發(fā)布時間：2018-06-24 02:45

  本文選題：條約 + 退出權(quán)�。� 參考：《湖南師范大學》2012年博士論文

【摘要】：一般認為,國際法制度是建立在條約必須信守這一基本原則基礎(chǔ)之上的。但是,無論是條約自身,還是條約所處的地緣政治外部條件,都不可能是靜止不變的。當政治形勢的變化或者各國外交偏好的變化使得條約的目的難以實現(xiàn),或使得條約的條款略顯過時,又抑或造成締約方不恰當?shù)呢摀鷷r,國際法往往會引導有關(guān)締約方更為可取地先與其他締約伙伴進行重新談判,并設(shè)法對條約進行修訂。一旦變更條約未果,締約方甚至是不惜行使條約退出權(quán)以實現(xiàn)其目的。雖然條約退出權(quán)的行使在國際社會條約法實踐中已是屢見不鮮的現(xiàn)象,并且各條約中退出權(quán)條款的設(shè)計也稱得上是多式多樣,但是令人感到奇怪的就是,條約退出權(quán)課題在國際法學研究領(lǐng)域卻只受到了極少的關(guān)注。 條約退出權(quán)的歷史形成與發(fā)展可以1969年《維也納條約法公約》的通過為標志,分為三個階段：即《維也納條約法公約》制定前階段、《維也納條約法公約》制定階段與《維也納條約法公約》制定后階段。按照不同的分類標準,條約退出權(quán)可劃分為明示退出權(quán)與默示退出權(quán)、約定退出權(quán)與一般國際法退出權(quán)、單方退出權(quán)與集體退出權(quán)以及全部退出權(quán)與部分退出權(quán)。 從本質(zhì)上講,條約退出權(quán)屬于主權(quán)的一種發(fā)散與特權(quán)。條約退出權(quán)的主權(quán)屬性決定了這種權(quán)利的正當性。條約法實踐中的條約退出權(quán)類似于國際習慣法的背離權(quán)與國內(nèi)私法領(lǐng)域的合同解除權(quán)。其實,通過行使條約退出權(quán),締約方所表現(xiàn)出的是對合作價值、協(xié)調(diào)價值、正義價值、保障價值、實用價值和適變價值的追求。在承認條約退出權(quán)對維護締約方利益具有重要積極作用的同時,也要兼顧考慮國際社會的整體利益。 條約退出權(quán)的行使條件有實質(zhì)條件與程序條件之分。其中,實質(zhì)條件包括條約當事方共同同意、情勢重大變更、其他締約方的重大違約與條約履行不能等。在程序方面,一些條約會對締約方行使退出權(quán)的時間予以限制。一般地,條約都要求退出方做出退出通知。而通知須經(jīng)過一段時期后,條約退出權(quán)方可生效。在通知做出與退出權(quán)生效之間應(yīng)有一段異議期,但異議期的時間長度以及退出通知中退出理由的說明并不具有國際習慣法性質(zhì)。 條約退出權(quán)的主權(quán)屬性決定了退出權(quán)具有相對性的一面。條約退出權(quán)的行使應(yīng)受到條約必須信守原則的約束。而且,條約退出權(quán)的行使還應(yīng)受到國際社會本位原則的約束。 必須注意的是,退出國在退出權(quán)生效后,相對于所退出的條約而言,其地位則回復到第三方的位置,退出的條約不再對其產(chǎn)生新的權(quán)利與義務(wù)。但是,退出國就其在退出權(quán)生效前就已產(chǎn)生的條約內(nèi)義務(wù),應(yīng)該是不能解除的。另外,對于退出國先前參加的條約中所載的無論是強行法規(guī)則,還是國際習慣法規(guī)范,均應(yīng)保持對退出國的約束效力。 1969年《維也納條約法公約》第五編第四節(jié)規(guī)定了締約方解決退出權(quán)爭端所應(yīng)遵循的程序。這一爭端解決程序分為兩個階段：第一階段是公約第65條第3款所規(guī)定的任意程序；第二階段是公約第66條和附錄所規(guī)定的強制程序�？紤]到《維也納條約法公約》的條約退出權(quán)爭端解決機制不具備國際習慣法性質(zhì),因而對非締約國缺乏必然的約束力,因此具體條約的退出權(quán)爭端應(yīng)優(yōu)先適用該條約自身所包含的爭端解決機制或方法。
[Abstract]:Although the exercise of the right of withdrawal of a treaty has been a common phenomenon in the practice of international social treaty law , and attempts to revise the treaty , it is surprising that the exercise of the right of withdrawal of the treaty has been a common phenomenon in the practice of international social treaty law , but it is surprising that the subject of the withdrawal of treaties is only rarely paid attention in the field of international jurisprudence research .

The history formation and development of the withdrawal right of the treaty can be divided into three stages by the adoption of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 , namely , the pre - establishment phase of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties , the elaboration phase of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the post - establishment phase of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties .

In fact , through the exercise of the right of withdrawal of treaties , the withdrawal of treaties is similar to the right of departure of international customary law and the right to rescind the contract in the field of domestic private law . In fact , by exercising the right of withdrawal of treaties , the party has shown the pursuit of cooperation value , coordination value , justice value , guarantee value , practical value and adaptable value . In recognition of the important positive role of the right of withdrawal of the treaty on the interests of the contracting parties , the whole benefit of the international community must be taken into account .

There are substantial conditions and procedural conditions for the exercise of the right of withdrawal of a treaty . The substantive conditions include the mutual consent of the parties to the treaty , a significant change in the situation , a significant breach of the treaty by other parties , and the inability of the treaty to perform .

The exercise of the right of withdrawal of a treaty should be bound by the principles of the treaty must adhere to . Moreover , the exercise of the right of withdrawal of the treaty should also be bound by the principles of the international community .

It must be noted that the withdrawal State , after the entry into force of the right to exit , has returned to the position of the third party with respect to the withdrawal of the treaty and that the withdrawal of the treaty no longer produces new rights and obligations .

Section IV of Part V of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 sets out the procedures to be followed by Parties in the settlement of disputes from the right to withdrawal . This dispute settlement procedure is divided into two stages : the first phase is any procedure set out in article 65 , paragraph 3 , of the Convention ;
The second phase is the mandatory procedure set out in article 66 and appendix of the Convention , taking into account that the dispute settlement mechanism of the treaty withdrawal from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not have international customary law and is therefore a lack of bound binding on non - parties , so that the dispute on the withdrawal of a particular treaty should give priority to the dispute settlement mechanism or method contained in the treaty itself .
【學位授予單位】：湖南師范大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D993.8

【引證文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 索志英;;論《武器貿(mào)易條約》中的大國博弈[J];湖北函授大學學報;2014年09期

，

本文編號：2059639