【摘要】：最近幾年，海洋法相關(guān)論題成為國(guó)際公法領(lǐng)域炙手可熱的論題，而海洋法爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制又是海洋法研究中經(jīng)久不衰的主題之一。在海洋法爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的執(zhí)行層面，從實(shí)際情況看來(lái)，強(qiáng)國(guó)往往具備更多的話(huà)語(yǔ)權(quán)。各國(guó)使用各種國(guó)際辭令來(lái)掩飾與公平、正義無(wú)關(guān)的自利因素所驅(qū)動(dòng)的行為或?yàn)榇祟?lèi)行為提供辯護(hù)，且在依照自利邏輯行事時(shí)已選擇最有利本國(guó)利益的國(guó)際法條款或公約為辯護(hù)理由，使海洋法爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制不再正義。 在法律的制定層面，雖然國(guó)際海洋法爭(zhēng)端的數(shù)量和種類(lèi)在不斷增多，但是解決其矛盾的法律發(fā)展卻嚴(yán)重滯后。法律人的局限性在于用法律的思維制定法律，用法律的價(jià)值考量法律是否公平、正義，最后用法律的技術(shù)手段檢驗(yàn)法律的制度設(shè)計(jì)，這一過(guò)程可能導(dǎo)致法律的制定和監(jiān)督主體過(guò)度相近的狹隘性。因此，用經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的方法論和范式去考量法律制度比法學(xué)學(xué)科內(nèi)的反思和考量更具有實(shí)際意義。 經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)運(yùn)用“成本——收益”分析、“供給——需求”等研究范式對(duì)技術(shù)的關(guān)注遠(yuǎn)大于對(duì)原則的關(guān)注。也就是說(shuō)，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)作為一種分析工具忽視了對(duì)問(wèn)題宏觀原則的概括。因此導(dǎo)致在運(yùn)用經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)方法分析相關(guān)領(lǐng)域的具體問(wèn)題時(shí)產(chǎn)生“道德”和“法律”兩難的“斯芬克斯”現(xiàn)象，即雖然運(yùn)用經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析范式得到答案，卻違反道德的現(xiàn)象。對(duì)于各國(guó)在何時(shí)以及為何遵守國(guó)際法，最合理的解釋并不是各國(guó)已將國(guó)際法內(nèi)在化，或具有一種遵守國(guó)際法的習(xí)慣，或受到其道德吸引力的驅(qū)使，而僅僅是各國(guó)基于自身利益的考量。歸根結(jié)底，國(guó)際法產(chǎn)生于各國(guó)之間對(duì)國(guó)家利益和權(quán)力分配的需求，，以實(shí)現(xiàn)各國(guó)利益最大化為宗旨。國(guó)際海洋法及相應(yīng)爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制是基于各國(guó)之間對(duì)海洋利益與權(quán)力分配的爭(zhēng)端，以實(shí)現(xiàn)各個(gè)國(guó)家經(jīng)濟(jì)利益與政治權(quán)力最大化為法律設(shè)置初衷和發(fā)展目標(biāo)。 因此，可以在綜合運(yùn)用法律與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)雙重研究方法的基礎(chǔ)上，以一種綜合的、全方位的、立體式的研究視角，重新審視國(guó)際法在處理國(guó)家之間經(jīng)濟(jì)利益與政治權(quán)力爭(zhēng)端過(guò)程中的重要程度和影響意義。具體而言，就是將“適當(dāng)”這一原則性、統(tǒng)領(lǐng)性的理念植入法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析范式中，對(duì)國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制中相關(guān)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行成本——收益分析、供給——需求分析、博弈分析、法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析等過(guò)程中，既不偏執(zhí)于法學(xué)研究對(duì)正義的關(guān)注，在也不過(guò)分側(cè)重于經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究對(duì)效率的關(guān)注，以“適度、正當(dāng)”作為原則主線，適度參考和平、合作、自愿等標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，最終構(gòu)建符合各國(guó)理性預(yù)期的、可被世界各國(guó)廣泛援引與遵守的、符合普世精神的爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制，重塑法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究視角，實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究與法學(xué)研究的競(jìng)合。 本文第一章，對(duì)法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的主要基礎(chǔ)理論和基本分析工具做概要介紹。第二章，運(yùn)用經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的供給——需求分析工具，研究國(guó)際海洋法律制度及爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的供給與各國(guó)的需求狀況。首先，厘清海洋爭(zhēng)端的淵源，對(duì)海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的本質(zhì)進(jìn)行剖析。并指出，由主權(quán)爭(zhēng)端引發(fā)的利益之爭(zhēng)是形成海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制需求的本質(zhì)原因。其次，系統(tǒng)闡述以《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋公約》為核心的國(guó)際海洋法律制度在國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制方面的供給。最后，分析中國(guó)及周邊國(guó)家在現(xiàn)有國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的供給狀況下的行為選擇，并通過(guò)案例分析揭示出，目前國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端機(jī)制的法律供給需求處于法律供給小于法律需求的非均衡狀態(tài)，此為引發(fā)國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端的直接誘因。第三章，對(duì)國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制進(jìn)行成本——收益分析。法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究將效率視為研究的出發(fā)點(diǎn)和歸宿點(diǎn)，是一切法律實(shí)踐所要追求的終極目標(biāo)。法律制度安排所追求的效率包括立法、執(zhí)法、司法、訴訟在內(nèi)的所有法律設(shè)置。因此，本章運(yùn)用成本——收益分析方法對(duì)現(xiàn)存國(guó)際海洋法律制度安排給世界各國(guó)帶來(lái)的成本收益的改變，尤其是因海洋法設(shè)置缺陷引發(fā)海洋爭(zhēng)端給各國(guó)造成的利益損失分別進(jìn)行分析，指出現(xiàn)存國(guó)際海洋法律制度在立法、執(zhí)法、司法、訴訟等層面存在的問(wèn)題，為提出以“適當(dāng)論”研究視角對(duì)國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制進(jìn)行法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析，通過(guò)適當(dāng)?shù)姆芍贫劝才抛畲笙薅鹊貙?shí)現(xiàn)海洋資源有效配置、最大限度地滿(mǎn)足各國(guó)對(duì)海洋法律制度的需求埋下伏筆。第四章，對(duì)國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制進(jìn)行博弈分析，探尋在資源稟賦非對(duì)等條件下的制度均衡過(guò)程。首先，制度安排和制度結(jié)構(gòu)均衡取決于行為人的資源稟賦。其次，在經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展和制度均衡的形成過(guò)程中，博弈雙方資源稟賦的非對(duì)等性決定了制度的不平等性。