摘要: |
自“冈比亚诉缅甸关于《灭种罪公约》的适用案”后,非直接受害国多次在公益诉讼中基于对世义务主张诉权。公益诉讼主要涉及原告国、被告国和参加国三类主体,诉讼标的为缔约国间和国际社会整体的共同利益,基于对世义务主张的诉权多用于证立原告国具备提起公益诉讼的诉讼资格。国际法院公益诉讼承认对世义务诉权历经起步踌躇、积极适用、扩大适用和频繁适用四个阶段。现阶段国际法院亟待释明保护公益的目标与确认原告国诉权之间的关系,国际法院目前采取的识别共同利益的方式过于宽泛,而且部分非直接受害国与争端主题事项间缺少充分的联系。同时,保护公益的目标与国际法院双边争端解决机制不兼容的矛盾日益突出。法院应继续贯彻实体性规范与程序性规则相分离的一贯做法,权利或义务本身的“对世”性质不能替代法院的程序性规则。对于《规约》第62条和第63条规定的两类第三国参加程序,第三国若基于法律利益参加公益诉讼,第三国可能受判决影响的法律利益不能高于原告国提起诉讼所具有的法律利益。第三国若基于条约解释参加公益诉讼,第三国的参诉范围应限于就所涉条约解释提出意见,而且判决中的解释应对第三国具有同等拘束力。 |
关键词: 对世义务 公益诉讼 共同利益 诉权 第三国参加程序 |
DOI: |
分类号: |
基金项目:教育部哲学社会科学研究重大专项项目“坚持统筹推进国内法治和涉外法治研究”(项目编号: 2022JZDZ005) |
|
The Right of Standing Based on Obligations Erga Omnes (Partes) in Actio Popularis before the International Court of Justice: Interpretation, Controversies and Reflections |
He Zhipeng & Zhou Meng
|
|
Abstract: |
Since Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), non-directly injured State have asserted standing based on obligations erga omnes (partes) in actio popularis before the International Court of Justice. Actio Popularis mainly involves three partes: the Claimant State, the Respondent State and the Third-party State, and the subject-matter of actio popularis is the common interest of the contracting States and the international community as a whole. The right of standing based on obligations erga omnes (partes) is mostly used to establish that the Claimant State has standing to bring actio popularis. Actio Popularis before the International Court of Justice has gone through four stages: hesitation, active application, expanded application and frequent application. At the current stage, the International Court of Justice urgently needs to clarify the relationship between the goal of protecting the common interest and recognizing the standing of the claimant state, and the current approach adopted by the Court to identifying the common interest is overly broad and lacks the sufficient link between some non-directly injured States and the subject-matter of the dispute. At the same time, the incompatibility between the goal of protecting the common interest and the Court's bilateral dispute settlement mechanism is becoming increasingly evident. The consistent practice of actio popularis before the International Court of Justice had been to separate substantive norms from procedural rules, and the erga omnes nature of the right or obligation itself was not substitute for the Court's procedural rules. With regard to the two types of intervention by third-party States provided by Article 62 and 63 of the Statute, if a third-party State intervened in actio popularis on the basis of its legal interest, the legal interest of the third-party State might be affected by the decision could not be higher than the Claimant State that justified bringing a claim before the Court. If a third-party State intervened in actio popularis on the basis of treaty interpretation, the scope of its intervention should be limited to the submission of an opinion on the interpretation of the treaty in question, and the interpretation of the judgment in actio popularis should be equally binding upon the Third-party State. |
Key words: Obligations Erga Omnes (Partes), Actio Popularis, Common Interest, Standing, Third-Party Intervention |