《联合国海洋法公约》第298条中军事活动的分阶段评价法——以“扣押军舰及船员案”初步裁决为中心

The Phased-Approach for Determining Military Activities Under Article 298 of the UNCLOS as Employed in Dispute Concerning the Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels and Servicemen

《联合国海洋法公约》(《公约》)第298条第1款(b)项规定有关军事活动的争端可适用《公约》第15部分强制争端解决机制的任择性例外。在具体案件中,一旦触发该项的可适用性,有关法庭对案件或部分诉求所反映的争端将不具有管辖权。然而,《公约》既没有定义军事活动,也没有规定关于军事活动的争端的认定标准和方法。司法实践中也尚未形成一致和确定的国际判例。与国际海洋法法庭在“刻赤海峡案”临时措施命令中采用的整体评价法不同,《公约》附件七仲裁庭在“扣押军舰及船员案”的初步裁决中首次采用了分阶段评价法,先将案件所涉活动分成三个阶段,再逐一认定各阶段中的活动是否构成《公约》第298条意义上的军事活动。刻赤海峡事件中的诸多因素为仲裁庭采用分阶段评价法提供了可能。针对同一事件所涉同一组活动的性质,仲裁庭与国际海洋法法庭的认定结果并不相同。在特定情形下,国际法庭在具体案件中采用分阶段评价法,或有助于其更准确地认定某争端所涉多个活动中某个特定活动的性质,但也可能使得法庭在这一方法的基础上扩大自身管辖权,忽视甚至割裂有关活动之间、活动与争端之间、诉求所反映的争端与争端整体性之间的内在联系。

Pursuant to Article 298,paragraph 1(b)of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,a State may declare it does not accept any one or more of the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions provided for in section 2 of Part XV,with respect to disputes concerning military activities.In a particular case,where the threshold triggering applicability of Article 298,paragraph 1(b)has been met,the international courts or tribunals would find itself do not have jurisdiction over the case or the dispute as reflected in certain submissions.However,UNCLOS does not contain a definition of military activities.Nor does it prescribe the criteria or methods for characterizing disputes concerning military activities under Article 298,paragraph 1(b).The international jurisprudence in this regard is not consistent or settled.In this connection,the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,in the Kerch Strait Case,employed an overall approach:the determination of whether activities are military"must be based primarily on an objective evaluation of the nature of the activities in question,taking into account the relevant circumstances in each case".The Arbitral Tribunal,in Dispute Concerning the Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels and Servicemen,employed instead a phased-approach.The quantity of activities in question,the categorization of submissions raised by the Applicant,and the correspondence between the submissions and the activities gave the Arbitral Tribunal justifications to employ the phased-approach.By this approach,the Tribunal divides the activities in question into three major phases,and respectively ascertains their nature.Notably,the two tribunals characterized differently the nature of the same group of activities in the same incident.Apart from the differences in the approach,divergences exist in respect of the division of the activities,evaluation of the evidence and details of facts,and considerations of relevant circumstances.In certain cases,the phased-approach enables international courts or tribunals to ascertain more accurately the nature of a specific activity,which has occurred in a chain of events consisting of multiple activities.On the other hand,international courts or tribunals may ignore,either unintentionally or intentionally,the inherent connections and interactions between and among the activities,submissions and disputes for the purposes of establishing their jurisdiction over the case or expanding their scope of jurisdiction.