善意原则视角下的中菲南海仲裁案
详细信息 查看官网全文
- 英文论文题名：Sino-Philippine Arbitration on South China Sea Disputes: A Perspective from the Principle of Good Faith
- 论文作者：罗萨 ; XIE Hongyue
- 英文论文作者：LUO Sa ; XIE Hongyue ; Wuhan University China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies
- 年：2017
- 作者机构：武汉大学中国边界与海洋研究院;
- 论文关键词：善意原则 ; 中国 ; 菲律宾 ; 仲裁庭 ; 南海仲裁案
- 英文论文关键词：Principle of good faith ; China ; The Philippines ; Arbitral Tribunal ; South China Sea Arbitration
- 会议召开时间：2017-06-01
- 会议录名称：中国海洋法学评论（2017年卷第1期 总第25期）
- 英文会议录名称：China Oceans Law Review(Volume 2017 Number 1)
- 语种：中文
- 分类号：D993.5
- 学会代码：XMHY
- 学会名称：厦门大学海洋法与中国东南海疆研究中心
- 页数：62
- 文件大小：1570k
- 原文格式：D
摘要
文章以善意原则这一抽象的国际法基本原则为视角,分析南海仲裁案中菲律宾和仲裁庭之行为。第一部分研究善意原则在海洋划界背景下所具有的内涵。一方面,海洋划界争端的当事国受到善意原则的规制,特别以善意协商为代表,包括积极开展协商、充分进行协商和持续欢迎协商等;另一方面,善意原则也指引着争端解决机构作出真正合法合理的裁决。具体到仲裁案中,第二部分将菲律宾在仲裁过程中的行动与善意原则蕴含的主要要求相对应,指出菲方在种种方面对善意原则的违背。第三部分阐述仲裁庭作为争端解决机构,在审理过程中展示的做法,表明其判决也绝非善意之裁决。最后,文章以菲律宾和仲裁庭反以善意原则评判中国的行为,总结两者诚信的缺失,是对这一国际法一般原则的根本破坏。
This paper, from the perspective of the principle of good faith, an abstract and basic principle on international law, examines the deeds of both the Philippines and the Tribunal in the Arbitration on South China Sea Disputes. The first section explores the connotations of the principle in the context of maritime delimitation. On the one hand, the parties to a maritime delimitation dispute are governed by this principle. For example, the parties are obligated to negotiate in good faith, including to actively enter into negotiations, conduct sufficient talks and keep welcoming negotiations. On the other hand, the principle also requires dispute settlement bodies to make their decisions in a legal and reasonable manner. The second section identifies the Philippines' violation of the good faith principle in multiple aspects, by checking its actions taken during the course of the proceedings against the primary requirements of the principle. The third section showcases the absence of good faith in the Arbitral Tribunal's award, by presenting the behaviors of the Tribunal, as a dispute settlement body, during its review of the case. Lastly, the paper mentions that the Philippines and the Tribunal even check China's behaviors against the principle of good faith. And the paper concludes that the lack of honesty and integrity of both the Philippines and the Tribunal causes fundamental detriment to this general principle of international law.
This paper, from the perspective of the principle of good faith, an abstract and basic principle on international law, examines the deeds of both the Philippines and the Tribunal in the Arbitration on South China Sea Disputes. The first section explores the connotations of the principle in the context of maritime delimitation. On the one hand, the parties to a maritime delimitation dispute are governed by this principle. For example, the parties are obligated to negotiate in good faith, including to actively enter into negotiations, conduct sufficient talks and keep welcoming negotiations. On the other hand, the principle also requires dispute settlement bodies to make their decisions in a legal and reasonable manner. The second section identifies the Philippines' violation of the good faith principle in multiple aspects, by checking its actions taken during the course of the proceedings against the primary requirements of the principle. The third section showcases the absence of good faith in the Arbitral Tribunal's award, by presenting the behaviors of the Tribunal, as a dispute settlement body, during its review of the case. Lastly, the paper mentions that the Philippines and the Tribunal even check China's behaviors against the principle of good faith. And the paper concludes that the lack of honesty and integrity of both the Philippines and the Tribunal causes fundamental detriment to this general principle of international law.
