论文部分内容阅读
国际性司法机构与当事国就事实调查的权限划分构成了国际司法程序的焦点之一,但国际性司法机构各自的规约与诉讼规则没有在这一问题上作出原则性规定。现有的国际法的文献区分出解决国家间争端之国际司法程序的三种基本诉讼模式,即(严格的)对抗模式、协商模式与纠问模式。通过分别考察国际法院、国际海洋法院和WTO争端解决机制的规则与实践,并分别加以归纳和重构,可以发现,国际性司法机构在国家间争议中基本上都有权也有义务引导诉讼程序,它们都拥有以官方途径就所有证明手段进行证据采信的权限,但也都受制于当事国所提交的无争议之事实,以及双方当事国明确认可或它们事实上都赞同的事实。自行调查事实则完全属于法官的自由裁量权。这说明,国际性司法机构在国际司法程序中的事实调查权既不吻合严格的对抗模式也不吻合纠问模式,而是接近于一种协商模式。
The division of powers between the international judicial agencies and the parties on fact-finding constitutes one of the focuses of the international judicial procedure. However, the respective rules and rules of procedure of the international judicial institutions do not provide any principle on this issue. The existing literature on international law distinguishes the three basic litigation models of international judicial proceedings for the settlement of disputes between nations, namely (strict) confrontational mode, negotiation mode and questioning mode. By separately examining the rules and practices of the International Court of Justice, the International Maritime Court and the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, and separately summarizing and reconstructing them, it can be found that international judicial bodies basically have the right and obligation to guide the litigation procedure in disputes among countries. All of them have the authority to take evidence of all the means of proof by official means, but are also governed by the non-controversial facts submitted by the parties and the fact that both parties expressly recognize or in fact agree. The fact of investigation is entirely the judge’s discretion. This shows that the fact-finding power of international judicial organs in international judicial proceedings is neither in line with the strict mode of confrontation nor with the mode of interrogation, but is close to a consultative model.