【摘要】：條約法上的目的與宗旨原則于上世紀(jì)五十年代在國(guó)際法院判例中得到確立,并在六十年代末被編纂進(jìn)《維也納條約法公約》。目的與宗旨原則是條約法的一項(xiàng)重要原則,在內(nèi)容與適用范圍上都不同于傳統(tǒng)的目的論解釋方法。它規(guī)制的條約行為,除條約的解釋與保留之外,還包括其他條約行為,如修改、終止等。長(zhǎng)期以來(lái),學(xué)界對(duì)該問(wèn)題的研究?jī)H限于條約的解釋與條約的保留。2011年《對(duì)條約的保留的實(shí)踐指南》案文的通過(guò),不僅標(biāo)志著條約保留專題研究上的巨大成就,同時(shí)也對(duì)條約法上的目的與宗旨原則的研究具有重大指導(dǎo)意義。 本文除“引言”和“結(jié)語(yǔ)”外,正文由以下三章組成： 第一章闡釋了條約法上的目的與宗旨原則的涵義與特征。其中重點(diǎn)論述了三個(gè)問(wèn)題：1.條約的目的與宗旨的概念；2.條約法上的目的與宗旨原則的涵義；3.條約法上的目的與宗旨原則的特征。本文認(rèn)為,條約的目的與宗旨是個(gè)整體的概念,是條約存在的理由。它表征的是條約的價(jià)值目的和締約意圖。條約法上的目的與宗旨原則是一種要求,即條約主體在實(shí)施條約行為時(shí)必須與條約的目的與宗旨相一致。它體現(xiàn)了目的與宗旨在條約中的核心地位。目的與宗旨原則既具模糊性與靈活性,又有確定性與客觀性。一方面,目的與宗旨原則是一種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)性規(guī)則,需經(jīng)解釋方可適用。在該原則的適用中,評(píng)估條約行為合目的性的主體又具有多元性,因此它具有一定程度的模糊性。另一方面,目的與宗旨原則在1969年與1986年《維也納條約法公約》中涉及八個(gè)條款、兩個(gè)層面的解釋,都需要運(yùn)用公約第31條至33條的條約解釋規(guī)則。條約解釋規(guī)則的多種客觀要素是目的與宗旨原則確定性與客觀性的來(lái)源。 第二章是對(duì)條約法上目的與宗旨原則的證成。論證分為兩個(gè)過(guò)程：1.目的與宗旨原則的法理證成；2.目的與宗旨原則的法律證成。在法理證成中,通過(guò)闡釋自然法學(xué)、社會(huì)法學(xué)、分析法學(xué)在“法律的目的”這一問(wèn)題上的不同觀點(diǎn)和二戰(zhàn)后它們的相融趨勢(shì),本文指出,法律是實(shí)證主義與價(jià)值目標(biāo)相結(jié)合的產(chǎn)物。追求確定性與實(shí)現(xiàn)價(jià)值目標(biāo)看似相互矛盾,但它們又真實(shí)地結(jié)合在一起。法律是規(guī)范與價(jià)值的辯證統(tǒng)一,這是目的與宗旨原則的理論基礎(chǔ)。國(guó)際社會(huì)締結(jié)的條約是國(guó)際法上的各種價(jià)值目標(biāo)的體現(xiàn),這些價(jià)值目標(biāo)對(duì)促進(jìn)國(guó)際社會(huì)的安全、穩(wěn)定與繁榮具有重要意義,它們?cè)跅l約中居于核心地位。這是目的與宗旨原則的現(xiàn)實(shí)依據(jù)。在對(duì)目的與宗旨原則進(jìn)行法律證成時(shí),本文在闡釋分析《維也納條約法公約》涉及的相關(guān)條款后認(rèn)為,公約雖然對(duì)條約行為合目的性的要求只作了框架性規(guī)定,但從國(guó)際實(shí)踐、國(guó)際法文件中,都能找到目的與宗旨原則具有確定性的依據(jù)。 第三章論述了目的與宗旨原則的適用。主要說(shuō)明三個(gè)問(wèn)題：1.目的與宗旨原則的適用前提；2.條約目的與宗旨的確定；3.條約行為與條約目的和宗旨一致性的評(píng)估。本文認(rèn)為,目的與宗旨原則的適用以尊重既有規(guī)則的確定性為前提。在約文清晰明確而存在邏輯關(guān)系時(shí),不得凌駕于條約規(guī)則之上關(guān)于目的與宗旨的確定方法,按國(guó)際法委員會(huì)的指導(dǎo)意見(jiàn),適用《維也納條約法公約》中的條約解釋規(guī)則。參照條約約名、約首、約文、嗣后實(shí)踐等客觀因素進(jìn)行循環(huán)論證是較為可行的方法。締約國(guó)或締約組織、爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)、條約監(jiān)督機(jī)構(gòu)有權(quán)評(píng)估條約行為的合目的性。他們之間是互補(bǔ)而非對(duì)抗的關(guān)系,彼此之間的尊重有利于形成一致的評(píng)估結(jié)果。條約行為合目的性的評(píng)估可以通過(guò)合議制程序進(jìn)行集體評(píng)估,也可以提交國(guó)際司法機(jī)構(gòu)裁決。在條約行為與條約的目的和宗旨不符時(shí),在不同的條約行為下會(huì)產(chǎn)生不同的法律后果。如,在保留與條約的目的和宗旨不符時(shí),保留是非法的,也是無(wú)效的；而在修改多邊條約違背了條約的目的和宗旨時(shí),修改是非法的,卻是有效的。 最后,論文得出以下結(jié)論：條約法上的目的與宗旨原則在《維也納條約法公約》中具有統(tǒng)領(lǐng)性,它規(guī)制著多種條約行為,是條約法的一項(xiàng)重要原則。它是戰(zhàn)后實(shí)證主義與價(jià)值取向法理學(xué)在條約法領(lǐng)域結(jié)合的產(chǎn)物,體現(xiàn)出模糊性與確定性的雙重特征。只強(qiáng)調(diào)條約目的與宗旨的價(jià)值追求而不以尊重條約規(guī)則為前提,不利于條約權(quán)利義務(wù)的確定性；相反,只重視條約規(guī)則的邏輯分析而排除了條約追求的價(jià)值目標(biāo)又將使條約成為徒具形式的軀殼。對(duì)條約法上目的與宗旨原則的合理把握取決于兩種傾向間的合理平衡。
[Abstract]:The principle of purpose and purpose in treaty law was established in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice in the 1950s and codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in the late 1960s. The principle of purpose and purpose is an important principle of treaty law, which differs from traditional teleological interpretation in content and scope of application. In addition to the interpretation and reservation of treaties, treaty acts also include other treaty acts, such as modification and termination. For a long time, academic research on this issue has been limited to the interpretation of treaties and reservations to treaties. It also has great guiding significance for the study of the purpose and principle of the treaty law.
Besides the "Introduction" and "epilogue", the text consists of the following three chapters:
The first chapter explains the meaning and characteristics of the principle of object and purpose in treaty law, which focuses on three issues: 1. the concept of the object and purpose of a treaty; 2. the meaning of the principle of object and purpose in treaty law; 3. the characteristics of the principle of object and purpose in treaty law. The principle of purpose and purpose in treaty law is a requirement that the subject of a treaty must act in accordance with the object and purpose of the treaty. It embodies the core position of purpose and purpose in the treaty. On the one hand, the principle of purpose and purpose is a standard rule, which can only be applied by interpretation. In the application of this principle, the subject assessing the purpose of the Treaty Act is pluralistic, so it has a certain degree of fuzziness. On the other hand, the principle of purpose and purpose was in 1969. In 1986 and 1986, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties covers eight articles, and both levels of interpretation require the application of the rules of treaty interpretation in Articles 31 to 33 of the Convention.
