国际法院解决领土争端中的证据问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-16 05:27

本文选题：国际法院 + 领土争端　；参考：《华东政法大学》2011年博士论文

【摘要】：在任何一种法律制度之下,由于对争议事实的认定,在于对证据的占有、审查、评价和运用,因而证据对争端解决都是十分重要的。在领土争端解决程序中,证据问题涉及领土主权的最终归属和边界争端的解决,为此,国际法院在解决当事国领土争端中已经初步确立了一套证据规则体系。虽然国际法院并非超国家的司法机构,但在理论上对促进国际法治和国际习惯法的形成具有重要的推动作用。同时,国际法院在领土争端中所适用的一些具体证据规则已经为多数国家的领土争端提供了借鉴作用,并为之付诸于相关的实践。本文共分六章,主要内容包括:国际法院解决领土争端中证据的提供与获取;证据的可采性及排除规则;证明责任的分配、适用的证明标准和证据分量的审查、判断及分量大小的认定规则;口头证据和专家意见的运用;国际法院证据规则对我国领土争端解决的借鉴等。第一章关于国际法院解决领土争端中证据的提供与获取。其一,当事方权利与责任。国际法院在司法实践中基于国家主权平等原则和自治性的要求,始终坚持当事方提供证据自由原则。而对于当事人证据披露的义务,从某种程度上,仅具有一定的“自愿”性质,而非具有强制性。然而,鉴于争议领土主权的归属对于一国的极端重要性,因此,当事方根据证据自由的原则提供了过于繁杂的证据,给国际法院造成了沉重的证据审查负担。基于此,国际法院可以限制当事人提交证据的数量或卷数,以及在事实和证据问题审查上引入预先程序等,从而使得当事方在提供证据方面能够更有鉴别力,以便于争议的有效解决。其二,截止2010年底,在领土争端中共有4个案件涉及第三方申请参加之诉的情况。鉴于允许第三方参加诉讼,可能存在迟延当事方正常的诉讼程序的风险,因此,国际法院在申请书及所附证据提交的时间、参加诉讼的必要条件等方面作出了严格的限制。但是,“在申请书中附上可以佐证的文件目录,这类文件应随文送致”的规定,并没有要求一国申请参加之诉时必须提交书面证据。质言之,只有一国被允许参加之诉,或者申请书中列明支持其参加诉讼主张的证据,才能要求申请参加诉讼者附上可以佐证的文件目录,而不是其相反。其三,国际法院享有对于证据的收集采取相应措施的权力,如要求当事方补充文件、解释相关的证据、询问证人、传唤证人,委派专家和实地调查等。尽管国际法院享有自行补充证据的权力,以弥补当事方提供证据所存在的缺陷或不足,但国际法院基于当事国主权平等的原则,仅将自己的功能限制在对当事方提交证据的审查、判断基础之上,因而很少行使传唤证人,委派专家、实地调查等权力。因此,国际法院可以借鉴其他领域争端解决的具体规则,积极行使《国际法院规约》以及《国际法院规则》所赋予的各项权力,以利于查明事实,进而作出准确的判决等。第二章主要论述国际法院解决领土争端中的证据可采性问题。主要内容包括证据提交一般程序对证据可采性的影响;证据的可采性规则;关键日期与证据可采性;证据的分量与证据的可采性,以及证据的排除规则等。通常,书面证据应按照国际法院规定的顺序和时限内提交,只要当事方按照规定的要求,证据一般是可采的。否则,迟延提交的证据不具有可采性,除非另一方同意或未表示反对,法院在听取双方的意见后,如认为必要,可以授权提供该文件。在领土争端的实践中,国内证据法中规定的可采性条件一般得以被国际法院所承认并适用。而且,基于领土争端性质的特殊性,也产生了一些具体的限制规则。对于国际法院而言,关键日期的选择对当事方所提供的关于领土争端的证据的相关性非常重要。关键日期一般决定着证据的可采性。对于在关键日期之后当事方的行为,国际法院通常不予以考虑,除非该行为是先前行为的正常继续。而且,国际法院强调,在关键日期之后的当事方提供的利己证据,同样不具有可采性,并不存在分量较小的问题。证据的可采性与证据的分量也具有一定的关联。但是,与证据的可采性不同,证据的分量并非一个法律问题,而是一个事实问题。