善意原则在菲律宾所提起南海仲裁案中的适用评析
详细信息 查看官网全文
- 英文论文题名：Application of the Good Faith Principle to the SCS Arbitration Initiated by the Philippines Against China
- 论文作者：严永灵 ; XIE Hongyue
- 英文论文作者：YAN Yongling ; XIE Hongyue ; the Law School of Hainan University
- 年：2017
- 作者机构：海南大学法学院;
- 论文关键词：南海仲裁案 ; 善意原则 ; 滥用权利 ; 具体表征
- 英文论文关键词：Sino-Philippine SCS Arbitration ; Principle of good faith ; Abuse of rights ; Specific manifestation
- 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：82
- 文件大小：1647k
- 原文格式：D
摘要
善意原则是国际法的基本原则,主要体现在善意履行国际义务,特别是条约义务方面。善意原则对条约的缔结、履行、解释以及对维护整个条约法律秩序,都具有至关重要的作用。南海仲裁案从被菲律宾提起、仲裁庭受理到做出最终裁决的全过程,都呈现出对一项原则的违背,即善意原则。南海仲裁案中,"默契"地利用1982年《联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称"《公约》")的空白处,滥用《公约》所赋予的权利,恶意地使用各种文字解释技巧,随意造出各种"突破性"的概念或标准,企图将《公约》作为工具以非法的目的去损害另一方当事国的正当权益。建立在违法性基础上的最终裁决已俨然违背了《公约》的目的和宗旨,应视为无拘束力。本文旨在通过梳理善意原则的法理基础和司法实践,剖析菲律宾所提起南海仲裁案中违背善意原则的具体表征。
The principle of good faith, a basic principle of international law, is mainly manifested in the performance of international obligations, especially treaty obligations, in good faith. This principle plays a pivotal role in the conclusion, execution and interpretation of treaties, as well as the maintenance of the order of treaties and laws. From the Philippines' initiation of the South China Sea(SCS) arbitration against China, to the Arbitral Tribunal's acceptance and release of the final award of the arbitration, the case is loaded with violation of the good faith principle. In the SCS Arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal and the Philippines, appearing to have reached a covert agreement, took advantage of the vacuum left by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) to abuse their rights under the convention, and to arbitrarily coin all kinds of notions or standards unheard of, by employing all tricks of text interpretation in bad faith. By doing so, they intended to illegally jeopardize the legitimate rights and interests of China, the other party to the Arbitration, by utilizing the UNCLOS as a tool. The final award, which is founded on illegal reasoning, is obviously contrary to the object and purpose of the UNCLOS; it thus shall be considered without binding force. Collating the jurisprudential basis of the good faith principle and the relevant judicial practices, the paper aims to showcase the specific breaches of the principle in the SCS Arbitration filed by the Philippines.
The principle of good faith, a basic principle of international law, is mainly manifested in the performance of international obligations, especially treaty obligations, in good faith. This principle plays a pivotal role in the conclusion, execution and interpretation of treaties, as well as the maintenance of the order of treaties and laws. From the Philippines' initiation of the South China Sea(SCS) arbitration against China, to the Arbitral Tribunal's acceptance and release of the final award of the arbitration, the case is loaded with violation of the good faith principle. In the SCS Arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal and the Philippines, appearing to have reached a covert agreement, took advantage of the vacuum left by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) to abuse their rights under the convention, and to arbitrarily coin all kinds of notions or standards unheard of, by employing all tricks of text interpretation in bad faith. By doing so, they intended to illegally jeopardize the legitimate rights and interests of China, the other party to the Arbitration, by utilizing the UNCLOS as a tool. The final award, which is founded on illegal reasoning, is obviously contrary to the object and purpose of the UNCLOS; it thus shall be considered without binding force. Collating the jurisprudential basis of the good faith principle and the relevant judicial practices, the paper aims to showcase the specific breaches of the principle in the SCS Arbitration filed by the Philippines.
引文
1 George Mousourakis,Fundamentals of Roman Private Law,Berlin/Heidelberg:Springer,2012,p.34.
2 Bryan A.Garner ed.,Black’s Law Dictionary,10 edition,Eagan:Thomson West,2014.
3 罗国强著:《国际法本体论》,北京:法律出版社2008年版,第159、164~165页。
4 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释——〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第3页。
5 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释—〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第4页。
6 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua,Nicaragua v.United States of America,Jurisdiction and Admissibility,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1984,para.63.
7 John F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing Co.Ltd.,1991,p.124.
8 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.169.
9 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.170.
10 Thomas Cottier、Krista N.Schefer:《WTO中的善意及合法期望之保护》(韩秀丽译、高波校),载于《国际经济法学刊》2005年第3期,第183页。
11 赵建文:《条约上的善意原则》,载于《当代法学》2013年第4期,第122页。
12 Oliver D?rr and Kirsten Schmalenbach eds.,Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:A Commentary,New York:Springer Science&Business Media,2011,p.435.
13 E·左莱尔:《国际法上的善意原则》,转引自[法]M·维拉利:《国际法上的善意原则》(刘昕生译),载于《国外法学》1984年第4期,第54页。
14 Bin CHENG,General Principle of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,London:Stevens and Son,1953,p.105.
15 United States–Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan,WT/DS184/AB/R,Report of the Appellate Body,24 July 2001,para.101.
16 Nuclear Tests(New Zealand v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,para.49.
17 E·左莱尔:《国际法上的善意原则》,转引自[法]M·维拉利:《国际法上的善意原则》(刘昕生译),载于《国外法学》1984年第4期,第55页。
18 E·左莱尔:《国际法上的善意原则》,转引自[法]M·维拉利:《国际法上的善意原则》(刘昕生译),载于《国外法学》1984年第4期,第57页。
19 Statute of the International Court of Justice,Article 38(1).
20 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第106页。
21 赵建文:《条约法上的善意原则》,载于《当代法学》2013年第4期,第123~124页。
22 Jeff Waincymer,WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Disputes Settlement,London:Cmmerron May Ltd.,2002,p.499,转引自张东平著:《WTO司法解释论》,厦门:厦门大学出版社2005年版,第189页。
23 WT/DS152/R,22 December 1999,para.7.64.
24 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.168.
