论确立海洋争端强制仲裁管辖权的法律要件——以《联合国海洋法公约》附件七仲裁为视角

Legal Requirements for the Establishment of Jurisdiction over Compulsory Arbitration of Maritime Disputes： From the Perspective of Arbitration under Annex VII of the UNCLOS

仲裁法庭对提交其审理的争端是否具有管辖权是强制仲裁程序向前推进必须要解决的问题。有关确立《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称飞公约矿）附件七仲裁项下仲裁法庭管辖权的法律条款散见于《公约》第十五部分和附件七，包括主体适格、客体适格、“大前提”程序要件和“小前提”程序要件四个方面的规定。仲裁法庭在确立自身管辖权的过程中，对“四要件”中任一要件的成就与否都应予以正面回答，形成完整的逻辑链。迄今为止的实践中，附件七仲裁法庭确立自身管辖权或者国际海洋法法庭确立相关仲裁法庭初步管辖权的论证大都存在问题；争端当事方对“大前提”程序要件，尤其是《公约》第283条第1款项下义务是否已履行的争论最多。

In order to continue compulsory arbitration proceedings, an arbi- tral tribunal should first determine whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute submitted to it for settlement. The legal provisions concerning the establishment of the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with the Annex VII （Arbitration） of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, are scattered throughout Part XV and Annex VII of the Convention. Such provisions concern four aspects： the eligibility of subject, the eligibility of object, the major procedural requirements and the minor procedural requirements. When the arbitral tribunal attempts to determine that it has jurisdiction over a dispute, it should determine if any one of the four requirements is met in a definitive sense, thus making its contention logically and reasonably founded. To date, the existing practices with respect to the Annex VII arbitral tribunal＇s establishment of its juris-diction or the statements of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea which demonstrate that the relevant arbitral tribunal has prima facie jurisdiction are, under most circumstances, problematic. Additionally, the parties to a dispute have the greatest controversies over the major procedural requirements, particularly whether theobligations under Article 283（1） of the Convention have been performed.