国际法院诉讼案件判决的执行问题探析

国际法院判决的执行问题并非只是一个执行或不执行的简单二分法问题,而是一个介于两者之间、包含一系列政治决策的复杂问题。一方面,根据《联合国宪章》和国家的实践,当事国有遵守国际法院判决的义务;另一方面,出于自身利益的考虑,当事国往往以各种理由阻止对自己不利的判决的实际生效。由于目前国际上缺乏一个有效的执行机制,这一矛盾没能得到完满的解决。因此,在分析当事国遵守国际法院判决义务的基础上,对国际法院诉讼案件判决的执行实践和执行方式进行深入探讨有重要意义。     

国际法院解决领土争端中的关键日期问题——中日钓鱼岛列屿争端关键日期确定的考察

国际法院在解决领土争端的实践中,基于国家主权平等的要求,坚持当事方提供证据自由原则。但是,这并不意味着其不加甄别地采纳所有的证据。鉴于领土争端案件的复杂性和重要性,国际法院针对个案特殊情况,对证据可采性隐含适用了一些限制条件。关键日期一般决定着证据的可采性。对于在关键日期之后当事方的行为,国际法院通常不予考虑,除非该行为是先前行为的正常继续。而且,国际法院强调,在关键日期之后的当事方提供的利己证据,同样不具有可采性,并不存在分量大小的问题。关键日期证据排除规则对于解决钓鱼岛列屿争端具有重要意义。在关键日期之后,日本为了巩固对我国钓鱼岛列屿主权要求而采取的利己措施或试图取得有效统治之证据不具有可采性。     

论WTO争端解决的条约解释

WTO争端解决的条约解释提供了迄今为止国际条约法领域最丰富、最具研究价值的实践。本文从国际公法角度,以1995年WTO建立后至2005年6月的158项争端解决报告为实证考察对象,首先阐明条约解释在WTO争端解决中的重要性,然后着重概述WTO争端解决中条约解释通则的问题,扼要分析其特别规则,最后略比国际法院60年来诉讼案件中的条约解释实践,并得出若干结论,以期对我国参加WTO争端解决有所裨益。     

国际法院在解决领土争端中的作用及困境评析

当今世界领土争端问题广泛存在,尤其以亚洲、非洲、拉丁美洲、欧洲等居多.国际法作为调整国与国之间关系的法律,在解决领土争端领域正日益发挥着重要作用.作为国际法的主要司法机构--国际法院逐步受到国际社会的关注,以国际法院懈决的领土争端案为依据,比较国际法院与其他政治谈判手段在解决领土争端问题上的不同之处;总结国际法院在审案过程中运用的基本法律原则,受理领土争端案的主要特征;分析在现实世界中国际法院解决领土争端所遭遇的困境以及对我国的启示.     

国际法院伊朗诉美国石油平台案简析

伊朗诉美国石油平台案是国际法院近年的一项判决,主要涉及国际法上的武力使用问题.本案判决包含了重要原则:一国因自卫而使用武力的前提是受到他国的武装进攻,同时自卫必须符合必要性和相称性原则.这一原则的重申对于降低武装冲突的烈度有积极意义.另外,此次判决对国际法上武力使用制度的一个巨大贡献就是在判断一国是否受到他国武装进攻时,首次清楚地采纳了累积效应方法.这意味着一国以武力行使自卫权的范围更加宽泛,其确立有利于各国以合法手段对付日益猖獗的恐怖主义.不过,国际法院的判决也存在不足,即在谈及自卫时,做出了一个几近和解和不全面的评断.实际上,这也反映了国际法院在涉及重大国际政治问题时也无能为力的客观现实.     

Prosecuting and Defending Diplomats as War Criminals: Ribbentrop at the Nuremberg Trials

This article considers the question of holding foreign ministers responsible for war crimes. A recent decision by the International Court of Justice, the Arrest Warrant case, Congo v Belgium, appears to have diluted the developing international customary rule that suspends immunity when a grave international crime has been committed. This article suggests that the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal decision in the Ribbentrop Case constitutes a precedent for how international criminal law should interpret the nature and scope of the immunity for foreign ministers. As a successful prosecution of Hitler’s former foreign minister, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to this aspect of the Ribbentrop Case given that it was a path-breaking decision. For that reason, the present article is a case study of this example where prosecutors at an international criminal tribunal were able to successfully prosecute a foreign minister in a manner that may, therefore, still prove instructive given the existing legal position following the Arrest Warrant Case. The article considers in detail how Ribbentrop’s defence lawyers constructed a series of arguments that the prosecution were, however, largely able to demolish through resort to a variety of strategies. Dr Michael Salter is Professor of Law at the Lancashire Law School, University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom; Dr Lorie Charlesworth is Senior Lecturer at the Law School, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom.     

国际法院作用探讨

国际法院是联合国的主要司法机关 ,但尚未发挥其应有的作用。本文在《国际法院规约》的范围内 ,从国际法院管辖权的角度 ,探讨了加强国际法院作用的现实途径 :有所侧重地利用其诉讼管辖 ;充分利用具有多种优势的特别分庭 ;而咨询管辖则为国际组织提供了预防与解决争端的新途径。     

论国际法院判决在美国的执行——以涉及《领事关系公约》的判决为重点

美国国内对执行国际法院判决存在"国际主义观点"、"国家主义观点"和"折衷观点"等不同的看法。尽管美国政府出于现实原因,敦促国内法院遵守国际法院的判决,但美国最高法院对于在国内直接执行国际法院判决持否定态度。国际法院判决在美国的执行不力,凸现出国际法院的现有执行机制的不足,也反映了美国反对国际法在其国内法律体制中直接适用的倾向。     

Afraid of a ‘Kosovo Scenario’: A Disquieting Precedent for International Conflict Management

The UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) represented an interim settlement that permitted conflict de-escalation while postponing the search for a lasting political solution. The final settlement should have been reached through negotiations between Belgrade and the Kosovo Albanians, and then endorsed by the UN Security Council, in accordance with the UN Resolution 1244 (1999). However, citing the ambiguity of the interim agreement and a deadlock in the negotiations, the United States and its allies recognized Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence in February 2008, thereby allowing the Kosovo Albanians to defect from the peace process. Therefore, instead of an internationally endorsed negotiated outcome, there has been an attempt at a unilaterally enforced political settlement, in disregard for the authority of the UN Security Council, which had placed Kosovo under international administration. The subsequent involvement of the International Court of Justice has failed to resolve the contentious issues between Belgrade and Prishtina or bridge the international divide over Kosovo. Besides creating a troublesome legal precedent, the recognition of Kosovo represents a bad model for international conflict management. The issues of concern are the viability of future interim settlements, good faith negotiations and the legitimacy and guarantees provided by the international involvement, including the authority of the UN Security Council. Some parallels are drawn between Kosovo and other territorial disputes, particularly in the Caucasus, indicating how the Kosovo case could influence other conflicts.