在英美证据法中,那些分量非常小的或没有任何分量的证据将予以排除。但是,国际法院在解决领土争端中,即使一项证据无任何分量,也没有明确将其排除。因而,从实质上而言,它们属于证据的可采信问题,而非可采纳问题。当然,无论是证据的可采纳抑或可采信问题,均涉及证据的分量问题。因为,在确定证据的相关性等问题时不可避免地要对证据的分量进行评价。虽然在领土争端解决的实践中,国际法院对当事方提交的证据可采性一般是相当宽松的。然而,国际法院同样受到国内法体系中的证据可采性限制规则的影响,并事实上将其予以适用。而且,国际法院针对领土争端性质的特殊性,已经通过其司法判例和相关的实践指南初步形成了若干证据的排除规则。如经谈判取得的证据、不相关的证据、缺乏形式上真实性的证据、未经证实的传闻证据,以及禁止反言的证据等,国际法院一般将其予以排除。无疑,这既减轻了国际法院甄别证据可采性的负担,也使得当事方在提交证据之前仔细考虑其证据的相关性、真实性等,从而主动排除一些不适格的证据。第三章国际法院解决领土争端中的证明问题。其一,在证明标准方面,国际法院主要秉承了大陆法系传统,但同时合理吸收了普通法系的传统。但是,鉴于当事国之间领土争端的复杂性,国际法院在解决领土争端实践中通常将“证据优势标准”置于主导地位。不过,国际法院在适用该标准时,经常陷入单纯比较相关证据的分量的游戏。这引起了国际社会对国际法院权威的一定质疑。实际上,国际法院内部也存在不同的声音。鉴于“证据优势标准”确定性程度相对较低,而“排除合理怀疑标准”定位过高,因此,今后一阶段国际法院在解决领土争端方面的证明标准应界定为“清晰和令人信服的标准”。这也是国际法院证明标准倾向灵活性和当事国要求确定性的意志相互协调的必然要求。其二,关于领土争端解决中的证明责任问题。一般由提出事实主张的一方承担证明责任。但是,在特殊情况下,国际法院在适用该项原则时,可以平等分配当事方的证明责任。显然,由于领土争端的特殊性和复杂性,国际法院不再单纯依赖于传统上的原告/被告二分法。一般来说,对于当事一方提交的领土争端诉讼案,证明责任由申诉方承担,辩诉方仅承担消极的主张责任。但是,对于那些当事方通过协议提交的领土争端,证明责任的分配并不依赖于当事人在其特别协定中规定条款,而由国际法院根据每一个领土争端的案件具体情况进行适当分配。而且,也不存在证明责任转移的问题。对于参加诉讼方而言,其证明责任的范围,与当事国之间存有不同。它仅需要证明可能,而非那些将要或一定影响其法律性质的利益,且该证明责任应由参加诉讼国承担,而非法庭的职责等。与此同时,对于当事方事实清楚的部分或没有争议的事项,或者因为法官知法,将不会产生证明责任的相关问题。其三,在解决领土争端方面,国际法院所适用的推定主要包括不可反驳的法律推定、可反驳的法律推定和事实推定等。通常,可反驳的法律推定可以通过证据推翻推定的事实,并且与证明责任的转移存在着关联性。但是,可反驳的法律推定的适用仅部分转移了当事人提出证据的责任,并非对全部证明责任的颠倒。不可反驳的推定不能通过其他证据予以推翻。而且,它可能解除或加重原告的证明责任。其效力在于结论性证明推定事实,它可以使得申诉方无需承担证明责任,或者如果推定支持相对方,申诉方将不可能解除证明责任。与之相比,事实推定对于国际法院评价当事人的主张是一个有用的证明方法。在那些没有直接证据可以利用的情况下,依赖于从相关的事实中得出的推论,可以有利于法院决定当事国的证明责任是否得以解除;同时,事实推定仅仅意味着事实已经得以证明,证明责任(说服责任)并没有被转移。第四章主要涉及证据的种类、证据分量的审查判断及分量大小的认定规则。一般而言,国际法院庭前证据主要包括书面证据、证词和专家证据。书面证据为一般原则,证词和专家证据则为例外。在实践中,国际法院已经根据个案的情况赋予了这些证据不同的分量。而且,在证据分量大小的认定方面,国际法院在解决领土争端时,隐含适用了一项相应的证据规则。即国际条约的分量大于其他书面证据的分量;其他书面证据的分量一般大于初始性证据的分量;官方行为的分量一般大于私人行为。但是,国际法院在具体的司法判例中,审查判断当事国提交的证据证明价值时过于灵活。