荆鸣 蒋奋

摘要：可受理性在海洋争端解决中具有抑制强制程序扩张适用的独立理论功能，实践中这一功能无从发挥。在《联合国海洋法公约》实践中，裁判机构对可受理性或敬而远之，或作时而严格、时而宽松的解释，造成可受理性“功能性搁浅”。《联合国海洋法公约》下可受理性的外延不明晰，涉及请求国资格的可受理性障碍解释空间过大，是导致其“功能性搁浅”的表面原因。实效主导海洋争端解决的逻辑是可受理性“功能性搁浅”的根本原因。基于此，《联合国海洋法公约》条款明确覆盖的可受理性障碍可与管辖权异议一并提出，与《联合国海洋法公约》条款以外国际法原则相关的可受理性障碍应单独明确提出。此外，衡平法原则偏袒小国的隐患需额外重视。

关键词：《联合国海洋法公约》;可受理性;“功能性搁浅”

中图分类号：D993.5文献标志码：A

文章编号：2096-028X（2021）03-0033-12

“Functionally stranded” admissibility in UNCLOS dispute settlement： issues and countermeasures

JING Ming1，JIANG Fen2

（1.Law School，Dalian Maritime University，Dalian 116026，China;2.Law School，Ningbo University，Ningbo 315211，China）

Abstract：

Admissibility has an independent theoretical function of restraining the expansion of compulsory procedures in maritime dispute settlement， which could not play its role sufficiently in practice. In the UNCLOS practices， the admissibility issues were either avoided or given strict/loose interpretations， which results in the “functionally stranded” admissibility.

The concept of admissibility under UNCLOS is not clear enough， especially the admissibility barriers related to the qualification of the launching state， which makes the superficial cause of “functionally stranded” admissibility. The effectiveness dominating maritime dispute settlement constitutes the root of “functionally stranded” admissibility. The admissibility barriers clearly covered by UNCLOS provisions can be raised together with the objections against jurisdiction; and the admissibility barriers related to international legal principles outside UNCLOS should be raised separately. The equity principles inclined to small states require additional attention.

Key words：UNCLOS;admissibility;“functionally stranded”

可受理性（admissibility）是除管轄权外国际争端解决中有关管辖争议的另一焦点。

[1]知名学者沙尼（Shany）将其表述为用以评价特定机构行使管辖权是否适当的一般框架（as a general framework for deciding upon the propriety of exercising such power）。[2]顾名思义，可受理性不同于管辖权问题，它更多地关系到管辖权的行使，而非是否存在。争端解决的实践中，首先默认影响可受理性的事由不存在，诉至某机构的争端及各项请求都被推定为具有可受理性，只有抗辩管辖权的一方明确提出这些事由，才有可能影响可受理性。[2]国际法院的官网将可受理性障碍概括为争端不存在、争端是政治争端非法律争端、未用尽当地救济，以及请求国不具有诉讼能力四类情形，[3]基本涵盖了影响可受理性的主要事由。……