引文
1 《联合国宪章》,1945年,第2条第2款。
2 《维也纳条约法公约》,1969年,序言;第26条;第31条第1款;第46条第2款;第69条第2款(b)项。
3 Nuclear Tests Cases(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,para.46.
4 J.F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing,1991,p.124 ;Reviews of Books,University of Toronto Law Journal,Vol.12,Issue 1,1957,p.106;Malcolm Shaw,International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2014,p.73.
5 Thomas Cottier、Krista N.Schefer:《WTO中的善意及合法期望之保护》(韩秀丽译、高波校),载于《国际经济法学刊》2005年第3期,第181页。
6 Thomas Cottier、Krista N.Schefer:《WTO中的善意及合法期望之保护》(韩秀丽译、高波校),载于《国际经济法学刊》2005年第3期,第181页。
7 Bryan A.Garner ed.,Black’s Law Dictionary,Eagan:West Group,2004,p.2038.
8 Nuclear Tests Cases(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,para.46.
9 Nuclear Tests Cases(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,paras.46~51.
10 Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995(the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v.Greece),Judgment,ICJ Reports 2011,para.127.
11 United States–Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,Appellate Body Report,2003,para.298.
12 Reviews of Books,University of Toronto Law Journal,Vol.12,Issue 1,1957,p.106.
13 詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第23页。
14 《联合国海洋法公约》,1982年,第300条。
15 Malcolm Shaw,International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2014,p.74.
16 《联合国海洋法公约》,第74条第1款,第83条第1款。
17 《关税与贸易总协定》,1947年,第20条引言。
18 United States–Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,Appellate Body Report,1998,para.158.
19 United States–Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,Appellate Body Report,1998,paras.172,177.
20 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.85.
21 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area,Judgment,ICJ Reports1984,para.112(1).
22 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria,Judgment,ICJ Reports2002,para.244.
23 Informal Proposal by Bahamas,Barbados,Canada,Colombia,Cyrus,Democratic Yemen,Gambia,Greece,Guyana,Italy,Japan,Kuwait,Malta,Norway,Spain,Sweden,United Arab Emirates,United Kingdom and Yugoslavia(later joined by Cape Verde,Chile,Denmark,Guinea-Bissau and Portugal),UN General Assembly Document NG7/2;Informal Proposal by Algeria,Bangladesh,Benin,Burundi,Congo,France,Iraq,Ireland,Ivory Coast,Kenya,Liberia,Libya,Madagascar,Maldives,Mali,Mauritania,Morocco,Nicaragua,Nigeria,Pakistan,Papua New Guinea,Poland,Romania,Senegal,Syria,Somalia,Turkey,Venezuela and Vietnam,UN General Assembly Document NG 7/10.
24 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Separate Opinion of President J.L.Bustamante Y Rivero,ICJ Reports 1969,p.58.
25 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.85.
26 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.87.
27 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.682.
28 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.85.
29 Land Reclamation in and around the Straits of Johor(Malaysia v.Singapore),Separate Opinion of Chandrasekhara Rao,ITLOS Reports 2003,para.11.
30 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1978,para.20.
31 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.683.
32 Security Council Resolutions,S/RES/395,1976.
33 Leo Gross,The Dispute between Greece and Turkey Concerning the Continental Shelf in the Aegean,The American Journal of International Law,Vol.71,Issue 1,1977,p.32.
34 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1978,paras.21,28 ;UN Doc S/PV.1950,United Nations,13 August 1976.
35 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.686.
36 Cottier教授因此也将本案称为被国际法院“错过的机会”。
37 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1978,paras.20,24 ~26.
38 Fisheries Jurisdiction(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.Iceland),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,para.73.
39 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Separate Opinion of Judge Lachs,ICJ Reports 1974,p.52.
40 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.688.
41 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.101(C),(D).
42 Fisheries Jurisdiction(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.Iceland),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,paras.78~79.
43 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.690.
44 J.F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing,p.124;Thomas Cottier、Krista N.Schefer:《WTO中的善意及合法期望之保护》(韩秀丽译、高波校),载于《国际经济法学刊》2005年第3期,第181页。
45 李浩培著:《条约法概论》,北京:法律出版社2003年版,第277页。
46 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.667 ,note 53.
47 Anthony D’Amato,Good Faith,in Rudolf Bernhardt ed.,Encyclopaedia of Public International Law,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000,p.599.
48 Stephen M.Schwebel,The Compliance Process and the Future of International Law,in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law,1981,p.182.
49 Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Pursuant to Article 287,and in Accordance with Annex VII,of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname,Award,2007,paras.460,467.
