mgimolawМосковский журнал международного праваMoscow Journal of International Law0869-00492619-0893Moscow State Institute of International Relations10.24833/0869-0049-2019-3-47-58mgimolaw-318Research ArticleМЕЖДУНАРОДНО-ПРАВОВЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ ТЕРРИТОРИИINTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES OF TERRITORYЮжно-курильский тупик: эффективность и протестыThe Southern Kuril Deadlock: effectiveness v. protesthttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5911-6719НевероваЕ. В.NeverovaE. V.

Евгения Владимировна Неверова, выпускница аспирантуры по кафедре международного права

119454, Российская Федерация, Москва, проспект Вернадского, д. 76

Evgeniya V. Neverova, Graduate of the Postgraduate Research Program of the Department of International Law

76, pr. Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119454

serra90@mail.ruМосковский государственный институт международных отношений (Университет) МИД РоссииРоссияMoscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA RussiaRussian Federation201930102019034758Copyright © Неверова Е.В., 20192019Неверова Е.В.Neverova E.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/318ВВЕДЕНИЕ

ВВЕДЕНИЕ. Вот уже 74 года Россия и Япония заявляют правовые притязания на титул над четырьмя южными Курильскими островами. Эти разногласия не дают двум государствам заключить мирный договор по итогам Второй мировой войны и реализовать полный потенциал их двусторонних отношений. В течение всего этого периода острова во всех правовых, политических и экономических аспектах их жизни контролировались российской стороной, тогда как Япония заявляла дипломатические протесты, оспаривая законность российской юрисдикции. В международном праве нет органа, который бы мог определить, какая из сторон права. Это заставляет задаваться вопросом: преодолел ли или должен ли был преодолеть российский эффективный контроль к настоящему времени японские протесты, практически единственный инструмент, который международное право предусматривает для препятствования формированию титула другого государства?

МАТЕРИАЛЫ И МЕТОДЫ

МАТЕРИАЛЫ И МЕТОДЫ. Применимыми международно-правовыми принципами и доктринами являются базовые понятия эффективности и стабильности, которые регулируют разрешение территориальных споров, связанные с ними доктрины приобретательской давности и молчаливого признания, а также максима ex injuria jus non oritur, направленная на исключение территориальных изменений, если они основаны на нарушении. Все эти принципы и доктрины исследуются на основе современных работ по международно-правовому регулированию территории с применением общенаучных методов анализа, синтеза, описания и дедукции.

РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ. Эффективность и стабильность лежат в основе территориальных изменений. Производные от них доктрины приобретательской давности и молчаливого признания служат инструментами легитимации правового титула сомнительного происхождения через длительное, мирное и эффективное владение территорией в отсутствие протестов со стороны бывшего суверена (а также с учетом самоопределения проживающих на территории лиц) и, возможно, с помощью признания нового положения третьими государствами. Остается нерешенным вопрос о том, является ли противостоящая таким изменениям концепция ex injuria jus non oritur принципом международного права. Вместе с тем приходится заключить, что международное право в политически чувствительных вопросах территории остается слишком неопределенным, чтобы дать четкий ответ в ситуациях, когда разные концепции сталкиваются в реальности, как в споре о южных Курильских островах.

ОБСУЖДЕНИЕ И ВЫВОДЫ

ОБСУЖДЕНИЕ И ВЫВОДЫ. При оценке российского эффективного контроля над островами в контексте японских требований вернуть эти территории Японии ключевой вопрос состоит в том, превосходит ли по весу эффективный контроль протесты, учитывая длительность и качество таких эффективных контроля и протестов. В статье проводится мысль о том, что ответ на этот вопрос послужил бы цели стабильности, которую преследует международное право, и что в рассматриваемой ситуации этот ответ должен быть (при условии его осторожной формулировки) положительным.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION. For 74 years, Russia and Japan have both claimed legal title over the four Southern Kuril Islands, paralysed by their controversy from making a post-WWII peace treaty and realising the full potential of their bilateral relations. This entire time, the islands have been governed in all aspects of their legal, political, and economic life, by the Russian side. This entire time, Japan has made diplomatic protests contesting the legality of Russian jurisdiction. With no international authority to determine which of the countries prevails, one wonders if the effective Russian control has not or should not have, by now, overcome Japanese protests – almost the only tool international law provides for states to prevent another’s title.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The international legal principles and doctrines at play are the overarching notions of effectiveness and stability, governing the resolution of any territorial disputes, the related doctrines of prescription and acquiescence, and the maxim ex injuria jus non oritur that aims to preclude territorial change if it originates in illegality – these are studied on the basis of contemporary works on the international law of territory and the general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, description, and deduction.

RESEARCH RESULTS

RESEARCH RESULTS. Effectiveness and stability lie at the heart of territorial change. Their derivative doctrines of prescription and acquiescence serve as tools for legitimizing title of dubious origins through long, peaceful and effective possession of territory absent protests from the former sovereign (and subject to the self-determination of the territory’s inhabitants), and, possibly, with the help of recognition by third states. Whether the opposing notion of ex injuria jus non oritur is an international legal principle remains debatable. The international law, however, in the politically sensitive matters of territory is too meek to provide a definite answer to when these concepts clash within the reality such as that of the Southern Kuril dispute.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In weighing the Russian effective control over the islands against Japan’s demands that the territories be returned to Japan, the key question is: does effective possession override protests, given the duration and quality of such effectiveness and such protests? It is argued here that such an answer would benefit the aim of stability sought by the international law and that in the situation at hand it should be a carefully qualified, but emphatic yes.

Курильские островатерриториальные спорыроссийско-японские отношениятерритория в международном правеэффективностьприобретательская давностьмолчаливое согласиедипломатический протестex injuria jus non oriturпризнаниеKuril Islandsterritorial disputesRusso-Japanese relationsinternational law of territoryeffectivenessprescriptionacquiescencediplomatic protestex injuria jus non oriturrecognitionReferencesBarsegov Yu.G. Territoriya v mezhdunarodnom prave [Territory in International Law]. Moscow: Gosyurizdat Publ. 1958. 270 p. (In Russ.)Barsegov Yu.G. Territoriya v mezhdunarodnom prave [Territory in International Law]. Moscow: Gosyurizdat Publ. 1958. 270 p. (In Russ.)Biriukov P.N. Kuril'skie ostrova: rossiisko-yaponskie otnosheniya (1920–2014 gg.) [The Kuril Islands: RussianJapanese Relations (1920–2014)]. – Bylye Gody. 2014. No. 34(4). P. 666–670 (In Russ.).Biriukov P.N. Kuril'skie ostrova: rossiisko-yaponskie otnosheniya (1920–2014 gg.) [The Kuril Islands: RussianJapanese Relations (1920–2014)]. – Bylye Gody. 2014. No. 34(4). P. 666–670 (In Russ.).Elleman B.A., Nichols M.R., Ouimet M.J. A Historical Reevaluation of America’s Role in the Kuril Islands Dispute. – Pacific Affairs. 1999. Vol. 71. No. 4. P. 489–504. DOI:10.2307/2761081Elleman B.A., Nichols M.R., Ouimet M.J. A Historical Reevaluation of America’s Role in the Kuril Islands Dispute. – Pacific Affairs. 1999. Vol. 71. No. 4. P. 489–504. DOI:10.2307/2761081Buchanan A. The Legitimacy of International Law. – The Philosophy of International Law. Ed. by S. Besson, J. Tasioulas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010. P. 76–97.Buchanan A. The Legitimacy of International Law. – The Philosophy of International Law. Ed. by S. Besson, J. Tasioulas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010. P. 76–97.Cheng B. General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. 544 p.Cheng B. General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006. 544 p.Crawford J. Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law. The Hague: Hague Academy of International Law. 2014. 537 p.Crawford J. Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law. The Hague: Hague Academy of International Law. 2014. 537 p.Crawford J. The Creation of States in International Law. 2 nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2007. 870 p.Crawford J. The Creation of States in International Law. 2 nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2007. 870 p.Elias T.O. The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law. – American Journal of International Law. 1980. Vol. 74. P. 285–307.Elias T.O. The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law. – American Journal of International Law. 1980. Vol. 74. P. 285–307.Gavrilov V.V. Challenges and Prospects of the Southern Kuril Islands’ Status. – Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2016. Vol. 7. Issue. 1. P. 301–305. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n1p301Gavrilov V.V. Challenges and Prospects of the Southern Kuril Islands’ Status. – Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2016. Vol. 7. Issue. 1. P. 301–305. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n1p301Jennings R.Y. The Acquisition of Territory in International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1963. 130 p.Jennings R.Y. The Acquisition of Territory in International Law. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1963. 130 p.Johnson D.H.N. Acquisitive Prescription in International Law. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1950. Vol. 27. P. 332–354.Johnson D.H.N. Acquisitive Prescription in International Law. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1950. Vol. 27. P. 332–354.Kaikobad K.H. Some Observations on the Doctrine of Continuity and Finality of Boundaries. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1983. Vol. 54. P. 119–141.Kaikobad K.H. Some Observations on the Doctrine of Continuity and Finality of Boundaries. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1983. Vol. 54. P. 119–141.Kelsen H. Principles of International Law. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc. 1952. 461 p.Kelsen H. Principles of International Law. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc. 1952. 461 p.Klimenko B.M. Mirnoe reshenie territorial’nykh sporov [Peaceful Resolution of Territorial Disputes]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ. 1982. 