國際司法機構(gòu)管轄權(quán)沖突問題研究
發(fā)布時間：2019-05-18 16:39
【摘要】：20世紀(jì)是國際法迅速擴張的主要時期,從這個時期國際法發(fā)展總的結(jié)果看來,國際法的不斷擴張逐漸填補了國際關(guān)系規(guī)范的空白。但是,隨著國際社會的發(fā)展,近幾十年來國際間相互依賴加深,使得國家對國際法爭端解決機構(gòu)的態(tài)度發(fā)生了顯著變化。這體現(xiàn)了國際爭端解決機制朝著機構(gòu)化推進,即從特設(shè)程序發(fā)展為新的永久性程序。因此,許多國家越來越傾向于將涉及國際法重要領(lǐng)域的爭端提交審判,并基于此目的,接受具有強制管轄權(quán)的常設(shè)國際性法院和法庭管轄。 在國際司法機構(gòu)大量建立并得到國家認(rèn)同的同時,國際司法機構(gòu)面臨諸多不容忽視的問題。在缺乏中央立法機關(guān)的情況下,大量新的司法機構(gòu)與準(zhǔn)司法機構(gòu)地產(chǎn)生與擴散導(dǎo)致其在很大程度上難以協(xié)調(diào)。另外,國際法院與法庭的管轄權(quán)會產(chǎn)生重疊,即一個確定的爭端會被提交一個以上的司法機構(gòu)審查。產(chǎn)生這種情況的原因主要基于以下幾個方面:第一,傳統(tǒng)管轄權(quán)規(guī)則,如未決案件原則與已決案件原則適用存在障礙,并缺少國際統(tǒng)一的判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn);第二,主張強制管轄權(quán)的國際司法機構(gòu)增多;第三,不同國際司法機構(gòu)賦予訴訟主體的地位不同,并有些國際司法機構(gòu)主張超越國家的屬人管轄權(quán);第四,建立國際司法機構(gòu)的國際規(guī)約未對管轄權(quán)范圍做出詳細(xì)界定。 以上原因?qū)е聡H司法機構(gòu)間的管轄權(quán)沖突的產(chǎn)生,而這種問題伴隨著國際司法機構(gòu)地擴散將會日趨嚴(yán)重。從而導(dǎo)致其與相同或不同國內(nèi)司法體系的尷尬局面,并造成如挑選法院,平行訴訟,缺少最終判決,判決相互矛盾,最終加速國際的碎片化。從近年來國際司法機構(gòu)審判的案件,如愛爾蘭訴英國案和智利訴歐洲共同體案看來,國家基于自身利益最大化的考慮,期望選擇對自身有利的司法機構(gòu)進行審理,而國際司法機構(gòu)由缺少統(tǒng)一的對管轄權(quán)的調(diào)整規(guī)則,由此造成國際法碎片化加劇并浪費國際司法資源。 為了解決這一問題,需要從國際司法和國際政治兩方面進行改革,但當(dāng)前條件下改革國際法院與法庭體系難以實現(xiàn),而應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮采用較為溫和的方式,并借鑒基于國際私法所提出的國際禮讓原則,同時輔以國際司法機構(gòu)間信息交換,最終減少國際法院與法庭的管轄權(quán)沖突。
[Abstract]:The 20th century is the main period of the rapid expansion of international law. From the general result of the development of international law in this period, the continuous expansion of international law has gradually filled in the blank of the norms of international relations. However, with the development of the international community and the deepening of international interdependence in recent decades, the attitude of countries towards international dispute settlement bodies has changed significantly. This shows that the international dispute settlement mechanism is moving towards institutionalization, that is, from ad hoc procedures to new permanent procedures. As a result, many States are increasingly inclined to bring disputes involving important areas of international law to trial and, for this purpose, to accept the jurisdiction of permanent international courts and courts with compulsory jurisdiction. While a large number of international judicial institutions have been established and recognized by the state, the international judicial institutions are facing many problems that can not be ignored. In the absence of a central legislature, the emergence and proliferation of a large number of new judicial and quasi-judicial institutions make it difficult to coordinate to a large extent. In addition, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal overlap, that is, a definite dispute will be referred to more than one judicial body for review. The reasons for this situation are mainly based on the following aspects: first, there are obstacles to the application of the traditional rules of jurisdiction, such as the principle of outstanding cases and the principle of outstanding cases, and there is a lack of internationally unified criteria for judging; Secondly, there is an increase in the number of international judicial institutions advocating compulsory jurisdiction; third, different international judicial institutions confer different status on the subject of litigation, and some international judicial institutions advocate exceeding the national jurisdiction ratione personae; Fourth, the international statute establishing international judicial institutions does not define the scope of jurisdiction in detail. These reasons lead to the emergence of conflicts of jurisdiction between international judicial institutions, and this problem will become more and more serious with the spread of international judicial institutions. As a result, it leads to an awkward situation with the same or different domestic judicial systems, and results in the selection of courts, parallel proceedings, the lack of final decisions, the contradiction of decisions, and finally accelerate the fragmentation of the international community. Judging from the cases tried by international judicial bodies in recent years, such as Ireland v. the United Kingdom and Chile v. the European Community, States look forward to choosing a judicial body in their own interest to hear it on the basis of the maximization of their own interests, However, the lack of uniform rules of jurisdiction in international judicial institutions leads to the fragmentation of international law and the waste of international judicial resources. In order to solve this problem, reforms are needed in both international justice and international politics, but the reform of the international court and court system is difficult to achieve under current conditions, and a more moderate approach should be considered, It also draws lessons from the principle of international comity based on private international law, supplemented by the exchange of information between international judicial institutions, and finally reduces the conflict of jurisdiction between the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D99