50 Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Pursuant to Article 287,and in Accordance with Annex VII,of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname,Award,2007,paras.460,484.
51 R.Summers教授就将善意原则称为“安全阀”,指出其定义应当是开放而不是封闭的。See Robert S.Summers,“Good Faith”in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code,Virginia Law Review,Vol.54,Issue 2,1968,p.266.
52 For example,J.F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing,1991,p.118;Andrew D.Mitchell,Good Faith in WTO Dispute Settlement,Melbourne Journal of International Law,Vol.7,Issue 2,2006,p.339.
53 Final Transcript Day 2–Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,pp.28~32.
54 《中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》(以下简称“《立场文件》”),2014年12月7日,第48段。
55 Final Transcript Day 2–Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,p.32.
56 Final Transcript Day 2–Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People's Republic of China,PCA,pp.34~35.
57 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1978,paras.24 ~26.
58 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Separate Opinion of Judge Lachs,ICJ Reports 1978,p.52.
59朱晓磊:《中国吁菲律宾就领土争端谈判》,下载于http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2013-01/3577769.html,2017年1月30日。
60 See Response of the DFA Spokesperson to the Recent Statement of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the West Philippine Sea Issue,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfa-releases/332-response-of-the-dfa-spokesperson-to-the-recent-statementof-the-chinese-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-on-the-west-philippine-sea-issue,1 February2017;朱艳芳:《菲律宾称2016年前不会和中国重启南海争端双边谈判》,下载于http://news.ifeng.com/a/20141211/42697421_0.shtml,2017年2月1日;Statement before the Permanent Court of Arbitration,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfa-releases/6795-statement-before-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration,1 February 2017.
61 PHL Stresses Adherence to Rule of Law as Key to Peaceful Settlement of Disputes;Highlights World Development Challenges and Calls on UN Reforms,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfa-releases/4202-phl-stresses-adherence-to-rule-of-law-askey-to-peaceful-settlement-of-disputes-highlights-world-development-challenges-and-callson-un-reforms,1 February 2017.
62 《联合国海洋法公约》,第279~281、283条。
63 中国关于仲裁案的立场文件引用了多份此类声明,参见《立场文件》,第31~34段。
64 《南海各方行为宣言》,2002年,第1、4条。
65 《立场文件》,第37段。
66《维也纳条约法公约》,第2条第1款。
67 詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第1203页。
68 詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第1209页。
69 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain(Qatar v.Bahrain),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1994,para.41(1).
70 《南海各方行为宣言》,2002年,第1、4条。
71 《立场文件》,第38段。
72 原文为“声明……经由主要官方代表签署,且此声明含有包括明确行为规则这种巳获同意之结论的话,此文件就对当事国家具有约束力。”詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第1189页。
73 Memorial of the Philippines,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,2014,paras.7.51.[hereinafter“The Memorial”]
74 Bryan A.Garner ed.,Black’s Law Dictionary,Eagan:West Group,2004,p.4741.
75 The Memorial,para.7.55.
76 《中华人民共和国和菲律宾共和国联合声明》,2011年9月1日。
77 Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,2015,para.342.[hereinafter“Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility”]
78 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.339.
79 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.339.
80 Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila,No.12-1137,26 April 2012.
81 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.342.
82 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.332.
83 Final Transcript Day 2–Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,pp.34~35.
84 Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,Award,2016,para.278.[hereinafter“Award”]
85 Award,para.212.
86 Award,para.268.
87 Award,para.226,the text reads“Other‘historic rights’…are nowhere mentioned in the Convention.”
88 Memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs,Department of Foreign Affairs,Republic of the Philippines,to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs,10March 2011;Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila to the Department of Foreign Affairs,Republic of the Philippines,No.(11)PG-202,6 July2011;Award,para.209.
89 Award,para.209.
90 Award,para.209.
91 Award,para.232.
92外交部条法司司长徐宏就菲律宾所提南海仲裁案接受中外媒体采访实录,下载于http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cebe/chn/zclc/t1362765.htm,2017年1月17日;2015年10 月30日外交部发言人陆慷主持例行记者会,下载于http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjdt_674879/fyrbt_674889/t1310668.shtml,2017年1月17日。
93关于菲方对其诉求的伪装,罗国强教授详细归纳出4种手法,参见罗国强:《南海仲裁案初步裁决评析》,载于《外交评论:外交学院学报》2016年第2期,第26页。
94 The Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations,Note Verbale 000228,United Nations Documents,2011.
95 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.170.