184 p. (In Russ.)Klimenko B.M. Mirnoe reshenie territorial’nykh sporov [Peaceful Resolution of Territorial Disputes]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ. 1982. 184 p. (In Russ.)Langer R. Seizure of Territory. The Stimson Doctrine and Related Principles in Legal Theory and Diplomatic Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1947. 313 p.Langer R. Seizure of Territory. The Stimson Doctrine and Related Principles in Legal Theory and Diplomatic Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1947. 313 p.Lauterpacht H. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1947. 442 p.Lauterpacht H. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1947. 442 p.Lee S.-W. Towards a Framework for the Resolution of the Territorial Dispute over the Kurile Islands. – Boundary & Territory Briefing. 2001. Vol. 3. Issue 6. P. 1–55.Lee S.-W. Towards a Framework for the Resolution of the Territorial Dispute over the Kurile Islands. – Boundary & Territory Briefing. 2001. Vol. 3. Issue 6. P. 1–55.MacGibbon I.C. The Scope of Acquiescence in International Law. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1954. Vol. 31. P. 143–186.MacGibbon I.C. The Scope of Acquiescence in International Law. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1954. Vol. 31. P. 143–186.Munkman A.L.W. Adjudication and Adjustment. International Judicial Decision and the Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1972–1973. Vol. 46. P. 93–107.Munkman A.L.W. Adjudication and Adjustment. International Judicial Decision and the Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes. – British Yearbook of International Law. 1972–1973. Vol. 46. P. 93–107.Schwarzenberger G. Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge. – American Journal of International Law. 1957. Vol. 51. P. 308–324.Schwarzenberger G. Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge. – American Journal of International Law. 1957. Vol. 51. P. 308–324.Sharma S.P. Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law. Leiden: Brill. 1997. 358 p.Sharma S.P. Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law. Leiden: Brill. 1997. 358 p.Shaw M. Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries – European Journal of International Law. 1997. Vol 3. P. 478–492.Shaw M. Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries – European Journal of International Law. 1997. Vol 3. P. 478–492.Shaw M. Territory in International Law. – Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. 1982. Vol. 13. P. 71–92.Shaw M. Territory in International Law. – Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. 1982. Vol. 13. P. 71–92.Title to Territory. Ed. by M. Shaw. Burlington: Ashgate. 2005. 525 p.Title to Territory. Ed. by M. Shaw. Burlington: Ashgate. 2005. 525 p.Stephan J.J. The Kuril Islands: Russo-Japanese Frontier in the Pacific. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1974. 279 p.Stephan J.J. The Kuril Islands: Russo-Japanese Frontier in the Pacific. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1974. 279 p.Streltsov D. Rossiiskii podkhod k territorial’nym konfliktam v Vostochnoi Azii [Russian Approach to Territorial Conflicts in East Asia]. – Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn’. 2017. No. 9. P. 42–53. (In Russ.)Streltsov D. Rossiiskii podkhod k territorial’nym konfliktam v Vostochnoi Azii [Russian Approach to Territorial Conflicts in East Asia]. – Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn’. 2017. No. 9. P. 42–53. (In Russ.)Streltsov D. Rossiisko-yaponskie torgovo-ekonomicheskie otnosheniya: est’ li novaya tochka opory? [Russian-Japanese Trade and Economic Relations: Is There a New Fulcrum?]. – MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2016. No. 1(46). P. 93–105. (In Russ.)Streltsov D. Rossiisko-yaponskie torgovo-ekonomicheskie otnosheniya: est’ li novaya tochka opory? [Russian-Japanese Trade and Economic Relations: Is There a New Fulcrum?]. – MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2016. No. 1(46). P. 93–105. (In Russ.)Untawale M.G. The Kutch-Sind Dispute: A Case Study in International Arbitration. – The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1974, October. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 818–839.Untawale M.G. The Kutch-Sind Dispute: A Case Study in International Arbitration. – The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1974, October. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 818–839.Vylegzhanin A.N., Neverova E.V. Rossiisko-yaponskie dogovorennosti o morskikh raionakh, primykayushchikh k Yuzhno-Kuril’skim ostrovam [Russian-Japanese Agreements Relating to the Sea Areas Adjacent to the Disputed Southern Kuril Islands]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016. No. 2. P. 35–57. (In Russ.)Vylegzhanin A.N., Neverova E.V. Rossiisko-yaponskie dogovorennosti o morskikh raionakh, primykayushchikh k Yuzhno-Kuril’skim ostrovam [Russian-Japanese Agreements Relating to the Sea Areas Adjacent to the Disputed Southern Kuril Islands]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016. No. 2. P. 35–57. (In Russ.)Vylegzhanin A.N., Sokolova E.L. Priobretatel’skaya davnost’ v mezhdunarodnom prave [Prescription in International Law]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2014. No. 2(94). P. 37–58. (In Russ.)Vylegzhanin A.N., Sokolova E.L. Priobretatel’skaya davnost’ v mezhdunarodnom prave [Prescription in International Law]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2014. No. 2(94). P. 37–58. (In Russ.)Williams B. The Russo-Japanese Visa-Less Exchange Program: Opportunities and Limits. – East Asia. 2003. P. 108–132.Williams B. The Russo-Japanese Visa-Less Exchange Program: Opportunities and Limits. – East Asia. 2003. P. 108–132.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.