国际法院2010年7月22日关于科索沃问题的咨询意见(中文)
评国际法院关于科索沃宣布独立案的咨询意见

【 关键词 】 科索沃; 立宣言; 独 国家分 离; 国际法院; 咨询 意见; 启示
一
、
科 索沃宣 布独 立事件 回顾
理事会 第 14 (99 号 决议 或 《 法框 架 》 因此 , 24 19 ) 宪 。 通过 该 宣 言 没 以 1 票 赞成 , 0 4票反 对通过 。
科索 沃行政 管理 方面 的职责 。
国际 法院 的 咨询 意见 包 括 : 法院 的 管辖 权及 自 由裁 量权 、 咨询 问题的 范 围及含意 、 索沃 宣布 独 立 的事 实 背景 、 布 独 立是 否 符 科 宣 合 国 际法 、 论 。 结 ( ) 于是 否应 该 发 表 咨询 意见 。 国际 法 院认 为其 有 权 发 表 1关 所请 求的 咨询意 见 , 且没有 令人 信服 的理 由须行 使其 自 由裁 量权 并 不提供 咨询 意见 。 () 2 关于 “ 布独 立 ” 宣 是否 符 合 国 际法 。 国 际法 院 认 为科 索 沃 宣布独 立不 违反 任何 适用 的国 际法 , 要理 由是 : 主 第一 , 般 国际法 没 有禁 止 宣布 独 立的 相应 规 定 , 据 各 国惯 一 根 例 , 布独立 不 受禁 止 。领 土 完 整 原 则仅 限于 国 家之 间 的 关 系 领 宣 域 , 布独 立与 自决权 的 范 围和 是 否 存 在 “ 救 性 分 离 ” 关 的 问 宣 补 有 题 不属 于大 会提 出的 问题 范围 。
二、 国际法 院 出具 咨询 意见存 在 的法律 问题
1 咨 询 意 见 基 本 内容 、
科索沃 位于 南联盟 塞尔 维 亚 共和 国 西南 部 , 口 20余 万 , 人 0 其 有 违反 任何 适用 的国 际法规 则 。 对该 意 见 , 际 法院 的 1 法 官 ” 国 4名
国际法上的民族自决权原则

国际法上的民族自决权原则2020年3月15日,在乌克兰克里米亚自治共和国就脱乌入俄问题举行全民公投的前一天,联合国安理会召开紧急会议,审议有关由美国、法国和英国联合起草的一份旨在维护乌克兰领土完整的决议草案,但因遭到俄罗斯的一票否决,决议最终未获通过。
俄罗斯常驻联合国代表丘尔在安理会陈述俄方立场时指出,共同起草该决议各方的理念与一条关键的国际法准则背道而驰,那就是《联合国宪章》第一条所明确规定的尊重人民平等权利及自决原则,该原则在联合国大会(下文简称联大)于1970年通过的《国际法原则宣言》以及各国于1975年签署的《赫尔辛基最后文件》中均得到确认作为一个政治思想和国际法律原则,民族自决权在推动民族独立、建立民族国家和殖民地人民摆脱殖民统治运动中发挥了巨大的作用。
正因如此,《联合国宪章》在联合国的宗旨中明确提出发展国际间以尊重人民平等权利及自决原则为根据之友好关系。
这一规定被认为是现代国际法对民族自决权原则的正式宣示,也是上述俄罗斯代表申明其支持克里米亚从乌克兰领土分离的国际法依据。
本文将从《联合国宪章》的这一规定入手,全而分析联合国的有关立法和实践,阐释国际法上民族自决权原则的现状、限制和适用条件,从而探寻目前国际法上关于民族自决权原则的规定能否成为支持民族从国家分离的依据。
一、对《联合国宪章》中民族自决权原则的分析和解读民族自决权第一次作为一项法律原则出现是在《联合国宪章》中。
《联合国宪章》在第1(2)条联合国的宗旨中明确提出发展国际间以尊重人民平等权利及自决原则为根据之友好关系。
《联合国宪章》第55条也有类似规定。
此外,有人认为在《联合国宪章》有关非自治领土和国际托管制度的第11,12,13章中也隐含着对民族自决权的承认甚至是实施。
从字而上看《联合国宪章》第1(2)条的表述并不是对自决权概念的明确阐释。
已没有对该原则进行法律界定,也没有在这一点上寻求扩大联合国的权力,而仅仅是对自决原则的承认。
试析科索沃独立咨询意见案

2020年第19卷第1期产业与科技论坛试析科索沃独立咨询意见案□居梦【内容摘要】2010年7月22日,联合国大会向国际法院提交的关于“科索沃单方面宣布独立是否符合国际法”一案有了正式结论,国际法院发布咨询意见认定科索沃单方面宣布独立并不违反国际法。
这一咨询意见自发表之后就广受关注,世界各国纷纷表态且立场观点各异。
本文试图对国际法院出具的咨询意见进行国际法理论分析,对本案中涉及到的国际法院的管辖权和自由裁量权、国家主权及领土完整、民族自决、脱离、国家地位与承认以及国际先例等理论与实践问题进行简要的探讨,以期达到理清本案的国际法脉络和进行相关理论研究的目的。
【关键词】科索沃独立;咨询意见;国家主权;领土完整;民族自决;管辖脱离;国际先例【作者简介】居梦(1988 ),女,湖北武穴人;武汉生物工程学院讲师,武汉大学博士研究生;研究方向:国际法、国际网络法2010年7月22日,对于科索沃两年前宣布独立的行为,国际法院正式发表咨询意见:“通过(独立)宣言没有违反任何现行的国际法准则。
”[1]这一咨询意见一经公布就引起了国际社会的广泛关注,世界各国的反应各异,甚至存在着截然对立的观点。
