《联合国海洋法公约》下仲裁法庭对海洋争端的管辖权研究

发布时间：2018-08-18 08:38

【摘要】：《联合国海洋法公约》无疑是国际法发展过程中的一项重要成就,它在世界范围内建立起了一套海洋法律规则,作为海洋法领域的纲领性文件对国际海洋秩序进行了全局性的调整。为了促进海洋争端的有效解决,公约在充分尊重缔约国自由意志的基础上设立了一套强制争端解决机制,该机制提供了四种强制途径来解决争端,其中就包括依据公约附件七组成的仲裁法庭,本文即以该仲裁法庭的管辖权问题作为研究对象与主题。仲裁作为一种公正、灵活的法律方法,长久以来在国际争端解决上发挥了重要作用。《联合国海洋法公约》不仅将仲裁列为强制争端解决程序之一,还将其设置为强制争端解决机制的兜底管辖方式,除公约允许的限制与例外,缔约国不被允许任意排除仲裁法庭的强制管辖。仲裁法庭在公约争端解决机制中的地位可见一斑。中国作为公约缔约国以及海洋争端多发国,虽然在国际争端解决上一向主张以和平谈判协商解决,但条约必须信守,中国依然受制于公约的争端解决机制,因此处于随时可能被提起强制仲裁的被动地位。中国正在面临的中菲南海仲裁就是菲律宾援用公约强制争端解决机制的结果。因此,中国应当重视对仲裁法庭管辖权的研究以及相关对策的制定,特别是应当充分把握与利用公约对仲裁法庭管辖权的诸项限制,确保在公约的框架下最大限度捍卫本国的海洋权益。本文正文共分四章,围绕着仲裁法庭管辖权这一核心展开,逐层深入。第一章为概述。主要内容是对仲裁法庭以及仲裁法庭管辖权进行概念性和特征性的界定与介绍。本文将“仲裁法庭”界定为一种依据《联合国海洋法公约》附件七组建的对公约规定的海洋争端行使强制管辖权的非常设争端解决机构,与国际法院、国际海洋法法庭等国际争端解决途径相比具有非常设性和灵活性。相应的,本文将“仲裁法庭管辖权”界定为《联合国海洋法公约》下作为强制争端解决途径的仲裁法庭基于当事方同意对争端具有的有拘束力的审理和裁判的权力和权限,从特点上来看,本文研究的仲裁法庭管辖权属于意思自治下的强制管辖,并且在公约的强制争端解决机制中具有兜底性。第二章“仲裁法庭的管辖权基础和管辖范围”是本文的核心。首先,本章从法律基础、法理基础和具体来源三个方面剖析了仲裁法庭的管辖权基础,其中,《联合国海洋法公约》毫无疑问是仲裁法庭行使管辖权的法律基础,而国家同意原则和条约必须遵守原则为仲裁法庭管辖权提供了法理基础,具体到案件来看,仲裁法庭取得管辖权有三种途径:因当事方声明选择而获得、因当事方默认选择而获得以及因当事方未一致选择导致获得。其次,本章从对人管辖、对事管辖、管辖限制三个方面介绍了仲裁法庭的管辖范围,总结来说,仲裁法庭对缔约国、缔约的国际组织、缔约的自治联系国、自治领土以及其他相关实体有关公约的解释或适用的争端,以及在满足特定条件的情况下对有关其他协定的解释或适用的争端具有管辖权,此外仲裁法庭还是管辖权异议的管辖主体。当然公约也对仲裁法庭的管辖权范围设定了限制和例外,这主要表现为公约排除了仲裁对有关海洋科学研究和渔业争端的强制管辖,以及缔约国可声明排除仲裁法庭对有关海洋划界、领土和军事活动的争端以及联合国安理会正在处理的争端的强制管辖。最后,本章分析了仲裁法庭行使管辖权的条件,其中包括交换意见义务、协议限制、用尽当地补救办法等。第三章为案例评析。本章选取了三个由公约仲裁法庭审理的在管辖权问题上具有代表性与研究价值的案件,包括麦氏金枪鱼案、巴巴多斯诉特立尼达和多巴哥案和MOX工厂案,分别从管辖权异议的由来、争端各方意见、仲裁法庭意见以及案件评析等多方面对案件的管辖权问题进行展开,目的就在于通过实例呈现公约关于仲裁法庭管辖权的规定在实务中的运用以及仲裁法庭在实践中审查管辖权问题的逻辑和思路。第四章“仲裁法庭管辖权的应对及中国对策分析”是全文的落脚点,也是本文研究意义之所在。本章的第一节对中国对待仲裁法庭管辖权的立场进行了介绍,结论为中国没有主动选择仲裁程序为可接受的强制争端解决途径,并且在公约允许的范围内最大限度排除了仲裁法庭的强制管辖,虽然仲裁法庭作为兜底管辖程序依然有可能管辖中国作为当事国的海洋争端,但这仅仅是公约要求的结果,而并非出于中国的意愿。中国对待仲裁法庭的立场是其对法律途径解决国际争端的一贯保守和谨慎态度的坚持。基于此,本章第二节对中国正视仲裁法庭管辖权的重要性进行了分析,一方面从仲裁法庭的强制管辖和保底管辖论证了其必要性,另一方面以仲裁程序的可取性结合海洋仲裁实践对合理性进行了论证。本章第三节是本文的精髓所在,就中国应对仲裁法庭管辖的策略进行了分析,并提出了以公约为武器维护本国利益的建议,具体来说,中国应当善用仲裁规则、充分运用公约权利,同时选择合适的时机主动援用仲裁程序来维护本国利益。最后,针对中国正在面临的南海争端仲裁,本文从法律角度对照公约规定对该案的管辖权问题进行了梳理并且重点关注的是可能对中国一方不利的事项,以此法律分析为基础,文章对中国的“不接受、不参与”立场进行了研究和做出肯定,并且就仲裁法庭程序的进一步应对提出了自己的建议。结语部分是对正文内容的简要概括和总结。
[Abstract]:The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is undoubtedly an important achievement in the development of international law. It has established a set of ocean law rules all over the world. As a programmatic document in the field of the law of the sea, it has made a comprehensive adjustment to the international ocean order. In order to promote the effective settlement of ocean disputes, the Convention fully respects the contracting parties. On the basis of free will, a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism has been set up, which provides four compulsory ways to settle disputes, including the arbitral tribunal constituted according to Annex VII of the Convention. This paper takes the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal as the research object and subject. Arbitration is a fair and flexible legal method. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea not only lists arbitration as one of the compulsory dispute settlement procedures, but also sets it as the sole jurisdiction of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism. Except for the limitations and exceptions permitted by the Convention, the Contracting States are not allowed to arbitrarily exclude the compulsory jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. China, as a contracting party to the Convention and a maritime dispute-prone country, has always advocated peaceful negotiation and settlement of international disputes, but the treaty must be abided by. China is still subject to the dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention and is therefore at any time likely to be referred to compulsory arbitration. China's arbitration in the South China Sea is the result of the Philippines'application of the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism under the Convention. Therefore, China should attach importance to the study of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the formulation of relevant countermeasures, especially the limitations of the Convention on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, so as to ensure its existence in the Convention. The main body of this article is divided into four chapters, which focus on the core of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and go deep into each layer. The first chapter is an overview. The main content is to define and introduce the conceptual and characteristic jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral tribunal. A non-permanent dispute settlement body, which is set up on the basis of Annex VII of UNCLOS and exercises compulsory jurisdiction over maritime disputes stipulated in the Convention, is very constructive and flexible compared with international dispute settlement channels such as the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as a means of compulsory dispute settlement, has binding jurisdiction and jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate disputes on the basis of the consent of the parties. From the point of view of its