国际争端解决中一方不出庭程序的事实认定——兼评“南海仲裁案”仲裁庭的相关做法

Fact-Finding in Non-appearance before International Courts and Tribunals:A Review of the Tribunal’s Practice in the South China Sea Arbitration

在当事一方不出庭程序中,由于缺少了不出庭方的主张和澄清,国际争端解决机构的事实认定工作显得尤为艰巨。在此类程序中,争端解决机构往往将“请求在事实上确有依据”作为事实认定的要求,有些机构还在实践中发展出了“可获得的最佳证据”标准作为上述要求的进一步阐述。从实践情况看,这一要求需要在个案中结合具体情况来实施。由于缺乏不出庭方的举证与质证,争端解决机构应该更为审慎地对待案件证据材料,尤其要审查出庭方所提交材料彼此之间,以及出庭方所提交的材料与争端解决机构主动获取的材料之间能否互相印证、是否存在矛盾。尽管争端解决机构对此享有较大的自由裁量权,但出于增加裁决说服力的考量,这种自由裁量权的行使,仍应通过一定形式体现在裁决中,而不能完全存在于裁判者的自由心证之中。

International courts and tribunals are confronted with the complicated task of fact-finding due to the lack of clarification and assistance from the non-appearing party.In such proceedings,dispute settlement bodies have often adopted“the claim is well-founded in fact”as a fact-finding requirement,and some have even developed in practice the standard of“best available evidence”as a further elaboration of the aforesaid requirement.It follows from practice that this requirement needs to be implemented in a case-by-case context.In the absence of proof and cross-examination by the party not appearing before the court,dispute settlement bodies should be more prudent in dealing with the evidentiary materials in the case,particularly in examining whether the materials submitted by the party appearing before the court corroborate each other,as well as with those obtained by the dispute settlement body on its own initiative,and whether there are any contradictions.