25 罗国强著:《国际法本体论》,北京:法律出版社2008年版,第169页。
26 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,General Assembly(25th Session)Resolution No.2625(XXV),U.N.Doc.A/8082,p.121,at http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_25_2625E.pdf,22 May 2017.
27 李浩培著:《条约法概论》,北京:法律出版社1987年版,第329页。
28 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.168.
29 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释——〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第7页。
30 [英]劳特派特(Hersch Lauterpacht)修订,王铁崖、陈体强译:《奥本海国际法(上卷·第二分册)》,北京:商务印书馆1972年版,第365页。
31 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.179.
32 Territorial Dispute(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1994,paras.27~28.
33 Japan–Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,WT/DS8/AB/R,WT/DS10/AB/R,WT/DS11/AB/R,1996,p.12.
34 Argentina–Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear,WT/DS121/AB/R,para.81.
35 Nuclear Tests(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,p.268.
36 United States–Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/AB/R,12 October 1998,para.158.
37 Gab?íkovo–Nagymaros Project(Hungary v.Slovakia),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1997,para.142.
38 Chile–Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,WT/DS87/AB/R,WT/DS110/AB/R,13 December1999,para.74.
39 European Communities–Trade Description of Sardines,WT/DS231/AB/R,26 September2002,para.278.
40 韩立余:《善意原则在WTO争端解决中的适用》,载于《法学家》2005年第6期,第151 页。
41 Geogre Pinton Case,France v.Mexico,19 October 1928;Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,pp.174~175.
42 Oliver D?rr and Kirsten Schmalenbach eds.,Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:A Commentary,New York:Springer Science&Business Media,2011,p.224.
43 Bin CHENG,General Principle of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,London:Stevens and Son,1953,pp.114~116.
44 刘敬东著:《WTO法律制度中的善意原则》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2009年版,第7页。
45 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释——〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第6页。
46 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第125页。
47罗刚:《论法律现实主义视角下国际法上的善意原则与程序性权利的滥用——以南海仲裁案为例》,载于孔庆江主编:《国际法评论(第七卷)》,北京:清华大学出版社2016年版,第19页。
48 《西班牙民法典》第7条第1款以及第2款第1句。
49 Michael Byers,Abuse of Right:An Old Principle,A New Age,Mc Gill Law Journal,Vol.47 ,2002,pp.389~431.
50 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第125~140页。
51 H.C.Gutteridge,Abuse of Rights,Cambridge Law Journal,Vol.5,1933,p.22.
52 John Bassett Moore,History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party,Vol.1,Washington:Government Printing Office,1898,p.892.
53 Further Response to the United States of America Counter-claim submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran,Oil Platforms(Islamic Republic of Iran v.United States of America),24September 2001,p.105,note.45,at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/8636.pdf,23May 2017.
54 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第126页。
55 Case concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia(The Merits),Speech of German Agent(Series C-No.11,Vol.I,pp.136 et seq.)and German Memorial(pp.375 et seq.),PCIJ,1926.
56 Walter Fletcher Smith Claim(Cuba,USA),1929,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,Vol.II,p.917,at http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/913-918.pdf,25 May 2017
57 Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,Judgment,Series A/B,No.46 ,PCIJ,1932,p.16.See also the Court’s Order made on 6 December 1930,in the same case,Series A,No.24,PCIJ,p.12;Oscar Chinn Case,Judgment,Series A/B,No.63,PCIJ,1934,p.86.
58 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第128页。
59 The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case(Great Britain,United States),7 September 1910,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,p.188,at http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XI/167-226.pdf,24 May 2017.
60 North American Dredging Company of Texas(U.S.A.v.United Mexican States),31 March1926,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,p.27,at http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_IV/26-35.pdf,24 May 2017.
61 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第135~136页。
62 Fisheries Case(United Kingdom v.Norway),ICJ Reports 1951,pp.141~142.
63 Case concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia(The Merits),Judgment,Series A,No.7,PCIJ,1926,p.30;Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex(Second Phase),Order,Series A,No.24,PCIJ,1930,p.12;Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,Judgment,Series A/B,No.46,PCIJ,1932,p.167.
64 Admission of a State to the United Nations(Charter,Art.4),Advisory Opinion,ICJ Reports1948,pp.63,71,79 et seq.,91,92,93,103,115.
65 罗刚:《论法律现实主义视角下国际法上的善意原则与程序性权利的滥用——以南海仲裁案为例》,载于孔庆江主编:《国际法评论(第七卷)》,北京:清华大学出版社2016年版,第19页。
66 Heinrich Honsell,R?misches Recht,7th edition,Berlin/Heidelberg:Springer,2010,pp.84 ~86.
67 Marion Panizzon,Fairness,Promptness and Effectiveness:How the Openness of Good Faith Limits the Flexibility of the DSU,Nordic Journal of International Law,Vol.77,No.3,2008,pp.275~300.
68 WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,Article 3(7).
69 WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,Article 3(10).
70 WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,Article 4(3).
71 Gab?ikovo-Nagymaros Project(Hungary/Slovakia),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1997,pp.78 ~79.
72 Memorial of the Philippines(The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China),30 March 2014,para.1.16.[hereinafter“Memorial”]
73 The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions,Judgment,Series A,No.2,PCIJ,1924,p.11.
74 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
75 下载于http://asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-chi na-sea-3&category_id=32,2017年5月13日。
76 Memorial,para.7.55.
77 《维也纳条约法公约》,下载于http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/ziliao_611306/tyti_611313 /t83909.shtml,2017年4月2日。
78 Thomas Buergenthal and Sean D.Murphy,Public International Law,3rd edition,Eagan:West Group,2002,pp.102~103;Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Volume 1(Peace),9th edition,London/New York:Addison Wesley Longman Inc.,1996,pp.1208~1209.
79 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes,Articles 23,41,43,75.
80 宋燕辉:《由〈南海各方行为宣言〉论“菲律宾诉中国案”仲裁法庭之管辖权问题》,载于《国际法研究》2014年第2期,第31页。
81 UNCLOS,Article 283(1).
82 UNCLOS,Article 295.
83 UNCLOS,Preamble,para.3.
84 罗刚:《论法律现实主义视角下国际法上的善意原则与程序性权利的滥用——以南海仲裁案为例》,载于孔庆江主编:《国际法评论(第七卷)》,北京:清华大学出版社2016年版,第24页。
85 The Philippines,Communication dated 5 April 2011,at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/vnm37_09/phl_re_chn_2011.pdf,16 February 2016.
86 高圣惕:《论南海仲裁案裁决在管辖权及可受理性问题上的事实与法律谬误》,载于《边界与海洋研究》2017年第1期,第18页。
87 Genie Lantman Eltom(U.S.A.)v.United Mexican States,13 May 1929,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,p.533,at http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_IV/529-534.pdf,24 May 2017;Salem Case(Egypt,USA),8 June 1932,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,p.1205,at http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../riaa/cases/vol_II/1161-1237.pdf&lang=O,24 May 2017;Corfu Channel(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.Albania),Dissenting Opinion by Judge ad hoc Daxner,ICJ Reports 1948,p.39.
88 Mavronmmatis Palestine Concessions,Dissenting Opinion by M.Moore,Series A,No.2,PCIJ,1924,pp.57~60.
89 John Bassett Moore,History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party,Vol.1,Washington:Government Printing Office,1898,pp.85 ~161.
90 James Brown Scott ed.,The Hague Court Reports,1st Series,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1916,pp.505~506.
91 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第267页。
92 Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia(Minority Schools),Judgment,Series A,No.15,PCIJ,1928,p.22;Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.Case(Jurisdiction),Judgment of 22 July 1952,ICJ Reports 1952,p.103.
93 Status of Eastern Carelia,Advisory Opinion,Series B,No.5,PCIJ,1923,p.27.
94 Corfu Channel(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.Albania),Judgment on Preliminary Objection,ICJ Reports 1948,pp.27~28.
95 Interpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement of 1 December 1926(Final Protocol,Article IV),Advisory Opinion,Series B,No.16,PCIJ,1928,p.20;Zeltweg-Wolfsberg and Unterdrauburg-Woellan Railways Case(Preliminary Objection),1934,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,Vol.III,p.1803,at http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../riaa/cases/vol_III/1795-1815.pdf&lang=O,25 May 2017.
96 张华:《国际海洋争端解决中的“不应诉”问题》,载于《太平洋学报》2014年第12期,第8页。
97 Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,Judgment,Series A/B,No.46 ,PCIJ,1932,pp.138~139.
98 Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,Judgment,Series A/B,No.46 ,PCIJ,1932,p.139.
99 叶强:《从“两案”看我国周边海洋权益斗争面临的国际司法干预挑战》,载于《世界知识》2015年第10期,第25~27页。
100 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.126.
101 罗刚:《论法律现实主义视角下国际法上的善意原则与程序性权利的滥用——以南海仲裁案为例》,载于孔庆江主编:《国际法评论(第七卷)》,北京:清华大学出版社2016年版,第21页。
102 Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria,Hungary and Romania,Advisory Opinion,ICJ Reports 1950,p.71;Nottebohm Case(Preliminary Objection),Judgment of 18November 1953,ICJ Reports 1953,p.122;Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943(Preliminary Question),Judgment of 15 June 1954,ICJ Reports 1954,p.32 ;Phosphates in Morocco,Judgment,Series A/B,No.74,PCIJ,1938,p.24.
103 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
104 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
105 张祖兴:《评南海仲裁案仲裁庭对历史性权利相关问题的处理》,载于《东南亚研究》2016年第6期,第47页。
106 The Mavrommmatis Palestine Concessions,Judgment(Objection to the Jurisdiction of the Court),Series A,No.2,PCIJ,1924,p.11.
107 Robert Jennings,Reflection on the term“dispute”,in Collected Writings of Sir Robert Jennings,Vol.2,The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998,p.584.
108 Memorial,para.7.11.
109 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.163.
110 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,paras.152,153,155.
111 [斯里兰卡]M.C.W.平托:《〈联合国海洋法公约〉的解释与“国际法治”》,载于《边界与海洋研究》2016年第2期,第43页。
112 [斯里兰卡]M.C.W.平托:《〈联合国海洋法公约〉的解释与“国际法治”》,载于《边界与海洋研究》2016年第2期,第43页。
113 Robert Kolb,The International Court of Justice,Oxford:Hart Publishing,2013,p.1175.
114 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,p.66.
115 The Philippines,Communication dated 5 April 2011,pp.2~3,at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/vnm37_09/phl_re_chn_2011.pdf,16 February 2016.
116 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Final Transcript Day1 -Jurisdiction Hearing,7 July 2015,pp.44~45.
117 高圣惕:《论南海仲裁案裁决在管辖权及可受理性问题上的事实与法律谬误》,载于《边界与海洋研究》2017年第1期,第17页。
118 Summary of the Tribunal’s Decisions on Its Jurisdiction and on the Merits of the Philippines’Claims.
119 Summary of the Tribunal’s Decisions on Its Jurisdiction and on the Merits of the Philippines’Claims.
120 Summary of the Tribunal’s Decisions on Its Jurisdiction and on the Merits of the Philippines’Claims.
121 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
122 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award,12 July 2016,paras.207~213.
123 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Final Transcript Day1 –Hearing on the Merits and Remaining Issues of Jurisdiction and Admissibility,24November 2015,p.27.
124 黄瑶:《中国在南海断续线内的合法权益——以南海仲裁案裁决评析为视角》,载于《学术前沿》2016年第23期,第25页。
125 黄瑶:《中国在南海断续线内的合法权益——以南海仲裁案裁决评析为视角》,载于《学术前沿》2016年第23期,第25页。
126 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
127 李志文、马玉:《南海仲裁案中国立场的主权理论解读》,载于《太平洋学报》2016年第9期,第3页。
128 李志文、马玉:《南海仲裁案中国立场的主权理论解读》,载于《太平洋学报》2016年第9期,第3页。
129 李志文、马玉:《南海仲裁案中国立场的主权理论解读》,载于《太平洋学报》2016年第9期,第3页。
130 《公约》序言:“确认本公约未予以规定的事项,应继续以一般国际法的规则和原则为准据”。
131 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award,12 July 2016,para.500.
132 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award,12 July 2016,para.626.