characteristics, the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal studied in this paper is compulsory jurisdiction under the autonomy of will, and it has a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism in the Convention. Chapter II "The Jurisdictional Basis and Scope of the Arbitral Tribunal" is the core of this article. First, this chapter analyzes the jurisdictional basis of the arbitral tribunal from three aspects: legal basis, legal basis and specific sources. Among them, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is undoubtedly the legal basis for the arbitral tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction, while the state is the legal basis for the arbitral tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction. The principle of consent and the principle that treaties must be observed provide a legal basis for the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Specifically speaking, there are three ways for the arbitral tribunal to acquire jurisdiction: the choice made by the parties'declaration, the default choice made by the parties and the inconsistency of the parties' choice. The jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal is introduced in three aspects: jurisdiction, jurisdictional limitation. In conclusion, the arbitral tribunal's interpretation or application of the relevant conventions to contracting states, contracting international organizations, contracting autonomous associated states, autonomous territories and other relevant entities, as well as its interpretation of other agreements under certain conditions are discussed. Disputes of interpretation or application have jurisdiction, and the arbitral tribunal is also the subject of jurisdictional objections. Of course, the Convention also sets limits and exceptions to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. This is mainly manifested in the fact that the Convention excludes arbitration from compulsory jurisdiction over disputes concerning marine scientific research and fisheries, and that States Parties may declare that arbitration is excluded. The court's compulsory jurisdiction over disputes concerning maritime delimitation, territorial and military activities, and disputes being dealt with by the United Nations Security Council. Finally, this chapter analyzes the conditions under which the arbitral tribunal exercises its jurisdiction, including the obligation to exchange opinions, the limitation of agreements, the exhaustion of local remedies, etc. Chapter III is a case study. The arbitral tribunal of the Convention has dealt with cases of representative and research value on jurisdiction issues, including the McDonald's Tuna case, Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago case and MOX Factory case, respectively, from the origin of jurisdictional objections, the opinions of the parties to the dispute, the opinions of the arbitral tribunal and the analysis of the cases. The purpose of the dissertation is to present the application of the provisions of the Convention on the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals in practice and the logic and thinking of examining the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals in practice. Section I of this chapter introduces China's position on the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals, and concludes that China has not taken the initiative to choose arbitral proceedings as an acceptable means of compulsory dispute settlement, and that the compulsory jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals is excluded to the maximum extent permitted by the Convention, although the arbitral tribunal is still regarded as a sole jurisdiction procedure. It is possible to jurisdiction over China's maritime disputes as a party, but this is only the result of the requirements of the Convention and not out of China's will. China's position on the arbitral tribunal is its consistent conservative and prudent attitude towards the settlement of international disputes by legal means. Therefore, the second section of this chapter focuses on China's confrontation with the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Necessity is analyzed. On the one hand, the necessity of the arbitral tribunal's compulsory jurisdiction and the protection jurisdiction is demonstrated. On the other hand, the rationality is demonstrated by the advisability of arbitral procedure combined with the practice of maritime arbitration. Specifically, China should make good use of the arbitration rules, make full use of the rights of the convention, and actively use the arbitration procedure to safeguard its own interests at an appropriate time. Finally, in view of the South China Sea dispute arbitration that China is facing, this paper compares the jurisdiction of the case stipulated in the convention from a legal point of view. On the basis of this legal analysis, the article studies and affirms China's position of "no acceptance, no participation" and puts forward its own suggestions on how to further deal with the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal. Summarize and summarize.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D993.5

【共引文献】