96 Day 3–Hearing on the Merits and Remaining Issues of Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,p.45.
97 Award,para.1177.
1 Charter of the United Nations,1945,Article 2(2).
2 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,1969,Preface,Articles 26,31(1),46(2),69(2)(b).
5 Thomas Cottier and Krista N.Schefer,HAN Xiuli trans.,GAO Bo proofread,Good Faith and the Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the WTO,Journal of International Economic Law,No.3,2005,p.181.(in Chinese)
6 Thomas Cottier and Krista N.Schefer,HAN Xiuli trans.,GAO Bo proofread,Good Faith and the Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the WTO,Journal of International Economic Law,No.3,2005,p.181.(in Chinese)
13 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,WANG Tieya et al.trans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1995,p.23.(in Chinese)
14 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,1982,Article 300.[hereinafter“UNCLOS”]
16 UNCLOS,Articles 74(1)and 83(1).
17 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,1947,Chapeau of Article XX.
36 Prof.Cottier also argued that this case was an opportunity missed by the ICJ.
44 J.F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing,p.124 ;Thomas Cottier and Krista N.Schefer,HAN Xiuli trans.,GAO Bo proofread,Good Faith and the Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the WTO,Journal of International Economic Law,No.3,2005,p.181.(in Chinese)
45 LI Haopei,An Introduction to Treaty Law,Beijing:Law Press China,2003,p.277.(in Chinese)
51 Professor R.Summers called the principle of good faith a“safety valve”and argued that this principle should be open-ended rather than sealed off in a definition.See Robert S.Summers,“Good Faith”in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code,Virginia Law Review,Vol.54,Issue 2,1968,p.266.
54 Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines,7 December 2014,para.48.[hereinafter“Position Paper”]
59 ZHU Xiaolei,China Calls on the Philippines to Talk on Their Territorial Disputes,at http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2013-01/3577769.html,30 January 2017.(in Chinese)
60 See Response of the DFA Spokesperson to the Recent Statement of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the West Philippine Sea Issue,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfa-releases/332-response-of-the-dfa-spokesperson-to-the-recent-statementof-the-chinese-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-on-the-west-philippine-sea-issue,1 February2017;ZHU Yanfang,The Philippines Said that It Would Not Restart Bilateral Talks with China on the South China See Disputes before 2016,at http://news.ifeng.com/a/20141211/42697421_0.shtml,1 February 2017(in Chinese);Statement before the Permanent Court of Arbitration,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfareleases/6795-statement-before-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration,1 February 2017.
62 UNCLOS,Articles 279~281,283.
63 China’s Position Paper invoked a number of such statements,see Position Paper,paras.31 ~34.
64 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,2002,Articles 1,4.
65 Position Paper,para.37.
66 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,Article 2(1).
67 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,WANG Tieya et al.trans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1995,p.1203.(in Chinese)
68 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,WANG Tieya et al.trans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1995,p.1209.(in Chinese)
70 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,2002,Articles 1,4.
71 Position Paper,para.38.
72 A declaration,if signed by the primary government representatives,and including definite rules of conduct and other conclusions agreed,this document should be binding upon the States involved.Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,WANG Tieya et al.trans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1995,p.1189.(in Chinese)
76 Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines,1September 2011.
92 Transcript of the Chinese and Foreign Media’Interview with XU Hong,the DirectorGeneral of Department of Treaty and Law of Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Regarding the SCS Arbitration Initiated by the Philippines,at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cebe/chn/zclc/t1362765.htm,17 January 2017(in Chinese);Foreign Ministry Spokesman LU Kang’s Regular Press Conference on 30 October 2015,at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjdt_674879/fyrbt_674889/t1310668.shtml,17 January 2017.(in Chinese)
93 Professor LUO Guoqiang lists four ways that the Philippines employed to disguise its real submissions.See LUO Guoqiang,A Comment on the Preliminary Award on the South China Sea Arbitration,Foreign Affairs Review,No.2,2016,p.26.(in Chinese)
2 《维也纳条约法公约》,1969年,序言;第26条;第31条第1款;第46条第2款;第69条第2款(b)项。
3 Nuclear Tests Cases(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,para.46.
4 J.F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing,1991,p.124 ;Reviews of Books,University of Toronto Law Journal,Vol.12,Issue 1,1957,p.106;Malcolm Shaw,International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2014,p.73.
