法学研究
法學研究
법학연구
Cass Journal of Law
2015年
2期
192~208
,共null页
条约 领土条约 条约解释 国际法院
條約 領土條約 條約解釋 國際法院
조약 령토조약 조약해석 국제법원
treaty, territorial treaty, treaty interpretation, the International Court of Justice
领土主权属于一国的根本问题。由于部分领土条约相关条款过于原则或模糊不清，当事方会产生条约解释上的国际争端。通常，国际法院依据《维也纳条约法公约》第31、32条规定的解释规则进行阐释。但是，领土条约具有与一般条约不同的特性，这一特性也决定了其解释方法的特殊性。条约解释与争议领土主权的归属存在密切关系，不当解释会严重损害当事国的领土主权。正是出于此顾虑，国际法院过于严格遵照条约文本语言表述的精确性，但在司法实践中又出现一定的矛盾与反复，甚至在个案中弱化条约解释的价值，转而以有效统治作为判案的法理依据。国际法院的做法动摇了国际社会相关当事方将领土争端提交国际法院，采取法律方式解决纠纷的信心，值得关注和深入研究。
領土主權屬于一國的根本問題。由于部分領土條約相關條款過于原則或模糊不清，噹事方會產生條約解釋上的國際爭耑。通常，國際法院依據《維也納條約法公約》第31、32條規定的解釋規則進行闡釋。但是，領土條約具有與一般條約不同的特性，這一特性也決定瞭其解釋方法的特殊性。條約解釋與爭議領土主權的歸屬存在密切關繫，不噹解釋會嚴重損害噹事國的領土主權。正是齣于此顧慮，國際法院過于嚴格遵照條約文本語言錶述的精確性，但在司法實踐中又齣現一定的矛盾與反複，甚至在箇案中弱化條約解釋的價值，轉而以有效統治作為判案的法理依據。國際法院的做法動搖瞭國際社會相關噹事方將領土爭耑提交國際法院，採取法律方式解決糾紛的信心，值得關註和深入研究。
령토주권속우일국적근본문제。유우부분령토조약상관조관과우원칙혹모호불청，당사방회산생조약해석상적국제쟁단。통상，국제법원의거《유야납조약법공약》제31、32조규정적해석규칙진행천석。단시，령토조약구유여일반조약불동적특성，저일특성야결정료기해석방법적특수성。조약해석여쟁의령토주권적귀속존재밀절관계，불당해석회엄중손해당사국적령토주권。정시출우차고필，국제법원과우엄격준조조약문본어언표술적정학성，단재사법실천중우출현일정적모순여반복，심지재개안중약화조약해석적개치，전이이유효통치작위판안적법리의거。국제법원적주법동요료국제사회상관당사방장령토쟁단제교국제법원，채취법률방식해결규분적신심，치득관주화심입연구。
Territorial sovereignty is the fundamental issue for a state. However, some territorial trea- ties are too general and ambiguous to settle the territorial border between two states and therefore are likely to lead to international disputes over treaty interpretation. Usually, the International Court of Justice （the Court） explains relevant articles of a treaty according to Articles 31 -32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Considering the utmost importance of a territorial treaty, the Court always strictly follows the precise language of the treaty. However, there are contradictions and incon- sistencies in Court＇ s judicial practices. Moreover, the Court has also made judgment based on the doctrine of effective control, which weaken the value of treaty interpretation. Therefore, the Court should define rules of interpretation that can be anticipated by parties during the trial. Especially, if the Court can solve territorial disputes through treaty interpretation, it should not weaken the value of treaty interpretation by relying on the principle of effective control. Meanwhile, the Court should not be too dependent on the principle of stable boundary, but should set certain restrictions on it. Other- wise, it may deviate from the normal process of territorial treaty interpretation, and put cart before the horse. Thirdly, based on evidentiary rules of admissibility, subsequent practice used to interpret the territorial treaty must be related to the treaty and occured before the critical date if such date can be determined. The Court＇ s practices on treaty interpretation in cases of territorial disputes are worth no- ting and studying.