最后，由于資源稟賦的非對(duì)等性，最終均衡制度的形成受到資源優(yōu)勢(shì)者的控制或影響并非必然有利于實(shí)現(xiàn)社會(huì)利益最大化，即不一定存在效率。在解決國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端過(guò)程中，資源稟賦較優(yōu)國(guó)在很大程度上影響了法律制度的設(shè)置，并在海洋爭(zhēng)端解決過(guò)程中占主導(dǎo)地位和絕對(duì)優(yōu)勢(shì)。在個(gè)人理性和集體理性存在較大沖突的前提下，這種法律制度設(shè)置顯然是非均衡的、非效率的。第五章，對(duì)國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端的一種特殊解決機(jī)制，即軍事措施進(jìn)行法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析，對(duì)軍事措施解決國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端的特殊意義進(jìn)行解讀，指出軍事措施作為對(duì)效率、公平、均衡同步缺失的補(bǔ)充，是實(shí)現(xiàn)國(guó)家自身權(quán)力與收益救濟(jì)的有效措施。并得到結(jié)論：在國(guó)際社會(huì)應(yīng)謹(jǐn)慎且合法使用軍事措施，在遇到侵害國(guó)家利益尋求法律無(wú)果時(shí)方可訴諸武力救濟(jì)，最大限度地維持國(guó)際海洋秩序的穩(wěn)定與和平。第六章，以國(guó)際海洋法法庭、常設(shè)國(guó)際仲裁法庭國(guó)際和法院在處理國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端過(guò)程中的優(yōu)勢(shì)與劣勢(shì)比較為例，對(duì)《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》中有關(guān)國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的規(guī)則設(shè)定進(jìn)行實(shí)證分析。在現(xiàn)有國(guó)際海洋法律制度框架內(nèi)，不論是國(guó)際海洋法法庭、常設(shè)國(guó)際仲裁法庭還是國(guó)際法院，在處理國(guó)際海洋糾紛時(shí)都存在特定優(yōu)勢(shì)和薄弱環(huán)節(jié)。在法律適用和爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)的選擇問(wèn)題上，各國(guó)基于理性經(jīng)濟(jì)人的假設(shè)，以本國(guó)利益最大化的目標(biāo)進(jìn)行行為選擇。第七章，提出運(yùn)用“適當(dāng)論”解決國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端的新視角。文章最后一部分通過(guò)對(duì)“適當(dāng)論”理論的研究，嘗試歸納“適當(dāng)論”理論；嘗試證明“適當(dāng)論”理論是法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的研究范式；嘗試證明“適當(dāng)論”理論移植法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的必要性和可行性。意在讓“適當(dāng)論”理論走出國(guó)際私法的領(lǐng)域，嘗試論證其成為一種國(guó)際法甚至是整個(gè)法學(xué)學(xué)界的普世原則和制度價(jià)值評(píng)價(jià)標(biāo)尺的可能性。 本文的創(chuàng)新之處在于首次提出運(yùn)用“適當(dāng)論”這一法學(xué)研究范式解決國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端問(wèn)題。旨在摒棄經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)和法學(xué)研究中所存在的弊端，對(duì)法學(xué)與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的追求目標(biāo)進(jìn)行適當(dāng)取舍與適度糅合，提供一種解決國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端的“適度、正當(dāng)”的思維或視角，使國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制朝著更為正義和效率的方向發(fā)展。同時(shí)，在綜合運(yùn)用法律與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)雙重研究方法的基礎(chǔ)上，以一種綜合的、全方位的、立體式的研究視角，重新審視國(guó)際法在處理國(guó)家之間經(jīng)濟(jì)利益與政治權(quán)力爭(zhēng)端過(guò)程中的重要程度和影響意義。構(gòu)建符合各國(guó)理性預(yù)期的、可被世界各國(guó)廣泛援引與遵守的、符合普世精神的國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制，重塑法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究視角，實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究與法學(xué)研究的競(jìng)合。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the issues related to the law of the sea have become a hot topic in the field of international public law, and the dispute settlement mechanism of the law of the sea is one of the most persistent themes in the study of the law of the sea. In the implementation of the dispute settlement mechanism of the law of the sea, the power of the power is often provided with more discourse power. All countries use various international rhetoric. To disguise the actions that are driven by the independent factors of equity, justice, or to defend such acts, and to justify the international law clauses or conventions that have chosen the interests of the most interested States in accordance with the logic of self-interest, make the dispute settlement mechanism of the law of the sea no longer just.
At the level of law making, although the number and type of international maritime law disputes are increasing, the legal development of solving its contradictions is seriously lagging behind. The limitation of the legal person lies in the use of legal thinking to establish the law, to examine whether the law is fair, just, and finally to test the legal system with the technical means of law. Design, this process may lead to the formulation of the law and the overseeing the narrow parochial of the subject. Therefore, it is more practical to take the economic methodology and paradigm to examine the legal system than the reflection and consideration of the law.
