論《聯合國海洋法公約》爭端解決之強制管轄範圍：以領土主權歸屬爭端為中心

The Limits of Subject-matter Jurisdiction in UNCLOS Compulsory Dispute Settlement: An Analysis of Territorial Sovereignty Disputes

魏惇婷(Duen-Ting Wei)

指導教授 ： 姜皇池

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2019年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201903686

摘要

國際法學界長期以來多認為《1982 年聯合國海洋法公約》(下稱《公約》)強 制爭端解決機制之事務管轄範圍乃排除「領土主權歸屬爭端」(territorial sovereignty disputes)。2015 年「查戈斯群島仲裁案」及「南海仲裁案」係目 前依據《公約》強制爭端解決程序並直接且較深入討論《公約》強制爭端解決機 制之事務管轄範圍與「領土主權歸屬爭端」關係之唯二司法判決。此二案件亦開 啟學說間對於領土主權歸屬管轄是否為《公約》強制爭端解決機制之事務管轄範 圍之熱烈討論且眾說紛紜。尤其針對「混合型爭端」(mixed disputes)，即同 時涉領土主權歸屬事項及關於《公約》之事項。值得關注者為此二案件中，同樣 係依據《公約》附件七組成之仲裁庭，就兩邊原告看似的相同性質之主張，於認 定其依據公約強制管轄條款第 288 條第 1 款有無管轄權時，做出相反之判斷。
考量強制爭端解決機制之「強制」(compulsory)性質特殊，其管轄範圍應謹慎 判斷。尤其，敏感性高之「領土主權歸屬爭端」是否屬《公約》事務管轄範圍極 具爭議性。此爭議之討論彰顯過去採取之立場未必理所當然，而有重新檢視之必 要。此爭議涉及國際法上如何認定《公約》第 288 條第 1 款管轄條款之範圍。 《公約》之本質乃國際條約，就其條文內涵有爭執者，應循國際法上條約解釋原 則加以闡釋。然，討論該管轄條款之多數學說及實務見解鮮少明示其乃依條約解 釋原則為分析，即便是操作條約解釋之論述未嚴格遵循條約解釋原則。
本論文認為，釐清《公約》強制爭端解決機制之事務管轄範圍須回歸條約解釋原 則以尋求締約當事國之真意。是以，本論文將依國際法上確立之條約解釋原則判 斷「領土主權歸屬爭端」是否屬公約管轄條款第 288 條第 1 款之範圍。本論文試圖整理並分析關於《公約》締結之一手資料和目前學說見解，並實際操作條約 解釋原則於《公約》管轄條款。同時，本論文將分析並觀察「查戈斯群島仲裁案」 及「南海仲裁案」是否與條約解釋結果相符。最後，本文結論認為條約解釋之結 果係《公約》當然排除領土主權歸屬爭端，且不因系單純涉及領土主權爭端或混 合型爭端而異。此外，國際司法實務與條約解釋不一致之情形乃因受訴法院或法 庭具有一定裁量權限，主要系對於解釋《公約》條款、定性原告主張所採原則及 實際適用有相當程度之裁量，而使個案間認定不一致，造成不確定性。本論文認 為往後國際司法判決應循條約解釋原則，使各項解釋元素受到完整考量，使不同 國際法院和法庭間之裁判趨於一致性並具法確定性。

關鍵字

《1982 年聯合國海洋法公約》強制爭端解決機制 ； 事物管轄範圍 ； 領土主權歸屬爭端 ； 查戈斯群島仲裁案 ； 南海仲裁案

並列摘要

It is a commonly advanced view that disputes of territorial sovereignty are not subject to the compulsory dispute settlement regime under Part XV of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, in the recent 2015 Chagos Arbitration and 2016 South China Sea Arbitration, the question became the focus of both arbitral awards and has generated heated debate on whether issues of land sovereignty are subject to the subject-matter jurisdiction of Section 2 (compulsory procedures entailing binding decision) under Part XV of UNCLOS.
Among the various arguments put forth in legal scholarship, few have referred and adhered rigorously to rules of treaty interpretation when interpreting relevant jurisdictional provisions of UNCLOS. A number of academic discussions focus on land sovereignty issues in the context of “mixed disputes,” which refers to either dispute exclusively concerning maritime delimitation and territorial sovereignty or disputes concerning both UNCLOS and non-UNCLOS issues, which are often exemplified by maritime delimitation disputes. However, land sovereignty disputes may raise preliminary questions of jurisdiction in both (pure) territorial sovereignty disputes and mixed disputes. The arguments put forth by Mauritius and the U.K. in the 2015 Chagos Arbitration are an indication of such distinction.
The main task of the thesis is to determine whether and to what extent are territorial sovereignty disputes excluded from compulsory jurisdiction. It seeks to tackle the controversial issue at its root by conducting a construction of UNCLOS Article 288(1) in light of the rule of treaty interpretation under international law. The thesis then delves into how international courts and tribunals tackle disputes concerning land sovereignty. The thesis also analyses whether judicial decisions conform with the interpretation of Article 288(1) and its implications on cases involving land sovereignty brought under compulsory procedures in Section 2 of Part XV UNCLOS.

並列關鍵字

UNCLOS dispute settlement ； territorial sovereignty disputes ； limitations to compulsory jurisdiction ； jurisdiction ratione materiae ； Chagos Arbitration ； South China Sea Arbitration

參考文獻

Adede, A.O. (1987). The System for Settlement of Disputes under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Leiden, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Amerashinghe, C.F. (2009). Jurisdiction of Specific International Tribunals. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Amerashinghe, C.F. (2011). International Arbitral Jurisdiction. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Anderson, D. (2016). Peaceful Settlement of Disputes under UNCLOS. In Barrett, J. & Barnes, R. (Eds.) Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (pp. 385–415). London, UK: The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

Aust, A. (2013). Modern Treaty Law and Practice (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.