《联合国海洋法公约》发展进程中的司法能动主义——基于海洋划界的考察

Judicial activism in the development of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea——a case study of maritime delimitation

由于历史原因和时代发展,《联合国海洋法公约》在海洋事务方面的规制不足日益显现。在正式国际造法路径进展缓慢的情况下,国际司法机构的司法能动主义为《联合国海洋法公约》规则的发展提供了替代性的路径。在海洋划界裁判进程中,国际司法机构自创海洋划界方法论,管辖并裁决200海里外大陆架边界,强化海洋划界争端当事方的法律义务,成为司法能动主义的典型。但是,海洋划界裁判中的司法能动主义亦逐渐暴露出局限性:海洋划界方法论适用时主观性和灵活性依旧,200海里外大陆架裁判中衍生出一系列法律不确定性,对争议海域当事方活动奉行“双重标准”,甚至为强行管辖海洋划界争端而陷入政治纷争。有鉴于此,同时考虑到近期国际法院裁决海洋划界争端时接连遭遇“逆流”,国际司法机构应避免加剧司法能动主义所造成的正当性赤字,适时转向司法克制主义。

As a result of the drafting history and contemporary development,the regulatory deficiencies of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS)have become increasingly apparent with regard to maritime affairs.Since the development of formal international lawmaking process is slow,judicial activism in international adjudication provides an alternative approach to the development of UNCLOS provisions.In adjudicating maritime boundary disputes,international judicial bodies established“maritime delimitation methodology”,exercised jurisdiction and delimited the boundary of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles,and strengthened legal obligations for the parties to maritime boundary disputes,which constitutes the archetype of judicial activism.However,judicial activism in maritime delimitation has gradually displayed some limitations:the subjectivity and flexibility remain in the application of“maritime delimitation methodology”,a series of legal uncertainties has been arising in adjudicating boundary of outer continental shelf,“double standard”was adopted towards the disputant parties of maritime delimitation,and even International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea got involved into politicized disputes due to its strong willingness to exercise jurisdiction over particular maritime boundary disputes.In light of the above limitations,and considering the recent“countercurrent”encountered by International Court of Justice once and again in adjudicating maritime boundary disputes,international judicial bodies should avoid the aggravation of“legitimacy deficit”resulting from judicial activism,and turn to judicial restraint in time.