Economics uses the "cost benefit" analysis, and the research paradigm of "supply and demand" is much more concerned about technology than the principle of concern. In other words, economics as an analytical tool ignores the generalization of the macro principles of the problem. The "Steefan Kors" phenomenon of the dilemma between morality and law, that is, to use the analytical paradigm of economics to get the answer, is a violation of the moral phenomenon. The most reasonable explanation for when and why countries comply with international law is not the international law, or the habit of complying with international law, or its morality. In the final analysis, the international law of the sea and the corresponding dispute settlement mechanism are based on the dispute over the distribution of maritime interests and powers between countries. At present, the economic interests and political power of each country are maximized as the original intention and development goal of the law.
Therefore, on the basis of the comprehensive application of the dual research methods of law and economics, the importance and meaning of international law in the process of dealing with the disputes between countries' economic interests and political power can be reviewed with a comprehensive, comprehensive and stereoscopic perspective. In particular, it is the principle of "appropriate". In the economic analysis paradigm of the integration of the dominant concept, the cost - income analysis, supply - demand analysis, game analysis, and the analysis of law and economics in the international marine dispute settlement mechanism are not paranoid about the concern of justice in legal research, but not on the efficiency of economic research. Pay attention to the principle of "moderation and justification" as the main line, with a moderate reference to the standards of peace, cooperation and voluntariness, and finally build up a dispute settlement mechanism that meets the rational expectations of all countries, which can be widely invoked and observed by all countries, conforms to the universal spirit of the dispute, reshape the perspective of the study of law and economics, and realizes the concurrence of economic research and legal research.
In the first chapter, the main basic theory and basic analytical tools of law and economics are briefly introduced. In the second chapter, the supply of the supply of economic supply and demand analysis is used to study the supply of international marine legal system and dispute settlement mechanism and the needs of countries. First, to clarify the origin of marine disputes and to solve the mechanism of maritime dispute settlement. It also points out that the conflict of interests caused by the sovereignty dispute is the essential reason for the formation of the demand for the settlement mechanism of marine disputes. Secondly, the paper systematically expounds the supply of international maritime legal system based on the United Nations Convention on ocean convention in the international maritime dispute settlement mechanism. Finally, the analysis of China and its surrounding countries in the existing international system The choice of behavior under the supply situation of the marine dispute settlement mechanism reveals that the legal supply demand of the international maritime dispute mechanism is in a non equilibrium state that the legal supply is less than the legal demand. This is the direct cause of the international maritime dispute. The third chapter makes the cost of the international maritime dispute settlement mechanism - The study of law and economics considers efficiency as the starting point and destination of research. It is the ultimate goal to pursue in all legal practices. The efficiency of legal system arrangement includes all legal settings, including legislation, law enforcement, judicature, and litigation. Therefore, this chapter uses the method of cost-benefit analysis to the existing international ocean law. The change in the cost and benefit brought by the law system to the countries of the world, especially the loss caused by maritime disputes caused by maritime disputes, points out the existing problems of the existing international marine legal system in the aspects of legislation, law enforcement, judicature, and litigation. The international maritime dispute settlement mechanism is analyzed by law and economics, and the effective allocation of marine resources can be achieved through the appropriate legal system, and the needs of the marine legal system are met to the greatest extent. The fourth chapter, the game analysis of the international maritime dispute settlement mechanism, explores the non equivalence conditions of the resources endowment. First, the institutional arrangement and the balance of institutional structure depend on