133 栗广:《1930年代美国对南海争端的立场评析》,载于《太平洋学报》2016年第7期,第68页。
134 Memorial,paras.7.71~7.73.
135 宋燕辉:《由〈南海各方行为宣言〉论“菲律宾诉中国案”仲裁法庭之管辖权问题》,载于《国际法研究》2014年第2期,第30~31页。
136 Memorial,para.7.51.
137 2014年12月7日《中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》,第52段。
138 2014年12月7日《中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》,第31~37,53~54段。
139 [奥]菲德罗斯等著,李浩培译:《国际法》,北京:商务印书馆1981年版,第777~778页。
140 [英]劳特派特修订,王铁崖、陈体强译:《奥本海国际法(上卷·第二分册)》,北京:商务印书馆1972年版,第204页。
141 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释——〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第8页。
3 LUO Guoqiang,On the Noumena of International Law,Beijing:Law Press China,2008,pp.159,164~165.(in Chinese)
4 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.3.(in Chinese)
5 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.4.(in Chinese)
11 ZHAO Jianwen,The Principle of Good Faith under Treaties,Contemporary Law Review,No.4,2013,p.122.(in Chinese)
13 E.Zoller,Good Faith in Public International Law,quoted by Michel Virally,LIU Xinsheng trans.,Notes and Comments,Review Essay:Good Faith in Public International Law,Peking University Law Journal,No.4,1984,p.54.(in Chinese)
17E.Zoller,Good Faith in Public International Law,quoted by Michel Virally,LIU Xinsheng trans.,Notes and Comments,Review Essay:Good Faith in Public International Law,Peking University Law Journal,No.4,1984,p.55.(in Chinese)
18 E.Zoller,Good Faith in Public International Law,quoted by Michel Virally,LIU Xinsheng trans.,Notes and Comments,Review Essay:Good Faith in Public International Law,Peking University Law Journal,No.4,1984,p.57.(in Chinese)
20 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.106.(in Chinese)
21 ZHAO Jianwen,The Principle of Good Faith on the Law of Treaties,Contemporary Law Review,No.4,2013,pp.123~124.(in Chinese)
25 LUO Guoqiang,On the Noumena of International Law,Beijing:Law Press China,2008,p.169 .(in Chinese)
27 LI Haopei,Introduction to the Law of Treaties,Beijing:Law Press China,1987,p.329.(in Chinese)
29 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.7.(in Chinese)
30 Hersch Lauterpacht ed.,WANG Tieya and CHEN Tiqiang tans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.1,No.2,Beijing:The Commercial Press,p.365.(in Chinese)
40 HAN Liyu,Application of the Good Faith Principle to WTO Dispute Settlement,Jurists Review,No.6,2005,p.151.(in Chinese)
44 LIU Jingdong,The Principle of Good Faith in WTO Legal System,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2009,p.7.(in Chinese)
45 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.6.(in Chinese)
46 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.125.(in Chinese)
47 LUO Gang,The Principle of Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in International Law from the Perspective of Legal Realism–Taking the SCS Arbitration as an Example,in KONG Qingjiang ed.,International Law Review,Vol.7,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2016,p.19.(in Chinese)
48 Spanish Civil Code,Article 7(1),and the first sentence of Article 7(2).
50 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,pp.125~140.(in Chinese)
54 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.126.(in Chinese)
58 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.128.(in Chinese)
61 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,pp.135~136.(in Chinese)
65 LUO Gang,The Principle of Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in International Law from the Perspective of Legal Realism–Taking the SCS Arbitration as an Example,in KONG Qingjiang ed.,International Law Review,Vol.7,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2016,p.19.(in Chinese)
74 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
75 At http://asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-chinasea-3&category_id=32,13 May 2017.(in Chinese)
77 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/ziliao_611306 /tyti_611313/t83909.shtml,2 April 2017.
80 Song Yann-huei,“The South China Sea Arbitration Case Filed by the Philippines against China”:A Discussion on Preliminary Objections to the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction,Chinese Review of International Law,No.2,2014,p.31.(in Chinese)
84 LUO Gang,The Principle of Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in International Law from the Perspective of Legal Realism–Taking the SCS Arbitration as an Example,in KONG Qingjiang ed.,International Law Review,Vol.7,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2016,p.24.(in Chinese)
86 Michael Sheng-ti Gau,The Jurisdiction and Admissibility Rulings of the South China Sea Arbitration:Errors in Law and in Fact,Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies,Vol.2,No.1 ,2017,p.18.(in Chinese)
91 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.267.(in Chinese)
96 ZHANG Hua,The Emerging Problem of Non-appearance in the UNLCOS Dispute Settlement Mechanism,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.12,2014,p.8.(in Chinese)
99 YE Qiang,Challenges for China Concerning International Judicial Intervention in Its Battle for Maritime Rights and Interests with Neighboring States:A Perspective from Two Cases,World Affairs,No.10,2015,pp.25~27.(in Chinese)
101 LUO Gang,The Principle of Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in International Law from the Perspective of Legal Realism–Taking the SCS Arbitration as an Example,in KONG Qingjiang ed.,International Law Review,Vol.7,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2016,p.21.(in Chinese)
103 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
104 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
105 ZHANG Zuxing,South China Sea Arbitration:A Critical Review of the Rulings by the Tribunal concerning Historic Rights Claim,Southeast Asian Studies,No.6,2016,p.47.(in Chinese)
111 M.C.W.Pinto,The Interpretation of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Rule of Law,Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies,No.2,2016,p.43.(in Chinese)
112 M.C.W.Pinto,The Interpretation of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Rule of Law,Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies,No.2,2016,p.43.(in Chinese)
117 Michael Sheng-ti Gau,The Jurisdiction and Admissibility Rulings of the South China Sea Arbitration:Errors in Law and in Fact,Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies,Vol.2,No.1,2017,p.17.(in Chinese)
121 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
124 HUANG Yao,China’s Lawful Rights and Interests within the South China Sea Dashedline:Based on the Analysis of the South China Sea Arbitration Award,Frontiers,No.23,2016,p.25.(in Chinese)
125 HUANG Yao,China’s Lawful Rights and Interests within the South China Sea Dashedline:Based on the Analysis of the South China Sea Arbitration Award,Frontiers,No.23,2016,p.25.(in Chinese)
126 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
127 LI Zhiwen and MA Yu,Interpretation of the Sovereignty Theory for China’s Position to the South China Sea Arbitration Case,Pacific Journal,No.9,2016,p.3.(in Chinese)
128 LI Zhiwen and MA Yu,Interpretation of the Sovereignty Theory for China’s Position to the South China Sea Arbitration Case,Pacific Journal,No.9,2016,p.3.(in Chinese)
129 LI Zhiwen and MA Yu,Interpretation of the Sovereignty Theory for China’s Position to the South China Sea Arbitration Case,Pacific Journal,No.9,2016,p.3.(in Chinese)
