国际司法实践中的类比推理研究

发布时间：2018-06-26 06:33

本文选题：类比 + 类推　；参考：《中国政法大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：不同的时代面临不同的国际法问题。上世纪初,由于国际法的发展程度还不够充分,劳特派特主张要通过类比国内私法的方法来应对国际法本身不能为国际争端提供充分解决方案的困境。他将这种类比视为是对《常设国际法院规约》第38条“文明各国所承认的一般法律原则”的适用。一百多年后的今天,国际法已得到充分发展,并出现细分化和碎片化两个趋势。但是,国际法的某些新兴领域仍只存在较少的规则。因此,有必要把目光从国内法类比转向国际法类比,考察国际性法院或法庭是如何在国际法不同分支领域之间进行类比的。本文第一章主要阐述相关的理论背景与研究现状,以便对笔者的全文观点和论证进行铺垫。首先,本章提供了一个关于类比的广义概念。接着,本文对类比进行了类型化分析,进而提出三种不同的类比方法,并探讨国际法不同分支领域间的类比所存在的特殊性。随后,本章重点分析了国际法类比的渊源规则。笔者认为,国际法发挥功用所处的环境与国内法所处的环境具有极大的不同,导致类比国内法具有极大的局限性,而基于国际法的类比则具有更大的适用空间。第二章、第三章和第四章是本文的主体部分。笔者经过收集与梳理判例,发现广义类比的三种类比方法在国际司法实践中均能找到实例而由此证明其存在。据此,本文分三章进行专题研究:第二章对第一种类比方法(类比论证)的适用条件和例外情形进行了提炼与分析。该章主张类比论证的前提是存在法律漏洞,而法律漏洞与“法律不明”属于不同意义层面并且可以共存的两个问题。其次,笔者认为类比论证不能违反国家同意原则,且可以依据更高的规则或理由推断出国家的默示同意或预设同意。第三,自足制度、固有权力或者不同位阶的国际法规则等情形的存在将会对类比的适用造成限制。第三章,笔者讨论了国际司法实践不同于普通法传统的特性,主张类推与遵循先例具有本质区别。该章认为第二种类比方法(类推)本质上是对《国际法院规约》第38条第一款D项“司法判例作为确定法律规则之辅助手段”的适用,这体现了国际司法与普通法对于在先案例的不同使用方式。第四章则提出第三种类比方法(类比解释)也具有实在法基础,是对《维也纳条约法公约》第31条第三款丙项“适用于当事国间关系之任何有关国际法规则”,以及第32条“缔约之情况”的适用。基于案例分析,该章还主张,适用上述条款的情形并不一定都属于类比解释的推理模式。本文的结论部分分别从描述性分析角度、规范性分析角度以及功能性分析角度出发,指出国际法不同分支间的类比既是有规律可循的,也有逻辑说服力和实在法基础的。更重要的是,在国际法碎片化的当代,国际法规则之间的类比具有整合不同国际法规则体系的重要作用,将促进国际法秩序向更加协调与连贯的方向发展。
[Abstract]:Different times are facing different problems of international law. At the beginning of the last century, because the development of international law was not enough, he advocated the dilemma that international law could not provide adequate solutions for international disputes by analogy to domestic private law. He considered the analogy to the statute of the permanent International Court of Justice thirty-eighth. The application of "general legal principles recognized by all civilizations". More than 100 years later, international law has been fully developed and there are two trends of fine differentiation and fragmentation. However, there are still only a few rules in some emerging fields of international law. Therefore, it is necessary to turn the light from domestic law analogies to international law analogies and investigate countries. The first chapter of this paper mainly expounds the relevant theoretical background and research status so as to pave the way for the author's full text views and argumentation. First, this chapter provides a generalized concept of analogy. Then, this paper makes a typed classification of analogies. Then three different analogies are proposed and the particularity of the analogy between different branches of international law is discussed. Then, this chapter focuses on the analysis of the origin of the analogy of international law. The author believes that the environment in which international law exerts its function is very different from that of domestic law, which leads to the analogy of domestic law. The second chapter, the third chapter and the fourth chapter are the main part of this article. After collecting and combing the cases, the author finds that the three categories of the generalized analogy can find an example in the international judicial practice and prove its existence. Accordingly, this article is divided into three chapters. The second chapter refines and analyzes the applicable conditions and exceptions of the first category ratio method (analogy argument). This chapter advocates that the premise of the analogy argument is the existence of legal loopholes, while the legal loopholes and the "legal unknown" belong to the two problems of different meaning and can coexist. Secondly, the author thinks that the analogy argument is proved. It can not violate the principle of state consent, and can deduce the implied consent or presupposition consent of the state on the basis of higher rules or reasons. Third, the existence of the self-sufficient system, the inherent power or the international law rules of different rank will restrict the application of the analogy. The third chapter, the author discusses that the international judicial practice is different from the common practice. The characteristics of the legal tradition have the essential difference between the analogy and the precedent. This chapter holds that the second species ratio method is essentially the application of the thirty-eighth first paragraph D of the International Court of justice "judicial precedent as an auxiliary means of determining the rules of the law", which embodies the different use of International Justice and common law for the previous cases. The fourth chapter proposes that the third species ratio method (analogical interpretation) also has the basis of reality. It is an appropriate use of the "any relevant international law rules applicable to the relations between the parties" in the thirty-first article of the Vienna Convention on the law of the Treaty of treaties, and the appropriate use of the thirty-second "contracting parties". The conclusion of this paper is not necessarily the reasoning model of analogy interpretation. The conclusion of this paper, from the perspective of descriptive analysis, normative analysis and functional analysis, points out that the analogy between different branches of international law is both regular, logical and practical, and more importantly, in the country. With the fragmentation of the international law, the analogy between the rules of international law plays an important role in the integration of different rules of international law. It will promote the development of the international law order in the direction of more coordination and coherence.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D99

【相似文献】