国际司法机构管辖权冲突问题研究
发布时间：2019-05-18 16:39
【摘要】：20世纪是国际法迅速扩张的主要时期,从这个时期国际法发展总的结果看来,国际法的不断扩张逐渐填补了国际关系规范的空白。但是,随着国际社会的发展,近几十年来国际间相互依赖加深,使得国家对国际法争端解决机构的态度发生了显著变化。这体现了国际争端解决机制朝着机构化推进,即从特设程序发展为新的永久性程序。因此,许多国家越来越倾向于将涉及国际法重要领域的争端提交审判,并基于此目的,接受具有强制管辖权的常设国际性法院和法庭管辖。 在国际司法机构大量建立并得到国家认同的同时,国际司法机构面临诸多不容忽视的问题。在缺乏中央立法机关的情况下,大量新的司法机构与准司法机构地产生与扩散导致其在很大程度上难以协调。另外,国际法院与法庭的管辖权会产生重叠,即一个确定的争端会被提交一个以上的司法机构审查。产生这种情况的原因主要基于以下几个方面:第一,传统管辖权规则,如未决案件原则与已决案件原则适用存在障碍,并缺少国际统一的判定标准;第二,主张强制管辖权的国际司法机构增多;第三,不同国际司法机构赋予诉讼主体的地位不同,并有些国际司法机构主张超越国家的属人管辖权;第四,建立国际司法机构的国际规约未对管辖权范围做出详细界定。 以上原因导致国际司法机构间的管辖权冲突的产生,而这种问题伴随着国际司法机构地扩散将会日趋严重。从而导致其与相同或不同国内司法体系的尴尬局面,并造成如挑选法院,平行诉讼,缺少最终判决,判决相互矛盾,最终加速国际的碎片化。从近年来国际司法机构审判的案件,如爱尔兰诉英国案和智利诉欧洲共同体案看来,国家基于自身利益最大化的考虑,期望选择对自身有利的司法机构进行审理,而国际司法机构由缺少统一的对管辖权的调整规则,由此造成国际法碎片化加剧并浪费国际司法资源。 为了解决这一问题,需要从国际司法和国际政治两方面进行改革,但当前条件下改革国际法院与法庭体系难以实现,而应当考虑采用较为温和的方式,并借鉴基于国际私法所提出的国际礼让原则,同时辅以国际司法机构间信息交换,最终减少国际法院与法庭的管辖权冲突。
[Abstract]:The 20th century is the main period of the rapid expansion of international law. From the general result of the development of international law in this period, the continuous expansion of international law has gradually filled in the blank of the norms of international relations. However, with the development of the international community and the deepening of international interdependence in recent decades, the attitude of countries towards international dispute settlement bodies has changed significantly. This shows that the international dispute settlement mechanism is moving towards institutionalization, that is, from ad hoc procedures to new permanent procedures. As a result, many States are increasingly inclined to bring disputes involving important areas of international law to trial and, for this purpose, to accept the jurisdiction of permanent international courts and courts with compulsory jurisdiction. While a large number of international judicial institutions have been established and recognized by the state, the international judicial institutions are facing many problems that can not be ignored. In the absence of a central legislature, the emergence and proliferation of a large number of new judicial and quasi-judicial institutions make it difficult to coordinate to a large extent. In addition, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal overlap, that is, a definite dispute will be referred to more than one judicial body for review. The reasons for this situation are mainly based on the following aspects: first, there are obstacles to the application of the traditional rules of jurisdiction, such as the principle of outstanding cases and the principle of outstanding cases, and there is a lack of internationally unified criteria for judging; Secondly, there is an increase in the number of international judicial institutions advocating compulsory jurisdiction; third, different international judicial institutions confer different status on the subject of litigation, and some international judicial institutions advocate exceeding the national jurisdiction ratione personae; Fourth, the international statute establishing international judicial institutions does not define the scope of jurisdiction in detail. These reasons lead to the emergence of conflicts of jurisdiction between international judicial institutions, and this problem will become more and more serious with the spread of international judicial institutions. As a result, it leads to an awkward situation with the same or different domestic judicial systems, and results in the selection of courts, parallel proceedings, the lack of final decisions, the contradiction of decisions, and finally accelerate the fragmentation of the international community. Judging from the cases tried by international judicial bodies in recent years, such as Ireland v. the United Kingdom and Chile v. the European Community, States look forward to choosing a judicial body in their own interest to hear it on the basis of the maximization of their own interests, However, the lack of uniform rules of jurisdiction in international judicial institutions leads to the fragmentation of international law and the waste of international judicial resources. In order to solve this problem, reforms are needed in both international justice and international politics, but the reform of the international court and court system is difficult to achieve under current conditions, and a more moderate approach should be considered, It also draws lessons from the principle of international comity based on private international law, supplemented by the exchange of information between international judicial institutions, and finally reduces the conflict of jurisdiction between the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal.