5 Thomas Cottier、Krista N.Schefer:《WTO中的善意及合法期望之保护》(韩秀丽译、高波校),载于《国际经济法学刊》2005年第3期,第181页。
6 Thomas Cottier、Krista N.Schefer:《WTO中的善意及合法期望之保护》(韩秀丽译、高波校),载于《国际经济法学刊》2005年第3期,第181页。
7 Bryan A.Garner ed.,Black’s Law Dictionary,Eagan:West Group,2004,p.2038.
8 Nuclear Tests Cases(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,para.46.
9 Nuclear Tests Cases(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,paras.46~51.
10 Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995(the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v.Greece),Judgment,ICJ Reports 2011,para.127.
11 United States–Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000,Appellate Body Report,2003,para.298.
12 Reviews of Books,University of Toronto Law Journal,Vol.12,Issue 1,1957,p.106.
13 詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第23页。
14 《联合国海洋法公约》,1982年,第300条。
15 Malcolm Shaw,International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2014,p.74.
16 《联合国海洋法公约》,第74条第1款,第83条第1款。
17 《关税与贸易总协定》,1947年,第20条引言。
18 United States–Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,Appellate Body Report,1998,para.158.
19 United States–Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,Appellate Body Report,1998,paras.172,177.
20 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.85.
21 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area,Judgment,ICJ Reports1984,para.112(1).
22 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria,Judgment,ICJ Reports2002,para.244.
23 Informal Proposal by Bahamas,Barbados,Canada,Colombia,Cyrus,Democratic Yemen,Gambia,Greece,Guyana,Italy,Japan,Kuwait,Malta,Norway,Spain,Sweden,United Arab Emirates,United Kingdom and Yugoslavia(later joined by Cape Verde,Chile,Denmark,Guinea-Bissau and Portugal),UN General Assembly Document NG7/2;Informal Proposal by Algeria,Bangladesh,Benin,Burundi,Congo,France,Iraq,Ireland,Ivory Coast,Kenya,Liberia,Libya,Madagascar,Maldives,Mali,Mauritania,Morocco,Nicaragua,Nigeria,Pakistan,Papua New Guinea,Poland,Romania,Senegal,Syria,Somalia,Turkey,Venezuela and Vietnam,UN General Assembly Document NG 7/10.
24 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Separate Opinion of President J.L.Bustamante Y Rivero,ICJ Reports 1969,p.58.
25 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.85.
26 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.87.
27 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.682.
28 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.85.
29 Land Reclamation in and around the Straits of Johor(Malaysia v.Singapore),Separate Opinion of Chandrasekhara Rao,ITLOS Reports 2003,para.11.
30 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1978,para.20.
31 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.683.
32 Security Council Resolutions,S/RES/395,1976.
33 Leo Gross,The Dispute between Greece and Turkey Concerning the Continental Shelf in the Aegean,The American Journal of International Law,Vol.71,Issue 1,1977,p.32.
34 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1978,paras.21,28 ;UN Doc S/PV.1950,United Nations,13 August 1976.
35 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.686.
36 Cottier教授因此也将本案称为被国际法院“错过的机会”。
37 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1978,paras.20,24 ~26.
38 Fisheries Jurisdiction(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.Iceland),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,para.73.
39 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Separate Opinion of Judge Lachs,ICJ Reports 1974,p.52.
40 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.688.
41 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,Judgment,ICJ Reports 1969,para.101(C),(D).
42 Fisheries Jurisdiction(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.Iceland),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,paras.78~79.
43 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.690.
44 J.F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing,p.124;Thomas Cottier、Krista N.Schefer:《WTO中的善意及合法期望之保护》(韩秀丽译、高波校),载于《国际经济法学刊》2005年第3期,第181页。
45 李浩培著:《条约法概论》,北京:法律出版社2003年版,第277页。
46 Thomas Cottier,Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation:The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2015,p.667 ,note 53.
47 Anthony D’Amato,Good Faith,in Rudolf Bernhardt ed.,Encyclopaedia of Public International Law,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000,p.599.
48 Stephen M.Schwebel,The Compliance Process and the Future of International Law,in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law,1981,p.182.
49 Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Pursuant to Article 287,and in Accordance with Annex VII,of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname,Award,2007,paras.460,467.
