No description available.

Note:

Part A traces back the origins of the conflicting claimsto sovereignty over the area now called the West-Bank. The analysis shows that a sovereignty vacuum ensued after Turkey relinquished by treaty its rights and title over Palestine and that subsequently that vacuum remained in the area earmarked for an Arab Palestinian State. Part B peruses the constituent elements for the legality or illegality of the sovereignty claims invoked by the parties concerned: the use of force and the act of selfdefence. Part C demonstrates that Israel has eroded the law of belligerent occupation through a system of military orders, which virtually precludes the West-Bank Palestinians from exercising their valid claim to sovereignty. Part D reviews feasible options for a solution of the conflicting claims to sovereignty over the West-Bank. The last chapter proposes a solution which, taken in consideration the legally correct view, would entitle the Palestinians to fill up the sovereignty vacuum through an internationally guaranteed exercise of self-determination / La partie A retrace les origines des revendications contradictoires de souveraineté sur la région de l'actuelle Rive occidentale. L'analyse démontre qu'il existe un "vide" de souveraineté après l'abandon par la Turquie par traité de ses droits et titres sur la Palestine. Ce vide juridique persiste dans la régiondesignéepourla création d'un EtatPalestinien.LapartieBpasseenrevuelesélémentsconstitutifsdelalégalitéoul'illégalitédesrevendicationsdesouverainetéprésentéesparlespartiesconcernées:lerecoursàla forceetl'acte d'auto-défense.La partie C tend à prouver que Israël a vidé de son sens le régime juridique du droit d'occupation militaire par le truchement d'un système d'ordres militaires empêchant les palestiniens de la Rive occidentale d'exercer leur revendications légitimes de souveraineté. La partie D discute la gamme des solutions se référant aux revendications contradictoires de souveraineté sur la région de la Rive occidentale. Le chapitre final esquisse une proposition, qui autoriserait les Palestiniens, compte tenu de la position juridique correcte, à combler ce vide de souveraineté par l' intermédiaire de l'exercice, garanti au plan international, du droit à l'autodétermination.

No description available.

顔鳳儀. / 論文(哲學碩士) -- 香港中文大學硏究院政治與行政學部, 1998. / 參考文獻: leaves 127-139. / 中英文摘要. / Yan Fengyi. / Chapter 第一章 --- 導言 --- p.1-6 / Chapter 一、 --- 研究重點 --- p.2-3 / Chapter 二、 --- 研究原因 --- p.3-4 / Chapter 三、 --- 硏究方法 / Chapter 甲、 --- 硏究性質 --- p.4-5 / Chapter 乙、 --- 資料來源 --- p.5 / Chapter 第二章 --- 評述權力均衡理論及探討基辛格 對均勢外交理念的構想 --- p.7-26 / Chapter 一、 --- 權力均衡理論 / Chapter 甲、 --- 現實主義學說 --- p.7-9 / Chapter 乙、 --- 權力均衡理論槪念之釐淸 --- p.9-16 / Chapter 二、 --- 均勢外交理念的構想 / Chapter 甲、 --- 尼克遜與基辛格在七十年代 制定美國外交政策的關鍵角色 --- p.17-19 / Chapter 乙、 --- 均勢外交之構想 --- p.20-26 / Chapter 三、 --- 分析架構 --- p.26 / Chapter 第三章 --- 歷史史實的描述 --- p.27-61 / Chapter 一、 --- 釣魚台的歷史背景 / Chapter 甲、 --- 一九七二年前的釣魚台歷史背景 --- p.27-33 / Chapter 乙、 --- 九十年代的釣魚台事件 --- p.33-35 / Chapter 二、 --- 一九七二年前的中、美、日、台的關係 / Chapter 甲、 --- 七十年代前的中美關係 --- p.36-42 / Chapter 乙、 --- 七十年代前的美日關係 --- p.43-49 / Chapter 丙、 --- 七十年代前的的中日關係 --- p.50-54 / Chapter 丁、 --- 轉變中的中、美、日關係 --- p.55-61 / Chapter 第四章 --- 運用權力均衡槪念去剖析釣魚台事件 --- p.62-116 / Chapter 一、 --- 美國一一「均勢體系」中的「均衡者」 --- p.62-79 / Chapter 甲、 --- 引言 --- p.62 / Chapter 乙、 --- 聯中制蘇 --- p.62-63 / Chapter 丙、 --- 釣魚台事件 / Chapter 1. --- 釣魚台對美國國防的重要性 --- p.64 / Chapter 2. --- 安撫日本 --- p.65-66 / Chapter 3. --- 均勢戰略考慮的長遠計謀 / Chapter (I) --- 遏制中國 --- p.67-74 / Chapter (II) --- 制約日本 --- p.75-77 / Chapter 丁、 --- 小結 --- p.77-79 / Chapter 二、 --- 日本一一「均勢體系」中的「從屬者」 --- p.80-95 / Chapter 甲、 --- 引言 --- p.80 / Chapter 乙、 --- 釣魚台對日本國防及經濟的重要性 --- p.80-82 / Chapter 丙、 --- 日本謀求成爲亞洲政治及軍事大國之野心 / Chapter 1. --- 美蘇冷戰格局下日本經濟迅速復興， 在九十年代成爲第二經濟大國 --- p.82-83 / Chapter 2. --- 日本經濟蓬勃發展後， 日本出現謀求成爲政治大國的野心 --- p.83-84 / Chapter 3 . --- 新保守主義思潮的興起 --- p.84-87 / Chapter 4 . --- 日本謀求成爲政治及軍事大國的障礙 --- p.87-89 / Chapter 5 . --- 日本明白美日同盟的重要性 --- p.89-91 / Chapter 丁、 --- 九六年日本遏制中國時機之來臨 / Chapter 1 . --- 《美日安保條約》的重新訂位 --- p.91-93 / Chapter 2 . --- 橋本內閣的重組 --- p.93-94 / Chapter 戊、 --- 小結 --- p.94-95 / Chapter 三) --- 台灣一一「均勢體系」的「從屬者」 --- p.96-104 / Chapter 甲、 --- 引言 --- p.96 / Chapter 乙、 --- 七十年代台灣低調處理釣魚台事件之分析 --- p.97-98 / Chapter 丙、 --- 九十年代台灣低調處理釣魚台事件之分析 / Chapter 1. --- 釣魚事件牽涉了兩岸關係 --- p.99-100 / Chapter 2. --- 爭取美日友好，以擴展台灣的國際生存空間 --- p.101-103 / Chapter 丁、 --- 小結 --- p.104 / Chapter 四) --- 中國一一「均勢體系」的 「被敵視者」 --- p.105-116 / Chapter 甲、 --- 引言 --- p.105 / Chapter 乙、 --- 七十年代中國低調處理釣魚台事件的分析 --- p.105-108 / Chapter 丙、 --- 九十年代中國低調處理釣魚台事件的分析 / Chapter 1. --- 出兵的顧慮 --- p.109-113 / Chapter 2. --- 不出兵的顧慮 --- p.113-115 / Chapter 丁、 --- 小結 --- p.116 / Chapter 第五章 --- 結語 --- p.117-126 / Chapter 一、 --- 中、美、日、台在釣魚台事件上所扮演的角色 --- p.118-121 / Chapter 二、 --- 「權力均衡」理論之適用性及現實性 --- p.121-126 / 主要參考書目（中文） / 主要參考書目（英文） / 主要參考報章雜誌

