端中,应充分借鉴国际法院的证据规则,除了继续挖掘历史证据外,对于钓鱼岛列屿、中印边界和领土争端、南沙群岛所涉及的条约重点展开研究,进一步为我国的领土主权的维护提供条约证据方面的支持。同时,应采取必要措施加强对争议区域的主权宣示行为,进而从有效控制证据层面积极应对他国的主张。概言之,通过采取多种证据收集并举的方式,切实维护我国的领土主权和海洋权益。更多还原

【Abstract】 In any legal system, evidence is crucial for the settlement of disputes, Thus the burden of proof and rules of evidence are essential to any dispute settlement system. As the territorial dispute settlement procedures, evidentiary issues relate to border settlement and the attribution of territorial sovereignty, therefore, the Court have preliminarily established a set of rules of evidence and procedure in resolving the territorial dispute in the parties. Although the International Court of Justice is not a supranational legislative bodies, but in theory, it has an important role in promoting the formation of the international rule of law and customary international law. Meanwhile, a set of rules created by the International Court of Justice in the territorial disputes has provided a reference for most countries, and apply them to the relevant practice.The paper is divided into six chapters, its main contents include as follows: production of evidence before the International Court of Justice related to territorial disputes; rights and responsibilities of the parties and the court’s power in obtaining evidence; the types of evidence, admissibility of evidence, the applicable standard of proof and evidentiary rules on probative value; testimonial evidence, expert evidence; its use for reference to territorial dispute settlement between neighboring countries and China. Chapter I mainly analyses production of evidence before the International Court of Justice related to territorial disputes. First, it relates to rights and responsibilities of the parties in production of evidence. The International Court of Justice adheres to the freedom of production in view of Sovereign Equality and Consent Criterion. However, it should also assume certain responsibilities. Though the statute of the International Court of Justice lacks any explicit provisions of an obligation incumbent upon the parties to produce evidence, in practice, each party to the International Court of Justice proceedings has the responsibility not to contravene international law in obtaining the evidence. As for the duty of disclosure of the parties, to some degree, only has a certain‘voluntary’in nature, rather than compulsory. However, the liberality of evidentiary regime may bring negative factors, such as the burden of superfluous evidence. Therefore, the Court can limit the number of items or volume of evidence submitted by the parties. At the same time, it may be useful for the court to adopt preliminary consultation proceedings on questions of fact and proof, and so on. As a result, the Court may persuade state to be more discriminating in their submission of evidence, and so improve its ability to settle their dispute in a matter which is both and swift.Secondly, as of the end of 2010, there are four cases involving intervention and submission of evidence by third party states about the territorial dispute. Given permitting a third party to participate in the proceedings, it may risk delaying the normal proceedings, therefore, the Court has made the appropriate provisions, which including the time of submitting evidence, the necessary conditions of participating in the proceedings, etc. However, article 81, para. 3 of the 1978 Rules of Court , which states“the application shall contain a list of the documents in support, which documents shall be attached”does not require a state to submit documentary evidence, only that if it does so, it should provide a list of that evidence, rather that the opposite.Thirdly, the Court enjoys an extremely broad discretion in most matters of evidentiary procedure, including the power to question witnesses, request additional documents or explanations, call witnesses, to appoint experts, obtain evidence by visiting a site or location. However, the Court neglects its powers, because it has consistently viewed its own powers to seek evidence as strictly secondary in character, with its primary function being the mere supervision of parties’submission of documentary and testimonial evidence on the basis of sovereign equality. For the purpose of developing the Court’s jurisprudence and delivering judgments more precisely, it should build the confidence to use its powers so as to made extensive findings of fact. At the same time, it uses for reference to dispute methods in other field.Chapter II analyses admissibility of evidence concerning the territorial dispute before the International Court of Justice, including order and time of submission of evidence, admissibility of evidence and critical date, evidential weight, rule of exclusion of evidence, and so on.Generally, Documentary evidence is almost without exception presented to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the order and the time limit of submission of evidence. In other words, as long as the parties submit evidence within time limits, the Court has accepted the principle that any evidence produced by the parties should be admitted automatically. However, it does not mean that the Court should accept all evidence submitted by the parties. For example, late -filed evidence is inadmissible. Namely, after the closure of the written proceedings, no further documents may be submitted to the Court by either party except with the consent of the other party or silence of the other party. In absence of consent, the Court, after hearing the parties, may, if it considers the document necessary, authorize its production.In practice, the restrictions upon admissibility of evidence in municipal procedure have certain place before the International Court of Justice. Moreover, the Court has developed specific rules how evidence should be presented in case concerning territorial disputes. The Court emphasizes the importance of the critical date, not so much in relation to the weight to be given to it but rather to the admissibility of evidence. At the same time, it cannot take into consideration acts having taken place after critical date on which the dispute between the Parties crystallized unless such acts are a normal continuation of prior acts and are not undertaken for the purpose of improving the legal position of the Party which relies on them. Moreover, if it is self-serving, designed to strengthen, or even establish that State’s claim to sovereignty, it is not concerned with the reduced weight to be given to it, but with the admissibility of evidence.It is noted that the weight of the evidence is closely related to the admissibility