《联合国海洋法公约》和“其他国际法规则”的引入:基于文本和司法判例的分析

UNCLOS and the Incorporations of“Other Rules of International Law”:An Analysis on the Negotiated Texts of UNCLOS and Case Law

《联合国海洋法公约》(《公约》)的演进过程是与“其他国际法规则”互动和融合的过程。从文本角度,《公约》中的转致条款和框架性要求分别发挥着直接和间接连接《公约》文本与“其他国际法规则”的纽带作用。从效果来看,《公约》文本为司法实践引入“其他国际法规则”提供了规范基础,争端解决机构由此得以在一系列司法判例中解释和发展《公约》。一方面,《公约》争端解决机制项下的法庭或仲裁庭在司法实践中通过转致条款、可适用法、目的解释和演进解释以及“系统性并入”,引入“其他国际法规则”,推动《公约》的动态演进。另一方面,在引入“其他国际法规则”的过程中,法庭或仲裁庭亦被期许以秉持其法理的可预测性和可接受性,从而为解释和适用《公约》提供有效指引。然而,在系统研判《公约》争端解决机制项下法庭或仲裁庭司法判例的基础上,可以看出,这些法庭或仲裁庭面临着属事管辖权边界扩张和“碎片化”法理的严峻挑战。《公约》争端解决机制项下的法庭或仲裁庭在引入“其他国际法规则”的过程中,应在维护当事国同意原则与实现裁判效率之间寻求动态平衡,并致力于塑造具有充分说服力和一致性的法理,从而避免其正当性因其司法扩权和法理“碎片化”而受到质疑。

The evolution of UNCLOS is intertwined with the process of lively interactions between UNCLOS and“other rules of international law”.From a perspective of textual analysis,rules of reference are broadly embedded within UNCLOS,fostering the direct interactions between the text of UNCLOS and“other rules of international law”.Open-textured UNCLOS provisions established informal links between UNCLOS negotiated texts and“other rules of international law”.As a matter of effect,negotiated texts of UNCLOS have provided the normative foundation for the judicial incorporations of“other rules of international law”.Thus,UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures could stimulate the incorporations of“other rules of international law”and achieve the judicial development of UNCLOS through the accumulation of case law.On the one hand,as the stimulus of the evolution and development of UNCLOS,UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures have employed a set of techniques that serve as the tunnel of incorporating“other rules of international law”,namely,rules of reference,applicable law,teleological and evolutionary interpretation,as well as systemic integration.These have stimulated the dynamic evolution of UNCLOS and made it adapt to the practical needs of ocean governance.On the other hand,UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures are expected to ensure the predictability and acceptability of jurisprudence,in order to effectively guide interpretation and application of UNCLOS.Nevertheless,a comprehensive study on the case law pertaining to the judicial incorporation of“other rules of international law”has revealed the expansion of jurisdiction ratione materiae and constantly fragmented jurisprudence.It signals the urgent task of conducting dynamic balance exercise between safeguarding the principle of state consent and achieving the objective of adjudicatory efficiency.Crafting cogent judicial reasoning and coherent jurisprudence would be essential to buttress the legitimacy of UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures.