摘要
国际司法机构的咨询管辖权不同于其诉讼管辖权,它意在对有关法律问题做出权威性的解答,澄清和消除疑义,而非直接解决争端。但咨询意见的权威性,特定情况下争端当事方试图以咨询程序来代替诉讼程序等,使得咨询管辖成为国际司法机构不可或缺的组成部分。常设国际法院的咨询案件不但多,且大部分涉及解决成员国之间的争端,国家也很少质疑其咨询意见的效力,使得其咨询管辖实际上更接近于诉讼管辖。国际法院由于其《规约》限定咨询事项为"法律问题"而不包括"争端",其咨询案件相对数量较少,其咨询意见的效力也受到质疑,对常设国际法院确立的"东卡累利安原则"基本上是否定的。国际海洋法法庭依据《联合国海洋法公约》设立,最初《公约》将咨询管辖权赋予了海底争端分庭而非法庭本身,但《法庭规则》补充了法庭这一职能。目前海底争端分庭已有实践,法庭本身未来也会出现此类案件。我们应认识到,国际司法机构的咨询管辖在阐释国际法、解决国际争端方面有独特优势,且这种职能有发展、强化之势。
A great majority of advisory cases of PCIJ involve disputes among member countries.Because the legitimacy of its advisory opinions is seldom questioned,its advisory jurisdiction is nearly contentious jurisdiction.Though the advisory jurisdiction was given to the Seabed Disputes Chamber rather than the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,Rules of the Court gave the Tribunal this jurisdiction.The Seabed Disputes Chamber has handled disputes in this regard,so it can be expected that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea will attend to such cases.
出处
《东南大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2013年第5期73-80,135,共8页
Journal of Southeast University(Philosophy and Social Science)