of evidence. However, compared with the admissibility of evidence, the weight of evidence is not a legal issue but a question of fact. In Anglo-American evidential procedure, evidence which has no weight or of probative value is to be excluded as inadmissible. Nevertheless, the Court has happened only infrequently that it takes the course of declaring inadmissibility in resolving the territorial dispute. In fact, it has seemed preferable not to use admissibility but admission. Certainly, the rules on admissibility are more liberal than in national courts, thus all evidence once admitted is subjected to an evaluation of weight.Although the Court has the freedom to admit evidence of all kinds, its practice in this is, nevertheless, governed by a number of general principles of evidential law recognized by states in national systems. Therefore, there are circumstances in which the Court applying freedom of production to have refused to accept evidence submitted by the parties, including late-filed evidence, evidence obtained through settlement negotiations, irrelevant evidence, evidence lacking authenticity, hearsay evidence, evidence obtained breach of estoppel. Undoubtedly, it can reduce the burden of admissibility of superfluous evidence. Moreover, parties may evaluate the relevance, credibility and weight of evidence, and exclude to proffer certain inadmissible evidence.Chapter III the Court deals with the essence of proof itself on the territorial dispute. First, in terms of evidence and procedure generally, the International Court of Justice can be seen as more frequently conforming to the civil legal tradition, thus it lacks a specific standard. At the same time, In view of the complexity of the territorial disputes among the parties, the International Court of Justice absorbed the common law tradition, therefore an applicable standard is preponderance of evidence by the Court implicitly in the judicial practice. However, when the Court applied ‘preponderance of evidence’to the territorial dispute, it exist a logical confusion because of comparing a piece of evidence with another simply. It sometimes leads into a simple game. This caused the international community to question the authority of the International Court of Justice. In fact, there are different opinions within the International Court of Justice. Accordingly, rules of evidence are still developing. As a result, Preponderance of evidence is lower standard of proof, in contrast, beyond reasonable doubt standard is very higher, so the Court is faced with two competing ideals: flexibility in adjudication and certainty for the parties. The paper upholds that the International Court of Justice should adopt the clear and convincing standard. Adopting such standard not only would enable the Court to safeguard the flexibility, but give the parties a greater deal of guidance.Secondly, with regard to the burden of proof on territorial disputes, as a general rule, the accepted formula for deciding the proponent of the legal burden of proof has been the maxim actori incumbit onus probandi. In other words, the claimant carries the burden of proof. Nevertheless, the Court holds that each party is called upon to establish the arguments on which it relies in support of its claim to sovereignty over the object in dispute. Namely, the burden of proof may, thus, be divided. Apparently, the Court does not simply rely on traditional applicant/respondent dichotomy. In general, in cases brought by application, the burden is on the application, and respondent merely has a negative burden.However, In particular, for cases brought by Special Agreement, there is equality in terms of the burden of proof, rather than special provisions on burden of evidence in an agreement. At the same time, the state requesting intervention bears the burden of proof and it must demonstrate convincingly what it asserts, that is to identify the interest of a legal nature. It demands only that the interest‘may be affected’, not that it‘will be affected’or even that it is‘likely to be affected’. Furthermore, if there are some facts or matters which re already within the knowledge of the judges, either by reason of their being so widely known that they do not require explanation, or because they relate to the existence of a law, which all judges are presumed to know, the Court does not require the parties to provide proof thereof. Third, Presumptions do have an important role to play in international law involving territorial disputes. Presumptions may be rebuttable or irrebuttable. Rebuttable presumptions permit the presumption of fact to be overturned generally by evidence. Irrebuttable presumption may not be so overturned. Inferences are a tool of judicial reasoning employed to aid a court in determining whether the burden of proof has met in cases where direct evidence is not available on a particular fact.Concretely, the effect of an irrebuttable Presumption is to conclusively prove the presumed fact, either relieving the claimant of the need for proof, or making it impossible for him to meet the burden of proof if the presumption operates in favour of the other party. Namely, it cannot be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. Only one example can be found in the case law of the International Court of Justice, namely it arose in Preah Vihear. In contrast, irrefutable presumption may be discharged or increased the weight of the burden of proof the plaintiff. Presumption and the shifting the burden of proof are often linked. Rebuttable presumptions do not in fact reverse the burden of proof. They simply relieve the proponent of the burden from having to initiate proof or adduce evidence on the fact to be presumed. This does however shift the burden of evidence to the other party. Inferences are useful method of proof for the International Court of Justice. Without lacking direct evidence in those cases, the Court states proof may be drawn from inferences of fact. Moreover, it helps to decide whether the burden of proof is met. In particular, irrebuttable inferences may sufficiently discharge the burden of proof of the parties. Inferences merely mean the fact is considered proven and no‘burden’is shifted.Chapter IV mainly tracks the Court’practice related to types of evidence, probative value, rules of comparison concerning probative value. In general, there exist documentary evidence, testimony and expert evidence with regard to types of evidence submitted by the parties. Written evidence is a general rule, testimony and expert evidence is an exception. In practice, the International Court of Justice has given the corresponding weight to various