受害国以外的国家采取反措施问题研究
|
摘要
国际法上的反措施与传统的报复制度一脉相承,但与报复制度存在明显区别:其不以惩罚责任国为目的,也不以武力为手段。受害国实施反措施没有任何疑问,而受害国以外的国家是否有权采取反措施存有争议。从法律确信和国家实践两方面分析,受害国以外的国家实施反措施并没有获得习惯国际法地位。尽管如此,受害国以外的国家采取反措施仍具有一定的合理性和必要性,尤其是在国际法缺乏强制管辖权和执行力的情况下,受害国以外的国家也可以通过反措施维护国际社会的整体利益。
Countermeasures in international law are the same as the traditional retaliation system, but they are obviously different from the retaliation system: they do not aim at punishing the responsible country or use force. There is no doubt that the injured State will take countermeasures, and there is a dispute as to whether States other than the injured State have the right to take countermeasures. From the perspective of legal conviction and state practice, States other than injured States have not acquired the status of customary international law in implementing countermeasures.However, it is still reasonable and necessary for States other than injured States to take countermeasures, especially when international law lacks compulsory jurisdiction and enforcement, States other than injured States can also safeguard the overall interests of the international community through countermeasures.
Countermeasures in international law are the same as the traditional retaliation system, but they are obviously different from the retaliation system: they do not aim at punishing the responsible country or use force. There is no doubt that the injured State will take countermeasures, and there is a dispute as to whether States other than the injured State have the right to take countermeasures. From the perspective of legal conviction and state practice, States other than injured States have not acquired the status of customary international law in implementing countermeasures.However, it is still reasonable and necessary for States other than injured States to take countermeasures, especially when international law lacks compulsory jurisdiction and enforcement, States other than injured States can also safeguard the overall interests of the international community through countermeasures.
引文
[1][3][9][10]李永胜.论受害国以外的国家采取反措施问题[M].北京:法律出版社,2012:104,89,69,68-69.
[2]James Crawford.Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts[M].NewYork:Cambridge University Press,2002:25.
[4][15]季华.非受害国实施反措施的习惯国际法地位之探讨--兼评Elena Katselli Proukaki《The Problem of Enforcement in International Law》[J].云南大学学报(法学版)2015(5):157.
[5]Hugo Grotius.The Rights of War and Peace[M].London:W.Innys and R.Manby,J.and P.Knapton,D.Brown,TOsborn,and E.Wicksteed,1738:285-289.
[6][7][20][22]Hjortur B.Sverrisson.Countermeasures the international legal system,and environmental violations[M].New York:Cambria Press,2008:33,34,40,34.
[8][11]Theodor Meron.Comment:Comment Rights of Mankind in Gentili[J].Grotius and Suarez:85 AJIL,1991:114-115,113.
[12]William Edward Hall.A Treatise on International Law[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1924:65.
[13][14]L.Oppenheim.International Law[M].New York:David McKay Company Inc.,1955:308,309.
[16]H.Lauterpacht.The Function of Law in the International Community[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1933:7.
[17]Emmerich de Vattel.The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature,Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns[M].Northampton:Simenon Butler,1820:345.
[18]Henry Wheaton.Elements of International Law[M].Philadelphia:Lea and Blanchard,1846:102-103.
[19]Hans Morgenthau.Politics among Nations,The Struggle for Power and Peace[M].New York:Knopf,1985:299.
[21]Patricia W.Birnie and Alan E.Boyle.International Law and the Environment[M].New York:Oxford University Press,1992:185.
(1)该定义参考了我国知名国际法学者王铁崖、梁西、周鲠生、江国青对反措施所下的定义。参见王铁崖:《国际法》,法律出版社1981年版,第67页;梁西:《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年版,第64页;周鲠生:《国际法》(上册),商务印书馆1981年版,第75页;江国青:《反措施与国际司法:变化中的国际法实施机制》,《中国国际法年刊》2008年卷,第81页。
(2)法国-美国空运协定仲裁案中,仲裁庭详细讨论了相称问题,认为美国采取的措施符合相称原则。该案中受影响的不仅是该航线的利益,同时也是不受侵犯的全球航空运输的利益。加布奇科沃-大毛罗斯项目案(G abcikov o-Nagymaro s Project)也采用了同样的方法:反措施必须与所遭受的损害相称,并考虑到涉及的权利的相关情况。法院最终认定反措施的比例性应当与所有河岸国家拥有自由航行权及运用共同水域的权利的受损害程度相称。参见Gabcikovo-Nagymaras Project(Hungary v. Stovakia), International Court of Justice, judgment of 25 September 1997, 19971.C.J.7., at 56. para.85.
(1)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1985, Vol.Ⅰ, p.310.
(2)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1985, Vol.Ⅱ, p.25.
(3)受害国的七种具体情形分别是.:第一,被一国侵害的权利来源于双边条约,那么该双边条约的另一缔约国是受害国。第二,被一国侵害的权利来源于国际法院或者仲裁庭有约束力的判决,则争端的另一当事国属于受害国。第三,被一国侵害的权利来源于一国际组织有约束力的决定,而非国际法院或者仲裁庭,根据该组织的成立文件,有权享有该权益利益的国家为受害国。第四,被一国侵害的权利来源于为第三国规定的条约,那么该第三国是受害国。第五,被一国侵害的权利来源于一项多边条约或者某一习惯国际法规则,则该多边条约的其他任何缔约国或者受该习惯国际法约束的其他任何国家在满足下列条件下都属于受害国的范围:一是该权利是为该国创设的;二是被一国侵害的权利影响了多边条约其他缔约方或者受习惯国际法约束的其他国家享有权利和履行义务;三是该权利是为保护人权的基本权利而创设的。第六,被-国侵害的权利来源于一项多边条约,该权利是为了保护缔约国的集体利益而创设的,那么,任何其他该条约的缔约国都是受害国。第七,一国际不法行为构成了国际犯罪,那么所有其他国家都是受害国。
(4)例如,希马认为,非直接受害国被允许对国际罪行实施反措施令人担忧。国际法委员会前委员罗宾逊认为,在国际罪行方面,非直接受害国并没有与直接受国际罪行影响的国家同等的权利。
(5)间接受害国实际上就是克劳福德认为的拥有法律利益的受害国以外的国家。
(6)二读国家并没有采用“对一切义务”的说法,而表述为“对整个国际社会所负担的义务”。
(1)荷兰提出了质疑,认为这种区分很可能限制国家对责任的援引。
(2)墨西哥在东太平洋捕捞金枪鱼的过程中,采用现代化拖网围捕的方法,危及到了与金枪鱼群同时出没的海豚的安全。而美国《海洋哺乳动物保护法》规定,如果商业性捕鱼技术对海洋哺乳动物造成意外死亡或者伤害,采取该种方法捕获的海产品将被禁止进口。墨西哥因被美国实行了禁运而于1991年1月将该争端提交至GATT专家组。
(1)James Crawford. third Report on State Responsibility. 15 March 2000, UN General Assembly, A/CN. 4/507, p.52.
(1)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol.Ⅰ, p.34-36.
(2)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol.Ⅰ, p.46.
(3)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol.Ⅰ, p.53.
(4)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol.Ⅰ, p.333.
(5)日本认为非受害国实施反措施超出了国际法逐步发展的范畴。参见State Responsibility:Comments and Observation received from Government, International Law Commission, fifty third session, Geneva, Switzerland, 23 April-1 June and 2 July-10August 2001,UN General Assembly,A/CN.4/515, 19 March 2001, pp.79,89.
(6)参见UN General Assembly 55th session, Official Records, 6th Committee, Summary record the 15 meeting,A/C.6/55/SR.15,p.5; A/C.6/55/SR.23,P.2.
(1)Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, separate opinion by Judge Lachs,1986 I.C J.14,p.168.
[2]James Crawford.Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts[M].NewYork:Cambridge University Press,2002:25.
[4][15]季华.非受害国实施反措施的习惯国际法地位之探讨--兼评Elena Katselli Proukaki《The Problem of Enforcement in International Law》[J].云南大学学报(法学版)2015(5):157.
[5]Hugo Grotius.The Rights of War and Peace[M].London:W.Innys and R.Manby,J.and P.Knapton,D.Brown,TOsborn,and E.Wicksteed,1738:285-289.
[6][7][20][22]Hjortur B.Sverrisson.Countermeasures the international legal system,and environmental violations[M].New York:Cambria Press,2008:33,34,40,34.
[8][11]Theodor Meron.Comment:Comment Rights of Mankind in Gentili[J].Grotius and Suarez:85 AJIL,1991:114-115,113.
[12]William Edward Hall.A Treatise on International Law[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1924:65.
[13][14]L.Oppenheim.International Law[M].New York:David McKay Company Inc.,1955:308,309.
[16]H.Lauterpacht.The Function of Law in the International Community[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1933:7.
[17]Emmerich de Vattel.The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature,Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns[M].Northampton:Simenon Butler,1820:345.
[18]Henry Wheaton.Elements of International Law[M].Philadelphia:Lea and Blanchard,1846:102-103.
