吴卡:国内法院解释条约的路径选择与优化生成

选择字号:   本文共阅读 89 次 更新时间:2022-05-31 09:32:45

进入专题: 一带一路   条约解释     司法单边主义     司法多边主义  

吴卡  

   (34)See Helmut P.Aust,et al,Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation,27(1)LeidenJournal of International Law,85-86(2014).

   (35)See Helmut P.Aust,et al,Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation,27(1)LeidenJournal of International Law,86(2014).

   (36)See United States v.Alvarez-Machain,504 U.S.655(1992).

   (37)See Abbott v.Abbott,560 U.S.1(2010).

   (38)杜焕芳:《美国最高法院的条约解释方法与阿伯特案的影响》,《法学评论》2013年第5期。

   (39)Helmut P.Aust,et al,Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation,27(1)LeidenJournal of International Law,91-92(2014).

   (40)Michael Waibel,Principles of Treaty Interpretation:Developed for and Applied by National Courts? The University of Cambridge Faculty of Law,Legal Studies Research Paper Series,No.16/2015,April 2015,p.23.

   (41)See Maloney v.The Queen[2013]HCA 28(19 June 2013).

   (42)See Macoun v.Federal Commissioner of Taxation[2015]HCA 44(2 December 2015),S100/2015.

   (43)参见中华人民共和国最高人民法院(2015)民申字第1637号民事裁定书。

   (44)中华人民共和国最高人民法院:《第二批涉“一带一路”建设典型案例》,http://www.court.gov.cn/zixunxiangqing-44722.html,2019-10-05。

   (45)See Olga Frishman & Eyal Benvenisti,National Courts and Interpretative Approaches to International Law:The Case Against Convergence,The Global Trust Working Paper Series 8/2014,p.16.

   (46)参见余敏友:《以新主权观迎接新世纪的国际法学》,《法学评论》2000年第2期。

   (47)See Helmut P.Aust,et al,Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation,27(1)LeidenJournal of International Law,85(2014).

   (48)Helmut P.Aust,et al,Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation,27(1)LeidenJournal of International Law,85(2014).

   (49)See Ian Johnstone,Treaty Interpretation:The Authority of Interpretive Communities,12 Michigan Journalof International Law,372-389(1991).

   (50)See Anthea Roberts,Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in Creating and EnforcingInternational Law,60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly,75(2011).

   (51)Patrick Wall,A Marked Improvement:The High Court of Australia's Approach to Treaty Interpretation inMacoun v.Commissioner of Taxation[2015]HCA 54,17 Melbourne Journal of International Law,186(2016).

   (52)See Jeffrey L.Dunoff and Joel P.Trachtman,A Functional Approach to Global Constitutionalism,in JeffreyL.Dunoff and Joel P.Trachtman,eds.,Ruling the World? Constitutionalism,International Law,and Global Governance,Cambridge University Press,2009,pp.6-7.

   (53)See Antonios Tzanakopoulos,Domestic Courts in International Law:The International Judicial Function ofNational Courts,34 Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review,134-135(2011).

   (54)Evan J.Criddle,The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in U.S.Treaty Interpretation,44(2)Virginia Journal of International Law,499(2004).

   (55)André Nollkaemper,Grounds for the Application of International Rules of Interpretation in National Courts,Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No.2014-52,pp.4-14.

   (56)Richard Gardiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford University Press,2009,p.9.

   (57)Jan Klabbers,On Rationalism in Politics:Interpretation of Treaties and the World Trade Organization,74(3)Nordic Journal of International Law,416(2005).

   (58)Michael Waibel,Uniformity versus Specialisation:A Uniform Regime of Treaty Interpretation? The University of Cambridge Faculty of Law,Legal Studies Research Paper Series,No.54/2013,November 2013,pp.12-13.

   (59)Alexander Orakhelashvili,The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law,Oxford University Press,2008,p.312.

   (60)United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties:Official Records:Documents of the Conference,A/CONF/39/11/Add.2,p.39.

   (61)Richard Gardiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford University Press,2009,p.9.

   (62)张新军:《〈中日联合声明〉“放弃战争赔偿要求”放弃了什么——基于条约解释理论的批判思考》,《清华法学》2010年第2期。

   (63)See Richard Gardiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford University Press,2009,p.41.

   (64)See International Law Commission,Report on the Work of Its 65th Session,Supplement No.10(A/68/10),pp.21-22.

   (65)See Richard Gardiner,Treaty Interpretation,Oxford University Press,2009,p.291.

   (66)Rosalyn Higgins,Problems and Process:International Law and How We Use It,Oxford University Press,1994,p.8.

   (67)Eyal Benvenisti,Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law:An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts,4 European Journal of International Law,61(1993).

   (68)See Eyal Benvenisti,Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law:An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts,4 European Journal of International Law,60(1993).

   (69)See David S.Law & Wen-Chen Chang,The Limits of Global Judicial Dialogue,86 Washington Law Review,526(2011).

   (70)Eyal Benvenisti,Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law:An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts,4 European Journal of International Law,65-66(1993).

   (71)See Helmut P.Aust,et al,Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation,27(1)Leiden Journal of International Law,83(2014).

   (72)David Sloss eds.,The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Interpretation:A Comparative Study,CambridgeUniversity Press,2009,p.591.

   (73)See Eyal Benvenisti,Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law:An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts,4 European Journal of International Law,65(1993).

  

    进入专题: 一带一路   条约解释     司法单边主义     司法多边主义  

本文责编:陈冬冬
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 法学 > 国际法学
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/134272.html
文章来源:《法商研究》2021年第4期

0 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2022 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号-1 京公网安备11010602120014号.
工业和信息化部备案管理系统