the resource endowment of the actor. Secondly, in the process of the formation of economic development and institutional equilibrium, the non equivalence of the resource endowment of the two parties determines the unequal nature of the system. Finally, the final equilibrium system is formed due to the non equivalence of the resources endowment. The control or influence of the resource superior is not necessarily conducive to the realization of the maximization of social interests, that is, it does not necessarily have efficiency. In the process of solving international maritime disputes, the superior country has a great influence on the establishment of the legal system and the dominant and absolute superiority in the process of maritime dispute settlement. On the premise of large conflict, the establishment of the legal system is obviously unbalanced and ineffective. In the fifth chapter, a special settlement mechanism for international maritime disputes, that is, the analysis of military measures in law and economics, the special significance of military measures to solve international maritime disputes, points out that military measures are effective, It is an effective measure to realize the relief of the state's own power and income. It is concluded that in the international community, the military measures should be used cautiously and legally, and in the case of the failure of the national interests to seek the relief of force, the stability and peace of the international marine order should be maintained at the most limit. The six chapter, with the international tribunal of the law of the sea, the international arbitration tribunal of the permanent international tribunal and the court in the process of dealing with international maritime disputes, compares the advantages and disadvantages as an example, and carries out an empirical analysis of the rules setting for the international maritime dispute settlement mechanism in the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea, in the framework of the existing international maritime legal system, whether international The tribunal of the law of the sea, the permanent international arbitration tribunal or the International Court of justice have specific advantages and weak links in dealing with international maritime disputes. On the issue of the application of law and the choice of dispute settlement institutions, countries are based on the hypothesis of rational economy and choose the goal of maximizing the interests of the country. The seventh chapter puts forward the application of "suitable". The last part of the article tries to sum up the theory of "appropriateness" through the study of the theory of "appropriateness", and tries to prove that the theory of "appropriateness" is the research paradigm of law and economics, and tries to prove the necessity and feasibility of the theory of "appropriateness" to transplant economics. The theory of appropriateness "goes out of the field of international private law and tries to demonstrate the possibility that it becomes a universal principle and a criterion for evaluating the value of institutional value in an international law, even in the whole jurisprudential circle."
The innovation of this paper is for the first time to solve the problem of international maritime disputes by using the legal research paradigm of "proper theory". The aim is to abandon the drawbacks in the economic and legal research and to properly mix the pursuit of law and economics and provide a "moderate" to solve the international maritime dispute. The thinking or angle of view makes the international maritime dispute settlement mechanism develop in the direction of more justice and efficiency. At the same time, on the basis of the comprehensive application of the dual research methods of law and economics, a comprehensive, omni-directional and stereoscopic perspective is used to reexamine the international law in dealing with the economic interests and political power disputes between countries. The importance and significance of the end process. It is necessary to construct the international maritime dispute settlement mechanism which is widely invoked and observed by all countries, which conform to the universal spirit, reshape the perspective of the study of law and economics, and realize the competition of economic research and legal research.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D993.5;D90-052