50 Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Pursuant to Article 287,and in Accordance with Annex VII,of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname,Award,2007,paras.460,484.
51 R.Summers教授就将善意原则称为“安全阀”,指出其定义应当是开放而不是封闭的。See Robert S.Summers,“Good Faith”in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code,Virginia Law Review,Vol.54,Issue 2,1968,p.266.
52 For example,J.F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing,1991,p.118;Andrew D.Mitchell,Good Faith in WTO Dispute Settlement,Melbourne Journal of International Law,Vol.7,Issue 2,2006,p.339.
53 Final Transcript Day 2–Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,pp.28~32.
54 《中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》(以下简称“《立场文件》”),2014年12月7日,第48段。
55 Final Transcript Day 2–Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,p.32.
56 Final Transcript Day 2–Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People's Republic of China,PCA,pp.34~35.
57 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1978,paras.24 ~26.
58 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf(Greece v.Turkey),Separate Opinion of Judge Lachs,ICJ Reports 1978,p.52.
59朱晓磊:《中国吁菲律宾就领土争端谈判》,下载于http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2013-01/3577769.html,2017年1月30日。
60 See Response of the DFA Spokesperson to the Recent Statement of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the West Philippine Sea Issue,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfa-releases/332-response-of-the-dfa-spokesperson-to-the-recent-statementof-the-chinese-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-on-the-west-philippine-sea-issue,1 February2017;朱艳芳:《菲律宾称2016年前不会和中国重启南海争端双边谈判》,下载于http://news.ifeng.com/a/20141211/42697421_0.shtml,2017年2月1日;Statement before the Permanent Court of Arbitration,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfa-releases/6795-statement-before-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration,1 February 2017.
61 PHL Stresses Adherence to Rule of Law as Key to Peaceful Settlement of Disputes;Highlights World Development Challenges and Calls on UN Reforms,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfa-releases/4202-phl-stresses-adherence-to-rule-of-law-askey-to-peaceful-settlement-of-disputes-highlights-world-development-challenges-and-callson-un-reforms,1 February 2017.
62 《联合国海洋法公约》,第279~281、283条。
63 中国关于仲裁案的立场文件引用了多份此类声明,参见《立场文件》,第31~34段。
64 《南海各方行为宣言》,2002年,第1、4条。
65 《立场文件》,第37段。
66《维也纳条约法公约》,第2条第1款。
67 詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第1203页。
68 詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第1209页。
69 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain(Qatar v.Bahrain),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1994,para.41(1).
70 《南海各方行为宣言》,2002年,第1、4条。
71 《立场文件》,第38段。
72 原文为“声明……经由主要官方代表签署,且此声明含有包括明确行为规则这种巳获同意之结论的话,此文件就对当事国家具有约束力。”詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第1189页。
73 Memorial of the Philippines,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,2014,paras.7.51.[hereinafter“The Memorial”]
74 Bryan A.Garner ed.,Black’s Law Dictionary,Eagan:West Group,2004,p.4741.
75 The Memorial,para.7.55.
76 《中华人民共和国和菲律宾共和国联合声明》,2011年9月1日。
77 Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,2015,para.342.[hereinafter“Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility”]
78 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.339.
79 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.339.
80 Note Verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila,No.12-1137,26 April 2012.
81 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.342.
82 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.332.
83 Final Transcript Day 2–Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,pp.34~35.
84 Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,Award,2016,para.278.[hereinafter“Award”]
85 Award,para.212.
86 Award,para.268.
87 Award,para.226,the text reads“Other‘historic rights’…are nowhere mentioned in the Convention.”
88 Memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs,Department of Foreign Affairs,Republic of the Philippines,to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs,10March 2011;Note Verbale from the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila to the Department of Foreign Affairs,Republic of the Philippines,No.(11)PG-202,6 July2011;Award,para.209.
89 Award,para.209.
90 Award,para.209.
91 Award,para.232.
92外交部条法司司长徐宏就菲律宾所提南海仲裁案接受中外媒体采访实录,下载于http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cebe/chn/zclc/t1362765.htm,2017年1月17日;2015年10 月30日外交部发言人陆慷主持例行记者会,下载于http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjdt_674879/fyrbt_674889/t1310668.shtml,2017年1月17日。
93关于菲方对其诉求的伪装,罗国强教授详细归纳出4种手法,参见罗国强:《南海仲裁案初步裁决评析》,载于《外交评论:外交学院学报》2016年第2期,第26页。
94 The Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Philippines to the United Nations,Note Verbale 000228,United Nations Documents,2011.
