《联合国海洋法公约》中的强制争端解决方法——从法理学的角度看其范围和限制
详细信息 查看官网全文
- 英文论文题名：Compulsory Dispute Settlement Methods under the UNCLOS: Scope and Limits under the Scrutiny of the Jurisprudence
- 论文作者：Geneviève Bastid Burdeau ; 谢红月 ; 张琳萍
- 英文论文作者：Geneviève Bastid Burdeau
- 年：2017
- 论文关键词：争端解决 ; 强制程序 ; 《联合国海洋法公约》
- 英文论文关键词：Dispute settlement ; Compulsory procedure ; UNCLOS
- 会议召开时间：2017-06-01
- 会议录名称：中国海洋法学评论（2017年卷第1期 总第25期）
- 英文会议录名称：China Oceans Law Review(Volume 2017 Number 1)
- 语种：中文
- 分类号：D993.5
- 学会代码：XMHY
- 学会名称：厦门大学海洋法与中国东南海疆研究中心
- 页数：33
- 文件大小：1414k
- 原文格式：D
摘要
强制争端解决是《联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称"《公约》")的一大创举。要确保强制争端解决的有效性,就需要规定相关的前提条件和限制,以消除部分国家的顾虑和干扰。从选择受理案件的司法机构到对敏感事项的权限限制等一系列问题,都要求各国必须做出众多妥协,这就导致《公约》第十五部分的措词非常复杂,有时还有些晦涩。第十五部分第一节规定了采取有拘束力的争端解决方法的前提条件,第二节则对这种解决方法作出了具体规定。在过去15年中,很多争端都提交了仲裁或司法程序,这有利于明确和巩固《公约》第十五部分制定的规则。因此,《公约》的争端解决机制更有效地促进了"海洋宪章"实体规则的普遍适用。
Ensuring the effectiveness of compulsory dispute settlement, which was one of the major innovations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(hereinafter "UNCLOS"), required to provide preconditions and limitations in order to meet States fears and preventions. A number of compromises had to be found going from the choice of the competent adjudicating body to the limitations of competence concerning sensitive matters. Such concerns result in the rather complicated and sometimes obscure wording of Part XV of the UNCLOS with a first section providing the preconditions to the means entailing binding effects imposed in the second section. The numerous disputes submitted to arbitration or to judicial settlement during the last fifteen years contributed to the clarification and strengthening of the rules of Part XV of the UNCLOS. Thus the dispute settlement system of the UNCLOS contributes more efficiently to the general application of the substantive rules of the so-called "Constitution of the Oceans".
Ensuring the effectiveness of compulsory dispute settlement, which was one of the major innovations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(hereinafter "UNCLOS"), required to provide preconditions and limitations in order to meet States fears and preventions. A number of compromises had to be found going from the choice of the competent adjudicating body to the limitations of competence concerning sensitive matters. Such concerns result in the rather complicated and sometimes obscure wording of Part XV of the UNCLOS with a first section providing the preconditions to the means entailing binding effects imposed in the second section. The numerous disputes submitted to arbitration or to judicial settlement during the last fifteen years contributed to the clarification and strengthening of the rules of Part XV of the UNCLOS. Thus the dispute settlement system of the UNCLOS contributes more efficiently to the general application of the substantive rules of the so-called "Constitution of the Oceans".
引文
1 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas,Article 9.
2 Myron H.Nordquist ed.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982:A Commentary,Vol.V,Dordrecht:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1985,pp.89~97.
3 Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,Award of the Arbitral Tribunal,PCA,para.200.
4 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.224.
5 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.224.
6 Decision on Australia’s Objections to Competence,A Conciliation Commission Constituted under Annex V to the 1982 UNCLOS between the Democratic Republic of Timor Leste and the Commonwealth of Australia,PCA,para.46.
7 See D.Anderson,Article 283 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,in T.M.Ndiaye and R.Wolfrum eds.,Law of the Sea,Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes:Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A Mensah,Leiden/Boston:Brill,2007,pp.847 ~866.
8 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.378.
9 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.349.
10 Malta v.Sao Tome and Principe,Award of 5 September 2016,PCA.
11 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.382.
12 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.332.
13 D.Anderson,Article 283 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,in T.M.Ndiaye and R.Wolfrum eds.,Law of the Sea,Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes:Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A Mensah,Leiden/Boston:Brill,2007,p.852.
14 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.378.这种立场被持异议的仲裁员所证实。Dissenting and concurring opinion of Judges Kateka and Wolfrum,para.66.
15 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago,Award of 11 April 2006,paras.201~205.“过渡刻板地套用第283条与外交谈判实际开展的方式不符。”
16 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.381.
17 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.333.
18 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.349.
19 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.349.
20 Application of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimina-tion(Georgia v.Russian Federation)Preliminary Objections,Judgment 2011,ICJ,para.30.
