【摘要】：《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》無疑是國際法發(fā)展過程中的一項(xiàng)重要成就,它在世界范圍內(nèi)建立起了一套海洋法律規(guī)則,作為海洋法領(lǐng)域的綱領(lǐng)性文件對(duì)國際海洋秩序進(jìn)行了全局性的調(diào)整。為了促進(jìn)海洋爭(zhēng)端的有效解決,公約在充分尊重締約國自由意志的基礎(chǔ)上設(shè)立了一套強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制,該機(jī)制提供了四種強(qiáng)制途徑來解決爭(zhēng)端,其中就包括依據(jù)公約附件七組成的仲裁法庭,本文即以該仲裁法庭的管轄權(quán)問題作為研究對(duì)象與主題。仲裁作為一種公正、靈活的法律方法,長久以來在國際爭(zhēng)端解決上發(fā)揮了重要作用�！堵�(lián)合國海洋法公約》不僅將仲裁列為強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序之一,還將其設(shè)置為強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的兜底管轄方式,除公約允許的限制與例外,締約國不被允許任意排除仲裁法庭的強(qiáng)制管轄。仲裁法庭在公約爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制中的地位可見一斑。中國作為公約締約國以及海洋爭(zhēng)端多發(fā)國,雖然在國際爭(zhēng)端解決上一向主張以和平談判協(xié)商解決,但條約必須信守,中國依然受制于公約的爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制,因此處于隨時(shí)可能被提起強(qiáng)制仲裁的被動(dòng)地位。中國正在面臨的中菲南海仲裁就是菲律賓援用公約強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的結(jié)果。因此,中國應(yīng)當(dāng)重視對(duì)仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)的研究以及相關(guān)對(duì)策的制定,特別是應(yīng)當(dāng)充分把握與利用公約對(duì)仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)的諸項(xiàng)限制,確保在公約的框架下最大限度捍衛(wèi)本國的海洋權(quán)益。本文正文共分四章,圍繞著仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)這一核心展開,逐層深入。第一章為概述。主要內(nèi)容是對(duì)仲裁法庭以及仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)進(jìn)行概念性和特征性的界定與介紹。本文將“仲裁法庭”界定為一種依據(jù)《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》附件七組建的對(duì)公約規(guī)定的海洋爭(zhēng)端行使強(qiáng)制管轄權(quán)的非常設(shè)爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu),與國際法院、國際海洋法法庭等國際爭(zhēng)端解決途徑相比具有非常設(shè)性和靈活性。相應(yīng)的,本文將“仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)”界定為《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》下作為強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決途徑的仲裁法庭基于當(dāng)事方同意對(duì)爭(zhēng)端具有的有拘束力的審理和裁判的權(quán)力和權(quán)限,從特點(diǎn)上來看,本文研究的仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)屬于意思自治下的強(qiáng)制管轄,并且在公約的強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制中具有兜底性。第二章“仲裁法庭的管轄權(quán)基礎(chǔ)和管轄范圍”是本文的核心。