本文關(guān)鍵詞：《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》附件七仲裁條款研究　出處：《武漢大學(xué)》2016年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》 強(qiáng)制仲裁 附件七仲裁 “南海仲裁案” 海洋爭(zhēng)端解決

【摘要】：自《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》(“《公約》”)1994年生效以來,作為一種強(qiáng)制仲裁,附件七仲裁的受案數(shù)目不斷增加,在和平解決國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端方面異軍突起。“南海仲裁案”是中國(guó)與周邊國(guó)家的海洋爭(zhēng)議首次被提交國(guó)際仲裁庭,引起廣泛關(guān)注。本論文對(duì)《公約》附件七仲裁條款及其對(duì)南海爭(zhēng)端解決的影響進(jìn)行專門研究。除導(dǎo)論和結(jié)論外,本文的主體部分共分四章。導(dǎo)論部分簡(jiǎn)要介紹論題的提出,包括選題背景、選題的理論和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義；圍繞擬研究主題對(duì)相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)進(jìn)行述評(píng),包括國(guó)內(nèi)外研究現(xiàn)狀和研究趨勢(shì)；接著對(duì)本文的研究目標(biāo)、結(jié)構(gòu)安排和研究方法作出說明。第一章概括考察了海洋爭(zhēng)端仲裁的基本情況,重點(diǎn)討論了《公約》附件七仲裁的規(guī)則與實(shí)踐,包括附件七仲裁條款的產(chǎn)生過程、附件七仲裁的主要程序,并對(duì)附件七仲裁案例概況進(jìn)行了初步總結(jié),在此基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)附件七仲裁制度理論進(jìn)行了初步評(píng)論。自1994年《公約》生效以來,強(qiáng)制仲裁成為海洋爭(zhēng)端仲裁解決的主要方法�！豆s》規(guī)定的強(qiáng)制仲裁條款,特別是附件七仲裁條款,是這種新動(dòng)向出現(xiàn)的根本原因。《公約》附件七仲裁和附件八特別仲裁既是對(duì)海洋爭(zhēng)端國(guó)際仲裁制度的發(fā)展,也是對(duì)強(qiáng)制仲裁本身的創(chuàng)新。第二章和第三章結(jié)合附件七仲裁規(guī)則,分別以管轄權(quán)和其他程序方面的法律條文為中心,對(duì)附件七仲裁的實(shí)踐進(jìn)行了全面、系統(tǒng)、深入的研究。附件七仲裁庭的管轄權(quán)體現(xiàn)在屬人管轄權(quán)、屬事管轄權(quán)和屬時(shí)管轄權(quán)三個(gè)方面,其中屬事管轄權(quán)最為復(fù)雜。仲裁程序中的管轄權(quán)問題由附件七仲裁庭自已處理；此外,向海洋法法庭提起的與附件七仲裁案件相關(guān)的臨時(shí)措施案中,若仲裁庭尚未建立,則由海洋法法庭處理附件七仲裁庭的初步管轄權(quán)。通常,不僅管轄權(quán)異議的決定權(quán)屬于仲裁庭,而且是否將管轄權(quán)異議作為先決事項(xiàng)的認(rèn)定權(quán)也授予仲裁庭。這樣使仲裁庭在處理管轄權(quán)異議時(shí)有更明顯的優(yōu)勢(shì),同時(shí)使得當(dāng)事各方對(duì)管轄權(quán)提出異議更為困難。無論如何,“仲裁庭自身必須確定其具有明確的管轄權(quán)”,如果出現(xiàn)一方不接受、不參與的情形,仲裁庭必須履行“查明提出的訴求在事實(shí)上和法律上均確有根據(jù)”的法定職責(zé)�！豆s》第十五部分爭(zhēng)端解決條款中,在附件七仲裁實(shí)踐中關(guān)聯(lián)度較大的條款主要包括第288條、第283條、第298條,而第295條至今沒有在實(shí)踐中適用過。通過對(duì)這些條文的分析發(fā)現(xiàn),無論是海洋法法庭還是仲裁庭,它們的實(shí)踐與附件七仲裁的法律規(guī)則之間并非總是一致,實(shí)踐與實(shí)踐之間也并非總是一致。這種實(shí)踐的不一致性既存在于海洋法法庭處理與附件七仲裁相關(guān)的不同臨時(shí)措施案件中,存在于不同仲裁案件的仲裁庭解決爭(zhēng)端的實(shí)踐中,也存在于海洋法法庭實(shí)踐與仲裁庭實(shí)踐中。第四章探討《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制(包括仲裁條款)與南海爭(zhēng)端解決的相關(guān)問題。在簡(jiǎn)單回顧南海聲索國(guó)和中國(guó)對(duì)《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的基本態(tài)度基礎(chǔ)上,運(yùn)用前文有關(guān)《公約》附件七仲裁條款的研究,尤其是附件七仲裁的適用條件,分析了附件七仲裁制度與南海爭(zhēng)端解決的關(guān)系,并對(duì)即將作出最終裁決的菲律賓“南海仲裁案”進(jìn)行了專門研究。中國(guó)批準(zhǔn)《公約》意味著概括接受了《公約》的爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制,包括附件七仲裁條款,中國(guó)2006年所做“第298條聲明”排除的事項(xiàng)有限,不能囊括中國(guó)同周邊海洋國(guó)家之間存在的所有爭(zhēng)端。菲律賓“南海仲裁案”的提起和推進(jìn)已經(jīng)證實(shí)了這種可能性�！澳虾Ｖ俨冒浮敝俨猛�2015年10月作出的管轄權(quán)裁決具有明顯的傾向性,得出的結(jié)論站不住腳,不僅使得裁決無效,而且有損仲裁庭自身的公信力和《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的健康運(yùn)行。就“南海仲裁案”為止所暴露出來的附件七仲裁的嚴(yán)重問題,本文提出一種體制性改革設(shè)想,即把《公約》規(guī)定的談判、協(xié)商等方式與強(qiáng)制調(diào)解、附件七仲裁制度三者的職能有機(jī)結(jié)合起來,同時(shí)考慮《公約》締約國(guó)大會(huì)現(xiàn)有審議年度報(bào)告的職能。通過事前和事后措施加強(qiáng)對(duì)附件七仲裁負(fù)面性的法律控制。一是事前,通過強(qiáng)制調(diào)解分散附件七仲裁對(duì)事實(shí)的認(rèn)定權(quán)；二是事后,《公約》締約國(guó)大會(huì)實(shí)際上發(fā)揮一個(gè)附件七仲裁的上訴程序或復(fù)議(復(fù)審)機(jī)制的功能。這個(gè)初步設(shè)想對(duì)目前的附件七仲裁制度具有重大創(chuàng)新價(jià)值。結(jié)論部分總結(jié)全文主要觀點(diǎn),對(duì)《公約》附件七仲裁的規(guī)則與實(shí)踐進(jìn)行總體性評(píng)論,再次強(qiáng)調(diào)改革附件七仲裁制度的初步方案和意義。