The second chapter is the proof of the principle of purpose and purpose in treaty law. The proof is divided into two processes: 1. the legal proof of the principle of purpose and purpose; 2. the legal proof of the principle of purpose and purpose. This paper points out that law is the product of the combination of positivism and value goals. The pursuit of certainty and the realization of value goals seem to contradict each other, but they are really combined. Law is the dialectical unity of norms and values, which is the theoretical basis of the principle of purpose and purpose. The manifestation of various value objectives in international law is of great significance to the security, stability and prosperity of the international community, and they are at the core of the treaty. This is the realistic basis of the principle of purpose and purpose. According to the relevant provisions of the treaty, although the convention only provides a framework for the requirement of the purposefulness of treaty acts, the principle of purpose and purpose can be found in international practice and documents of international law on the basis of certainty.
The third chapter discusses the application of the principle of purpose and purpose.It mainly explains three issues:1.the premise of application of the principle of purpose and purpose;2.the determination of the object and purpose of a treaty;3.the evaluation of the consistency between the act of a treaty and the object and purpose of a treaty. When the text of the treaty is clear and logical, the method of determining the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be above the rules of the treaty. According to the guidance of the International Law Commission, the rules of treaty interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shall be applied. It is more advisable to conduct a circular demonstration according to the objective factors such as the title, the head, the text and subsequent practice of the treaty. States Parties or contracting organizations, dispute settlement bodies, and treaty monitoring bodies are empowered to assess the purposefulness of treaty acts. They are complementary rather than confrontational, and respect for each other is conducive to the formation of consistent assessment results. Assessment of the purposefulness of treaty acts can be carried out collectively through collegial procedures. It may be submitted to an international judicial body for adjudication. When a treaty act is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty, different legal consequences may arise under different treaty acts. For example, when a reservation is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty, the reservation is illegal and invalid; and when a multilateral treaty is amended against the object and purpose of the treaty, the reservation is amended. It is illegal but effective.
Finally, the paper draws the following conclusions: the principle of purpose and purpose of treaty law is the dominant principle in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which regulates various treaty acts and is an important principle of treaty law. It is the product of the combination of postwar positivism and value-oriented jurisprudence in the field of treaty law, reflecting fuzziness and certainty. It is not conducive to the certainty of treaty rights and obligations to emphasize the value pursuit of the object and purpose of a treaty without respecting the rules of a treaty; on the contrary, only paying attention to the logical analysis of the rules of a treaty and excluding the value pursuit of the treaty will make the treaty a bare-form body. The reasonable grasp depends on the reasonable balance between the two tendencies.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江工商大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D993.8

