發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-04-26 00:33

  本文選題：安理會(huì)決議 + 合法性　； 參考：《武漢大學(xué)》2012年博士論文

【摘要】：冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束以后,安理會(huì)在維持國際和平與安全方面發(fā)揮著越來越大的作用,安理會(huì)通過的決議數(shù)量也大為增加,但一些安理會(huì)決議的合法性也受到了質(zhì)疑。針對(duì)安理會(huì)決議的合法性問題,一些學(xué)者主張由國際法院對(duì)安理會(huì)決議進(jìn)行司法審查。這一主張面臨著諸多重大困難,這些困難包括《聯(lián)合國憲章》并沒有規(guī)定國際法院可以對(duì)安理會(huì)決議的合法性進(jìn)行司法審查,國際法院在其司法實(shí)踐中也明確表示自己對(duì)安理會(huì)決議沒有司法審查的權(quán)力。此外,對(duì)安理會(huì)決議的司法審查還涉及審查的原則、審查的范圍、審查的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、審查的方式、審查的法律效力等問題。本文共分八章來探討這些問題。 第一章是安理會(huì)決議司法審查的法理基礎(chǔ)。該章首先概述了安理會(huì)決議的種類、法律性質(zhì)以及其法律約束力,接著分析了安理會(huì)決議合法性危機(jī)的表現(xiàn)、原因以及解決的途徑等。對(duì)安理會(huì)決議進(jìn)行司法審查的理論依據(jù)主要有國際法治的要求、權(quán)力限制理論以及國家的司法救濟(jì)權(quán)。 第二章是安理會(huì)決議司法審查的主體。對(duì)安理會(huì)決議的進(jìn)行司法審查,首先考慮的是由聯(lián)合國國際法院來進(jìn)行,但從《聯(lián)合國憲章》和《國際法院規(guī)約》的規(guī)定來看,找不到這樣的法律依據(jù)�！堵�(lián)合國憲章》起草的歷史也表明國際法院不擁有對(duì)安理會(huì)決議司法審查的權(quán)力,國際法院在其司法實(shí)踐中也不承認(rèn)擁有對(duì)安理會(huì)決議司法審查權(quán)。盡管這樣,但從各種分析來看,最有可能對(duì)安理會(huì)決議進(jìn)行司法審查的主體就是聯(lián)合國國際法院了,其他國際司法機(jī)構(gòu),如前南斯拉夫國際刑事法庭、歐盟法院即使聲稱自己擁有對(duì)安理會(huì)決議合法性進(jìn)行審查的權(quán)力,也只是就某個(gè)或某些特定的安理會(huì)決議進(jìn)行司法審查。 第三章是安理會(huì)決議司法審查的原則。如果國際法院對(duì)安理會(huì)決議合法性進(jìn)行審查,以下原則應(yīng)得到尊守。這些原則包括案件性原則、政治問題不審查原則、安理會(huì)決議有效推定原則以及安理會(huì)決議合法性解釋原則。 第四章是安理會(huì)決議司法審查的范圍。國際法院對(duì)安理會(huì)決議的司法審查范圍應(yīng)主要集中于安理會(huì)根據(jù)《聯(lián)合國憲章》第七章作出的決議。對(duì)這些決議進(jìn)行司法審查的難點(diǎn)在于安理會(huì)通過此類決議時(shí)擁有很大的自由裁量權(quán),并沒有很明確的法律規(guī)定,審查時(shí)很難斷定安理會(huì)決議違反了什么法律。聯(lián)合國安理會(huì)通過的有些維和行動(dòng)的決議的合法性也受到了質(zhì)疑,對(duì)它們合法性進(jìn)行審查時(shí)同樣面臨著法律標(biāo)準(zhǔn)缺失的問題。 第五章是安理會(huì)決議司法審查的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)�！堵�(lián)合國憲章》規(guī)定的聯(lián)合國宗旨與原則是安理會(huì)必須遵守的,國際習(xí)慣法如果本身同時(shí)也是國際強(qiáng)行法,則安理會(huì)也必須遵守。一般法律原則在國際法院的司法實(shí)踐中很少適用,即使適用也只是司法程序方面的一般法律原則,所以采用一般法律原則來審查安理會(huì)決議合法性的意義不是很大。 第六章是安理會(huì)決議司法審查的方式。由于國際法院訴訟管轄案件的當(dāng)事方必須為國家,所以國際法院以直接訴訟管轄的方式對(duì)安理會(huì)決議實(shí)施司法審查面臨著很多制度障礙,但是國際法院在目前的訴訟管轄中對(duì)安理會(huì)決議實(shí)施間接司法審查的可能性還是存在的。以咨詢管轄方式對(duì)安理會(huì)決議實(shí)施司法審查的可能性是存在,但是最大的問題在于法院的咨詢意見沒有法律效力。 第七章是安理會(huì)決議司法審查的法律效力。國際法院對(duì)安理會(huì)決議司法審查的判決或意見應(yīng)具有法律有約束力,否則可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致安理會(huì)決議一方面被國際法院宣告為違法或無效,另一方面聯(lián)合國會(huì)員國又必須遵守安理會(huì)決議的奇怪局面。安理會(huì)決議違法或無效還可能導(dǎo)致聯(lián)合國的國際法律責(zé)任。 第八章是中國對(duì)安理會(huì)決議司法審查構(gòu)建的立場(chǎng)。從中國在聯(lián)合國的實(shí)踐來看,中國政府更加注重聯(lián)合國安理會(huì)在維護(hù)國際和平與安全方面的作用,結(jié)合中國對(duì)國際法院的立場(chǎng)來看,很難得出中國政府支持國際法院對(duì)安理會(huì)決議進(jìn)行司法審查的結(jié)論。支持國際法院對(duì)安理會(huì)決議進(jìn)行司法審查,有助于加強(qiáng)對(duì)安理會(huì)權(quán)力的限制,減輕安理會(huì)改革的壓力。這一制度也將有助于避免中國與美國等西方國家在聯(lián)合國發(fā)生尖銳對(duì)立,從而為和平發(fā)展創(chuàng)造一個(gè)比較有利的國際環(huán)境。
[Abstract]:After the end of the cold war , the Council has played an increasingly important role in the maintenance of international peace and security , and the legitimacy of the resolutions adopted by the Council has also been questioned . In response to the legitimacy of the Council ' s resolutions , a number of scholars have advocated judicial review of the legitimacy of the Council ' s resolutions .

