国际争端解决的司法中心主义祛魅与国际法话语

The Disenchantment of Judicial Centrism in International Dispute Settlement and the Discourse of International Law

近三十多年来,国际裁判机构数量激增、管辖范围不断扩大,国际海洋法、国际刑法、国际贸易法等领域均设立了司法裁判机构,与此同时,区域性裁判机构也在不断兴起。有学者认为,国际裁判机构的勃兴预示着司法解决逐渐成为常态化的国际争端解决方式,是国际社会法治进程的积极信号。这是一种“以法律促和平”的国际法思想传统,体现了国际争端解决的司法中心主义立场。司法中心主义是现代实证国际法学的构成性要素,是否存在独立于国家主观意志之外的国际裁判机制是衡量国际法是否具备法律体系特征的重要标准,也是国际法发挥定纷止争功能的重要保障。然而,以渊源识别和规则适用为基础的司法中心主义将大量国际法论辩活动排除在分析范畴之外,不能有效回答国际法的有效性问题,也边缘化了争端避免和争端搁置等问题的重要性。从批判国际法和经验主义的路径出发,厘清司法中心主义背后的理论预设和价值选择的局限性,有助于洞察国际法话语的运行和生成机制,打开国际法研究的多面向视野,为多元化国际争端解决提供理论空间。

In the past 30 years,the number of international judicial institutions has surged,with their jurisdiction continually expanding.Judicial bodies have been established in various fields such as international maritime law,international criminal law,and international trade law.Meanwhile,judicial institutions with regional characteristics have emerged.Some scholars argue that the rise of international judicial institutions indicates that judicial settlement has become a widely accepted method of international dispute settlement,signifying a positive signal of the rule of law in the international community.This reflects a tradition of international law thinking of“promoting peace through law”and embodies a stance of judicial centrism in international dispute settlement.Judicial centrism is a constitutive element of modern positivist international law studies.The existence of international judicial mechanisms,independent from the subjective will of the state,is an important criterion for the systematization of international law and an essential guarantee for international law to fulfill its function in settling disputes.However,judicial centrism based on source identification and rule application excludes a significant amount of international legal argumentative activities from the analytical scope,resulting in the ineffectiveness of international law and marginalizing the importance of dispute avoidance and dispute settlement.Drawing on the approaches of critical international law and empiricism,the paper clarifies the limits of the underpinning theoretical presuppositions and value preferences of judicial centrism and helps to explore the operation and emergence of international law discourse.It also opens up a multi-dimensional perspective in international law research and provides a theoretical space for diversified international dispute settlement.