95 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,para.170.
96 Day 3–Hearing on the Merits and Remaining Issues of Jurisdiction and Admissibility,the Republic of Philippines v.the People’s Republic of China,PCA,p.45.
97 Award,para.1177.
1 Charter of the United Nations,1945,Article 2(2).
2 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,1969,Preface,Articles 26,31(1),46(2),69(2)(b).
5 Thomas Cottier and Krista N.Schefer,HAN Xiuli trans.,GAO Bo proofread,Good Faith and the Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the WTO,Journal of International Economic Law,No.3,2005,p.181.(in Chinese)
6 Thomas Cottier and Krista N.Schefer,HAN Xiuli trans.,GAO Bo proofread,Good Faith and the Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the WTO,Journal of International Economic Law,No.3,2005,p.181.(in Chinese)
13 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,WANG Tieya et al.trans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1995,p.23.(in Chinese)
14 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,1982,Article 300.[hereinafter“UNCLOS”]
16 UNCLOS,Articles 74(1)and 83(1).
17 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,1947,Chapeau of Article XX.
36 Prof.Cottier also argued that this case was an opportunity missed by the ICJ.
44 J.F.O’Connor,Good Faith in International Law,Aldershot:Dartmouth Publishing,p.124 ;Thomas Cottier and Krista N.Schefer,HAN Xiuli trans.,GAO Bo proofread,Good Faith and the Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the WTO,Journal of International Economic Law,No.3,2005,p.181.(in Chinese)
45 LI Haopei,An Introduction to Treaty Law,Beijing:Law Press China,2003,p.277.(in Chinese)
51 Professor R.Summers called the principle of good faith a“safety valve”and argued that this principle should be open-ended rather than sealed off in a definition.See Robert S.Summers,“Good Faith”in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code,Virginia Law Review,Vol.54,Issue 2,1968,p.266.
54 Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines,7 December 2014,para.48.[hereinafter“Position Paper”]
59 ZHU Xiaolei,China Calls on the Philippines to Talk on Their Territorial Disputes,at http://world.huanqiu.com/exclusive/2013-01/3577769.html,30 January 2017.(in Chinese)
60 See Response of the DFA Spokesperson to the Recent Statement of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the West Philippine Sea Issue,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfa-releases/332-response-of-the-dfa-spokesperson-to-the-recent-statementof-the-chinese-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-on-the-west-philippine-sea-issue,1 February2017;ZHU Yanfang,The Philippines Said that It Would Not Restart Bilateral Talks with China on the South China See Disputes before 2016,at http://news.ifeng.com/a/20141211/42697421_0.shtml,1 February 2017(in Chinese);Statement before the Permanent Court of Arbitration,at http://www.dfa.gov.ph/index.php/newsroom/dfareleases/6795-statement-before-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration,1 February 2017.
62 UNCLOS,Articles 279~281,283.
63 China’s Position Paper invoked a number of such statements,see Position Paper,paras.31 ~34.
64 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,2002,Articles 1,4.
65 Position Paper,para.37.
66 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,Article 2(1).
67 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,WANG Tieya et al.trans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1995,p.1203.(in Chinese)
68 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,WANG Tieya et al.trans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1995,p.1209.(in Chinese)
70 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,2002,Articles 1,4.
71 Position Paper,para.38.
72 A declaration,if signed by the primary government representatives,and including definite rules of conduct and other conclusions agreed,this document should be binding upon the States involved.Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,WANG Tieya et al.trans.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1995,p.1189.(in Chinese)
76 Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines,1September 2011.
92 Transcript of the Chinese and Foreign Media’Interview with XU Hong,the DirectorGeneral of Department of Treaty and Law of Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Regarding the SCS Arbitration Initiated by the Philippines,at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cebe/chn/zclc/t1362765.htm,17 January 2017(in Chinese);Foreign Ministry Spokesman LU Kang’s Regular Press Conference on 30 October 2015,at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjdt_674879/fyrbt_674889/t1310668.shtml,17 January 2017.(in Chinese)
93 Professor LUO Guoqiang lists four ways that the Philippines employed to disguise its real submissions.See LUO Guoqiang,A Comment on the Preliminary Award on the South China Sea Arbitration,Foreign Affairs Review,No.2,2016,p.26.(in Chinese)
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |