發(fā)布時間：2018-04-28 21:03

  本文選題：嗣后慣例 + 條約解釋　； 參考：《鄭州大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：嗣后協(xié)定和嗣后慣例是進行條約解釋時的重要因素,它旨在找到一種靈活同時又是理性和可預測的條約適用和解釋方法。如果將有關條約視為“活的文書”,就應該考慮到國際社會法律環(huán)境的變化或新需求的出現(xiàn),而締約國的嗣后協(xié)定和嗣后慣例是對根據(jù)條約規(guī)則宗旨對條約義務作出動態(tài)解釋的方法。了解嗣后慣例行為的發(fā)展如何影響現(xiàn)行條文,在任何法律制度下都十分重要。WTO爭端解決的實踐為嗣后慣例解釋方法的研究提供了豐富的材料,本文擬通過WTO爭端解決機構的嗣后慣例解釋實踐對該問題進行分析,重點討論在具體案件當中專家組和上訴機構如何分析慣行(practice)以及如何科學謹慎適用該解釋方法,而了解這些規(guī)則對國家,國際組織的爭端解決實踐具有重要的指導意義。 本文主體共分為四個部分。第一部分導言,介紹了聯(lián)合國的國際法委員會和第六委員會認識到嗣后慣例的法律問題,對這一問題的現(xiàn)實性進行分析并介紹設立“條約隨時間演變”專題的工作進程和研究思路。 第二部分,對嗣后慣例和維也納條約法公約第31.3條(b)進行解讀,以確定在適用過程中存在著哪些共識。接著,分析了在維也納條約法公約發(fā)展過程中的國家干預,得出國家對嗣后慣例所持的態(tài)度。盡管條約法最終刪除了條約義務非正式修訂的草案第38條,但是嗣后慣例卻可以作為解釋的一種方法被締約方所接受,并圍繞此點展開論證。最終認定,對嗣后慣例進行形式上的區(qū)分表明,國家不確定嗣后慣例的某些運用是否和在多大程度上妨礙條約法中的一致同意原則相關。因此,在條約法公約起草期間締約國有意讓公約對嗣后慣例的規(guī)范模糊化。 第三部分探討了世貿組織專家組和上訴機構針對嗣后慣例的裁決報告。鑒于這樣的期待,在將嗣后慣例作為解釋性方法應用時,更好的導向性會增加普遍性多邊條約體系的協(xié)調性。筆者認為,專家組和上訴機構的裁決為嗣后慣例在條約解釋和修改的意義定義提供了導向,而且這項主導體制為潛在的、對嗣后慣例的兩步分析法提供了基礎,特別是在普遍性的多邊條約體制的環(huán)境中,建議以當事方的行為建立符合第31.3條(b)的權威解釋。 在第四部分中,以兩步法為基礎,從專家組和上訴機構的裁決中提出了更好的三步分析框架,以此更好適用維也納第31.3條(b)。為了迎合普遍性多邊條約體制中對法律義務解釋的高標準需求,筆者提出了一個運用維也納公約第31.3條(b)的模式,該模式分析了慣例的特點、慣例一致性、普遍性、連續(xù)性的程度,和慣例在多大程度范圍內可以包含協(xié)議的意思。
[Abstract]:Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice are important elements in the interpretation of treaties, which aim at finding a flexible, rational and predictable method of treaty application and interpretation. If the treaty in question is considered a "living instrument", it should take into account changes in the legal environment of the international community or the emergence of new needs, Subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of the parties are the means of dynamic interpretation of treaty obligations in accordance with the purposes of the treaty rules. Understanding how the conduct of subsequent practice affects existing provisions and that the practice of WTO dispute settlement provides a wealth of material for the study of methods of interpretation of subsequent practice in any legal system, This paper intends to analyze the problem through the subsequent practice interpretation practice of the WTO dispute settlement body, focusing on how the panel of experts and the appellate body analyze the practice of practice in a specific case and how to apply the interpretation method scientifically and prudently. Understanding these rules is of great significance to the practice of dispute settlement in countries and international organizations. The main body of this paper is divided into four parts. Part I, introduction, on the legal aspects of the recognition of subsequent practice by the International Law Commission of the United Nations and the sixth Committee, This paper analyzes the reality of this problem and introduces the working process and research ideas for the establishment of the topic "treaties over time". Part II: interpretation of subsequent practice and article 31.3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties to determine what consensus exists in its application. Then, the state intervention in the development of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties is analyzed, and the attitude of the State towards subsequent practice is obtained. Although the law of treaties had eventually deleted draft article 38, which had been informally revised on treaty obligations, subsequent practice could be accepted by the parties as a means of interpretation and was justified. The final finding is that the formal distinction between subsequent practice indicates that States are uncertain as to whether certain applications of subsequent practice are relevant to the extent to which the principle of consent in the law of treaties is impeded. Thus, during the drafting of a convention on the law of treaties, the parties intended to obscure the convention's norms of subsequent practice. The third part discusses the WTO panel and appellate body's decision report on subsequent practice. In view of this expectation, better guidance in the application of subsequent practice as an interpretative method would enhance the coherence of the universal multilateral treaty system. The author believes that the decisions of the panel of experts and the appellate body provide guidance for the definition of the meaning of subsequent practice in the interpretation and modification of treaties, and this dominant system provides the basis for a potential two-step analysis of subsequent practice. In particular, in the context of a universal multilateral treaty regime, it is recommended that an authoritative interpretation consistent with article 31.3 (b) be established by the conduct of the parties. In part IV, based on the two-step approach, a better three-step analytical framework is proposed from the decisions of the panel of experts and the appellate body in order to better apply article 31.3 of Vienna. In order to meet the high standard demand of interpretation of legal obligation in universal multilateral treaty system, the author puts forward a model of applying article 31.3 of the Vienna Convention, which analyzes the characteristics of practice, consistency of practice, universality, etc. The degree of continuity, and the extent to which conventions can contain the meaning of an agreement.
【學位授予單位】：鄭州大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前2條

1 曾令良;;從“中美出版物市場準入案”上訴機構裁決看條約解釋的新趨勢[J];法學;2010年08期

2 王毅;;WTO爭端解決中的法律解釋[J];法學研究;2009年05期

相關博士學位論文 前1條

1 張東平;WTO爭端解決中的條約解釋研究[D];廈門大學;2003年

，

本文編號：1816852