国家间谈判义务的国际法依据与成立条件——玻利维亚诉智利“进入太平洋谈判义务案”评述

The Legal Bases and Conditions for the Obligation of Negotiation between States: A Commentary on the Case Concerning Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)

2018年10月1日国际法院对玻利维亚诉智利"进入太平洋谈判义务案"作出判决。该案的争议焦点是智利是否有与玻利维亚进行谈判的国际法义务,主要涉及两个方面的问题:第一,哪些依据可能创设国际法义务;第二,创设国际法义务的条件。法院的审理表明,国际法义务的依据有多种形式,包括双边协议、声明等单方行为、默认和禁止反言、国际组织决议等,关键在于判断相关文件和行为是建立了法律义务还是政治承诺。这些依据都必须证明相关国家有受法律拘束的意图,体现了国家同意原则。在判断国家有无受法律拘束的意图时,应当客观分析所有证据,特别是当事国的用语、语言背景以及后续行为,这要求国家在谈判、缔结条约及其他交往活动中注意"谨言慎行"。

The Court delivered its judgment on the case concerning Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean(Bolivia v. Chile) on 1 October 2018. The subject of the dispute is that whether Chile undertook a legal obligation to negotiate a sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean for Bolivia, which depends upon whether relevant documents and conducts create legal obligations or political commitments. Two issues are analyzed in this case: first, the bases of international obligations;second, the conditions to the establishment of international obligations. According to this case, there are various bases of international obligations, including bilateral agreements, declarations and other unilateral acts, acquiescence and estoppel, resolutions of international organizations. In order to establish international obligations, it is required to prove an intention of the Parties to be legally bound, which reflects the principle of state consent. This intention should be determined on the basis of an objective examination of all the evidence, especially the terms used by the parties, context and subsequent conducts. Therefore, States are required to be discreet in their words and actions when negotiating and concluding treaties as well as expressing themselves in international communications.