[Abstract]:Since the entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea (1994), since the entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea (1994), as a compulsory arbitration, the number of cases of arbitration seven has been increasing. The "South China Sea arbitration case" is the first maritime dispute between China and its surrounding countries to be submitted to the international arbitration tribunal, which has attracted wide attention. This paper makes a special study on the arbitration clause of annex seven of the Convention and its impact on the settlement of the South China Sea dispute. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the main part of this article is divided into four chapters. The introduction part briefly introduces the thesis, including the background, topics of theoretical and practical significance; review the relevant literature on the research topic, including domestic and foreign research status and research trends; then the research goal, the structure arrangement and research method, make an explanation. The first chapter examines the basic situation of maritime disputes arbitration, discusses the rules and practice of "Convention" annex seven arbitration, arbitration process, annex seven of the main procedure of arbitration clause included in Annex seven, of annex seven arbitration cases were summarized, on the basis of the preliminary comments on annex seven the arbitration system theory. Since the entry into force of the Convention in 1994, compulsory arbitration has become the main solution to arbitration for maritime disputes. The compulsory arbitration clause stipulated in the Convention, in particular the arbitration clause of annex seven, is the fundamental reason for the emergence of this new trend. The arbitration of annex seven of the Convention and the special arbitration of annex eight are both the development of the international arbitration system for maritime disputes and the innovation of the compulsory arbitration itself. The second and third chapters, combined with Annex seven arbitration rules, are centered on the provisions of jurisdiction and other procedural aspects, and conduct a comprehensive, systematic and in-depth study of annex seven arbitration practice. The jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal of annex seven is reflected in the three aspects of personal jurisdiction, jurisdiction and the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction is the most complex. The jurisdiction in arbitration proceedings is dealt with by the arbitral tribunal of annex seven. In addition, if the arbitration tribunal is not yet established, the preliminary jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal of annex seven shall be dealt with by the arbitration tribunal, which is related to annex seven arbitration cases, which is not established by the court of arbitration of the law of the sea. Usually, not only is the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction objection to the arbitration tribunal, but it also grants the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction to the arbitral tribunal as a prerequisite. In this way, the arbitration tribunal has a more obvious advantage in dealing with the jurisdiction objection and makes it more difficult for the parties to dissent to the jurisdiction. In any case, "the arbitral tribunal itself must determine its clear jurisdiction". If a party does not accept or participate in the case, the arbitration tribunal must perform the statutory duty of "finding out the claim is actually in accordance with the