《联合国海洋法公约》第283条交换意见义务:问题与检视  

On the Obligation to Exchange of Views in Article 283 of UNCLOS: Issues and Reflection

作　　者：马得懿[1] Ma Deyi

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学,上海201620

出　　处：《政治与法律》2018年第4期102-110,共9页Political Science and Law

基　　金：上海市社科规划一般项目"海洋航行自由的体系化解读"(项目编号:2015BFX003);司法部重点课题"半闭海视角下海洋划界‘特殊情况’研究"(课题编号:16SFB1007);中国海洋发展研究会重大项目"联合国海洋法公约若干制度评价与完善研究"(项目编号:CAMAZDA201601)以及重点项目"美国海军航行自由对国际法的冲击和影响问题研究"(项目编号:CAMAZD201608)阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：《联合国海洋法公约》框架下的交换意见义务一度形同虚设,争端当事方在交换义务的范围、方式以及标准等方面存在很大的分歧,裁判者对此的判断和认识呈主观倾向。海洋争端初步管辖权的低门槛、混合型争端管辖权的勃兴及该公约争端解决机制的先天不足,导致该公约下交换意见义务并未完全实现其立法初衷与目的。菲律宾南海仲裁案表明,强化争端当事方的披露义务和裁判机构的审查义务,一定程度上可以改进该公约下的交换意见义务。争端方启动《联合国海洋法公约》强制仲裁程序之前,业已存在相关协定规制此种争端,交换意见义务应该充分顾及此类协定的存在。The obligation of exchange of views under the UNCLOS exists in name only at a time. Par-ties to a dispute have great differences in the scope, mode and standard of the obligation of exchange ofviews. The adjudicator shows the subjective tendency in judgment and understanding of the above. Due tothe low threshold of preliminary jurisdiction over marine disputes, the rising of mixed dispute jurisdictionand the congenital deficiencies of dispute settlement mechanism of the Convention, the initial intention andpurpose of legislating the obligation of exchange of views under the Convention are not totally realized. Thecase of South China Sea arbitration （ the Philippines vs China） shows that the obligation of exchange of viewsunder the UNCLOS may be improved to some extent by enhancing the obligation of disclosure of parties in-volved and the obligation of examination of the adjudicating agency. Provided that there exists an agreementregulating a dispute before parties involved initiate the compulsory arbitration procedures of the UNCLOS,the obligation of exchange of views shall be performed by giving full consideration of such agreement.

关 键 词：交换意见 披露义务 混合型争端管辖权 条约解释 

分 类 号：DF935[政治法律—国际法学]