《联合国海洋法公约》附件七所建立仲裁庭之管辖权探析——以蓝鳍金枪鱼案为视角

Comment on the Turisdiction of the Court of Arbitration Constituted under the Annex Ⅶ of UNCLOS from Southern Bluefin Tuna Case

1999年7月15日澳大利亚、新西兰因对日本所实施的蓝鳍金枪鱼的实验性捕捞计划产生争议,依据1982年《联合国海洋法公约》第287条第5款及附件七向日本提起单边强制仲裁。仲裁庭最终在国际投资争端解决中心(ICSID)的框架内组成。双方关于该仲裁庭是否对本案具有管辖权产生以下争议:该争端是否为法律争端、《南方蓝鳍金枪鱼养护公约》中的争端解决机制是否已经排除1982年《联合国海洋法公约》中的争端解决机制、后法是否优于前法等。该案仲裁庭关于"单边强制仲裁"的评论对中菲南海仲裁案的管辖权来讲亦具有重要意义。

On July 15, 1999, Australia tuna carried out in Japan and filed with and New Zealand were disputed by Japan in accordance with Article the experimental fishing plan for bluefin 287, paragraph 5, and Annex 7 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The arbitral tribunal was eventually formed within the framework of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes （ ICSID）, but whether the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction over the case, the parties had the following dispute： whether the dispute was a legal dispute, whether the dispute settlement mechanism in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Conservation has ruled out the dispute settlement mechanism in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, whether the law is superior to the former law and so on, and the tribunal＇ s comments on ＂unilateral compulsory arbitration＂ in the jurisdiction of the South China Sea arbitration case is also of great significance.