一、科索沃独立事件简介科索沃原为塞尔维亚的一个自治省,1999年科索沃战争结束后,联合国安理会通过《第1244(1999)号决议》在科索沃建立了一个过渡行政机构———联合国驻科索沃临时行政当局特派团(UNMIK),由其代管该地区的行政事务[2]。
2008年2月17日,科索沃议会通过了一项独立宣言,宣布科索沃将要脱离塞尔维亚成为一个“独立、主权和民主的国家”。
次日,美国、英国、法国、德国和意大利率先承认科索沃独立。
科索沃的单方面宣布独立和这些国家对科索沃的承认引起了国际社会的关注,并产生了重要影响[3]。
2008年8月,塞尔维亚向联合国大会提交议案,请求国际法院就“科索沃宣布独立是否符合国际法”发表意见,希望通过法律手段解决这一问题。
西方敌对势力利用民族问题的例子

西方敌对势力利用民族问题的例子因民族问题而生的国内冲突成为世界冲突的主要形式。
在冷战大环境下,国家内部的民族冲突被掩盖、压抑、扭曲,甚至被利用,以服从于美苏争霸的利益。
冷战结束后,国家内部的民族冲突以前所未有的声势爆发出来,据统计,从1989年到2002年,世界上发生了116起主要的武装冲突,其中仅有7起是传统的国家间冲突,其余109起乎都是与民族问题有关的国内冲突。
民族冲突的原因很复杂,如有学者将民族冲突区分为“族群民族主义者”(ethnonationalists)、“原住民”(in-digenouspeoples)、“社群竞争者”(com-munalcontenders)和“族群阶级”(ethnoc-lasses)四类。
其中,前两者或要求与国家分离(secession)或寻求自治(autonomy),如塞内加尔的卡萨芒斯地区、尼日利亚的比亚法拉地区;后两者则要求在现有国家体制内寻求更广泛的政治参与。
延续至今的科特迪瓦内战是后一类型冲突的典型事例。
冷战之后,科特迪瓦的繁荣吸引很多西非人,如布基纳法索人,移居到此,从而引发选举投票权之争——政府强行通过《血统论法案》,要求总统候选人父母都要出生在科特迪瓦,从而导致北方的总统候选人瓦塔拉被直接取消参选资格。
瓦塔拉代表北方的穆斯林,尤其是从马里和布吉纳法索地区来的贫苦移民,他们的主要诉求是要求政府明确定义“科特迪瓦公民”、总统投票权等基本的政治权利。
如今,科特迪瓦出现了北南两位“总统”分庭抗礼的乱局,全国陷入了严重的族群冲突之中。
气候、资源、宗教等因素日益诱发民族冲突。
今天,民族之间争夺资源的战争不断扩大,有时冲突跨越了国界,部分原因是因为全球气候变化导致的荒漠化和牧场面积不断缩小。
例如,在尼日利亚,信奉伊斯兰教的豪萨族、富拉尼族与信奉基督教的伊博族为争夺土地和水资源而经常发生冲突。
在苏丹达尔富尔,黑人部落富尔族虽然同阿拉伯人一样都信仰伊斯兰教,但因为水资源争端而同札哈瓦族、马萨里特族等黑人部落组成“苏丹解放军”、“正义平等运动”等反抗武装组织,与阿拉伯民兵进行军事对抗。
论救济性自决权国际法地位

论救济性自决权的国际法地位摘要:救济性自决权内容是有关例外条件下的单方面分离权。
虽然国际法未规定也未禁止分离,但是无论从国际条约法,国际习惯法还是国际法基本原则看,都不存在救济性自决权。
救济性自决权尚不具有国际法权力的地位,不能成为单方面分离的依据。
关键词:救济性自决权;单方面分离;民族自决原则;1945年民族自决原则载入《联合国宪章》,正式成为一项国际法原则,其内容主要为殖民地独立。
1966年两项人权公约的通过,民族自决权超越了单纯反殖民主义的内涵,开始被纳入集体人权范畴。
一些学者提出民族自决原则包含”救济性自决权”。
关于救济性自决权的内涵,目前未形成主流意见。
有人认为救济性自决权是指有正当理由的单方面分离权。
也有人认为救济性自决权是指当内部自决被剥夺时,可启动分离权作为最后救济措施的权利。
主要有选择说和正当理由说。
选择说认为没有代表性的国家中的人民有分离权。
正当理由说对分离的限制更加苛刻,认为只有当人权受到极其严重的侵犯时才有分离权。
[1] 可见其核心内容是有关例外条件下的单方面分离权。
国际法院关于科索沃的咨询意见明确表明,目前国际法没有否认救济性自决权的直接规定,但是国际法也没有直接肯定分离权的规定。
那么国际法是否存在少数人民有条件的单方面分离权?本文从法律角度对救济性自决权的法律地位进行探讨。
一、救济性自决权缺乏国际条约法依据1、没有一项国际条约直接认可救济性自决权《联合国宪章》、两个人权公约、《国际法原则宣言》等法律文件都只规定了人民享有自决权,至于实现方式它们又是沉默的。
《联合国宪章》直接提到”尊重人民平等权利及自决原则”,第11、12章也暗含对自决原则的承认。
然而宪章中的这些规定与分离没有关系,因为分离与联合国宗旨和目的不符。
[2] 1993年《维也纳宣言》:自决权不得被解释为授权或着鼓励采取任何全面或者局部的行为去侵犯主权,独立国家的领土完整和政治统一,只要这些国家尊重平等以及人民自决权。
浅析国际法院关于科索沃独立问题的咨询意见

浅析国际法院关于科索沃独立问题的咨询意见
丁燕
【期刊名称】《重庆科技学院学报(社会科学版)》
【年(卷),期】2013(000)003
【摘要】介绍了国际法院就科索沃单方面宣布独立一事发表咨询意见的背景,分析了国际法院咨询意见的依据.认为这份咨询意见实际上是对各国分离主义势力的一种支持,不仅会削弱国际法院在解决国际争端、维护世界和平方面的积极作用,对联合国的公信力也会造成负面影响.