law". The fifteenth part of the dispute settlement clause of the Convention contains seven, 288th, 283rd, and 298th clauses in the arbitration practice of annex seven, and 295th articles have not been applied in practice yet. Through the analysis of these articles, it is found that the practice of maritime law courts or arbitral tribunals is not always consistent with Annex seven arbitration rules. Practice is not always consistent with practice. Such practice inconsistency exists not only in the cases of different temporary measures related to annex seven arbitration, but also exists in the practice of arbitration disputes in different arbitration cases, and also exists in the practice of maritime law tribunal and arbitration tribunal. The fourth chapter discusses the issues related to the dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention (including the arbitration clause) and the dispute settlement of the South China Sea. After a brief review of the South China Sea claimants and Chinese dispute settlement mechanism of the "Convention" of the basic attitude on the basis of research, the thesis about the "Convention" in Annex seven of the arbitration clause, especially the applicable conditions of annex seven arbitration, analyzes the relationship between annex seven and the South China Sea dispute arbitration system, and to make the final decision Philippines Nanhai arbitration case studies. China's ratification of the Convention means a general acceptance of the dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention, including annex seven arbitration clause. China's 2006 "298th statement" excludes limited items, which can not include all disputes between China and its surrounding maritime countries. This possibility has been confirmed by the promotion and promotion of the "South China Sea arbitration case" in Philippines. The arbitration rulings made by the Nanhai arbitration tribunal in October 2015 have obvious tendentiousness. The conclusion is untenable, which not only makes the ruling invalid, but also damages the credibility of the arbitration tribunal and the healthy operation of the Convention dispute settlement mechanism. On the serious problems of South China Sea arbitration "has been exposed by the annex seven arbitration, this paper proposes a system of reform, namely the" Convention "the provisions of the negotiation, consultation, and compulsory mediation, arbitration system in Annex seven to the three functions organically, considering the" Convention "the existing review conference of the States parties the annual report of the function. Strengthen the legal control of the negativity of annex seven by pre and post measures. First, the right to adjudge the facts of arbitration by annex seven is dispersed through compulsory mediation before the event; two, after the fact, the conference of the States parties to the Convention actually plays an appendix seven arbitral appeal procedure or the function of the reconsideration mechanism. This preliminary idea is of great innovation value to the current arbitration system of annex seven. The concluding part summarizes the main points of the paper, makes a general comment on the rules and practice of arbitration in Annex seven to the Convention, and emphasizes again on the initial plan and significance of reforming the arbitration system in Annex seven.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D993.5
，

本文編號(hào)：1343510