130 UNCLOS,Preamble:“Affirming that matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law.”
133 LI Guang,The Analysis of the United States’Position on the South China Sea Dispute in1930s,Pacific Journal,Vol.24,No.7,2016,p.68.(in Chinese)
135 Song Yann-huei,The South China Sea Arbitration Case Filed by the Philippines against China:A Discussion on Preliminary Objections to the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction,Chinese Review of International Law,No.2,2014,pp.30~31.(in Chinese)
137 Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines,7 December 2014,para.52.
138 Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines,7 December 2014,paras.31~37,53~54.
139 Alfred Verdross et al.,LI Haopei trans.,International Law,Beijing:Commercial Press,1981,pp.777~778.(in Chinese)
140 Hersch Lauterpacht ed.,WANG Tieya and CHEN Tiqiang tans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.1,No.2,Beijing:The Commercial Press,p.204.(in Chinese)
141 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.8.(in Chinese)
2 Bryan A.Garner ed.,Black’s Law Dictionary,10 edition,Eagan:Thomson West,2014.
3 罗国强著:《国际法本体论》,北京:法律出版社2008年版,第159、164~165页。
4 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释——〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第3页。
5 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释—〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第4页。
6 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua,Nicaragua v.United States of America,Jurisdiction and Admissibility,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1984,para.63.
7 John F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing Co.Ltd.,1991,p.124.
8 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.169.
9 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.170.
10 Thomas Cottier、Krista N.Schefer:《WTO中的善意及合法期望之保护》(韩秀丽译、高波校),载于《国际经济法学刊》2005年第3期,第183页。
11 赵建文:《条约上的善意原则》,载于《当代法学》2013年第4期,第122页。
12 Oliver D?rr and Kirsten Schmalenbach eds.,Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:A Commentary,New York:Springer Science&Business Media,2011,p.435.
13 E·左莱尔:《国际法上的善意原则》,转引自[法]M·维拉利:《国际法上的善意原则》(刘昕生译),载于《国外法学》1984年第4期,第54页。
14 Bin CHENG,General Principle of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,London:Stevens and Son,1953,p.105.
15 United States–Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan,WT/DS184/AB/R,Report of the Appellate Body,24 July 2001,para.101.
16 Nuclear Tests(New Zealand v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,para.49.
17 E·左莱尔:《国际法上的善意原则》,转引自[法]M·维拉利:《国际法上的善意原则》(刘昕生译),载于《国外法学》1984年第4期,第55页。
18 E·左莱尔:《国际法上的善意原则》,转引自[法]M·维拉利:《国际法上的善意原则》(刘昕生译),载于《国外法学》1984年第4期,第57页。
19 Statute of the International Court of Justice,Article 38(1).
20 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第106页。
21 赵建文:《条约法上的善意原则》,载于《当代法学》2013年第4期,第123~124页。
22 Jeff Waincymer,WTO Litigation:Procedural Aspects of Formal Disputes Settlement,London:Cmmerron May Ltd.,2002,p.499,转引自张东平著:《WTO司法解释论》,厦门:厦门大学出版社2005年版,第189页。
23 WT/DS152/R,22 December 1999,para.7.64.
24 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.168.
25 罗国强著:《国际法本体论》,北京:法律出版社2008年版,第169页。
26 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,General Assembly(25th Session)Resolution No.2625(XXV),U.N.Doc.A/8082,p.121,at http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_25_2625E.pdf,22 May 2017.
27 李浩培著:《条约法概论》,北京:法律出版社1987年版,第329页。
28 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.168.
29 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释——〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第7页。
30 [英]劳特派特(Hersch Lauterpacht)修订,王铁崖、陈体强译:《奥本海国际法(上卷·第二分册)》,北京:商务印书馆1972年版,第365页。
31 Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,p.179.
32 Territorial Dispute(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1994,paras.27~28.
33 Japan–Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,WT/DS8/AB/R,WT/DS10/AB/R,WT/DS11/AB/R,1996,p.12.
34 Argentina–Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear,WT/DS121/AB/R,para.81.
35 Nuclear Tests(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,p.268.
36 United States–Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58/AB/R,12 October 1998,para.158.
37 Gab?íkovo–Nagymaros Project(Hungary v.Slovakia),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1997,para.142.
38 Chile–Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,WT/DS87/AB/R,WT/DS110/AB/R,13 December1999,para.74.
39 European Communities–Trade Description of Sardines,WT/DS231/AB/R,26 September2002,para.278.
40 韩立余:《善意原则在WTO争端解决中的适用》,载于《法学家》2005年第6期,第151 页。
41 Geogre Pinton Case,France v.Mexico,19 October 1928;Richard K.Garadiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008,pp.174~175.
42 Oliver D?rr and Kirsten Schmalenbach eds.,Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:A Commentary,New York:Springer Science&Business Media,2011,p.224.
43 Bin CHENG,General Principle of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,London:Stevens and Son,1953,pp.114~116.
44 刘敬东著:《WTO法律制度中的善意原则》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2009年版,第7页。
45 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释——〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第6页。
46 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第125页。
47罗刚:《论法律现实主义视角下国际法上的善意原则与程序性权利的滥用——以南海仲裁案为例》,载于孔庆江主编:《国际法评论(第七卷)》,北京:清华大学出版社2016年版,第19页。
48 《西班牙民法典》第7条第1款以及第2款第1句。
49 Michael Byers,Abuse of Right:An Old Principle,A New Age,Mc Gill Law Journal,Vol.47 ,2002,pp.389~431.
50 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第125~140页。
51 H.C.Gutteridge,Abuse of Rights,Cambridge Law Journal,Vol.5,1933,p.22.
52 John Bassett Moore,History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party,Vol.1,Washington:Government Printing Office,1898,p.892.