【总页数】3页(P42-44)
【作者】丁燕
【作者单位】安徽财经大学法学院,安徽蚌埠 233041
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】D994
【相关文献】
1.评国际法院关于科索沃宣布独立案的咨询意见
2.评国际法院关于科索沃宣布独立案的咨询意见
3.“科索沃独立咨询意见”的国际法问题分析
4.科索沃独立咨询意见逻辑分析与启示
5.试析科索沃独立咨询意见案
因版权原因,仅展示原文概要,查看原文内容请购买。
公约签署范本

公约签署范本1.我国签署了哪些国际公约1.《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》(1997年10月签署,对第八条第一款(甲)项等提出了3项声明。
2001年3月27日批准,同年6月27日对中国生效。
)2.《消除一切形式种族歧视国际公约》(1981年12月29日加入,对第二十二条作了保留。
1982年2月28日对中国生效。
)3.《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》(1983年4月18日批准,对第九条作了保留。
同年7月17日对中国生效。
)4.《禁止并惩治种族隔离罪行国际公约》(1983年4月18日加入,同年5月18日对中国生效。
)5.《反对体育领域种族隔离国际公约》(1987年10月21日签署,1988年4月3日对中国生效。
)6.《男女工人同工同酬公约》(1990年9月7日批准,同年11月20日生效。
)7.《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》(1980年11月4日加入,对第二十九条第一款作了保留。
同年12月4日对中国生效。
)8.《儿童权利公约》(1992年1月31日批准,对第六条作了保留。
同年4月2日对中国生效。
)9.《〈儿童权利公约〉关于买卖儿童、儿童卖淫和儿童色情制品问题的任择议定书》(2002年12月3日交存批准书,2003年1月3日对中国生效。
)10.《禁止和立即行动消除最有害的童工形式公约》(2002年8月8日交存批准书,2003年8月8日对中国生效。
)11.《禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约》(1986年12月12日批准,对第二十条和第三十一条第一款作了保留。
1988年11月3日对中国生效。
)12.《就业政策公约》(1997年12月17日交存批准书,1998年12月17日对中国生效。
)13.《关于难民地位的公约》(1982年9月24日交存加入书,1982年12月23日对中国生效。
)14.《关于难民地位议定书》(1982年9月24日加入,对第四条作了保留。
同年12月23日对中国生效。
)中国还批准了国际人道法领域的4个日内瓦公约及两个附加议定书:1.《改善战地武装部队伤者病者境遇之日内瓦公约》(1956年12月28日交存批准书,对第四条作了保留。
国际法院对科索沃问题的咨询意见

T ABLE OF C ONTENTSParagraphsChronology of the procedure 1–16I. Jurisdiction and discretion 17–48A. Jurisdiction 18–28B. Discretion 29–48II. Scope and meaning of the question 49–56III. Factual background 57–77A. Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the relevantUNMIK regulations 58–63B. The relevant events in the final status process prior to17 February 2008 64–73C. The events of 17 February 2008 and thereafter 74–77IV. The question whether the declaration of independence is inaccordance with international law 78–121A. General international law 79–84B. Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the UNMIKConstitutional Framework created thereunder 85–1211. Interpretation of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) 94–1002. The question whether the declaration of independence is inaccordance with Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)and the measures adopted thereunder 101–121(a) The identity of the authors of the declaration ofindependence 102–109(b) The question whether the authors of the declaration ofindependence acted in violation of Security Councilresolution 1244 (1999) or the measures adoptedthereunder 110–121 conclusion 122V. GeneralOperativeClause 123___________INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICEYEAR 20102010July22General List141No.22 July 2010ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERALDECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN RESPECT OF KOSOVOJurisdiction of the Court to give the advisory opinion requested.Article 65, paragraph 1, of the Statute ⎯ Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter ⎯ Power of General Assembly to request advisory opinions ⎯ Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter ⎯Contention that General Assembly acted outside its powers under the Charter ⎯ Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter ⎯ Authorization to request an advisory opinion not limited by Article 12.Requirement that the question on which the Court is requested to give its opinion is a “legal question” ⎯ Contention that the act of making a declaration of independence is governed by domestic constitutional law ⎯ The Court can respond to the question by reference to international law without the need to address domestic law ⎯ The fact that a question has political aspects does not deprive it of its character as a legal question ⎯ The Court is not concerned with the political motives behind a request or the political implications which its opinion may have.The Court has jurisdiction to give advisory opinion requested.* *Discretion of the Court to decide whether it should give an opinion.Integrity of the Court’s judicial function ⎯ Only “compelling reasons” should lead the Court to decline to exercise its judicial function ⎯ The motives of individual States which sponsora resolution requesting an advisory opinion are not relevant to the Court’s exercise of its discretion ⎯ Requesting organ to assess purpose, usefulness and political consequences of opinion.Delimitation of the respective powers of the Security Council and the General Assembly ⎯Nature of the Security Council’s involvement in relation to Kosovo ⎯ Article 12 of the Charter does not bar action by the General Assembly in respect of threats to international peace and security which are before the Security Council ⎯ General Assembly has taken action with regard to the situation in Kosovo.No compelling reasons for Court to use its discretion not to give an advisory opinion.* *Scope and meaning of the question.Text of the question in General Assembly resolution 63/3 ⎯ Power of the Court to clarify the question ⎯ No need to reformulate the question posed by the General Assembly ⎯ For the proper exercise of its judicial function, the Court must establish the identity of the authors of the declaration of independence ⎯ No intention by the General Assembly to restrict the Court’s freedom to determine that issue ⎯ The Court’s task is to determine whether or not the declaration was adopted in violation of international law.* *background.FactualFramework for interim administration of Kosovo put in place by the Security Council ⎯Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) ⎯ Establishment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) ⎯ Role of Special Representative of the Secretary-General ⎯ “Four pillars” of the UNMIK régime ⎯ Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government ⎯ Relations between the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General.Relevant events in the final status process ⎯ Appointment by Secretary-General of Special Envoy for the future status process for Kosovo ⎯ Guiding Principles of the Contact Group ⎯Failure of consultative process ⎯ Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement by Special Envoy ⎯ Failure of negotiations on the future status of Kosovo under the auspices of the Troika ⎯ Elections held for the Assembly of Kosovo on 17 November 2007 ⎯ Adoption of the declaration of independence on 17 February 2008.* *Whether the declaration of independence is in accordance with international law.No prohibition of declarations of independence according to State practice ⎯ Contention that prohibition of unilateral declarations of independence is implicit in the principle of territorial integrity ⎯ Scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States ⎯ No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence ⎯ Issues relating to the extent of the right of self-determination and the existence of any right of “remedial secession” are beyond the scope of the question posed by the General Assembly.General international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence ⎯ Declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law.⎯Security Council resolution1244 and the Constitutional Framework Resolution 1244 (1999) imposes international legal obligations and is part of the applicable international law ⎯ Constitutional Framework possesses international legal character ⎯Constitutional Framework is part of specific legal order created pursuant to resolution 1244 (1999) ⎯ Constitutional Framework regulates matters which are the subject of internal law ⎯ Supervisory powers of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General ⎯Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the Constitutional Framework were in force and applicable as at 17 February 2008 ⎯ Neither of them contains a clause providing for termination and neither has been repealed ⎯ The Special Representative of the Secretary-General continues to exercise his functions in Kosovo.Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the Constitutional Framework form part of the international law to be considered in replying to the question before the Court.Interpretation of Security Council resolutions ⎯Resolution 1244 (1999) established an international civil and security presence in Kosovo ⎯ Temporary suspension of exercise of Serbia’s authority flowing from its continuing sovereignty over the territory of Kosovo ⎯⎯ Object and purpose of (1999) created an interim régime1244Resolutionresolution 1244 (1999).Identity of the authors of the declaration of independence ⎯ Whether the declaration of independence was an act of the Assembly of Kosovo ⎯ Authors of the declaration did not seek to act within the framework of interim self-administration of Kosovo ⎯ Authors undertook to fulfil the international obligations of Kosovo ⎯ No reference in original Albanian text to the declaration being the work of the Assembly of Kosovo ⎯ Silence of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General ⎯ Authors of the declaration of independence acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration.Whether or not the authors of the declaration of independence acted in violation of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) ⎯ Resolution 1244 (1999) addressed to United Nations Member States and organs of the United Nations ⎯ No specific obligations addressed to other actors ⎯The resolution did not contain any provision dealing with the final status of Kosovo ⎯ Security Council did not reserve for itself the final determination of the situation in Kosovo ⎯ Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) did not bar the authors of the declaration of 17 February 2008 from issuing a declaration of independence ⎯ Declaration of independence did not violate Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).Declaration of independence was not issued by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government ⎯ Declaration of independence did not violate the Constitutional Framework.Adoption of the declaration of independence did not violate any applicable rule of international law.ADVISORY OPINIONPresent:President O WADA; Vice-President T OMKA; Judges K OROMA,A L-K HASAWNEH,B UERGENTHAL,S IMMA,A BRAHAM,K EITH,S EPÚLVEDA-A MOR,B ENNOUNA,S KOTNIKOV,C ANÇADO T RINDADE,Y USUF,G REENWOOD; Registrar C OUVREUR.On the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo,T HE C OURT,above,composedasgives the following Advisory Opinion:1. The question on which the advisory opinion of the Court has been requested is set forth in resolution 63/3 adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations (hereinafter the General Assembly) on 8 October 2008. By a letter dated 9 October 2008 and received in the Registry by facsimile on 10 October 2008, the original of which was received in the Registry on 15 October 2008, the Secretary-General of the United Nations officially communicated to the Court the decision taken by the General Assembly to submit the question for an advisory opinion. Certified true copies of the English and French versions of the resolution were enclosed with the letter. The resolution reads as follows:“The General Assembly,Mindful of the purposes and principles of the United Nations,Bearing in mind its functions and powers under the Charter of the United Nations,Recalling that on 17 February 2008 the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo declared independence from Serbia,Aware that this act has been received with varied reactions by the Members of the United Nations as to its compatibility with the existing international legal order,Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of theCourt, to render an advisory opinion on the following question:‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the ProvisionalInstitutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance withinternational law?’”2. By letters dated 10 October 2008, the Registrar, pursuant to Article 66, paragraph 1, of the Statute, gave notice of the request for an advisory opinion to all States entitled to appear before the Court.3. By an Order dated 17 October 2008, in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Court decided that the United Nations and its Member States were likely to be able to furnish information on the question. By the same Order, the Court fixed, respectively, 17 April 2009 as the time-limit within which written statements might be submitted to it on the question, and 17 July 2009 as the time-limit within which States and organizations having presented written statements might submit written comments on the other written statements in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 4, of the Statute.The Court also decided that, taking account of the fact that the unilateral declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 is the subject of the question submitted to the Court for an advisory opinion, the authors of the above declaration were considered