国际海洋争端解决中的“不应诉”问题

争端当事国在国际诉讼中采取"不应诉"策略并非"离经叛道"之举,而是有着更深层次的战略考量。国际法院化解"不应诉"危机的经验表明,争端当事国并无应诉的法律义务,且并不必然导致不利判决。国际法院仍应恪守当事方程序平等原则,在确定存在管辖权的前提下,对案件的事实和法律问题作出令人信服的裁决。中国和俄罗斯近期选择不应诉"南海仲裁案"和"北极日出号案"的事例表明,海洋争端解决机制的强制性与例外规定之间的矛盾势必导致"不应诉"现象。在"不应诉"的尴尬情境下,国际仲裁庭的正当性、独立性、公正性和实效性面临考验。为避免"不应诉"危机的加深,国际仲裁庭宜采取"司法自限"这一路径,在案件的管辖权问题和实体问题方面作出更为谨慎的裁决。

The Emerging Problem of Non-appearance in the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Mechanism

The non-appearance approach taken by the disputant parties in international litigations could not be regarded as nonsense,but a strategy with profound consideration.According to the experience of International Court of Justice’s （ICJ）tackling with non-appearance,parties of a dispute have no obligation of appearance, and non-appearance would not automatically lead to negative judgments.ICJ did adhere to the principle of e-quality between the parties.Given the jurisdiction is well justified,ICJ makes reasonable decisions based on laws and facts.China and Russia recently refuse to appear in the“Philippines v.China Arbitration”and“Arc-tic Sunrise Arbitration”,which reflects the predicament between non-appearance and compulsory jurisdiction of the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism.Under the awkward circumstance of non-appearance,the arbi-tral tribunals constituted in accordance with UNCLOS Annex VII have to face up to challenges with respect to le-gitimacy,independence,impartiality,and effectiveness.With an aim to alleviate the tensions caused by non-appearance,the present arbitral tribunals are supposed to endorse the approach of judicial self-restraint,and make cautious and prudent awards regarding the issues of jurisdiction and merit.