首先,本章從法律基礎(chǔ)、法理基礎(chǔ)和具體來源三個(gè)方面剖析了仲裁法庭的管轄權(quán)基礎(chǔ),其中,《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》毫無疑問是仲裁法庭行使管轄權(quán)的法律基礎(chǔ),而國家同意原則和條約必須遵守原則為仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)提供了法理基礎(chǔ),具體到案件來看,仲裁法庭取得管轄權(quán)有三種途徑:因當(dāng)事方聲明選擇而獲得、因當(dāng)事方默認(rèn)選擇而獲得以及因當(dāng)事方未一致選擇導(dǎo)致獲得。其次,本章從對(duì)人管轄、對(duì)事管轄、管轄限制三個(gè)方面介紹了仲裁法庭的管轄范圍,總結(jié)來說,仲裁法庭對(duì)締約國、締約的國際組織、締約的自治聯(lián)系國、自治領(lǐng)土以及其他相關(guān)實(shí)體有關(guān)公約的解釋或適用的爭(zhēng)端,以及在滿足特定條件的情況下對(duì)有關(guān)其他協(xié)定的解釋或適用的爭(zhēng)端具有管轄權(quán),此外仲裁法庭還是管轄權(quán)異議的管轄主體。當(dāng)然公約也對(duì)仲裁法庭的管轄權(quán)范圍設(shè)定了限制和例外,這主要表現(xiàn)為公約排除了仲裁對(duì)有關(guān)海洋科學(xué)研究和漁業(yè)爭(zhēng)端的強(qiáng)制管轄,以及締約國可聲明排除仲裁法庭對(duì)有關(guān)海洋劃界、領(lǐng)土和軍事活動(dòng)的爭(zhēng)端以及聯(lián)合國安理會(huì)正在處理的爭(zhēng)端的強(qiáng)制管轄。最后,本章分析了仲裁法庭行使管轄權(quán)的條件,其中包括交換意見義務(wù)、協(xié)議限制、用盡當(dāng)?shù)匮a(bǔ)救辦法等。第三章為案例評(píng)析。本章選取了三個(gè)由公約仲裁法庭審理的在管轄權(quán)問題上具有代表性與研究?jī)r(jià)值的案件,包括麥?zhǔn)辖饦岕~案、巴巴多斯訴特立尼達(dá)和多巴哥案和MOX工廠案,分別從管轄權(quán)異議的由來、爭(zhēng)端各方意見、仲裁法庭意見以及案件評(píng)析等多方面對(duì)案件的管轄權(quán)問題進(jìn)行展開,目的就在于通過實(shí)例呈現(xiàn)公約關(guān)于仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)的規(guī)定在實(shí)務(wù)中的運(yùn)用以及仲裁法庭在實(shí)踐中審查管轄權(quán)問題的邏輯和思路。第四章“仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)的應(yīng)對(duì)及中國對(duì)策分析”是全文的落腳點(diǎn),也是本文研究意義之所在。本章的第一節(jié)對(duì)中國對(duì)待仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)的立場(chǎng)進(jìn)行了介紹,結(jié)論為中國沒有主動(dòng)選擇仲裁程序?yàn)榭山邮艿膹?qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決途徑,并且在公約允許的范圍內(nèi)最大限度排除了仲裁法庭的強(qiáng)制管轄,雖然仲裁法庭作為兜底管轄程序依然有可能管轄中國作為當(dāng)事國的海洋爭(zhēng)端,但這僅僅是公約要求的結(jié)果,而并非出于中國的意愿。中國對(duì)待仲裁法庭的立場(chǎng)是其對(duì)法律途徑解決國際爭(zhēng)端的一貫保守和謹(jǐn)慎態(tài)度的堅(jiān)持�；诖�,本章第二節(jié)對(duì)中國正視仲裁法庭管轄權(quán)的重要性進(jìn)行了分析,一方面從仲裁法庭的強(qiáng)制管轄和保底管轄論證了其必要性,另一方面以仲裁程序的可取性結(jié)合海洋仲裁實(shí)踐對(duì)合理性進(jìn)行了論證。本章第三節(jié)是本文的精髓所在,就中國應(yīng)對(duì)仲裁法庭管轄的策略進(jìn)行了分析,并提出了以公約為武器維護(hù)本國利益的建議,具體來說,中國應(yīng)當(dāng)善用仲裁規(guī)則、充分運(yùn)用公約權(quán)利,同時(shí)選擇合適的時(shí)機(jī)主動(dòng)援用仲裁程序來維護(hù)本國利益。最后,針對(duì)中國正在面臨的南海爭(zhēng)端仲裁,本文從法律角度對(duì)照公約規(guī)定對(duì)該案的管轄權(quán)問題進(jìn)行了梳理并且重點(diǎn)關(guān)注的是可能對(duì)中國一方不利的事項(xiàng),以此法律分析為基礎(chǔ),文章對(duì)中國的“不接受、不參與”立場(chǎng)進(jìn)行了研究和做出肯定,并且就仲裁法庭程序的進(jìn)一步應(yīng)對(duì)提出了自己的建議。結(jié)語部分是對(duì)正文內(nèi)容的簡(jiǎn)要概括和總結(jié)。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D993.5