likely to be able to furnish information on the question. It therefore further decided to invite them to make written contributions to the Court within the same time-limits.4. By letters dated 20 October 2008, the Registrar informed the United Nations and its Member States of the Court’s decisions and transmitted to them a copy of the Order. By letter of the same date, the Registrar informed the authors of the above-mentioned declaration of independence of the Court’s decisions, and transmitted to them a copy of the Order.5. Pursuant to Article 65, paragraph 2, of the Statute, on 30 January 2009 the Secretary-General of the United Nations communicated to the Court a dossier of documents likely to throw light upon the question. The dossier was subsequently placed on the Court’s website.6. Within the time-limit fixed by the Court for that purpose, written statements were filed, in order of their receipt, by: Czech Republic, France, Cyprus, China, Switzerland, Romania, Albania, Austria, Egypt, Germany, Slovakia, Russian Federation, Finland, Poland, Luxembourg, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, United Kingdom, United States of America, Serbia, Spain, Islamic Republic of Iran, Estonia, Norway, Netherlands, Slovenia, Latvia, Japan, Brazil, Ireland, Denmark, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Maldives, Sierra Leone and Bolivia. The authors of the unilateral declaration of independence filed a written contribution. On 21 April 2009, the Registrar communicated copies of the written statements and written contribution to all States having submitted a written statement, as well as to the authors of the unilateral declaration of independence.7. On 29 April 2009, the Court decided to accept the written statement filed by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, submitted on 24 April 2009, after expiry of the relevant time-limit. On 15 May 2009, the Registrar communicated copies of this written statement to all States having submitted a written statement, as well as to the authors of the unilateral declaration of independence.8. By letters dated 8 June 2009, the Registrar informed the United Nations and its Member States that the Court had decided to hold hearings, opening on 1 December 2009, at which they could present oral statements and comments, regardless of whether or not they had submitted written statements and, as the case may be, written comments. The United Nations and its Member States were invited to inform the Registry, by 15 September 2009, if they intended to take part in the oral proceedings. The letters further indicated that the authors of the unilateral declaration of independence could present an oral contribution.By letter of the same date, the Registrar informed the authors of the unilateral declaration of independence of the Court’s decision to hold hearings, inviting them to indicate, within the same time-limit, whether they intended to take part in the oral proceedings.9. Within the time-limit fixed by the Court for that purpose, written comments were filed, in order of their receipt, by: France, Norway, Cyprus, Serbia, Argentina, Germany, Netherlands, Albania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Bolivia, United Kingdom, United States of America and Spain. The authors of the unilateral declaration of independence submitted a written contribution regarding the written statements.10. Upon receipt of the above-mentioned written comments and written contribution, the Registrar, on 24 July 2009, communicated copies thereof to all States having submitted written statements, as well as to the authors of the unilateral declaration of independence.11. By letters dated 30 July 2009, the Registrar communicated to the United Nations, and to all of its Member States that had not participated in the written proceedings, copies of all written statements and written comments, as well as the written contributions of the authors of the unilateral declaration of independence.12. By letters dated 29 September 2009, the Registry transmitted a detailed timetable of the hearings to those who, within the time-limit fixed for that purpose by the Court, had expressed their intention to take part in the aforementioned proceedings.13. Pursuant to Article 106 of the Rules of Court, the Court decided to make the written statements and written comments submitted to the Court, as well as the written contributions of the authors of the unilateral declaration of independence, accessible to the public, with effect from the opening of the oral proceedings.14. In the course of hearings held from 1 to 11 December 2009, the Court heard oral statements, in the following order, by:For the Republic of Serbia:H.E. Mr. Dušan T. Bataković, PhD in History, Universityof Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), Ambassador of theRepublic of Serbia to France, Vice-Director of theInstitute for Balkan Studies and Assistant Professor atthe University of Belgrade, Head of Delegation,Djerić, S.J.D. (Michigan), Attorney at Law,VladimirMr.Mikijelj, Janković & Bogdanović, Belgrade, Counseland Advocate,Mr. Andreas Zimmermann, LL.M. (Harvard), Professor ofInternational Law, University of Potsdam, Director ofthe Potsdam Center of Human Rights, Member of thePermanent Court of Arbitration, Counsel and Advocate,Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw Q.C., Sir Robert Jennings Professorof International Law, University of Leicester, UnitedKingdom, Counsel and Advocate,Mr. Marcelo G. Kohen, Professor of International Law,Graduate Institute of International and DevelopmentStudies, Geneva, Associate Member of the Institut dedroit international, Counsel and Advocate,Mr.Obradović, Inspector General in the Ministry ofSašaForeign Affairs, Deputy Head of Delegation;Skender Hyseni, Head of Delegation, For the authors of the unilateral Mr.declaration of independence:Sir Michael Wood, K.C.M.G., member of the English Bar,Member of the International Law Commission, Counsel,Mr. Daniel Müller, Researcher at the Centre de droitinternational de Nanterre (CEDIN), University ofParis Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, Counsel,Mr. Sean D. Murphy, Patricia Roberts Harris ResearchProfessor of Law, George Washington University,Counsel;For the Republic of Albania:H.E. Mr. Gazmend Barbullushi, Ambassador Extraordinaryand Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Albania to theKingdom of the Netherlands, Legal Adviser,Mr. Jochen