[19]Hans Morgenthau.Politics among Nations,The Struggle for Power and Peace[M].New York:Knopf,1985:299.
[21]Patricia W.Birnie and Alan E.Boyle.International Law and the Environment[M].New York:Oxford University Press,1992:185.
(1)该定义参考了我国知名国际法学者王铁崖、梁西、周鲠生、江国青对反措施所下的定义。参见王铁崖:《国际法》,法律出版社1981年版,第67页;梁西:《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年版,第64页;周鲠生:《国际法》(上册),商务印书馆1981年版,第75页;江国青:《反措施与国际司法:变化中的国际法实施机制》,《中国国际法年刊》2008年卷,第81页。
(2)法国-美国空运协定仲裁案中,仲裁庭详细讨论了相称问题,认为美国采取的措施符合相称原则。该案中受影响的不仅是该航线的利益,同时也是不受侵犯的全球航空运输的利益。加布奇科沃-大毛罗斯项目案(G abcikov o-Nagymaro s Project)也采用了同样的方法:反措施必须与所遭受的损害相称,并考虑到涉及的权利的相关情况。法院最终认定反措施的比例性应当与所有河岸国家拥有自由航行权及运用共同水域的权利的受损害程度相称。参见Gabcikovo-Nagymaras Project(Hungary v. Stovakia), International Court of Justice, judgment of 25 September 1997, 19971.C.J.7., at 56. para.85.
(1)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1985, Vol.Ⅰ, p.310.
(2)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1985, Vol.Ⅱ, p.25.
(3)受害国的七种具体情形分别是.:第一,被一国侵害的权利来源于双边条约,那么该双边条约的另一缔约国是受害国。第二,被一国侵害的权利来源于国际法院或者仲裁庭有约束力的判决,则争端的另一当事国属于受害国。第三,被一国侵害的权利来源于一国际组织有约束力的决定,而非国际法院或者仲裁庭,根据该组织的成立文件,有权享有该权益利益的国家为受害国。第四,被一国侵害的权利来源于为第三国规定的条约,那么该第三国是受害国。第五,被一国侵害的权利来源于一项多边条约或者某一习惯国际法规则,则该多边条约的其他任何缔约国或者受该习惯国际法约束的其他任何国家在满足下列条件下都属于受害国的范围:一是该权利是为该国创设的;二是被一国侵害的权利影响了多边条约其他缔约方或者受习惯国际法约束的其他国家享有权利和履行义务;三是该权利是为保护人权的基本权利而创设的。第六,被-国侵害的权利来源于一项多边条约,该权利是为了保护缔约国的集体利益而创设的,那么,任何其他该条约的缔约国都是受害国。第七,一国际不法行为构成了国际犯罪,那么所有其他国家都是受害国。
(4)例如,希马认为,非直接受害国被允许对国际罪行实施反措施令人担忧。国际法委员会前委员罗宾逊认为,在国际罪行方面,非直接受害国并没有与直接受国际罪行影响的国家同等的权利。
(5)间接受害国实际上就是克劳福德认为的拥有法律利益的受害国以外的国家。
(6)二读国家并没有采用“对一切义务”的说法,而表述为“对整个国际社会所负担的义务”。
(1)荷兰提出了质疑,认为这种区分很可能限制国家对责任的援引。
(2)墨西哥在东太平洋捕捞金枪鱼的过程中,采用现代化拖网围捕的方法,危及到了与金枪鱼群同时出没的海豚的安全。而美国《海洋哺乳动物保护法》规定,如果商业性捕鱼技术对海洋哺乳动物造成意外死亡或者伤害,采取该种方法捕获的海产品将被禁止进口。墨西哥因被美国实行了禁运而于1991年1月将该争端提交至GATT专家组。
(1)James Crawford. third Report on State Responsibility. 15 March 2000, UN General Assembly, A/CN. 4/507, p.52.
(1)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol.Ⅰ, p.34-36.
(2)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol.Ⅰ, p.46.
(3)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol.Ⅰ, p.53.
(4)Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol.Ⅰ, p.333.
(5)日本认为非受害国实施反措施超出了国际法逐步发展的范畴。参见State Responsibility:Comments and Observation received from Government, International Law Commission, fifty third session, Geneva, Switzerland, 23 April-1 June and 2 July-10August 2001,UN General Assembly,A/CN.4/515, 19 March 2001, pp.79,89.
(6)参见UN General Assembly 55th session, Official Records, 6th Committee, Summary record the 15 meeting,A/C.6/55/SR.15,p.5; A/C.6/55/SR.23,P.2.
(1)Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, separate opinion by Judge Lachs,1986 I.C J.14,p.168.