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王玉瑋;陳曉雪;;釣魚島在東海劃界中的作用[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2006年01期

2 游文麗;張學(xué)慧;張曉;;中日東海海域劃界爭(zhēng)端及解決[J];北京化工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年03期

3 游博;;透析中日油氣資源及東海大陸架劃分之爭(zhēng)問題[J];長白學(xué)刊;2006年01期

4 明廷權(quán);;國際法視野下的中日東海爭(zhēng)端[J];長春師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年01期

5 張衛(wèi)彬;;相關(guān)情況規(guī)則中的實(shí)際控制效力研究——從國際法院司法判例角度[J];常熟理工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

6 曲波;;歷史性權(quán)利在《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》中的地位[J];東北師大學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

7 李毅;論澳巴海洋邊界劃分方法之特色及其對(duì)中日東海海域劃界之借鑒意義[J];東北亞論壇;2005年03期

8 王秀英;;中日東海大陸架劃界中的若干關(guān)鍵問題[J];東北亞論壇;2007年06期

9 李廣義;東海大陸架劃界爭(zhēng)端國際法依據(jù)辨證[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2005年03期

10 曲波;;對(duì)大陸架劃界的幾個(gè)問題的思考[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2006年04期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前6條

1 陳亞蕓;;南�！皵R置爭(zhēng)議、共同開發(fā)”的前景——兼評(píng)國際社會(huì)解決南海爭(zhēng)端的提案[A];2008全國博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇（國際法）論文集——國際公法、國際私法分冊(cè)[C];2008年

2 羅婷婷;;“九段線”法律地位探析——以四種學(xué)說為中心[A];《中國海洋法學(xué)評(píng)論》2008年卷第1期[C];2008年

3 曹英志;范曉婷;;再論海洋傾廢概念[A];《中國海洋法學(xué)評(píng)論》2008年卷第1期[C];2008年

4 姜麗;張潔;;淺析群島制度的適用及南海劃界[A];《中國海洋法學(xué)評(píng)論》2010年卷第1期[C];2010年

5 羅婷婷;XIE Hongyue;;“九段線”法律地位探析——以四種學(xué)說為中心[A];中國海洋法學(xué)評(píng)論（2008年卷第1期 總第7期）[C];2014年

6 曹英志;范曉婷;SHI Chu;;再論海洋傾廢概念[A];中國海洋法學(xué)評(píng)論（2008年卷第1期 總第7期）[C];2014年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王倩;海洋爭(zhēng)端的類型化研究[D];中央民族大學(xué);2011年

2 張衛(wèi)彬;國際法院解決領(lǐng)土爭(zhēng)端中的證據(jù)問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

3 王金強(qiáng);國際海底資源分配與美國的政策選擇[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2011年

4 紀(jì)曉昕;國家管轄范圍外深海底生物多樣性法律規(guī)制研究[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2011年

5 莊煒;大陸架劃界的國際法原則與實(shí)踐[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

6 李響;國際法視野下的中國海事行政執(zhí)法問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2012年

7 金永明;國際海底區(qū)域的法律地位與資源開發(fā)制度研究[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2005年

8 陳威;論專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)的剩余權(quán)利[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

9 王巖;國際海底區(qū)域資源開發(fā)制度研究[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2007年

10 李文沛;國際海洋法之海盜問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 遲遠(yuǎn)達(dá);中日“東海共識(shí)”淺析及東海共同開發(fā)建議[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2010年

2 劉璐妍;大陸架劃界的法律問題研究[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2010年

3 涂娟;《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》中專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)的剩余權(quán)利研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2010年

4 婁智宇;中日東海劃界問題的探析[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

5 湛艷梅;中國海洋基本法研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2011年

6 簡(jiǎn)超宗;中日東海爭(zhēng)端與中國國家利益的維護(hù)[D];暨南大學(xué);2011年

7 馬麗;南海爭(zhēng)端解決模式比較分析[D];上海師范大學(xué);2011年

8 楊熙;中國及周邊國家外大陸架申請(qǐng)案研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2011年

9 張鋒茹;專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)非沿海國軍事活動(dòng)的法律問題[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

10 馮小燕;論海上緊追權(quán)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：2188952