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙理海;《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》的批準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題[J];北京大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1991年04期

2 呂巖峰;國(guó)際合同法律適用的理論分歧和歷史演進(jìn)[J];長(zhǎng)春市委黨校學(xué)報(bào);1999年01期

3 呂巖峰;中國(guó)區(qū)際刑事司法協(xié)助中的案犯移交問(wèn)題[J];長(zhǎng)春市委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2000年05期

4 呂巖峰,李海瀅;國(guó)際刑事管轄權(quán)沖突的“適當(dāng)法”觀照——來(lái)自國(guó)際私法學(xué)的借鑒[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2004年04期

5 呂巖峰,李海瀅;論復(fù)合法域條件下的中國(guó)對(duì)外刑事司法合作關(guān)系[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2005年02期

6 付子堂;法律的行為激勵(lì)功能論析[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年06期

7 呂巖峰;論中國(guó)跨法域刑事犯罪的管轄權(quán)沖突及其解決[J];湖南社會(huì)科學(xué);2000年05期

8 古祖雪;國(guó)際法的法律性質(zhì)再認(rèn)識(shí)——哈特國(guó)際法學(xué)思想述評(píng)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1998年01期

9 陳汪杰;西北大西洋海洋漁業(yè)爭(zhēng)端(歐盟與加拿大)——評(píng)國(guó)際法院正在受理的《海洋法公約》生效后第一宗熱點(diǎn)海洋爭(zhēng)端[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1998年06期

10 呂巖峰;;和諧世界視域中的國(guó)際私法觀照——以現(xiàn)代國(guó)際私法體系的構(gòu)建為焦點(diǎn)[J];法學(xué);2007年08期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 楊金森;[N];中國(guó)海洋報(bào);2005年

本文編號(hào)：2122062