论外交保护的义务属性 = Obligation Atribute of Diplomatic Protection

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Diplomatic protection is traditonaly considered to be the sole right of the state, and the state has absolute discretion and does not asume any obligations under international law. This originated from the national characteristics proposed by Vetel. However, after the Second World War, the world showed a trend of multi-polarization, and economic globalization has exerted more and more influence. International law has shown an increasingly strong humanistic trend. Traditonal views on the nature of diplomatic protection rights are increasingly being questioned by academics. The recent failure of Chinese private claims against Japan also required the government to provide diplomatic protection. In particular, for the isue of “comfort women”, the victims and the bereaved publicly demanded that the government asume responsibilty for diplomatic protection in 2017.The Chinese government has also repeatedly stated its positon of resolutely safeguarding the interests of our citzens and defending basic human rights. This makes us to re-examine whether diplomatic protection is stil the absolute discretion of a government.
In view of this, this article hopes to explore the obligations of diplomatic protection. This article first defines the diplomatic protection through the introduction of preconditons and comparison with other similar systems, and briefly introduces the traditonal theory. Secondly, the author tries to find the contradictions betwen the existing legal framework and traditonal theories from the national characteristics of diplomatic protection, preconditons and domestic and foreign dimensions .Then it tries to find the theoretical basis of the diplomatic protection obligation atribute from the change of personal status in international law, the change of China's foreign policy and the trend of humanization of international law and the new concept of responsibilty of sovereignty.
After that, it hopes to discus what kind of limited obligation shal the country of nationality fulfil under certain circumstances through the development of clasic cases and to link theory with practice. At least in terms of procedures, there should be an obligation to give due consideration to the posibilty of diplomatic protection; In substance, when the human rights of nationals are seriously violated, there is an obligation to take concrete action for diplomatic protection. Finaly, based on China's positon and the historical background and the change of state role in modern times, sugestions are made from the perspective of the nature of diplomatic protection obligations.
Today, the number of Chinese citzens who go abroad is increasing, and the increasing security risks are everywhere. Strengthening the protection of overseas Chinese citzens is an urgent task. Today, when people-oriented diplomacy becomes the ruling idea, the thinking on the nature of diplomatic protection obligations has important signifcance both in theory and in practice.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

外交保护在传统上被认为是独属于国家的权利，国家享有绝对的自由裁量 权，在国际法上不承担任何义务。这最早源于瓦特尔拟制的国家特征。但是 到二战以后，世界呈现多极化趋势，经济全球化产生了越来越大的影响，国 际法呈现出越来越强的人本化趋向。有关外交保护权利性质的传统观点越来 越受到学界质疑。而近期中国民间对日索赔诉讼的连连失败也对政府提出了 给予外交保护的要求。特别是针对“慰安妇”问题，受害者及其遗属在2017年 公开要求政府承担外交保护的责任。中国政府也多次明确表示坚决保障本国 民利益，捍卫基本人权的立场。这让中国不得不重新审视外交保护是否仍然 是一国政府绝对的自由裁量权。有鉴于此，本文希望对外交保护的义务属性 进行探讨。首先通过前提条件的介绍和与其他类似制度的比较对外交保护进 行界定，简要介绍传统理论。其次从外交保护的国家特征、前提条件，以及 国内国外两个维度，寻找现有法律框架中与传统理论存在的矛盾之处。接着 试图从国际法上个人地位的变化，结合中国国内外交政策变动和国际法的人 本化趋势以及新的责任主权观来寻找外交保护义务属性的理论依据。在此之 后，希望通过经典案例展开，理论结合实践，讨论在什么情形下国籍国应负 有什么样的有限义务。至少在程序上，应负有适当考虑进行外交保护的可能 性的义务；在实体上，当本国国民的人权受到严重侵犯时，有切实地采取行 动进行外交保护的义务。最后结合中国的立场与近代以来历史背景、国家角 色的改变，在外交保护义务属性视角下提出建议。今天，走出国门的中国公 民数量与日俱增，愈渐增加的安全风险也无处不在。加强对海外中国公民的 保护刻不容缓。在民本外交成为执政理念的今天，对外交保护义务属性的思 考无论在理论上还是实践中，都具有重要的意义。

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 马光, "韩国法院对民间战争受害者权益的救济与对我国的启示" (5) : 2015
• 2 杨卫东, "论外交保护行为的司法审查" (2) : 2014
• 3 张磊, "论外交保护中对用尽当地救济原则的限制——以联合国《外交保护条款草案》第15条为线索" (5) : 2014
• 4 金灿荣, "论以人为本的中国外交思想" (5) : 2009
• 5 曾令良, "现代国际法的人本化发展趋势" (1) : 2007
• 6 阿库斯特, "现代国际法概论" 中国社会科学出版社 1981
• 7 黎海波, "民间对日索赔与中国实施外交保护的可行性" (4) : 2009
• 8 辛崇阳, "有关个人权利的条约解释法——评日本最高法院西松建设公司案判决" (6) : 2009
• 9 廖赤阳, "晚清“护侨”政策的实施及评价" (1) : 1984
• 10 詹宁斯, "奥本海国际法" 中国大百科全书出版社 1998
• 11 张卫华, "外交保护法新论" 法律出版社 2012
• 12 殷敏, "外交保护法律制度和中国" 上海世纪出版集团 2010
• 13 张磊, "外交保护国际法律制度研究" 华东政法大学 2010
• 14 万霞, "外交保护制度研究" 外交学院 2012
• 15 黎海波, "国际法的人本化与中国的领事保护" 暨南大学 2009
• 16 寺泽一, "国际法基础" 中国人民人学出版社 1983
• 17 王秀梅, "国际法人本化趋向下海外中国公民保护的性质演进及进路选择" (4) : 2010
• 18 周鲠生, "国际法(上册）" 商务印书馆 1981
• 19 沃尔夫刚, "国际法" 法律出版社 2002
• 20 邵津, "国际法" 北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社 2014
• 21 王铁崖, "国际法" 法律出版社 1995
• 22 王虎华, "国际公法学" 北京大学出版社 2008
• 23 齐延平, "国家的人权保障责任与国家人权机构的建立" (3) : 2005
• 24 张磊, "国家实施外交保护的国籍持续原则研究" 法律出版社 2012
• 25 龚迎春, "从外交保护权看对日民间赔偿诉讼的走向" (7) : 2007
• 26 何志鹏, "人的回归：个人国际法上地位之审视" (3) : 2006
• 27 "中国领事保护和协助指南" 世界知识出版社 2018
• 28 李玲飞, "中国外交迎来民本时代——从历次撤侨行动看中国民本外交思想" (7) : 2011
• 29 刘国福, "中国公民境外权益法律救济手段探析" (3) : 2010
• 30 王铁崖, "中华法学大辞典（国际法卷）" 中国检察出版社 1996
• 31 张新军, "《中日联合声明》“放弃战争赔偿要求”放弃了什么?——基于条约解释理论的批判再考" (2) : 2010
• 32 David Aronofsky, "The international legal responsibility to protect against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity: why national sovereignty does not preclude its exercise" 13 (13): 2007
• 33 Annemarieke Vermeer-Künzli, "Restricting Discretion : Judicial Review of Diplomatic Protection" 75 : 2006
• 34 J. R. Dugard, "First Report on Diplomatic Protection" 2000
• 35 Noura K, "Diplomatic Protection : Taking Human Rights Extrater-ritorially" Canadian Yearbook of International Law 2007
• 36 Chittharanjan F. Amerasinghe, "Diplomatic Protection" Oxford University Press 2008
• 37 Borchard E M, "Basic Elements of Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad" 7 (7): 1913