混合争端“有关公约解释或适用”问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-11 10:06

【摘要】：混合争端是指同时涉及《联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称"公约")"解释或适用"问题以及其他国际法问题的争端,领土主权与海洋划界混合争端为其中的典型。国际法院对待混合争端管辖权问题时,一般是争端双方合意管辖的情况,而无需顾及"是否有关公约解释或适用"。然而,公约十五部分强制争端解决程序下的法庭或仲裁庭,一般从公约288条第1款规定的"有关公约解释或适用"角度分析管辖权。领土主权争端与公约"解释或适用"问题无关,但是,鉴于混合争端中的海洋争端部分"有关公约解释或适用",引申出两个关键性问题:第一,公约强制程序下法庭或仲裁庭是否具备管辖权,整体裁决混合争端;第二,混合争端中"有关公约解释或适用"的海洋权益争端部分,在理论和现实层面,是否可以和混合争端中的领土主权争端分开来解决。有学者试图援引所谓的"扩大解释法"和"反向解读法",证明混合争端甚至领土主权争端,在强制程序管辖权范围内,但是,有悖公约缔约方的原始意图,并不可行。而强制程序下仲裁庭在查戈斯仲裁案中运用的"主次关系法"也并不具备普遍适用性。领土主权争端是混合争端主要方面可以理解,但是"主次关系法"解决不了"领土主权作为次要问题是'有关公约解释和适用'问题的次要方面"的逻辑悖论,最后往往陷于分割处理混合争端的境地。有学者类比国际法院在黄金案的判决中形成的"不可或缺第三方"原则,提出"不可或缺第三方"原则的"先决性"、"主题事项"等概念对于解决混合争端"有关公约解释或适用"问题,富有启示意义。在陆地决定海洋原则框架下,通过类比"不可或缺第三方"法,得到"领土争端是混合争端中具备先决性的主题事项"。在领土争端没有另一个管辖权基础覆盖管辖的情况下,混合争端整体不符合公约解释或适用。仲裁庭在查戈斯仲裁案和南海仲裁案中,强行分割混合争端,单独处理表面"有关公约解释或适用"的海洋权益问题以满足管辖权的做法,在法理上说不通;现实层面上,也无益于争端解决。
[Abstract]:A mixed dispute is a dispute involving the interpretation or application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) as well as other international law issues. The mixed dispute between territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation is a typical one. When the International Court of Justice deals with the jurisdiction of mixed disputes, it is generally a matter of consensual jurisdiction of the parties to the dispute, without regard to "whether the Convention is to be interpreted or applied". However, a tribunal or arbitral tribunal under a compulsory dispute settlement procedure under part XV of the Convention generally analyses jurisdiction from the "interpretation or application of the relevant convention" as provided for in article 288, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Territorial sovereignty disputes have nothing to do with the "interpretation or application" of the Convention, but, in view of the "interpretation or application of the Convention" in the maritime dispute section of mixed disputes, two key issues arise: first, Whether a tribunal or an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate a mixed dispute as a whole under the compulsory procedure of the Convention; second, the maritime rights and interests dispute part of a mixed dispute "relevant to the interpretation or application of the Convention", in both theoretical and practical terms. Whether it can be resolved separately from the territorial sovereignty dispute in a mixed dispute. Some scholars have tried to invoke the so-called "extended interpretation" and "reverse interpretation" to prove that mixed disputes and even territorial sovereignty disputes are within the jurisdiction of compulsory proceedings, but contrary to the original intention of the parties to the Convention, is not feasible. Moreover, the principal and secondary relationship law used by the arbitral tribunal in Chagos arbitration case under compulsory procedure is not universally applicable. Territorial sovereignty disputes are understandable as a major aspect of mixed disputes, but the Law on Principal and Secondary Relations cannot resolve the logical paradox that "territorial sovereignty as a secondary issue is a secondary aspect of the question of the interpretation and application of the Convention". At the end of the day, they often fall into the position of dividing and dealing with mixed disputes. Some scholars have analogous to the "indispensable third party" principle formed in the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Gold case, The concepts of "pre-determination" and "subject matter" of the principle of "indispensable third party" are instructive for solving the problem of "interpretation or application of relevant conventions" in mixed disputes. In the framework of the principle of determining the sea on land, by analogy with the law of "indispensable third parties", it is concluded that "territorial disputes are the subject matter of mixed disputes". In cases where territorial disputes do not have another jurisdictional basis to cover jurisdiction, mixed disputes as a whole are inconsistent with the interpretation or application of the Convention. In the Chagos arbitration case and the South China Sea arbitration case, the arbitral tribunal forced the division of mixed disputes and dealt separately with the maritime rights and interests on the surface of "interpretation or application of the relevant convention" in order to satisfy its jurisdiction. Nor is it conducive to the settlement of disputes.
【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D993.5

【相似文献】