论嗣后惯例解释方法的WTO争端解决实践

发布时间：2018-04-28 21:03

本文选题：嗣后惯例 + 条约解释　；参考：《郑州大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：嗣后协定和嗣后惯例是进行条约解释时的重要因素,它旨在找到一种灵活同时又是理性和可预测的条约适用和解释方法。如果将有关条约视为“活的文书”,就应该考虑到国际社会法律环境的变化或新需求的出现,而缔约国的嗣后协定和嗣后惯例是对根据条约规则宗旨对条约义务作出动态解释的方法。了解嗣后惯例行为的发展如何影响现行条文,在任何法律制度下都十分重要。WTO争端解决的实践为嗣后惯例解释方法的研究提供了丰富的材料,本文拟通过WTO争端解决机构的嗣后惯例解释实践对该问题进行分析,重点讨论在具体案件当中专家组和上诉机构如何分析惯行(practice)以及如何科学谨慎适用该解释方法,而了解这些规则对国家,国际组织的争端解决实践具有重要的指导意义。本文主体共分为四个部分。第一部分导言,介绍了联合国的国际法委员会和第六委员会认识到嗣后惯例的法律问题,对这一问题的现实性进行分析并介绍设立“条约随时间演变”专题的工作进程和研究思路。第二部分,对嗣后惯例和维也纳条约法公约第31.3条(b)进行解读,以确定在适用过程中存在着哪些共识。接着,分析了在维也纳条约法公约发展过程中的国家干预,得出国家对嗣后惯例所持的态度。尽管条约法最终删除了条约义务非正式修订的草案第38条,但是嗣后惯例却可以作为解释的一种方法被缔约方所接受,并围绕此点展开论证。最终认定,对嗣后惯例进行形式上的区分表明,国家不确定嗣后惯例的某些运用是否和在多大程度上妨碍条约法中的一致同意原则相关。因此,在条约法公约起草期间缔约国有意让公约对嗣后惯例的规范模糊化。第三部分探讨了世贸组织专家组和上诉机构针对嗣后惯例的裁决报告。鉴于这样的期待,在将嗣后惯例作为解释性方法应用时,更好的导向性会增加普遍性多边条约体系的协调性。笔者认为,专家组和上诉机构的裁决为嗣后惯例在条约解释和修改的意义定义提供了导向,而且这项主导体制为潜在的、对嗣后惯例的两步分析法提供了基础,特别是在普遍性的多边条约体制的环境中,建议以当事方的行为建立符合第31.3条(b)的权威解释。在第四部分中,以两步法为基础,从专家组和上诉机构的裁决中提出了更好的三步分析框架,以此更好适用维也纳第31.3条(b)。为了迎合普遍性多边条约体制中对法律义务解释的高标准需求,笔者提出了一个运用维也纳公约第31.3条(b)的模式,该模式分析了惯例的特点、惯例一致性、普遍性、连续性的程度,和惯例在多大程度范围内可以包含协议的意思。
[Abstract]:Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice are important elements in the interpretation of treaties, which aim at finding a flexible, rational and predictable method of treaty application and interpretation. If the treaty in question is considered a "living instrument", it should take into account changes in the legal environment of the international community or the emergence of new needs, Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of the parties are the means of dynamic interpretation of treaty obligations in accordance with the purposes of the treaty rules. Understanding how the conduct of subsequent practice affects existing provisions and that the practice of WTO dispute settlement provides a wealth of material for the study of methods of interpretation of subsequent practice in any legal system, This paper intends to analyze the problem through the subsequent practice interpretation practice of the WTO dispute settlement body, focusing on how the panel of experts and the appellate body analyze the practice of practice in a specific case and how to apply the interpretation method scientifically and prudently. Understanding these rules is of great significance to the practice of dispute settlement in countries and international organizations. The main body of this paper is divided into four parts. Part I, introduction, on the legal aspects of the recognition of subsequent practice by the International Law Commission of the United Nations and the sixth Committee, This paper analyzes the reality of this problem and introduces the working process and research ideas for the establishment of the topic "treaties over time". Part II: interpretation of subsequent practice and article 31.3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties to determine what consensus exists in its application. Then, the state intervention in the development of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties is analyzed, and the attitude of the State towards subsequent practice is obtained. Although the law of treaties had eventually deleted draft article 38, which had been informally revised on treaty obligations, subsequent practice could be accepted by the parties as a means of interpretation and was justified. The final finding is that the formal distinction between subsequent practice indicates that States are uncertain as to whether certain applications of subsequent practice are relevant to the extent to which the principle of consent in the law of treaties is impeded. Thus, during the drafting of a convention on the law of treaties, the parties intended to obscure the convention's norms of subsequent practice. The third part discusses the WTO panel and appellate body's decision report on subsequent practice. In view of this expectation, better guidance in the application of subsequent practice as an interpretative method would enhance the coherence of the universal multilateral treaty system. The author believes that the decisions of the panel of experts and the appellate body provide guidance for the definition of the meaning of subsequent practice in the interpretation and modification of treaties, and this dominant system provides the basis for a potential two-step analysis of subsequent practice. In particular, in the context of a universal multilateral treaty regime, it is recommended that an authoritative interpretation consistent with article 31.3 (b) be established by the conduct of the parties. In part IV, based on the two-step approach, a better three-step analytical framework is proposed from the decisions of the panel of experts and the appellate body in order to better apply article 31.3 of Vienna. In order to meet the high standard demand of interpretation of legal obligation in universal multilateral treaty system, the author puts forward a model of applying article 31.3 of the Vienna Convention, which analyzes the characteristics of practice, consistency of practice, universality, etc. The degree of continuity, and the extent to which conventions can contain the meaning of an agreement.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.1

【参考文献】