【学位授予单位】：哈尔滨工业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D99
本文编号：2480162
[Abstract]:The 20th century is the main period of the rapid expansion of international law. From the general result of the development of international law in this period, the continuous expansion of international law has gradually filled in the blank of the norms of international relations. However, with the development of the international community and the deepening of international interdependence in recent decades, the attitude of countries towards international dispute settlement bodies has changed significantly. This shows that the international dispute settlement mechanism is moving towards institutionalization, that is, from ad hoc procedures to new permanent procedures. As a result, many States are increasingly inclined to bring disputes involving important areas of international law to trial and, for this purpose, to accept the jurisdiction of permanent international courts and courts with compulsory jurisdiction. While a large number of international judicial institutions have been established and recognized by the state, the international judicial institutions are facing many problems that can not be ignored. In the absence of a central legislature, the emergence and proliferation of a large number of new judicial and quasi-judicial institutions make it difficult to coordinate to a large extent. In addition, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal overlap, that is, a definite dispute will be referred to more than one judicial body for review. The reasons for this situation are mainly based on the following aspects: first, there are obstacles to the application of the traditional rules of jurisdiction, such as the principle of outstanding cases and the principle of outstanding cases, and there is a lack of internationally unified criteria for judging; Secondly, there is an increase in the number of international judicial institutions advocating compulsory jurisdiction; third, different international judicial institutions confer different status on the subject of litigation, and some international judicial institutions advocate exceeding the national jurisdiction ratione personae; Fourth, the international statute establishing international judicial institutions does not define the scope of jurisdiction in detail. These reasons lead to the emergence of conflicts of jurisdiction between international judicial institutions, and this problem will become more and more serious with the spread of international judicial institutions. As a result, it leads to an awkward situation with the same or different domestic judicial systems, and results in the selection of courts, parallel proceedings, the lack of final decisions, the contradiction of decisions, and finally accelerate the fragmentation of the international community. Judging from the cases tried by international judicial bodies in recent years, such as Ireland v. the United Kingdom and Chile v. the European Community, States look forward to choosing a judicial body in their own interest to hear it on the basis of the maximization of their own interests, However, the lack of uniform rules of jurisdiction in international judicial institutions leads to the fragmentation of international law and the waste of international judicial resources. In order to solve this problem, reforms are needed in both international justice and international politics, but the reform of the international court and court system is difficult to achieve under current conditions, and a more moderate approach should be considered, It also draws lessons from the principle of international comity based on private international law, supplemented by the exchange of information between international judicial institutions, and finally reduces the conflict of jurisdiction between the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal.
【学位授予单位】：哈尔滨工业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D99
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前8条
1 杨永红;;分散的权力:从MOX Plant案析国际法庭管辖权之冲突[J];法学家;2009年03期
2 张英;从阿姆斯特丹条约看欧洲法院管辖权的新变化[J];法学评论;2000年05期
3 吴慧;;国际海洋法争端解决机制对钓鱼岛争端的影响[J];国际关系学院学报;2007年04期
4 赵海峰;;略论国际司法机构的现状和发展趋势[J];人民司法;2005年09期
5 张书林;约定不明时合同履行地的确定——《中华人民共和国合同法》与《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的比较研究[J];十堰职业技术学院学报;2004年04期
6 程保志;;从MOX核燃料厂争端审视欧洲法院专属管辖权之扩张[J];武大国际法评论;2008年02期
7 赵维田;WTO案例研究:1998年海龟案[J];环球法津评论;2001年02期
8 唐旗;;从箭鱼争端看“贸易与环境之争”新动向[J];武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2007年01期
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 黄建中;国际法庭管辖权研究[D];中国政法大学;2005年
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 陶俊辉;论国际海洋法法庭与WTO争端解决机构管辖权的冲突[D];华东政法大学;2008年
，本文编号：2480162
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2480162.html