53 Further Response to the United States of America Counter-claim submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran,Oil Platforms(Islamic Republic of Iran v.United States of America),24September 2001,p.105,note.45,at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/8636.pdf,23May 2017.
54 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第126页。
55 Case concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia(The Merits),Speech of German Agent(Series C-No.11,Vol.I,pp.136 et seq.)and German Memorial(pp.375 et seq.),PCIJ,1926.
56 Walter Fletcher Smith Claim(Cuba,USA),1929,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,Vol.II,p.917,at http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/913-918.pdf,25 May 2017
57 Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,Judgment,Series A/B,No.46 ,PCIJ,1932,p.16.See also the Court’s Order made on 6 December 1930,in the same case,Series A,No.24,PCIJ,p.12;Oscar Chinn Case,Judgment,Series A/B,No.63,PCIJ,1934,p.86.
58 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第128页。
59 The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case(Great Britain,United States),7 September 1910,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,p.188,at http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XI/167-226.pdf,24 May 2017.
60 North American Dredging Company of Texas(U.S.A.v.United Mexican States),31 March1926,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,p.27,at http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_IV/26-35.pdf,24 May 2017.
61 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第135~136页。
62 Fisheries Case(United Kingdom v.Norway),ICJ Reports 1951,pp.141~142.
63 Case concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia(The Merits),Judgment,Series A,No.7,PCIJ,1926,p.30;Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex(Second Phase),Order,Series A,No.24,PCIJ,1930,p.12;Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,Judgment,Series A/B,No.46,PCIJ,1932,p.167.
64 Admission of a State to the United Nations(Charter,Art.4),Advisory Opinion,ICJ Reports1948,pp.63,71,79 et seq.,91,92,93,103,115.
65 罗刚:《论法律现实主义视角下国际法上的善意原则与程序性权利的滥用——以南海仲裁案为例》,载于孔庆江主编:《国际法评论(第七卷)》,北京:清华大学出版社2016年版,第19页。
66 Heinrich Honsell,R?misches Recht,7th edition,Berlin/Heidelberg:Springer,2010,pp.84 ~86.
67 Marion Panizzon,Fairness,Promptness and Effectiveness:How the Openness of Good Faith Limits the Flexibility of the DSU,Nordic Journal of International Law,Vol.77,No.3,2008,pp.275~300.
68 WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,Article 3(7).
69 WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,Article 3(10).
70 WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes,Article 4(3).
71 Gab?ikovo-Nagymaros Project(Hungary/Slovakia),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1997,pp.78 ~79.
72 Memorial of the Philippines(The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China),30 March 2014,para.1.16.[hereinafter“Memorial”]
73 The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions,Judgment,Series A,No.2,PCIJ,1924,p.11.
74 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
75 下载于http://asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-chi na-sea-3&category_id=32,2017年5月13日。
76 Memorial,para.7.55.
77 《维也纳条约法公约》,下载于http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/ziliao_611306/tyti_611313 /t83909.shtml,2017年4月2日。
78 Thomas Buergenthal and Sean D.Murphy,Public International Law,3rd edition,Eagan:West Group,2002,pp.102~103;Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Volume 1(Peace),9th edition,London/New York:Addison Wesley Longman Inc.,1996,pp.1208~1209.
79 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes,Articles 23,41,43,75.
80 宋燕辉:《由〈南海各方行为宣言〉论“菲律宾诉中国案”仲裁法庭之管辖权问题》,载于《国际法研究》2014年第2期,第31页。
81 UNCLOS,Article 283(1).
82 UNCLOS,Article 295.
83 UNCLOS,Preamble,para.3.
84 罗刚:《论法律现实主义视角下国际法上的善意原则与程序性权利的滥用——以南海仲裁案为例》,载于孔庆江主编:《国际法评论(第七卷)》,北京:清华大学出版社2016年版,第24页。
85 The Philippines,Communication dated 5 April 2011,at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/vnm37_09/phl_re_chn_2011.pdf,16 February 2016.
86 高圣惕:《论南海仲裁案裁决在管辖权及可受理性问题上的事实与法律谬误》,载于《边界与海洋研究》2017年第1期,第18页。
87 Genie Lantman Eltom(U.S.A.)v.United Mexican States,13 May 1929,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,p.533,at http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_IV/529-534.pdf,24 May 2017;Salem Case(Egypt,USA),8 June 1932,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,p.1205,at http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../riaa/cases/vol_II/1161-1237.pdf&lang=O,24 May 2017;Corfu Channel(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.Albania),Dissenting Opinion by Judge ad hoc Daxner,ICJ Reports 1948,p.39.
88 Mavronmmatis Palestine Concessions,Dissenting Opinion by M.Moore,Series A,No.2,PCIJ,1924,pp.57~60.
89 John Bassett Moore,History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party,Vol.1,Washington:Government Printing Office,1898,pp.85 ~161.
90 James Brown Scott ed.,The Hague Court Reports,1st Series,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1916,pp.505~506.
91 郑斌(Bin CHENG)著,韩秀丽、蔡从燕译:《国际法院与法庭适用的一般法律原则》,北京:法律出版社2012年版,第267页。
92 Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia(Minority Schools),Judgment,Series A,No.15,PCIJ,1928,p.22;Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.Case(Jurisdiction),Judgment of 22 July 1952,ICJ Reports 1952,p.103.
93 Status of Eastern Carelia,Advisory Opinion,Series B,No.5,PCIJ,1923,p.27.
94 Corfu Channel(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.Albania),Judgment on Preliminary Objection,ICJ Reports 1948,pp.27~28.
95 Interpretation of the Greco-Turkish Agreement of 1 December 1926(Final Protocol,Article IV),Advisory Opinion,Series B,No.16,PCIJ,1928,p.20;Zeltweg-Wolfsberg and Unterdrauburg-Woellan Railways Case(Preliminary Objection),1934,Reports of International Arbitral Awards,Vol.III,p.1803,at http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../riaa/cases/vol_III/1795-1815.pdf&lang=O,25 May 2017.
96 张华:《国际海洋争端解决中的“不应诉”问题》,载于《太平洋学报》2014年第12期,第8页。
97 Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,Judgment,Series A/B,No.46 ,PCIJ,1932,pp.138~139.
