Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:28:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2011-06-20Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:37:18Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 rivero_cav_me_prud.pdf: 1183768 bytes, checksum: 9ce053344816dfb8d60047c877d6c876 (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) / A disputa camponesa pelo território é uma questão que se destaca com muita força no processo constituinte boliviano contemporâneo. Neste quadro, o sujeito social mobilizado constitui-se sobre a identidade indígena, “originaria” e camponesa, que disputa no imaginário do Estado-Nação o sentido da sua constituição como sujeito, ainda, a sua articulação institucional e territorial buscando a sua legitimidade na constituição do estado e, assim, questionando os princípios da modernidade capitalista eurocêntrica. Tem-se como referência que este Estado-Nação eurocêntrico dilui as identidades étnicas para constituir a identidade nacional do estado-nação moderno. O debate sobre a rearticulação das identidades indígenas coloca um desafio nas identidades camponesas, cuja origem colonial está na expropriação do direito do índio sobre a terra e o território, pra manter sua condição subalterna e, assim, explorar sua força de trabalho nas terras e nos territórios que anteriormente lhes perteneciam. A recuperação da terra e do território constitui-se no eixo central da luta camponesa e indígena na Bolívia, mas requer que o camponês construa um argumento da sua natureza societal expressa na dimensão territorial para articular-se plenamente em um novo esquema: o estado plurinacional / The peasant strugle for territory is a matter that emerges clearly in the contemporary bolivian constituent process, where the mobilized social subject builds up around the indigenous and peasant people and nations, that disputes the hegemonic political imaginary of the nation-state in the sense of constitution of the social subject and his linkage to the territorial and institutional legitimacy of the state, questioning the principles of the capitalistic eurocentric modernity that places a disappearance of ethnic identity to build a national identity of the modern state-nation. The debate about reconstituting indigenous identities points out a challenge over the peasant identities, where its colonial origin in the dispossession of land and territory to exploit their working force in their own ancestral territories. Taking back the land and territories is nowadays a central issue in the peasant and indigenous struggle for emancipation in Bolivia, but requires from them to build an convincing argument of their society nature with territorial attributes for a plenty linkage to the new scheme of the plurinational state / La disputa campesina por el territorio es una cuestión que emerge con contundencia en el proceso constituyente boliviano contemporáneo, donde el sujeto social movilizado se constituye en torno a la identidad de pueblo y nación indígena, originaria y campesina, que le disputa al imaginario político hegemónico del estado-nación el sentido de la constitución del sujeto y su articulación institucional y territorial a la legitimidad del estado, cuestionando los principios de la modernidad capitalista eurocéntrica que postula la dilución de las identidades étnicas para constituir la identidad nacional del estado moderno. El debate sobre la rearticulación de las identidades indígenas plantea un desafío a las identidades campesinas, cuyo origen colonial es el despojo del indio a un derecho sobre la tierra y el territorio, de manera que manteniéndolo en la condición subalterna del conquistado, se le explota la mano de obra para explotar las tierras y territorios que antes de la conquista les pertenecían. La recuperación de la tierra y del territorio se constituye en un eje central de la lucha campesina e indígena en Bolivia, pero requiere del campesino construir un argumento de su naturaleza societal con dimensión territorial para articularse plenamente en el esquema del nuevo estado plurinacional

Sovereignty over the South China Sea waters and the territorial features therein has been a contentious issue since at least the 1970’s, with conflicting claims going back even further. Key concepts of Liberal and Neo-Realist International Relations Theory are used to assess respective theory’s explanatory capability for why the South China Sea Dispute is difficult to settle. The scope of the study is limited to three pairings of international relations: China-Philippines, China-Vietnam and China-USA. The analysis concerns the development of these sets of international relations from 2016 up until now. The findings point to unilateral action by one claimant in the face of contesting claims by another as being one of the main factors perpetuating the conflict. Treaties and international law are designed with Liberal development of international relations in mind, but in practice Neo-Realist hard power politics interrupts this development. Examples of disruptive action include attempts to unilaterally exploit natural resources in the region, settling features in the sea, doing construction work on features in the sea, as well as regular FONOPS conducted by navy ships in the region. Finally, there are difficulties settling on a mechanism for sovereignty settlement, as China makes its claims based on historic- or historical claims, rather than international law as it is written out in UNCLOS.

這份研究將探討蘇祿蘇丹國是如何成為大馬來世界的一份子，以及菲律賓索回沙巴的主張. 菲律賓是蘇祿蘇丹政治主權的繼任者。本研究主要探討菲律賓索回沙巴州的歷史和法律依據。 歷史紀錄指出，這塊有爭議的土地曾屬於蘇祿蘇丹租借給一間英國特許公司的創辦者。之後由英國王室所保護的這塊土地後來成為英國兼併馬來西亞和殖民的基礎。最終，沙巴被納入馬來西亞聯邦。 / The recent incident where followers of Sultan Jamalul Kiram III landed in Lahad Datu Village in Sabah, Malaysia to assert the pending Philippine territorial claim has sparked one of the biggest security threats in the region. The dispute has disrupted the diplomatic relations between Malaysia and the Philippines, both being members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). This study argues that the settlement to the dispute depends on whether the Philippines has a legal and valid claim according to the principles of international law. Similarly, the issue can also be resolved with recourse to a regional agency like ASEAN. Additionally, it is essential that an unbiased analysis of Malaysia’s argument be undertaken based on international law. Peaceful methods of settlement should be the goal for both states. Stability and security are a prerequisite for development; therefore, a peaceful environment will provide a proper setting for sustainable economic growth.

從1982年之《國際海洋法公約》規定相關國家在爭議之海域劃界達成協議之前，有權利就爭議海域的管理和開發做出臨時性的安排。而共同開發正是作為一種解決海域劃界爭端而被廣泛採用的臨時性辦法，共同開發方案一經提出便得到了國際實踐的認同。 通過國際實踐案例的分析，並從中汲取國際共同開發成功案例中的經驗和啟示，總結出國際共同開發的管理模式及其特點並促進我國參與南海油氣共同開發，強化與周邊國家區域利益協調和合作局勢，積極推動共同開發合作建立，避免南海周邊國家避開我國簽訂雙邊或多邊協議去侵占我國南海油氣資源及海域主權，並就我國南海管轄權範圍內積極進行合作以維護我國在南海的海洋權利。 / 1982’s International Law of the sea has prescribed that the related countries are liable to make every effort to make an interim arrangement upon the management and utilization of maritime space after coming an agreement on maritime delimitation. Joint development that is the interim arrangement with broad adoption on solving the dispute of maritime delimitation, which now has been acknowledged in international practices. Through analyzing the international cases, and the ultimate goal of this paper is that R.O.C will learn the experience and inspiration from the successful international joint development model, effectively accelerate the joint development of oil and gas, strengthen the coordination and cooperation of regional benefit with surrounding countries, and actively promote the joint development and cooperation to establish, to avoid the neighboring countries of the South China Sea to avoid bilateral or multilateral agreements signed to occupy Republic of China's oil and gas resources and sea sovereignty, and within the jurisdiction of China's South China Sea within the active cooperation to safeguard Republic of China's maritime rights in the South China Sea.