A. Frowein, M.C.L., Director emeritus of theMax Planck Institute for International law, Professoremeritus of the University of Heidelberg, Member ofthe Institute of International Law, Legal Adviser,Mr. Terry D. Gill, Professor of Military Law at theUniversity of Amsterdam and Associate Professor ofPublic International Law at Utrecht University, LegalAdviser;For the Federal Republic Ms Susanne Wasum-Rainer, Legal Adviser, Federal Foreign of Germany:Office(Berlin);For the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:H.E. Mr. Abdullah A. Alshaghrood, Ambassador of theKingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Kingdom of theNetherlands, Head of Delegation;For the Argentine Republic:H.E. Madam Susana Ruiz Cerutti, Ambassador, LegalAdviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, InternationalTrade and Worship, Head of Delegation;For the Republic of Austria:H.E. Mr. Helmut Tichy, Ambassador, Deputy LegalAdviser, Federal Ministry of European andInternational Affairs;For the Republic of Azerbaijan:H.E. Mr. Agshin Mehdiyev, Ambassador and PermanentRepresentative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations;For the Republic of Belarus:H.E. Madam Elena Gritsenko, Ambassador of the Republicof Belarus to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Head ofDelegation;For the Plurinational State of Bolivia:H.E. Mr. Roberto Calzadilla Sarmiento, Ambassador of thePlurinational State of Bolivia to the Kingdom of theNetherlands;For the Federative Republic H.E. Mr. José Artur Denot Medeiros, Ambassador of the of Brazil:Federative Republic of Brazil to the Kingdom of theNetherlands;For the Republic of Bulgaria:Mr. Zlatko Dimitroff, S.J.D., Director of the InternationalLaw Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Head ofDelegation;For the Republic of Burundi:Mr. Thomas Barankitse, Legal Attaché, Counsel,Mr. Jean d’Aspremont, Associate Professor, University ofAmsterdam, Chargé de cours invité, Catholic Universityof Louvain, Counsel;For the People’s Republic of China:H.E. Madam Xue Hanqin, Ambassador to the Associationof Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Legal Counsel ofthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Member of theInternational Law Commission, Member of the Institutde droit international, Head of Delegation;For the Republic of Cyprus:H.E. Mr. James Droushiotis, Ambassador of the Republicof Cyprus to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,Mr. Vaughan Lowe Q.C., member of the English Bar,Chichele Professor of International Law, University ofOxford, Counsel and Advocate,Mr. Polyvios G. Polyviou, Counsel and Advocate;AndrejaMetelko-Zgombić, Ambassador, For the Republic of Croatia: H.E.MadamChief Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairsand European Integration;For the Kingdom of Denmark:H.E. Mr. Thomas Winkler, Ambassador, Under-Secretaryfor Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Head ofDelegation;For the Kingdom of Spain:Ms Concepción Escobar Hernández, Legal Adviser, Headof the International Law Department, Ministry ofForeign Affairs and Co-operation, Head of Delegationand Advocate;For the United States of America:Mr. Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, Department ofState, Head of Delegation and Advocate;For the Russian Federation:H.E. Mr. Kirill Gevorgian, Ambassador, Head of the LegalDepartment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Head ofDelegation;For the Republic of Finland:Ms Päivi Kaukoranta, Director General, Legal Service,Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Mr. Martti Koskenniemi, Professor at the University ofHelsinki;For the French Republic:Ms Edwige Belliard, Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry ofForeign and European Affairs,Mr. Mathias Forteau, Professor at the University ofParis Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense;For the Hashemite Kingdom H.R.H. Prince Zeid Raad Zeid Al Hussein, Ambassador of of Jordan:the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to the United Statesof America, Head of Delegation;For the Kingdom of Norway:Mr. Rolf Einar Fife, Director General, Legal AffairsDepartment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Head ofDelegation;For the Kingdom of the Netherlands:Ms Liesbeth Lijnzaad, Legal Adviser, Ministry of ForeignAffairs;For Romania:Mr. Bogdan Aurescu, Secretary of State, Ministry ofForeign Affairs,Mr. Cosmin Dinescu, Director-General for Legal Affairs,Ministry of Foreign Affairs;For the United Kingdom of Great Mr. Daniel Bethlehem Q.C., Legal Adviser to the Foreign Britain and Northern Ireland:and Commonwealth Office, Representative of theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,Advocate,CounselandMr. James Crawford, S.C., Whewell Professor ofInternational Law, University of Cambridge, Memberof the Institut de droit international, Counsel andAdvocate;For the Bolivarian Republic Mr. Alejandro Fleming, Deputy Minister for Europe of the of Venezuela:Ministry of the People’s Power for Foreign Affairs;For the Socialist Republic H.E. Madam Nguyen Thi Hoang Anh, Doctor of Law, of Viet Nam:Director-General, Department of International Lawand Treaties, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.15. Questions were put by Members of the Court to participants in the oral proceedings; several of them replied in writing, as requested, within the prescribed time-limit.16. Judge Shi took part in the oral proceedings; he subsequently resigned from the Court with effect from 28 May 2010.** *I.J URISDICTION AND DISCRETION17. When seised of a request for an advisory opinion, the Court must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give the opinion requested and whether, should the answer be in the affirmative, there is any reason why the Court, in its discretion, should decline to exercise any such jurisdictionin the case before it (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 232, para. 10; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 144, para. 13).A. Jurisdiction18. The Court will thus first address the question whether it possesses jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly on 8 October 2008. The power of the Court to give an advisory opinion is based upon Article 65, paragraph 1, of its Statute, which provides that:“The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the UnitedNations to make such a request.”19. In its application of this provision, the Court has indicated that:“It is . . . a precondition of the Court’s competence that the advisory opinion be requested by an organ duly authorized to seek it under the Charter, that it be requestedon a legal question, and that, except in the case of the General Assembly or theSecurity Council, that question should be one arising within the scope of the activitiesof the requesting organ.” (Application for Review of Judgement No. 273 of the UnitedNations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1982, pp. 333-334,para. 21.)20. It is for the Court to satisfy itself that the request for an advisory opinion comes from an organ of the United Nations or a specialized agency having competence to make it. The General Assembly is authorized to request an advisory opinion by Article 96 of the Charter, which provides that:“1. The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.2. Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may atany time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisoryopinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.”21. While paragraph 1 of Article 96 confers on the General Assembly the competence to request an advisory opinion on “any legal question”, the Court has sometimes in the past given certain indications as to the relationship between the question which is the subject of a request for an advisory opinion and the activities of the General Assembly (Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 70; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), pp. 232-233, paras. 11-12; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 145, paras. 16-17).22. The Court observes that Article 10 of the Charter provides that:“The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organsprovided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may makerecommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council orto both on any such questions or matters.”Moreover, Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Charter has specifically provided the General Assembly with competence to discuss “any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations” and, subject again to the limitation in Article 12, to make recommendations with respect thereto.23. Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter provides that:“While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall notmake any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the SecurityCouncil so requests.”24. In the present proceedings, it was suggested that, since the Security Council was seised of the situation in Kosovo, the effect of Article 12, paragraph 1, was that the General Assembly’s request for an advisory opinion was outside its powers under the Charter and thus did not fall within the authorization conferred by Article 96, paragraph 1. As the Court has stated on an earlier occasion, however, “[a] request for an advisory opinion is not in itself a ‘recommendation’ by the General Assembly ‘with regard to [a] dispute or situation’” (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 148, para. 25). Accordingly, while Article 12 may limit the scope of the action which the General Assembly may take subsequent to its receipt of the Court’s opinion (a matter on which it is unnecessary for the Court to decide in the present context), it does not in itself limit the authorization to request an advisory opinion which is conferred upon the General Assembly by Article 96, paragraph 1. Whether the delimitation of the respective powers of the Security Council and the General Assembly ⎯ of which Article 12 is one aspect ⎯ should lead the Court, in the circumstances of the present case, to decline to exercise its jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion is another matter (which the Court will consider in paragraphs 29 to 48 below).25. It is also for the Court to satisfy itself that the question on which it is requested to give its opinion is a “legal question” within the meaning of Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute. In the present case, the question put to the Court by the General Assembly asks whether the declaration of independence to which it refers is “in accordance with international law”. A question which expressly asks the Court whether or not a particular action is compatible with international law certainly appears to be a legal question; as the Court has remarked on a previous occasion, questions “framed in terms of law and rais[ing] problems of international law . . . are by their very nature susceptible of a reply based on law” (Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 18, para. 15) and therefore appear to be questions of a legal character for the purposes of Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute.26. Nevertheless, some of the participants in the present proceedings have suggested that the question posed by the General Assembly is not, in reality, a legal question. According to this submission, international law does not regulate the act of making a declaration of independence, which should be regarded as a political act; only domestic constitutional law governs the act of making such a declaration, while the Court’s jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion is confined to questions of international law. In the present case, however, the Court has not been asked to give an opinion on whether the declaration of independence is in accordance with any rule of domestic law but only whether it is in accordance with international law. The Court can respond to that question by reference to international law without the need to enquire into any system of domestic law.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
力——第 1244(1999)号决议设立了一个临时政权——第 1244(1999)号决议的目 标和目的。
宣布独立者的身份——宣布独立是否是科索沃议会的行为——宣布者没有 试 图 在 科 索 沃 临 时 自 治 机 构 框 架 内 行 事 ——宣布者承诺履行科索沃的国际义 务——阿尔巴尼亚文原文未提及宣布独立是科索沃议会的行为——秘书长特别 代表保持沉默——宣布独立者以科索沃人民代表的身份在临时行政当局的框架 以外采取集体行动。
段次 页次
1-16 6
一. 管辖权与裁量权 .................................................... 17-48 11
A. 管辖权 ........................................................ 18-28 12
B. 自由裁量权 .................................................... 29-48 14
二. 所涉问题的范围和含义 .............................................. 49-56 19
三. 事实背景 .......................................................... 57-77 21
10-46980 (C) 170810
*1046980*
250810
A/64/881
2010 年 7 月 22 日 咨询意见
科索沃单方面宣布独立是否符合国际法
———————
2
10-46980 (C)
A/64/881
目录
程序纪要 ..........................................................