本文編號：2480162
[Abstract]:The 20th century is the main period of the rapid expansion of international law. From the general result of the development of international law in this period, the continuous expansion of international law has gradually filled in the blank of the norms of international relations. However, with the development of the international community and the deepening of international interdependence in recent decades, the attitude of countries towards international dispute settlement bodies has changed significantly. This shows that the international dispute settlement mechanism is moving towards institutionalization, that is, from ad hoc procedures to new permanent procedures. As a result, many States are increasingly inclined to bring disputes involving important areas of international law to trial and, for this purpose, to accept the jurisdiction of permanent international courts and courts with compulsory jurisdiction. While a large number of international judicial institutions have been established and recognized by the state, the international judicial institutions are facing many problems that can not be ignored. In the absence of a central legislature, the emergence and proliferation of a large number of new judicial and quasi-judicial institutions make it difficult to coordinate to a large extent. In addition, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal overlap, that is, a definite dispute will be referred to more than one judicial body for review. The reasons for this situation are mainly based on the following aspects: first, there are obstacles to the application of the traditional rules of jurisdiction, such as the principle of outstanding cases and the principle of outstanding cases, and there is a lack of internationally unified criteria for judging; Secondly, there is an increase in the number of international judicial institutions advocating compulsory jurisdiction; third, different international judicial institutions confer different status on the subject of litigation, and some international judicial institutions advocate exceeding the national jurisdiction ratione personae; Fourth, the international statute establishing international judicial institutions does not define the scope of jurisdiction in detail. These reasons lead to the emergence of conflicts of jurisdiction between international judicial institutions, and this problem will become more and more serious with the spread of international judicial institutions. As a result, it leads to an awkward situation with the same or different domestic judicial systems, and results in the selection of courts, parallel proceedings, the lack of final decisions, the contradiction of decisions, and finally accelerate the fragmentation of the international community. Judging from the cases tried by international judicial bodies in recent years, such as Ireland v. the United Kingdom and Chile v. the European Community, States look forward to choosing a judicial body in their own interest to hear it on the basis of the maximization of their own interests, However, the lack of uniform rules of jurisdiction in international judicial institutions leads to the fragmentation of international law and the waste of international judicial resources. In order to solve this problem, reforms are needed in both international justice and international politics, but the reform of the international court and court system is difficult to achieve under current conditions, and a more moderate approach should be considered, It also draws lessons from the principle of international comity based on private international law, supplemented by the exchange of information between international judicial institutions, and finally reduces the conflict of jurisdiction between the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D99
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條
1 楊永紅;;分散的權(quán)力:從MOX Plant案析國際法庭管轄權(quán)之沖突[J];法學(xué)家;2009年03期
2 張英;從阿姆斯特丹條約看歐洲法院管轄權(quán)的新變化[J];法學(xué)評論;2000年05期
3 吳慧;;國際海洋法爭端解決機制對釣魚島爭端的影響[J];國際關(guān)系學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年04期
4 趙海峰;;略論國際司法機構(gòu)的現(xiàn)狀和發(fā)展趨勢[J];人民司法;2005年09期
5 張書林;約定不明時合同履行地的確定——《中華人民共和國合同法》與《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》的比較研究[J];十堰職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年04期
6 程保志;;從MOX核燃料廠爭端審視歐洲法院專屬管轄權(quán)之?dāng)U張[J];武大國際法評論;2008年02期
7 趙維田;WTO案例研究:1998年海龜案[J];環(huán)球法津評論;2001年02期
8 唐旗;;從箭魚爭端看“貿(mào)易與環(huán)境之爭”新動向[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2007年01期
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 黃建中;國際法庭管轄權(quán)研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2005年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 陶俊輝;論國際海洋法法庭與WTO爭端解決機構(gòu)管轄權(quán)的沖突[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年
，本文編號：2480162
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2480162.html