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周開(kāi)寧;;契約精神與和諧社會(huì)[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年01期

2 歐元雕,孫蕾;發(fā)生論和價(jià)值論視角下的道德與法律——兼論加強(qiáng)公民道德建設(shè)的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義[J];安徽農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年06期

3 顏林波;懸賞廣告制度探究[J];安徽師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2000年01期

4 施偉濱;從國(guó)際法看“臺(tái)獨(dú)公投”的荒謬性[J];安徽師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年02期

5 宋怡林;法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的效益目標(biāo)[J];鞍山科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

6 彭小龍;;陪審團(tuán)審理微觀制衡機(jī)制考察——一個(gè)以美國(guó)為對(duì)象的分析實(shí)證視角[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2007年01期

7 陳金釗;;反對(duì)解釋的場(chǎng)景及主體[J];北方法學(xué);2007年01期

8 廖建凱;高虹;陳彬;;試論國(guó)際環(huán)境民間組織在國(guó)際法中的法律地位[J];環(huán)境科學(xué)與管理;2006年01期

9 黃世席;“約定必須遵守”與中日戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)賠償問(wèn)題[J];北方論叢;2001年02期

10 陳福勝;法治人性基礎(chǔ)的三個(gè)視域[J];北方論叢;2004年06期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前7條

1 高寧;;國(guó)際法與構(gòu)建和諧世界[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際公法卷）[C];2006年

2 陳彬;;論一般國(guó)際法之上的自給自足體系的建立——基于第一性規(guī)則與第二性規(guī)則的研究[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際公法卷）[C];2006年

3 張華;;論尊重人權(quán)作為國(guó)際法的基本原則及其對(duì)中國(guó)和平發(fā)展的影響[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際公法卷）[C];2006年

4 黃素梅;;論遲到的保留[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際公法卷）[C];2006年

5 蔡先鳳;;核損害民事責(zé)任的國(guó)際法基礎(chǔ)[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際公法卷）[C];2006年

6 王立武;;國(guó)內(nèi)法在WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制中的地位[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法卷）[C];2006年

7 侯中軍;;不平等條約研究的若干理論問(wèn)題之一——條約概念與近代中國(guó)的實(shí)踐[A];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院近代史研究所青年學(xué)術(shù)論壇2006年卷[C];2006年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 楊震;法價(jià)值哲學(xué)導(dǎo)論[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2001年

2 羅國(guó)良;論證據(jù)與定罪[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

3 馬呈元;國(guó)際犯罪及其責(zé)任[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

4 曲新久;刑事政策的權(quán)力分析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

5 許蘭亭;刑事一審程序?qū)崉?wù)問(wèn)題研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

6 李光林;企業(yè)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2000年

7 孫笑俠;程序的法理[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2000年

8 卓澤淵;法的價(jià)值總論[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2000年

9 余涌;道德權(quán)利研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2000年

10 張東江;商業(yè)銀行安全運(yùn)營(yíng)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2001年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 付陽(yáng);司法公正與輿論監(jiān)督[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2000年

2 張傳新;論法律推理[D];河南大學(xué);2001年

3 龐玉良;從科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)看國(guó)際法上的人道主義干涉問(wèn)題[D];外交學(xué)院;2001年

4 畢雁英;行政程序法的價(jià)值取向及其關(guān)聯(lián)因素分析[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2001年

5 馬青波;民事訴訟法基本原則分析[D];湘潭大學(xué);2001年

6 賈敬華;政治國(guó)家·市民社會(huì)與法治[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

7 柯玲娟;試論國(guó)際條約成立的實(shí)質(zhì)要件[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

8 武之歌;違約歸責(zé)原則[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

9 常景龍;世貿(mào)組織爭(zhēng)端解決制度研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2001年

10 陳輝煌;多邊環(huán)境協(xié)定與多邊貿(mào)易體制的矛盾與協(xié)調(diào)[D];廈門大學(xué);2001年

，

本文編號(hào)：2197937