甚至,将未经批准的条约赋予法律效力,作为判案的可采信证据。无疑,这侵蚀了当事国的国内宪法性功能。与条约的适用类似,保持占有原则也没有带来更加稳定的国际边界。确切的说,尽管保持占有原则在非洲和拉丁美洲取得了较大成功,但并没有有效解决领土争端的根本问题,它仅迟延了问题出现表面化而已。而且,有效控制原则趋于滥用。对于国际法院初具雏形的证据分量大小的认定规则,应当进行辩证分析。一则,对国际法院赋予未经批准的条约以法律效力应当持否定态度;二则,对于那些建立在保持占有法律和有效控制原则基础上的证据应区别看待。证据分量大小的认定规则一般应为:有效的国际条约初始性权利证据/有效控制证据有效控制证据初始性权利证据未生效条约、瑕疵法律行为等其他证据。而对于那些曾为殖民地国家,其分量大小的认定规则如下:有效的国际条约殖民时期立法及其他法律文件殖民期间的有效控制证据后殖民时期的有效控制证据初始性权利证据未生效条约、瑕疵法律行为等其他证据等。第五章国际法院解决领土争端中的言词证据问题。毋庸置疑,在解决领土争端的过程中,根据国际法院规约及法庭规则,当事方有权通过安排证人和专家的方式提供所有的证据。国际法院不得排除此类证据,除非它没有相关性、缺乏真实性等;法院也不能通过命令的方式取消当事方的这种权利。从既往的司法判例来看,尽管国际法院允许当事人提供言词证据,但仍存在若干使用的不足之处。究其原因,主要包括:国际法院自身的本质属性所决定;基于司法实践因素的考虑;案件本身的性质也是决定因素之一。此外,国际法院询问证人的程序过于灵活。总体而言,证人证言尽管在一些领土案件中具有一定的分量,但并没有发挥其应有的证明价值。然而,如果书面证据能够用于补充证人证言和专家意见,无疑这将有利促进证词程序,从而消除一些言词证据相关的问题。通过证人陈述和庭外作证两者合并的方式的潜在适用值得国际法院进一步探究。与此同时,国际法院也没有积极行使委派自己的专家的权力。国际法院可以借鉴国内法程序,同时参考世界贸易组织(WTO)等其他机构的模式,设立专家库或指示名单。这些专家可以由各国推荐,国际法院进行遴选;或者由国际法院直接指派一些具有国际威望的各个领域的专家组成专家委员会,以供国际法院进行咨询,或为了案件的需要委派专家进行实地调查、收集情报和提交报告等。无疑,这在证据的收集方面对领土争端的解决具有重要的价值。第六章国际法院证据规则对我国解决领土和边界争端的借鉴。目前,我国陆地边界多数已经解决,仅有与印度和不丹等国陆地争端仍长期悬而未决。同时,我国是一个海洋地理位置不利的国家。尤其,东海和南海海域划界属于“双重性”争端,其中岛屿的主权归属阻碍了这些海域边界的划分。传统上,我国相对重视历史证据,强调对于这些岛屿享有不可辩驳的主权。然而,我国藏南地区、钓鱼岛列屿、南沙群岛部分岛礁等领土正分别遭到印度、日本、越南、马来西亚、菲律宾等邻国蚕食及实际控制。因此,从有效控制的角度,我国处于不利的情势。本章借鉴了国际法院“条约的分量大于有效控制证据的分量”的认定规则,结合相关的司法判例,提出了国际法院采信有效统治证据,将领土的主权判决给实际控制方的趋势日益明显的观点。基于此,我国在以后处理与邻国的领土争端中,应充分借鉴国际法院的证据规则,除了继续挖掘历史证据外,对于钓鱼岛列屿、中印边界和领土争端、南沙群岛所涉及的条约重点展开研究,进一步为我国的领土主权的维护提供条约证据方面的支持。同时,应采取必要措施加强对争议区域的主权宣示行为,进而从有效控制证据层面积极应对他国的主张。概言之,通过采取多种证据收集并举的方式,切实维护我国的领土主权和海洋权益。
[Abstract]:in that dispute settlement procedure of the territorial dispute , the issue of evidence relate to the final attribution of territorial sovereignty and the settlement of the border dispute .

This paper is divided into six chapters . The main contents include the provision and acquisition of evidence in the dispute of the territorial disputes by the International Court of Justice ; the admissibility and the rule of exclusion of evidence ; the examination of the burden of proof , the application of the standard of proof and the determination of the component size ; the application of oral evidence and expert opinion ; and the reference to the settlement of the territorial dispute of our country by the rules of evidence of the International Court of Justice .

Chapter I on the provision and acquisition of evidence in the settlement of territorial disputes by the International Court of Justice . First , the rights and responsibilities of the parties . The International Court of Justice , based on the principle of sovereign equality and autonomy of States , has always adhered to the principle of freedom of evidence provided by the parties .

Second , as at the end of 2010 , there were four cases involving third - party applications in the territorial dispute . In view of the fact that a third party was allowed to participate in the proceedings , there might be a risk of a delay in the proceedings of the parties , so that , in the application and the attached evidence , the Court had to submit documentary evidence . In short , only one State was allowed to participate in the proceedings , or the application set out evidence in support of its participation in the proceedings before the application was required to attach a documentary catalogue that could be supported , rather than the contrary .

Third , the International Court of Justice has the power to take appropriate measures for the collection of evidence , such as requiring the parties to supplement the documents , explain the relevant evidence , ask witnesses , summon witnesses , appoint experts and field investigations , etc . The International Court of Justice , despite the principle of the sovereign equality of the parties , has limited its own functions to the examination of the evidence submitted by the parties , on the basis of judgement , and thus rarely exercises the powers conferred by the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the rules of the International Court of Justice , in order to facilitate the identification of facts and , in turn , to make an accurate judgement .

The second chapter mainly discusses the admissibility of the evidence in the settlement of territorial disputes by the International Court of Justice . The main contents include the influence of the general procedure on the admissibility of the evidence , the admissibility of the evidence , the admissibility of the evidence , the admissibility of the evidence and the rule of exclusion of the evidence .

In general , documentary evidence should be submitted in accordance with the order and time limit provided by the International Court of Justice , provided that the evidence is generally recoverable as long as the party follows the requirements of the provision . Otherwise , the evidence submitted does not have the admissibility unless the other party agrees or fails to express its objection . In the practice of territorial disputes , the conditions of admissibility specified in the Domestic Evidence Act are generally recognized and applied by the International Court of Justice . Moreover , in the practice of territorial disputes , specific restrictions are also generated .

In the case of the International Court of Justice , the selection of key dates is of great importance to the relevance of the evidence provided by the parties on the territorial dispute . The key dates generally determine the admissibility of the evidence . The International Court of Justice is generally not taken into account for the conduct of the parties after a critical date unless the conduct is a normal continuation of the previous conduct . Furthermore , the International Court of Justice emphasizes that the evidence provided by the parties after the critical date is equally authentic and does not have a minor component .

But , unlike the admissibility of the evidence , the component of the evidence is not a legal problem , but a fact problem . In the Anglo - American evidence law , the evidence that the components are very small or without any component will be ruled out .

While in the practice of territorial dispute settlement , the admissibility of the evidence submitted by the International Court of Justice to the parties is generally quite liberal . However , the International Court of Justice has , in fact , been excluded from the admissibility of the evidence in the domestic law system .

In the light of the complexity of the territorial dispute between the parties concerned , the International Court of Justice , in the light of the complexity of the territorial dispute between the States parties , often finds itself in a dominant position in the settlement of territorial disputes . However , in view of the complexity of the territorial dispute between the parties , the International Court of Justice has often been caught in a mere comparison of the components of the relevant evidence .

2 . The question of proof of responsibility in the settlement of the territorial dispute is generally borne by one of the parties presenting the facts . However , in exceptional circumstances , the Court of Justice may equally assign the burden of proof to the parties when applying the principle . It is clear that the distribution of responsibilities is not solely dependent on the plaintiff / accused dichotomy in its special agreement . However , it is only necessary to prove the possibility , not those that will or must affect its legal nature , and that the burden of proof should be borne by the participating States rather than the functions of the Tribunal . At the same time , there is no question of proof of responsibility for the part of the party ' s facts or the matter which is not disputed , or because the judge knows the law .

Third , the presumption of the application of the International Court of Justice , in the settlement of territorial disputes , mainly includes the non - refutation of the presumption of law , the presumption of law and the presumption of fact .

In practice , the International Court of Justice , in resolving territorial disputes , implicitly applies a corresponding rule of evidence . In practice , the International Court of Justice , in resolving territorial disputes , implicitly applies a corresponding rule of evidence . In practice , the component of the international treaty is greater than that of other documentary evidence ; the component of other written evidence is generally greater than the component of the initial evidence ; and the component of official conduct is generally greater than private .

However , in a specific jurisprudence , the International Court of Justice examined whether the evidence submitted by the State concerned was too flexible . Even the non - ratified treaties were given the legal effect as admissible evidence of the case . No doubt it had eroded the domestic constitutional function of the States concerned . There was no doubt that this had eroded the domestic constitutional function of the States concerned . It was clear that , despite the greater success of the principle of possession in Africa and Latin America , it had not effectively resolved the fundamental problem of territorial disputes . It had only delayed the surface of the problem . Furthermore , the principle of effective control tends to be abused .

A dialectical analysis should be made for the determination of the size of the evidence component of the first prototype of the International Court of Justice . In one case , there should be a negative attitude towards the validity of an unratified treaty by the International Court of Justice ; and , for those former colonial countries , the rule of recognition of the size of the evidence component would normally be : an effective international treaty colonial period legislation and other evidence of the effective control of evidence in the post - colonial period during the colonial period of effective control of evidence of the existence of evidence of the initial right to control evidence , such as the absence of an effective treaty , and other evidence of legal acts .

Chapter V . The International Court of Justice deals with the question of the evidence of words in a territorial dispute . There is no doubt that , in the settlement of the territorial dispute , the parties have the right to provide all evidence by arranging witnesses and experts , in accordance with the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the rules of the Tribunal .

In addition , the Court asked the witness to be too flexible . In general , the testimony of witnesses , while having a certain component in some of the territory cases , did not exert its due probative value . However , if documentary evidence could be used to supplement the witness testimony and expert opinion , it would certainly be advantageous to promote the testimony procedure , thereby eliminating the question of evidence - related issues . The potential application of the way in which both witness statements and the testimony of the two witnesses were combined merits further inquiry by the International Court of Justice .

At the same time , the International Court of Justice has not been actively exercising the authority to appoint its own experts . The International Court of Justice may draw on domestic law procedures and , at the same time , refer to the modalities of other institutions , such as the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) , to establish a pool of experts or indicators .

At the same time , China is a country with unfavourable geographical position . In particular , China is a country with unfavourable geographical position . In particular , China is a country with unfavorable geographical position . In particular , China is in an unfavourable situation from the perspective of effective control .

On the basis of this , our country should learn from the rules of evidence of the International Court of Justice in the subsequent handling of territorial disputes with neighbouring countries . In addition to continuing to explore historical evidence , it is necessary to study the focus of treaties relating to the sovereignty of the territorial sovereignty of our country . At the same time , we should take the necessary measures to strengthen the sovereignty declaration of the disputed area and to actively respond to the claim of his country from the level of effective control of the evidence .

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D993.1

【引证文献】