‘科索沃临时自治机构单方面宣布独立是否符合国际法?’。”
2. 书记官长在 2008 年 10 月 10 日的信中,按照《规约》第六十六条第一项规 定,通知所有有权在法院出庭的国家,本法院收到请法院发表咨询意见的要求。
3. 本法院在 2008 年 10 月 17 日的一项命令中决定,联合国及其会员国,按照 《规约》第六十六条第二项规定,很可能能够就提请本法院发表咨询意见的问题 提供资料。在同一命令中,本法院还根据《规约》第六十六条第四项,确定 2009 年 4 月 17 日为就此问题向法院提交书面陈述的截止日期,2009 年 7 月 17 日为已 提交书面陈述的国家和组织就其他书面陈述提交书面评论的截止日期。
(a) 宣布独立者的身份 ...................................... 102-109 34
(b) 宣布独立宣言者的行为是否违反安全理事会第 1244(1999)号 决议或据此采取的措施的问题 ............................ 110-121 36
关于法院被请求发表意见的问题应为“法律问题”的要求——关于单方面宣 布独立的行为应属本国宪法管辖的说法——法院可依照国际法对此问题予以答 复,而无需考虑国内法——该问题涉及政治方面的事实并未改变其作为法律问题 的特性——法院不关心一项请求背后的政治动机或其意见可能具有的政治影响。
法院有权发表所请求的咨询意见。
A. 安全理事会第 1244(1999)号决议和科索沃特派团的相关条例...2008 年 2 月 17 日之前最终地位进程中的相关活动................... 64-73 24
C. 2008 年 2 月 17 日及其后的事件 .................................. 74-77 27
独立宣言不是由临时自治机构发布的——宣布独立不违反《宪法框架》。
通过独立宣言不违反任何适用的国际法。
咨询意见
出席人:院长小和田;副院长通卡;法官科罗马、哈苏奈、比尔根塔尔、西 马、亚伯拉罕、基思、塞普尔韦达-阿莫尔、本努纳、斯科特尼科夫、坎夫多·特 林达德、优索福、格林伍德;书记官长库弗勒。
关于科索沃单方面宣布独立是否符合国际法,
3
A/64/881
国际法院
2010 年
2010 年 7 月 22 日
案件总表 第 141 号
2010 年 7 月 22 日
科索沃单方面宣布独立是否符合国际法
法院根据请求发表咨询意见的管辖权。
《规约》第六十五条第一项——《宪章》第九十六条第一项——大会要求发 表咨询意见的权力——《宪章》第十和第十一条——关于大会的行为超越宪章规 定的权限的说法——《宪章》第十二条第一项——请求发表咨询意见的权限不受 第十二条限制。
联合国
大会
A/64/881
Distr.: General 26 July 2010 Chinese Original: English/French
第六十四届会议 议程项目 77 请求国际法院就科索沃单方面宣布独立 是否符合国际法的问题提供咨询意见
国际法院关于科索沃单方面宣布独立是否符合国际法的问题的 咨询意见
*
*
宣布独立是否符合国际法。
根据各国惯例,宣布独立不受禁止——关于禁止单方面宣布独立是领土完整 原则的默示规定的说法——领土完整原则仅限于国家之间的关系领域——安全 理事会在宣布独立问题上的做法不能得出一般性禁止的结论——与自决权的范 围和是否存在“补救性分离”有关的问题不属于大会提出的问题的范围。
*
*
法院决定应否提供意见的自由裁量权。
法院司法职能的完整性——只有“令人信服的理由”才会使法院拒绝履行其 裁判职能——一些国家提出一项决议请求提供咨询意见的动机与法院行使其自 由裁量权无关——应由请求机关来评估咨询意见的目的、有用性和政治影响。
安全理事会与大会之间各自权力的划分——安全理事会在科索沃问题上的 参与性质——《宪章》第十二条并不禁止大会就安全理事会所处理的对国际和平 与安全的威胁采取行动——大会已就科索沃局势采取行动。
四. 独立宣言是否符合国际法问题 ........................................ 78-121 28
A. 一般国际法 .................................................... 79-84 28
B. 安全理事会第 1244(1999)号决议和据此创立的科索沃 特派团《宪法框架》 .............................................
秘书长的说明
1. 大会在其 2008 年 10 月 8 日第六十三届会议第 22 次全体会议通过的第 63/3 号决议中决定,根据《联合国宪章》第九十六条,请国际法院依照其《规约》第 六十五条就以下问题发表咨询意见:
“科索沃临时自治机构单方面宣布独立是否符合国际法?” 2. 国际法院于 2010 年 7 月 22 日就上述问题发表咨询意见。 3. 我于 2010 年 7 月 26 日收到法院该咨询意见经正式签署和盖章的副本。 4. 特此将国际法院 2010 年 7 月 22 日就科索沃单方面宣布独立是否符合国际法 一案发表的咨询意见转送大会。 5. 咨询意见所附的各项个别意见、单独意见和声明将作为本说明的增编印发。
*
*
事实背景。
安全理事会所确立的科索沃临时行政当局框架——安全理事会第 1244(1999) 号决议——建立联合国科索沃临时行政当局特派团(科索沃特派团)——秘书长 特别代表的职责——科索沃特派团政权的“四大支柱”——临时自治机构的宪法 框架——科索沃临时自治机构与秘书长特别代表之间的关系。
最终地位进程中的相关事件——秘书长任命科索沃未来地位进程特使—— 联络小组指导原则——协商进程的失败——特使提出科索沃地位解决方案全面 提案——“三驾马车”主持下的科索沃未来地位谈判失败——2007 年 11 月 17 日举行科索沃议会选举——2008 年 2 月 17 日通过独立宣言。
五. 总结论 ............................................................
122 39
执行条款 ..........................................................
123 39
10-46980 (C)
“大会,
铭记联合国的宗旨和原则,
牢记《联合国宪章》为其规定的职能和权力,
6
10-46980 (C)
回顾 2008 年 2 月 17 日科索沃临时自治机构宣布从塞尔维亚独立,
意识到联合国会员对这一行为是否符合现有国际法律秩序有着各种不 同反应,
决定依照《联合国宪章》第九十六条,请求国际法院根据《法院规约》 第六十五条,就以下问题提供咨询意见:
85-121 30
1. 对安全理事会第 1244(1999)号决议的解释 ..................... 94-100 32
2. 独立宣言是否符合安全理事会第 1244(1999)号决议 和据此采取的措施的问题 .................................... 101-121 34
宣布独立者的行为是否违反了安全理事会第 1244(1999)号决议——面向联 合国会员国和联合国机构的第 1244(1999)号决议——对其他行为体未提及任何 具体义务——该决议没有关于科索沃最终地位的规定——安全理事会自己没有 保留关于科索沃局势的最终决定权——安全理事会第 1244(1999)号决议不禁止 2008 年 2 月 17 日宣布独立者发表独立宣言——宣布独立不违反安全理事会第 1244(1999)号决议。
安全理事会第 1244(1999)号决议和《宪法框架》是答复向法院提出的问题时 需考虑的国际法的一部分。
安全理事会决议的解释——第 1244(1999)号决议建立了科索沃国际民事和 安全存在——暂时中止塞尔维亚行使由其对科索沃领土的连续主权而产生的权