21 Malta v.Sao Tome and Principe,Award of 5 September 2016,PCA,para.201.“仲裁庭并不认为马耳他必须明确指出其所依据的《公约》条款”。
22 Arctic Sunrise Arbitration(Netherlands v.Russian Federation),Award on the Merits of 14August 2015,PCA N°2014-02,para.151.
23 Duzgit Integrity Arbitration(Malta v.Sao Tome and Principe),Award,5 September 2016,para.199.
24 Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,Award of the Arbitral Tribunal,PCA,para.205.
25 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.378.
26 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.385;Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor(Malaysia v.Singapore),Provisional Measures,Order of 8 October 2003,ITLOS Reports,2003,p.10,para.47.
27 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.385.
28 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,paras.385~386.
29 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.349.
30 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago,Award of 11 April 2006,para.205.
31 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.235.
32 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.237.
33 Duzgit Integrity Arbitration(Malta v.Sao Tome and Principe),Award,5 September 2016,para.207.
34 Arctic Sunrise Arbitration(Netherlands v.Russia),Award on the Merits,paras.190~192.
35 Conciliation between Timor-Leste and Australia,Decision on Australia’s Objections to Competence,19 September 2016,pp.83~84.
36 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award,12 July 2016,paras.215~262.
37 Arctic Sunrise Award on Jurisdiction,26 November 2014,para.72.
38 Arctic Sunrise Award on Jurisdiction,26 November 2014,para.70.
39 Arctic Sunrise Award on Jurisdiction,26 November 2014,para.70.
40 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.307.
41 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18March 2015,para.308.
42 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18March 2015,para.317.
43 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.316.
2 Myron H.Nordquist ed.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982:A Commentary,Vol.V,Dordrecht:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1985,pp.89~97.
3 Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,Award of the Arbitral Tribunal,PCA,para.200.
4 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.224.
5 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.224.
6 Decision on Australia’s Objections to Competence,A Conciliation Commission Constituted under Annex V to the 1982 UNCLOS between the Democratic Republic of Timor Leste and the Commonwealth of Australia,PCA,para.46.
7 See D.Anderson,Article 283 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,in T.M.Ndiaye and R.Wolfrum eds.,Law of the Sea,Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes:Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A Mensah,Leiden/Boston:Brill,2007,pp.847 ~866.
8 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.378.
9 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.349.
10 Malta v.Sao Tome and Principe,Award of 5 September 2016,PCA.
11 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.382.
12 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.332.
13 D.Anderson,Article 283 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,in T.M.Ndiaye and R.Wolfrum eds.,Law of the Sea,Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes:Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A Mensah,Leiden/Boston:Brill,2007,p.852.
14 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.378.这种立场被持异议的仲裁员所证实。Dissenting and concurring opinion of Judges Kateka and Wolfrum,para.66.
15 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago,Award of 11 April 2006,paras.201~205.“过渡刻板地套用第283条与外交谈判实际开展的方式不符。”
16 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.381.
17 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.333.
18 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.349.
19 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.349.
20 Application of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimina-tion(Georgia v.Russian Federation)Preliminary Objections,Judgment 2011,ICJ,para.30.
21 Malta v.Sao Tome and Principe,Award of 5 September 2016,PCA,para.201.“仲裁庭并不认为马耳他必须明确指出其所依据的《公约》条款”。
22 Arctic Sunrise Arbitration(Netherlands v.Russian Federation),Award on the Merits of 14August 2015,PCA N°2014-02,para.151.
23 Duzgit Integrity Arbitration(Malta v.Sao Tome and Principe),Award,5 September 2016,para.199.
24 Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,Award of the Arbitral Tribunal,PCA,para.205.
25 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.378.
26 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.385;Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor(Malaysia v.Singapore),Provisional Measures,Order of 8 October 2003,ITLOS Reports,2003,p.10,para.47.
27 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.385.
28 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,paras.385~386.
29 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.349.
30 Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago,Award of 11 April 2006,para.205.
31 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.235.
32 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.237.
33 Duzgit Integrity Arbitration(Malta v.Sao Tome and Principe),Award,5 September 2016,para.207.
34 Arctic Sunrise Arbitration(Netherlands v.Russia),Award on the Merits,paras.190~192.
35 Conciliation between Timor-Leste and Australia,Decision on Australia’s Objections to Competence,19 September 2016,pp.83~84.
36 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award,12 July 2016,paras.215~262.
37 Arctic Sunrise Award on Jurisdiction,26 November 2014,para.72.
38 Arctic Sunrise Award on Jurisdiction,26 November 2014,para.70.
39 Arctic Sunrise Award on Jurisdiction,26 November 2014,para.70.
40 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.307.
41 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18March 2015,para.308.
42 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18March 2015,para.317.
43 Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration(Mauritius v.United Kingdom),Award,18 March 2015,para.316.