【摘要】：冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后，兩極格局不復(fù)存在，全球化、多極化趨勢(shì)日益加強(qiáng)，國(guó)際社會(huì)逐步進(jìn)入全球治理與國(guó)際法治時(shí)代。從上個(gè)世紀(jì)八十年代中期開(kāi)始，國(guó)際法院逐漸復(fù)興，審理案件逐年增多，工作效率也有所提高，國(guó)際社會(huì)對(duì)此普遍報(bào)以歡迎態(tài)度。國(guó)際社會(huì)是一個(gè)平權(quán)社會(huì)，不存在任何超越國(guó)家之上的中央權(quán)威機(jī)關(guān)。與之相適應(yīng)的是，國(guó)際法院也不具備類(lèi)似于國(guó)內(nèi)法院的強(qiáng)制管轄權(quán)，其管轄權(quán)的行使必須基于國(guó)家的同意。無(wú)論從國(guó)際法院的既往判例，還是從各國(guó)所持的現(xiàn)實(shí)態(tài)度來(lái)看，國(guó)際社會(huì)中有較多國(guó)家對(duì)國(guó)際法院信任不足，始終徘徊于國(guó)際法院的大門(mén)之外。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)國(guó)際法治和維護(hù)國(guó)際秩序的和平，國(guó)際法院想方設(shè)法地在國(guó)家同意原則的基礎(chǔ)之上開(kāi)辟新的管轄途徑。鼓勵(lì)各國(guó)通過(guò)遲延同意管轄權(quán)將爭(zhēng)端提交國(guó)際法院裁決便是其中的一項(xiàng)重大舉措。就在本世紀(jì)初，遲延同意管轄權(quán)得到了兩次典型的適用，取得了較好的效果并得到國(guó)際法院和有關(guān)方面的積極肯定與認(rèn)可。因此，對(duì)該管轄權(quán)的研究兼具理論和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。 除緒論和結(jié)論外，論文共分五章。第一章首先對(duì)遲延同意管轄權(quán)做了比較明確的界定，接著對(duì)該管轄權(quán)的法律特征、歷史發(fā)展和法律依據(jù)等內(nèi)容做了必要的論述。第二章從被告國(guó)、原告國(guó)和國(guó)際法院三個(gè)角度出發(fā)，集中探討了遲延同意管轄權(quán)的三大運(yùn)行原則——同意原則、善意原則和管轄權(quán)的管轄權(quán)原則，力圖澄清若干相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題。第三章主要涉及與遲延同意管轄權(quán)相關(guān)的附帶程序。本章通過(guò)對(duì)相關(guān)理論和司法實(shí)踐的分析，，逐步厘清其與各附帶程序相互間的關(guān)系以及在適用時(shí)需要注意的問(wèn)題。第四章是對(duì)遲延同意管轄權(quán)相關(guān)案件的法律剖析，既有常設(shè)國(guó)際法院時(shí)期的案件概述，也有最新典型案件的詳盡分析，力圖做到詳略得當(dāng)，重點(diǎn)突出。第五章回顧了中國(guó)與國(guó)際法院關(guān)系的歷史與現(xiàn)狀，并對(duì)中國(guó)不接受?chē)?guó)際法院管轄的原因進(jìn)行了深入探討。在此基礎(chǔ)之上，本文得出結(jié)論認(rèn)為，積極利用遲延同意管轄權(quán)的優(yōu)越性，根據(jù)具體情況有選擇地將重要性為中等程度的案件提交國(guó)際法院的做法，不失為我國(guó)利用國(guó)際法院的一個(gè)潛在突破口。同時(shí)，這也是維護(hù)我國(guó)國(guó)家利益、順應(yīng)國(guó)際法治進(jìn)程的理性選擇。
[Abstract]:Since the end of the cold war, the bipolar pattern has ceased to exist, the trend of globalization and multipolarization has strengthened, and the international community has gradually entered the era of global governance and international rule of law. The international community is a society of equal rights, and there is no central authority beyond the state. Accordingly, the International Court of Justice does not have compulsory jurisdiction similar to that of domestic courts, and the exercise of its jurisdiction must be based on the consent of the state. In order to realize the international rule of law and maintain the peace of international order, the International Court of Justice has tried every means to open up new jurisdictional channels on the basis of the principle of consent by States. It encourages States to delay consent to jurisdiction to settle disputes. Referring to the International Court of Justice is one of the important measures. At the beginning of this century, the deferred consent jurisdiction has been applied twice, and achieved good results, and has been positively affirmed and recognized by the International Court of Justice and related parties. Therefore, the study of this jurisdiction has both theoretical and practical significance.
The first chapter defines the jurisdiction of deferred consent clearly, and then discusses the legal characteristics, historical development and legal basis of the jurisdiction. The second chapter focuses on the defence, plaintiff and the International Court of justice. The third chapter mainly deals with the incidental procedure related to the jurisdiction of delayed consent. Through the analysis of relevant theories and judicial practice, this chapter gradually clarifies the relationship between the principle of consent, the principle of good faith and the principle of jurisdiction of jurisdiction. Chapter Four is the legal analysis of the cases related to the deferred consent jurisdiction, including the summary of the cases in the period of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the detailed analysis of the latest typical cases. It tries to be detailed and appropriate, with emphasis. Chapter Five reviews the history and current situation of the relationship between China and the International Court of Justice, and also makes a detailed analysis of the latest typical cases. On this basis, the article concludes that it is a potential breakthrough for China to actively utilize the superiority of delayed consent jurisdiction and selectively refer cases of intermediate importance to the International Court of Justice according to specific circumstances. At the same time, it is also a rational choice to safeguard our national interests and conform to the international rule of law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：外交學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D997.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 許楚旭;;國(guó)際法院訴訟案件判決的執(zhí)行問(wèn)題探析[J];北方法學(xué);2009年05期

2 姜琪;簡(jiǎn)論國(guó)際法上的管轄權(quán)制度[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2001年05期

3 趙海峰;;論國(guó)際司法程序的發(fā)展及其對(duì)國(guó)際法的影響[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2011年01期

4 宋杰;;國(guó)際法院司法實(shí)踐中的反訴問(wèn)題研究[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期

5 徐杰;聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際法院作用之辨析[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1996年03期

6 鐘繼軍;;政府間組織成為國(guó)際法院訴訟當(dāng)事者之辨析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年05期

7 林泰;陳紅;;非政府組織與聯(lián)合國(guó)、國(guó)際法院關(guān)系比較析論[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年09期

8 趙海峰;;中國(guó)與國(guó)際司法機(jī)構(gòu)關(guān)系的演進(jìn)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2008年06期

9 蘇曉宏;國(guó)際司法對(duì)國(guó)際關(guān)系轉(zhuǎn)型的影響[J];法學(xué);2005年04期

10 何志鵬;;國(guó)際社會(huì)的法治路徑[J];法治研究;2010年11期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

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

2 黃建中;國(guó)際法庭管轄權(quán)研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2005年

本文編號(hào)：2196509