types of evidence.In comparative rules of probative value, the International Court of Justice always adopts a corresponding set of implied rules in resolving territorial disputes. Namely, the probative value of international treaties prevails over any other written evidence; other written documentary evidence prevails over the initial evidence; the probative value of official acts generally is better than the probative value of private behaviors. However, evidence submitted by the parties is sometimes endowed with too flexible probative value by the International Court of Justice in the specific cases. Even if ungratified treaties may be some weight. Undoubtedly, this practice erodes the domestic constitutional function of the parties.While it is similar to the application of the treaty, but Uti possidetis juris has not brought about a more stable international borders. Although Uti possidetis juris has achieved a great success in Asia, Africa and Latin America, it does not solve the fundamental problem of territorial disputes, which only prevents territorial disputes from becoming apparently. Moreover, the weight of the evidence on effective control tends to abuse.For the Court’comparative rules of probative value, the paper argues that the International Court of Justice should endow unratified treaties with no probative value, and the probative value of evidence on effective control and the historical evidence should be differential treatment as the case might be: As for probative value of official acts better than private behavior, if the parties lack international treaties related to boundaries and sovereignty of the territory, private behaviors should have some weight.Therefore, for non-colonial countries, hierarchy of probative value should be as follows: probative value of valid international treaties prevails over inchoate rights/effective control; effective control prevails over inchoate right; inchoate right prevails over unratified treaties or defective legal acts. For colonial countries at one time, the hierarchy is as follows: probative value of valid of international treaties prevails over inchoate right/effective control; inchoate right/ effective control prevails over colonial legislation and other legal documents; colonial legislation and other legal documents prevails over colonial effectivités; post-colonial effectivités prevails over inchoate right; post-colonial effectivités prevails over unratified treaties or defective legal acts, etc.Chapter V mainly discusses testimonial evidence in resolving the territorial disputes before The International Court of Justice. Needless to say, according to the rules under the Statute of the ICJ, in the process of resolving the territorial dispute, the parties have the right to provide all the evidence by arranging for witnesses and experts. The International Court of Justice should not exclude such evidence unless it has no relevance or probative value; simultaneity, the Court can not issue an order to cancel such rights of the parties as well. From the point of view of previous judicial cases, even though the Court permits the parties to provide oral evidence, there are still some deficiencies. There are a number of possible reasons why oral evidence has been a rare feature of the International Court of Justice, including the essential attribute of its own; considerations of judicial practice; the nature of the case itself, and so on. In addition, it is too flexible to examine witnesses before the International Court of Justice. Overall, testimony did not play its role, though if it to some degree has weight in territorial cases. However, if the written evidence can be used to supplement witness and expert advice, it is no doubt that it could be conducive to the procedure of testimonial evidence so as to remove some of the problems associated with live evidence. The potential utility of combing the two through the use of witness statements and depositions should be explored by the Court.At the same time, the Court did not actively exercise the right to appoint its own experts. The International Court of Justice should set up an expert database or instructional list by learning from procedures of national law, the model of the WTO or other agencies. These experts may be recommended by the States, then they be selected by the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice can also directly appoint experts with international prestige from various fields to set up a Committee, which can give advice to the Court ; at the same time, the Court appoints some experts to visit a site, gather information and submit a report for the case. Needless to say, it is an important instrumental value for the territorial dispute settlement beyond all doubt.Chapter VI makes some researches on territorial and boundary disputes between neighboring countries and China. At present, the majority of the land border has been resolved except for India and Bhutan. Meanwhile, China is a geographically disadvantaged country on the sea. In particular, the delimitation of East China Sea and South China Sea is attributed to‘double’disputes, which hindered maritime delimitation owing to the island’s sovereignty. Traditionally, China attaches importance to historical evidence relatively, noting that our country always enjoys indisputable sovereignty over those islands. However, China’s Southern Tibet, Diaoyu islands, reefs and other parts of the territory of the Nansha Islands are being encroaching and controlling illegally by India, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and other neighboring countries respectively. Therefore, from the perspective of effective control, China is in a disadvantaged situation in these waters. The chapter draws on the hierarchy rule of‘treaty law prevail over effective control’, linking relevant case, thus presents the idea that the Court increasingly adopted effectivités to adjudge the sovereignty of disputed territory to the party which actually control it.In addition to finding historical evidence, we should study on treaties involved Diaoyu Islands, the Sino-Indian border and territorial disputes and Nansha Islands, and provide further support for safeguard on the territorial sovereignty of our country with neighboring countries in the future on the basis of the rule. At the same time, we should positively take the necessary measures to strengthen sovereign acts for disputed areas in response to other country’s position from the level of evidence on effective control. In sum, China should protect our territories, maritime rights and interests effectively by the way of taking a variety of evidence.更多还原