国际海洋法法庭确认咨询管辖权中的条约解释问题

The Problem of Treaty Interpretation in the Confirmation of Full Tribunal Advisory Jurisdiction by the ITLOS

由于《联合国海洋法公约》和《国际海洋法法庭规约》并没有明确规定国际海洋法法庭是否具有咨询管辖权,导致这个问题成为一个涉及该法庭职权的重要法律问题。在2015年第21号案咨询意见中,尽管有不少参加咨询程序的国家反对,国际海洋法法庭还是通过对《国际海洋法法庭规约》第21条的解释,首次认定自己具有咨询管辖权。在2024年的第31号案咨询意见中,国际海洋法法庭延续了第21号案的咨询意见,再次认定自己具有咨询管辖权。然而,国际海洋法法庭在这两个案件的咨询意见中得出自己具有咨询管辖权的条约解释过于简单,导致这一结论的说服力不足,这可以从欧洲人权法院在2021年的《在生物学和医学应用方面保护人权和人的尊严公约》案咨询意见的条约解释对比中得到明显体现。如果国际海洋法法庭在将来的咨询意见中继续认定自己具有咨询管辖权,应补充和发展得出这一结论的条约解释,只有这样才能说服尽可能多的国家。

Due to the silence of full tribunal advisory jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(ITLOS)in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Statute of the ITLOS,the question whether the ITLOS could have full tribunal advisory jurisdiction becomes an important legal issue for the power of the ITLOS.In the 2015 advisory opinion of Case No.21,the ITLOS for the first time confirmed that it has full tribunal advisory jurisdiction by interpretating Article 21 of the Statute of the ITLOS,even though nearly dozens of participating States opposed to the full tribunal advisory jurisdiction of the ITLOS.In the 2024 advisory opinion of Case No.31,the ITLOS reaffirmed that it has the full tribunal advisory jurisdiction.However,the treaty interpretation of the advisory opinions in Case No.21 and Case No.31 by the ITLOS is too brief and unpersuasive.This can be more evident if the treaty interpretation of the ITLOS is compared with the treaty interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2021 advisory opinion of the Oviedo Convention interpretation case.If the ITLOS continues to confirm it has the full tribunal advisory jurisdiction in the future cases,it should supplement and develop more treaty interpretation means for the full tribunal advisory jurisdiction.