The thesis focuses upon the final reintegration of Walvis Bay and its twelve Penguin/Off-Shore Islands into Namibia. As Namibia's only deep water port, it escaped reintegration in 1989 when the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 435 (1978) was implemented. Hence the study argues that the exclusion of Walvis Bay from the Settlement Plan falls outside the parameters of various UNSC and UN General Assembly Resolutions, viz 385 and 432 of 1976 respectively. Such an arrangement has to be looked at as Pretoria's non-compliance with the above resolutions. South Africa got away with such an arrangement with the blessing of the Western Contact Group of Nations, i.e the United States; Britain; (former West) Germany; France and Canada. The argument advances further to capture the sudden emergence of Walvis Bay as a dispute between the National Party regime and the African National Congress (ANC) in particular. The dispute came about when the National Party submitted a controversial constitutional proposal during South Africa's transition to democracy at Kempton Park. They were proposing Walvis Bay to constitute part of the new Western Cape province in the postapartheid South Africa. Namibia's diplomacy paid off when the return of Walvis Bay was agreed upon as it became entangled in the constitutional talks for South Africa's transition to democracy at Kempton Park in 1993-1994.

No description available.

This dissertation investigates the causes, development, and the partial resolution of the Antarctic sovereignty dispute that took place between Britain, Argentina, and Chile between 1939 and 1959. It has two interconnected arguments. The first argument is that the dispute had its roots in a clash between British imperialism and South American nationalism, and, as a consequence, ought to be seen as part of the wider history of European decolonization in the years during and after the Second World War. The second argument is that the history of the sovereignty dispute offers an excellent opportunity for "doing environmental history" due to the relative simplicity of human-nature-culture interactions in Antarctica. By putting these two arguments together, it becomes possible to write an "environmental history of decolonization." Within the context of the sovereignty dispute, this dissertation asks the question: what happened to British imperial claims to "dominion over nature" during the decolonization of the British Empire in the mid-twentieth century? Over the course of the sovereignty dispute, Argentina and Chile sought to challenge Britain's claims to "environmental authority" in Antarctica with their own "environmental nationalism." Rather than conceding to the South American challenge, Britain initially responded by redoubling its efforts to maintain Antarctic sovereignty. However, as the three countries learned more about the reality of the Antarctic environment, their political perceptions of the region changed. The British, in particular, became less attached to exclusive sovereignty and successfully negotiated a limited international regime that would retain their political influence without the need for formal control. The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 brought a partial end to the sovereignty dispute by "freezing" all sovereignty claims for its duration. / text

Thesis (D. Litt. et Phil. (History))

Thesis (D. Litt. et Phil. (History))