Chapter One is a legal basis for judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions . The chapter first summarizes the types , legal nature and the binding of the Council resolutions , then analyses the manifestations , reasons and ways of resolving the legitimacy crisis of the Security Council resolutions . The theoretical basis for judicial review of the Council resolutions is mainly the requirements of the international rule of law , the theory of power limitation and the judicial relief right of the State .

Chapter II is the subject of judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions , first considered by the United Nations International Court of Justice , but not by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice . The history of the Charter of the United Nations also shows that the International Court of Justice does not have the right to judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions .

Chapter III is the principle of judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions . Should the International Court of Justice review the legitimacy of the Council ' s resolutions , the following principles should be respected . These principles include the principle of cases , the principle of non - examination of political issues , the principle of effective presumption of the Council ' s resolutions and the principles of the legitimacy of the Council ' s resolutions .

Chapter IV is the scope of judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions . The scope of the Council ' s judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions should focus primarily on the Council ' s resolutions under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations . The difficulty in judicial review of these resolutions lies in the fact that the Council has a large discretionary power in adopting such resolutions , and does not have a clear legal provision , and it is difficult to determine what laws the Council resolutions violated . The legitimacy of the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council was also questioned , and there was also a lack of legal standards for their legality .

Chapter V is the standard of judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions . The purposes and principles of the United Nations , as set out in the Charter of the United Nations , are to be observed by the Council and must be observed by the Council . The general principles of law are rarely applied in the judicial practice of the International Court of Justice , even if applicable only in general legal principles in judicial proceedings , so that the significance of the legitimacy of the Council ' s resolutions is not great in adopting general legal principles .

Chapter VI is a way of judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions . As a result of the fact that the parties to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice have to be States , the International Court of Justice has faced a number of institutional obstacles to the implementation of judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions in a direct litigation jurisdiction , but the possibility of an indirect judicial review by the International Court of Justice in the current jurisdiction over the implementation of the Council ' s resolutions exists , but the greatest problem is that the advisory opinion of the Court has no legal effect .

Chapter VII is the legal effect of the judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions . The decisions or observations of the International Court of Justice on the judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions should be legally binding , which might otherwise result in the Council ' s resolution being declared illegal or invalid on the one hand by the International Court of Justice and , on the other hand , by the Member States of the United Nations , which in turn must comply with the Council ' s resolutions . The Council ' s resolution on the law or invalidity may also lead to the international legal responsibility of the United Nations .

Chapter 8 is China ' s position on the judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions . From China ' s practice in the United Nations , the Chinese government has paid more attention to the role of the United Nations Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security . It is rare for the Chinese Government to support the International Court of Justice ' s conclusions on the judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions . It supports the International Court of Justice ' s judicial review of the Council ' s resolutions . It will help to strengthen the power of the Council and reduce the pressure on the reform of the Council . This system will also help to avoid the sharp opposition between China and the United States in the United Nations , thus creating a more favourable international environment for peaceful development .

【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D813.2;D997.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李壽平;;國際和平與安全的新威脅與聯(lián)合國框架下的使用武力規(guī)則[J];北京理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年03期

2 陳玲玲;淺談聯(lián)合國安理會(huì)運(yùn)作機(jī)制的改革[J];中共成都市委黨校學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué));2005年05期

3 劉亮;;國際法院咨詢管轄中“法律問題”的界定[J];研究生法學(xué);2008年06期

4 何增科;全球民主治理與聯(lián)合國改革[J];當(dāng)代世界與社會(huì)主義;2004年01期

5 簡(jiǎn)基松;聯(lián)合國制裁之定性問題研究[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年06期

6 李薇薇;;論聯(lián)合國經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁中的人權(quán)保護(hù)——兼評(píng)聯(lián)合國對(duì)朝鮮的經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2007年02期

7 王秀梅;;國際憲政思潮的興起與國際法“憲法化”趨勢(shì)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年02期

8 邱冬梅;;論國際強(qiáng)行法的演進(jìn)[J];廈門大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2005年01期

9 邱冬梅;;論國際刑事法院與聯(lián)合國安理會(huì)的關(guān)系[J];廈門大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2006年02期

10 黃偉;;也論國際法的等級(jí)[J];湖南社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1803699