析“极地曙光号”案对“南海仲裁案”的可能影响  

The analysis of the possible influence to the South China Sea Arbitration Case by the Arctic Sunrise Cases

作　　者：谢琼[1] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学中国边界与海洋研究院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《中国海商法研究》2015年第4期68-78,共11页Chinese Journal of Maritime Law

基　　金：国家留学基金委"国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目"(留金发[2013]3009号);国家社科基金重点项目"适用<联合国海洋法公约>解决南海问题的局限性与对策研究"(11AZD115);国家社科基金一般项目"国际海洋法在南海争端中的适用及其局限问题研究"(13BFX161)

摘　　要：在"极地曙光号"案中,俄罗斯坚持不接受、不参与荷兰针对其提起的《联合国海洋法公约》附件七项下的仲裁案,也没有参与荷兰就该案向国际海洋法法庭提起的临时措施案。俄罗斯的"不应诉"行为及其理由与中国在"南海仲裁案"中的行为及其理由具有高度相似性。国际海洋法法庭《指令》中有关不应诉及其对仲裁庭管辖权的影响方面的论述可能对中方产生不利影响。但国际海洋法法庭的论证逻辑很不严谨,所做法律推理既不充分也缺乏说服力。相比之下,仲裁庭将仲裁程序分为两阶段进行,并专门就俄罗斯的庭外管辖权异议做出单独裁决的做法,则是对中方具有积极意义的方面。Russia does not accept or intend to participate in the arbitration procedure under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea （ the UNCLOS） or the provisional measures proceedings of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea （the ITLOS） by Netherlands in relation to the Arctic Sunrise Cases. The ＂non-appearance＂ of Russia and its reasons are very similar to those of China in the South China Sea Arbitration. The ITLOS statements on the ＂non-appearance＂ and its effect to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal in its Order may have side effect to China. But the analysis of the ITLOS were logically less persuasive. However, the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal in the Arctic Sunrise Case bifurcates the pro- ceedings with ＂a separate stage on jurisdiction＂ and ＂a later stage on admissibility and merits＂ and makes decision on the ju- risdiction, which are good for China.

关 键 词：“极地曙光号”案 附件七仲裁 不应诉 管辖权 “南海仲裁案” 

分 类 号：DF961.9[政治法律—国际法学]