论文部分内容阅读
《联合国海洋法公约》第十五部分第一节“一般规定”与第二节“导致有拘束力裁判的强制措施程序”之间有着适用上的先后顺序,即只有当第一部分的争端解决方式已用尽的前提下,当事方才可以提交第二节具有管辖权的法院或者法庭。谈判作为传统解决争端的方法在《公约》中同样存有一席之地,但除在海洋划界之外,谈判在没有协议约束基础上,并不是争端解决前置程序;而作为《公约》第二百八十三条规定的“交换意见”义务,并意味着当事方需一致同意方能进入第十五部分第二节的强制程序,当双方诚信地履行了该义务之后,任何一方就有权利单方提起有拘束力裁判的强制措施,但是对于如何界定双方实质履行了该义务,在国际上则标准不一。另外,在第二百八十三条与《公约》第七十四、八十三条之间的关系上,在履行了七十四条与第八十三条的谈判义务之后,并无必要再履行第二百八十三条规定的交换义务。
There is an order of precedence between the first section of Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the “General Provisions” and the “Procedures for Coercive Remedies that Lead to Binding Disputes” in Section II, that is, only when the first part The dispute settlement method has been exhausted, the parties can be submitted to the court or tribunal with jurisdiction in section II. Negotiations, as a traditional method of dispute settlement, also have a place in the Convention, except for the delimitation of the sea, where negotiations are based on the absence of agreement and not as pre-dispute settlement procedures; and as the two hundredth The “exchange of opinions” obligations stipulated in Article 83 and means that parties must agree unanimously before they can enter into the mandatory procedures of Section XV of Part XV. After both parties faithfully fulfill this obligation, either party Have the unilateral right to unilaterally impose coercive referee’s coercive measures, but how to define the substantive fulfillment of this obligation by both parties is not the same internationally. In addition, it is not necessary to fulfill the obligation of negotiation between Article 74 and Article 83 in the relationship between Article 283 and Articles 74 and 83 of the Covenant And then fulfill the exchange obligations stipulated in Article 283.