科学发展对条约解释的影响及其限制——以国际海洋法法庭“气候变化咨询案”为切入点

The Impact of Scientific Development on Treaty Interpretation and Its Limitations:Science Information in the ITLOS s Interpretation of the UNCLOS in the Climate Change Case

科学在国际和国内司法实践中的作用一直备受关注。近年,气候变化科学取得了显著进展,全球兴起的气候诉讼将科学与法律的互动推向了一个新高度。在国际层面,小岛屿国家气候变化与国际法委员会于2022年在国际海洋法法庭提起咨询程序,所提问题给法庭设定了在气候变化背景下解释《联合国海洋法公约》相关条款的语境,直接涉及科学发展对条约解释的影响及其限度问题。正是由于《联合国海洋法公约》相关条款法意模糊、该公约与其他国际法规则存在开放互融的结构,法庭在解释过程中倾向于运用体系解释方法和目的解释方法,反映最新科学进展的政府间气候变化委员会的评估报告在解释过程中发挥了相当显著的作用。解释者在法律解释过程中考虑科学发展虽然有一定的合理性,但是,为了防范越法和造法风险,国际司法机构在选择解释方法和考虑科学发展时,仍需秉持司法克制的立场,恪守《维也纳条约法公约》中条约解释规则的约束,重视法律推理的权威,不僭越法律解释与法律创造的边界。

The role of science in international and domestic judicial practices has always been a focal point of attention.In recent years,significant advancement in climate change science has elevated the interaction between science and law to new heights,as evidenced by the rise of climate litigation globally.At the international level,the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law(COSIS)submitted a request for an advisory opinion to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(ITLOS)in 2022.The questions as formulated by COSIS requires the Tribunal to interpret relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS)in the context of climate change.The impact of scientific development on treaty interpretation and its limitations is an unavoidable issue for the Tribunal.Due to ambiguities of certain UNCLOS provisions and the open and integrative structure of UNCLOS with other international legal rules,the ITLOS tends to employ systemic and teleological interpretation methods.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)reports,which reflect the latest scientific advancements,play a significant role in this interpretative process.While interpreters have justifiable reasons to consider scientific development in treaty interpretation,international judicial bodies must adhere to judicial restraint,act within the bounds of the rule of treaty interpretation as prescribed in the VCLT,provide sufficient legal reasons,and not to overstep the boundary between legal interpretation and law-making.