98 Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,Judgment,Series A/B,No.46 ,PCIJ,1932,p.139.
99 叶强:《从“两案”看我国周边海洋权益斗争面临的国际司法干预挑战》,载于《世界知识》2015年第10期,第25~27页。
100 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.126.
101 罗刚:《论法律现实主义视角下国际法上的善意原则与程序性权利的滥用——以南海仲裁案为例》,载于孔庆江主编:《国际法评论(第七卷)》,北京:清华大学出版社2016年版,第21页。
102 Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria,Hungary and Romania,Advisory Opinion,ICJ Reports 1950,p.71;Nottebohm Case(Preliminary Objection),Judgment of 18November 1953,ICJ Reports 1953,p.122;Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943(Preliminary Question),Judgment of 15 June 1954,ICJ Reports 1954,p.32 ;Phosphates in Morocco,Judgment,Series A/B,No.74,PCIJ,1938,p.24.
103 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
104 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
105 张祖兴:《评南海仲裁案仲裁庭对历史性权利相关问题的处理》,载于《东南亚研究》2016年第6期,第47页。
106 The Mavrommmatis Palestine Concessions,Judgment(Objection to the Jurisdiction of the Court),Series A,No.2,PCIJ,1924,p.11.
107 Robert Jennings,Reflection on the term“dispute”,in Collected Writings of Sir Robert Jennings,Vol.2,The Hague/Boston:Kluwer Law International,1998,p.584.
108 Memorial,para.7.11.
109 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,para.163.
110 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,paras.152,153,155.
111 [斯里兰卡]M.C.W.平托:《〈联合国海洋法公约〉的解释与“国际法治”》,载于《边界与海洋研究》2016年第2期,第43页。
112 [斯里兰卡]M.C.W.平托:《〈联合国海洋法公约〉的解释与“国际法治”》,载于《边界与海洋研究》2016年第2期,第43页。
113 Robert Kolb,The International Court of Justice,Oxford:Hart Publishing,2013,p.1175.
114 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October 2015,p.66.
115 The Philippines,Communication dated 5 April 2011,pp.2~3,at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/vnm37_09/phl_re_chn_2011.pdf,16 February 2016.
116 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Final Transcript Day1 -Jurisdiction Hearing,7 July 2015,pp.44~45.
117 高圣惕:《论南海仲裁案裁决在管辖权及可受理性问题上的事实与法律谬误》,载于《边界与海洋研究》2017年第1期,第17页。
118 Summary of the Tribunal’s Decisions on Its Jurisdiction and on the Merits of the Philippines’Claims.
119 Summary of the Tribunal’s Decisions on Its Jurisdiction and on the Merits of the Philippines’Claims.
120 Summary of the Tribunal’s Decisions on Its Jurisdiction and on the Merits of the Philippines’Claims.
121 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
122 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award,12 July 2016,paras.207~213.
123 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Final Transcript Day1 –Hearing on the Merits and Remaining Issues of Jurisdiction and Admissibility,24November 2015,p.27.
124 黄瑶:《中国在南海断续线内的合法权益——以南海仲裁案裁决评析为视角》,载于《学术前沿》2016年第23期,第25页。
125 黄瑶:《中国在南海断续线内的合法权益——以南海仲裁案裁决评析为视角》,载于《学术前沿》2016年第23期,第25页。
126 罗刚:《国际法的真相和中菲南海仲裁案的硬伤》,下载于http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,2017年3月27日。
127 李志文、马玉:《南海仲裁案中国立场的主权理论解读》,载于《太平洋学报》2016年第9期,第3页。
128 李志文、马玉:《南海仲裁案中国立场的主权理论解读》,载于《太平洋学报》2016年第9期,第3页。
129 李志文、马玉:《南海仲裁案中国立场的主权理论解读》,载于《太平洋学报》2016年第9期,第3页。
130 《公约》序言:“确认本公约未予以规定的事项,应继续以一般国际法的规则和原则为准据”。
131 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award,12 July 2016,para.500.
132 The Republic of the Philippines v.The People’s Republic of China,Award,12 July 2016,para.626.
133 栗广:《1930年代美国对南海争端的立场评析》,载于《太平洋学报》2016年第7期,第68页。
134 Memorial,paras.7.71~7.73.
135 宋燕辉:《由〈南海各方行为宣言〉论“菲律宾诉中国案”仲裁法庭之管辖权问题》,载于《国际法研究》2014年第2期,第30~31页。
136 Memorial,para.7.51.
137 2014年12月7日《中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》,第52段。
138 2014年12月7日《中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》,第31~37,53~54段。
139 [奥]菲德罗斯等著,李浩培译:《国际法》,北京:商务印书馆1981年版,第777~778页。
140 [英]劳特派特修订,王铁崖、陈体强译:《奥本海国际法(上卷·第二分册)》,北京:商务印书馆1972年版,第204页。
141 冯寿波:《论条约的“善意”解释——〈维也纳条约法公约〉第31.1条“善意”的实证研究》,载于《太平洋学报》2015年第5期,第8页。
3 LUO Guoqiang,On the Noumena of International Law,Beijing:Law Press China,2008,pp.159,164~165.(in Chinese)
4 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.3.(in Chinese)
5 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.4.(in Chinese)
11 ZHAO Jianwen,The Principle of Good Faith under Treaties,Contemporary Law Review,No.4,2013,p.122.(in Chinese)
13 E.Zoller,Good Faith in Public International Law,quoted by Michel Virally,LIU Xinsheng trans.,Notes and Comments,Review Essay:Good Faith in Public International Law,Peking University Law Journal,No.4,1984,p.54.(in Chinese)
17E.Zoller,Good Faith in Public International Law,quoted by Michel Virally,LIU Xinsheng trans.,Notes and Comments,Review Essay:Good Faith in Public International Law,Peking University Law Journal,No.4,1984,p.55.(in Chinese)
18 E.Zoller,Good Faith in Public International Law,quoted by Michel Virally,LIU Xinsheng trans.,Notes and Comments,Review Essay:Good Faith in Public International Law,Peking University Law Journal,No.4,1984,p.57.(in Chinese)
20 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.106.(in Chinese)
21 ZHAO Jianwen,The Principle of Good Faith on the Law of Treaties,Contemporary Law Review,No.4,2013,pp.123~124.(in Chinese)
25 LUO Guoqiang,On the Noumena of International Law,Beijing:Law Press China,2008,p.169 .(in Chinese)
27 LI Haopei,Introduction to the Law of Treaties,Beijing:Law Press China,1987,p.329.(in Chinese)
29 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.7.(in Chinese)
30 Hersch Lauterpacht ed.,WANG Tieya and CHEN Tiqiang tans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.1,No.2,Beijing:The Commercial Press,p.365.(in Chinese)
40 HAN Liyu,Application of the Good Faith Principle to WTO Dispute Settlement,Jurists Review,No.6,2005,p.151.(in Chinese)
44 LIU Jingdong,The Principle of Good Faith in WTO Legal System,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2009,p.7.(in Chinese)
45 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.6.(in Chinese)
46 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.125.(in Chinese)
47 LUO Gang,The Principle of Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in International Law from the Perspective of Legal Realism–Taking the SCS Arbitration as an Example,in KONG Qingjiang ed.,International Law Review,Vol.7,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2016,p.19.(in Chinese)
48 Spanish Civil Code,Article 7(1),and the first sentence of Article 7(2).
50 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,pp.125~140.(in Chinese)
54 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.126.(in Chinese)
58 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.128.(in Chinese)
61 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,pp.135~136.(in Chinese)
65 LUO Gang,The Principle of Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in International Law from the Perspective of Legal Realism–Taking the SCS Arbitration as an Example,in KONG Qingjiang ed.,International Law Review,Vol.7,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2016,p.19.(in Chinese)
74 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
75 At http://asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-chinasea-3&category_id=32,13 May 2017.(in Chinese)
77 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/ziliao_611306 /tyti_611313/t83909.shtml,2 April 2017.
80 Song Yann-huei,“The South China Sea Arbitration Case Filed by the Philippines against China”:A Discussion on Preliminary Objections to the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction,Chinese Review of International Law,No.2,2014,p.31.(in Chinese)
84 LUO Gang,The Principle of Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in International Law from the Perspective of Legal Realism–Taking the SCS Arbitration as an Example,in KONG Qingjiang ed.,International Law Review,Vol.7,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2016,p.24.(in Chinese)
86 Michael Sheng-ti Gau,The Jurisdiction and Admissibility Rulings of the South China Sea Arbitration:Errors in Law and in Fact,Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies,Vol.2,No.1 ,2017,p.18.(in Chinese)
91 Bin CHENG,HAN Xiuli and CAI Congyan trans.,General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals,Beijing:Law Press China,2012,p.267.(in Chinese)
96 ZHANG Hua,The Emerging Problem of Non-appearance in the UNLCOS Dispute Settlement Mechanism,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.12,2014,p.8.(in Chinese)
99 YE Qiang,Challenges for China Concerning International Judicial Intervention in Its Battle for Maritime Rights and Interests with Neighboring States:A Perspective from Two Cases,World Affairs,No.10,2015,pp.25~27.(in Chinese)
101 LUO Gang,The Principle of Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in International Law from the Perspective of Legal Realism–Taking the SCS Arbitration as an Example,in KONG Qingjiang ed.,International Law Review,Vol.7,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2016,p.21.(in Chinese)
103 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
104 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
105 ZHANG Zuxing,South China Sea Arbitration:A Critical Review of the Rulings by the Tribunal concerning Historic Rights Claim,Southeast Asian Studies,No.6,2016,p.47.(in Chinese)
111 M.C.W.Pinto,The Interpretation of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Rule of Law,Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies,No.2,2016,p.43.(in Chinese)
112 M.C.W.Pinto,The Interpretation of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Rule of Law,Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies,No.2,2016,p.43.(in Chinese)
117 Michael Sheng-ti Gau,The Jurisdiction and Admissibility Rulings of the South China Sea Arbitration:Errors in Law and in Fact,Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies,Vol.2,No.1,2017,p.17.(in Chinese)
121 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
124 HUANG Yao,China’s Lawful Rights and Interests within the South China Sea Dashedline:Based on the Analysis of the South China Sea Arbitration Award,Frontiers,No.23,2016,p.25.(in Chinese)
125 HUANG Yao,China’s Lawful Rights and Interests within the South China Sea Dashedline:Based on the Analysis of the South China Sea Arbitration Award,Frontiers,No.23,2016,p.25.(in Chinese)
126 LUO Gang,The Truth of International Law and Fundamental Flaws in the SCS Arbitration between China and the Philippines,at http://www.aisixiang.com/data/100801.html,27March 2017.(in Chinese)
127 LI Zhiwen and MA Yu,Interpretation of the Sovereignty Theory for China’s Position to the South China Sea Arbitration Case,Pacific Journal,No.9,2016,p.3.(in Chinese)
128 LI Zhiwen and MA Yu,Interpretation of the Sovereignty Theory for China’s Position to the South China Sea Arbitration Case,Pacific Journal,No.9,2016,p.3.(in Chinese)
129 LI Zhiwen and MA Yu,Interpretation of the Sovereignty Theory for China’s Position to the South China Sea Arbitration Case,Pacific Journal,No.9,2016,p.3.(in Chinese)
130 UNCLOS,Preamble:“Affirming that matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law.”
133 LI Guang,The Analysis of the United States’Position on the South China Sea Dispute in1930s,Pacific Journal,Vol.24,No.7,2016,p.68.(in Chinese)
135 Song Yann-huei,The South China Sea Arbitration Case Filed by the Philippines against China:A Discussion on Preliminary Objections to the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction,Chinese Review of International Law,No.2,2014,pp.30~31.(in Chinese)
137 Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines,7 December 2014,para.52.
138 Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines,7 December 2014,paras.31~37,53~54.
139 Alfred Verdross et al.,LI Haopei trans.,International Law,Beijing:Commercial Press,1981,pp.777~778.(in Chinese)
140 Hersch Lauterpacht ed.,WANG Tieya and CHEN Tiqiang tans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.1,No.2,Beijing:The Commercial Press,p.204.(in Chinese)
141 FENG Shoubo,On the Treaty Interpretation in“Good Faith”:An Empirical Research on“Good Faith”in Art.31.1 of VCLT,Pacific Journal,Vol.22,No.5,2015,p.8.(in Chinese)
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |