一般法律原则的困境与出路——从《国际法院规约》第38条的悖论谈起

发布时间：2018-06-18 00:41

本文选题：一般法律原则 + 自然国际法　；参考：《法学评论》2010年02期

【摘要】：《国际法院规约》第38条的定位存在悖论。一般法律原则被《国际法院规约》规定为正式的判案依据(国际法渊源),但在实践中却仅被国际法院作为辅助渊源使用。一般法律原则面临困境的原因在于,它本属于自然法,却被《国际法院规约》实在主义化后纳入一个被构想为实在的法律适用法的体系中,使得它既发挥不了本身具有的自然法的作用,又不可能脱胎换骨变成《国际法院规约》起草者所期望的实在法,从而成为食之无味弃之可惜的鸡肋。一般法律原则是自然国际法第二层级的渊源,它不属于实在国际法的渊源体系。《国际法院规约》第38条必须不再拘泥于实在法体系且不再被视为国际法渊源的权威表述,才能解决其内部结构混乱、一般法律原则成为鸡肋等问题。
[Abstract]:There is a paradox in article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. General principles of law are stipulated in the Statute of the International Court of Justice as the formal basis for adjudication (sources of international law), but in practice they are used only as auxiliary sources by the International Court of Justice. The reason for the dilemma of the general principle of law lies in that it belongs to natural law, but is incorporated into a system of applicable law which is conceived as the law of reality after being turned into positivism by the Statute of the International Court of Justice. It can not play its own role of natural law, nor can it be transformed into the positive law expected by the drafters of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. General principles of law are sources of the second level of natural international law and do not belong to the system of sources of positive international law. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice must cease to be bound by the system of positive law and shall no longer be regarded as an authoritative expression of sources of international law, In order to solve its internal structure chaos, general legal principles become chicken ribs and other issues.
【作者单位】：武汉大学国际法研究所;
【基金】：武汉大学自主科研项目“国际法哲学的本体研究”(项目编号:09ZZKY063)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D99

【参考文献】