《联合国海洋法公约》争端解决机制十年： 成就、不足与发展 ——以与常设仲裁法庭、国际法院的比较实证分析为视角
Review of the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System during the Past Decade: Achievements, Disadvantages, and Developments - From the Perspective of Comparative Empirical Analysis among ITLOS, PCA and ICJ
【中文摘要】国际海洋法法庭自1996开始履行审理海洋争端职责以来，迄今已 10年。本文通过其与常设仲裁法庭、国际法院10年来处理海洋争端情况的比较 实证分析，得出结论:国际海洋法法庭对“临时措施”、“船只和船员的迅速释放” 2 类程序性争端具有强制管辖权，其对此2类案件的处理成就斐然；《联合国海洋法公约》附件七规定的仲裁，具有“剩余备用”性质，它已成为联系《联合国海洋法 公约》和常设仲裁法庭的桥梁;国际海洋法法庭对海洋争端的强制性管辖存在法定 和约定的例外，对争端实体问题的处理已成为其最为薄弱的环节;由于“区域”海 底资源开发仍处在勘探阶段，海底争端分庭未受理过任何案件，但海底争端分庭 在处理海底争端方面具有“强制管辖权”、“当事方”、“可适用的法律”三方面优势, 随着“区域”海底资源开发大规模、大批量的实质进行，海底争端分庭处理海底争 端的潜力巨大。 【Abstract】From 1996 to 2005, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) played a role in maritime dispute-related cases. Based on a comparative empirical analysis of the settlement of maritime dispute-related cases between the ITLOS, Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), and International Court of Justice (ICJ) during this decade, we conclude in this paper that the ITLOS has compulsory jurisdiction over procedural disputes in relation to requests for “provisional measures” and “prompt release of vessels and crews,” and has made remarkable progress in this regard. Annex VII (Arbitration) of the UNCLOS acts as a “surplus standby,” bridging the UNCLOS and the PCA. Considering the statutory and agreed exceptions in compulsory jurisdiction by the ITLOS over maritime disputes, settlement of substantial issues has become the most obvious gap. Since the resources in the international seabed area (hereinafter “the Area”）are still under exploration, the Seabed Disputes Chamber has not accepted any cases, despite its advantages in “compulsory jurisdiction，” “parties to a case，” and “applicable law55 when settling such disputes. As substantial large-scale exploitation of seabed resources develops in the Area, the Seabed Disputes Chamber will demonstrate great potential for resolving seabed disputes.