【摘要】：國(guó)際法院是聯(lián)合國(guó)的主要司法機(jī)構(gòu),也是國(guó)際司法體系中最具權(quán)威的國(guó)際爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)。成立了60多年的國(guó)際法院,在解決國(guó)際爭(zhēng)端中發(fā)揮了重大的作用,有效地維護(hù)了國(guó)際秩序的穩(wěn)定。國(guó)際法院之所以能發(fā)揮如此重大的作用,來(lái)源于國(guó)際社會(huì)賦予它的管轄權(quán)。國(guó)際法院的管轄權(quán)分為訴訟管轄權(quán)與咨詢管轄權(quán),本文著重研究國(guó)際法院的訴訟管轄權(quán)。國(guó)際法院的訴訟管轄權(quán)不同于國(guó)內(nèi)法院的訴訟管轄權(quán),它并不具有強(qiáng)制性。國(guó)際法院管轄權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)來(lái)源于國(guó)家主權(quán)的自愿讓渡。這是因?yàn)?國(guó)際社會(huì)是一個(gè)平權(quán)社會(huì),并不存在一個(gè)凌駕于國(guó)家主權(quán)之上的中央權(quán)威機(jī)關(guān)。由于國(guó)家法院訴訟管轄權(quán)的這一特殊性,它一直是國(guó)際司法領(lǐng)域倍受關(guān)注的問題。國(guó)際社會(huì)還未對(duì)國(guó)際法以及國(guó)際司法體系形成普遍信仰,國(guó)際法院的訴訟管轄權(quán)依然面臨許多的問題和挑戰(zhàn)。國(guó)際法院的訴訟管轄權(quán)遵循國(guó)家同意的原則,為此,國(guó)際法院建立了一套獨(dú)立的管轄權(quán)體系,以《國(guó)際法院規(guī)約》和《聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章》作為其法律依據(jù)。該體系肯定是建立在國(guó)家同意的基礎(chǔ)之上的,與此同時(shí)它也是薄弱的。當(dāng)主權(quán)國(guó)家需要通過國(guó)際法院來(lái)解決其爭(zhēng)端的時(shí)候時(shí),就會(huì)主動(dòng)接受國(guó)際法院的管轄;但是當(dāng)主權(quán)國(guó)家認(rèn)為將一些爭(zhēng)端交由國(guó)際法院解決會(huì)損害其自身利益時(shí),就會(huì)以各種方式規(guī)避國(guó)際法院的管轄。本文首先對(duì)國(guó)際法院的訴訟管轄作了一個(gè)系統(tǒng)的綜述,在此基礎(chǔ)上,著重探討和研究目前國(guó)際法院面臨幾項(xiàng)主要問題:可受理性問題存在模糊判定、自動(dòng)保留條款制約了國(guó)際法院管轄權(quán)的管轄權(quán)、國(guó)際法院延遲同意管轄權(quán)難以獲得成員國(guó)一致信任、成員國(guó)任擇條款的保留大幅削弱了國(guó)際法院的任意強(qiáng)制管轄權(quán)。文章的第三部分通過評(píng)述中國(guó)對(duì)國(guó)際法院的歷史態(tài)度從而試圖去尋找中國(guó)接受國(guó)際法院管轄的可能性。
[Abstract]:The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the most authoritative international dispute settlement body in the international judicial system. The International Court of Justice, which has been established for more than 60 years, has played an important role in the settlement of international disputes and effectively maintained the stability of the international order. The International Court of Justice can play such a significant role from the international community to give it jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is divided into litigation jurisdiction and advisory jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is different from that of the domestic courts, and it is not mandatory. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is based on the voluntary transfer of state sovereignty. This is because the international community is an equal-power society and there is no central authority above national sovereignty. Due to the particularity of the jurisdiction of national courts, it has always been a matter of great concern in the field of international justice. The international community has not yet formed a universal belief in international law and the international judicial system, and the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice still faces many problems and challenges. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice follows the principle of the consent of the State. For this reason, the Court has established an independent system of jurisdiction based on the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the Charter of the United Nations. The system must be based on national consent, but it is also weak. When sovereign States need to settle their disputes through the International Court of Justice, they take the initiative to accept the jurisdiction of the Court; But when sovereign states believe that it would be detrimental to their own interests to refer some disputes to the International Court of Justice, they circumvent the Court's jurisdiction in various ways. This paper first makes a systematic overview of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and on this basis, focuses on the discussion and study of several main problems facing the International Court of Justice at present: the existence of fuzzy decisions on admissibility. The automatic reservation clause restricts the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which is difficult to obtain the unanimous trust of the member States. The reservation of the optional clause greatly weakens the arbitrary compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The third part attempts to find out the possibility of China accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice by commenting on China's historical attitude towards the International Court of Justice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D99

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王冰;;醫(yī)療訴訟管轄原則[J];中國(guó)社區(qū)醫(yī)師;2010年26期

2 貢世康;行政訴訟管轄論[J];理論探索;2005年05期

3 李曉桃;美國(guó)網(wǎng)絡(luò)糾紛訴訟管轄權(quán)的司法實(shí)踐及其發(fā)展趨勢(shì)[J];韶關(guān)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年04期

4 王學(xué)j;;簽訂工貿(mào)合同時(shí)如何確保有利的訴訟管轄條款[J];對(duì)外經(jīng)貿(mào)實(shí)務(wù);2006年06期

5 孔維迎;;淺析行政訴訟管轄[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年03期

6 郭鵬;;國(guó)際電子商務(wù)訴訟管轄權(quán)統(tǒng)一中的利益沖突——基于美國(guó)與歐盟的立場(chǎng)[J];太平洋學(xué)報(bào);2009年08期

7 閻麗紅;;試論國(guó)際民商事訴訟管轄權(quán)的沖突及其解決[J];漯河職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期

8 張軍平;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的訴訟管轄地[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年08期

9 王巖坡;淺議涉外經(jīng)濟(jì)糾紛案件的訴訟管轄[J];人民司法;1993年02期

10 黃學(xué)賢;楊紅;;論行政訴訟管轄困境之形成及其突破[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條

1 王炳連;協(xié)議訴訟管轄要明確具體[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

2 本報(bào)記者　 張先明;應(yīng)進(jìn)一步完善合同訴訟管轄[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

3 周啟泉;本案的管轄權(quán)如何確定？[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2005年

4 安徽省淮北市審計(jì)局 李秀玉 沈霽;對(duì)審計(jì)行政訴訟管轄權(quán)的認(rèn)識(shí)[N];中國(guó)審計(jì)報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王玨;國(guó)際法院訴訟管轄權(quán)問題研究[D];吉林財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

2 林珊;涉外電子商務(wù)訴訟管轄權(quán)研究[D];廣東商學(xué)院;2009年

3 李爭(zhēng)爭(zhēng);著作權(quán)集體管理組織訴訟管轄問題研究[D];太原科技大學(xué);2012年

4 王洪彥;電子商務(wù)案件訴訟管轄問題研究[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2002年

5 周強(qiáng);仲裁和訴訟管轄界限研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2005年

6 趙佳瑋;刑事訴訟管轄爭(zhēng)議問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

7 徐麗;內(nèi)地與香港民商事訴訟管轄權(quán)和判決承認(rèn)執(zhí)行研究[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2006年

8 楊翡;論船舶油污損害賠償訴訟管轄[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2013年

9 馮琬;網(wǎng)絡(luò)購(gòu)物合同糾紛訴訟管轄研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

10 楊波;行政訴訟管轄問題實(shí)證分析[D];河北大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2356345