读者投稿｜国际法院对国际人权法的阐释与发展（上）

摘要:本文采用制度主义研究路径，分析了国际法院在国际裁判和执行人权方面的作用，以及它在阐释和发展基本人权规则和原则方面的贡献。国际法院是联合国主要机关之一，也是其主要的司法机关，在国际裁判机制中享有重中之重的特殊地位。国际法院对阐释和发展人权法的贡献可以从三个角度来看：第一，在程序角度，它进一步推动了人权的可诉性。第二，在实体角度，它不仅分析了非殖民化背景下的民族自决权问题和一些公约项下的人权保护范围，还处理了人权公约义务的领土范围问题、国家责任归属问题以及国际不法行为的赔偿问题，为国家、国际组织及其机构、其他法律实体甚至个人制定了行为标准。第三，在制度角度，它确保了联合国人权问题报告员的独立性和不可侵犯性，对联合国大会和安全理事会在维护国际和平与安全方面的职能作出建设性的阐释，并对其遵守国际人权义务的情况进行监督。然而，一些案件体现出国际法院在审理人权案件时存在的管辖权漏洞和其他障碍，它对国际法中某些有争议的问题持谨慎立场。这意味着国际法院有时在实施人权保护方面可能施加的影响有限。

学术界尤为关注国际法院在发展国际法。[See inter alia H. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (London: Steven & Sons Ltd., 1958); C. J. Tams and J. Sloan (eds.), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); N. Boschiero et al. (eds.), International Courts and the Development of International Law: Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013).]以及阐释和发展国际人权法方面的贡献。[See generally G. Zyberi, The Humanitarian Face of the International Court of Justice: Its Contribution to Interpreting and Developing International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Rules and Principles (Antwerp and Portland, OR: Intersentia, 2008); B. Simma, ‘Human Rights before the International Court of Justice: Community Interest Coming to Life?’, in Tams and Sloan, Development of International Law, pp. 301–25. See also N. S. Rodley, ‘Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention: The Case Law of the World Court’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 38 (1989), 321–33; R. Goy, La Cour Internationale de Justice et les Droits de l’Homme (Brussels: Bruylant/Nemesis, 2002); S. R. S. Bedi, The Development of Human Rights Law by the Judges of the International Court of Justice (Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart, 2007); R. Higgins, ‘Human Rights in the International Court of Justice’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 20 (2007), 745–51; S. Sivakumaran, ‘The International Court of Justice and Human Rights’, in S. Joseph and A. McBeth (eds.), Research Handbook on International Human Rights Law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2010), pp. 299–325; G. Zyberi ‘Human Rights in the International Court of Justice’, in M. Baderin and M. Ssenyonjo (eds.), International Human Rights Law: Six Decades Years after the UDHR and Beyond (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), pp. 289–304; R. Wilde, ‘Human Rights beyond Borders at the World Court: The Significance of the International Court of Justice’s Jurisprudence on the Extraterritorial Application of International Human Rights Law Treaties’, Chinese Journal of International Law, 12 (2013), 639–77; G. Zyberi, ‘The International Court of Justice and the Rights of Peoples and Minorities’, in Tams and Sloan, ‘Development of International Law’, pp. 327–52; N. Rodley, ‘The International Court of Justice and Human Rights Treaty Bodies’, in J. A. Green and C. P. M. Waters (eds.), Adjudicating International Human Rights: Essays in Honour of Sandy Ghandhi (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015), pp. 12–33; International Law Association, International Human Right Committee, Washington Conference (2014), Interim Report ‘International Human Rights Law and the International Court of Justice (ICJ)’, available at www.ila-hq.org/index.php/committees.]国际法院对国际法渊源，特别是习惯国际法渊源的适用受到了一些批评。[See inter alia S. Talmon, ‘Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion’, European Journal of International Law, 26 (2015), 417–43; S. Yee, ‘Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and Applicable Law: Selected Issues in Recent Cases’, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 7 (2016), 472–98; N. Petersen, ‘The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Politics of Identifying Customary International Law’, European Journal of International Law, 28 (2017), 357–85.]国际法院的诉讼管辖权面向各个国家，而咨询管辖权则面向联合国主要机关和联合国专门机构。作为具有一般管辖权的法院，同时拥有诉讼管辖和咨询管辖的职能，国际法院被巧妙置于阐释和发展人权的重要地位上。除了在规范性方面的贡献（参见第四章第二节），国际法院还进一步推动了人权的可诉性（justiciability）。[See, among others, J. Grimheden, ‘The International Court of Justice in Furthering the Justiciability of Human Rights’, in G. Alfredsson et al. (eds.), International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms: Essays in Honour of Jakob Th. Möller (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001), pp. 469–84.]这些贡献固然重要，但一些案件也体现出国际法院在审理人权案件时存在的管辖权漏洞和其他障碍。这些案件也表明，国际法院对国际法中某些有争议的问题持谨慎立场，特别是外国国内法院审理的一国国家及其官员能否就严重侵犯人权行为享有豁免的问题。

国际法院审理诉讼案件分为三个阶段——即初步反对意见阶段、案情实质阶段以及赔偿和费用阶段。从管辖权问题，到严重侵犯人权行为的国际责任法，再到对侵犯人权行为的受害者的赔偿原则，上述每个阶段都对阐明如何从不同方面执行国际人权具有重要意义。另外，在诉讼案件中，也有可能出现指示临时措施的附带程序。在外交保护或领事关系案件中，[Cases concerning consular protection are Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America), ICJ Reports (1998) 248 (the Breard case); LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), ICJ Reports (1999) 9; Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), ICJ Reports (2003) 77; and Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), ICJ Reports (2017) 231. Two recent cases concerning diplomatic protection are Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), ICJ Reports (2016) 1148; and Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), available at www.icj-cij.org/en/case/172.]以及在有关武装冲突的若干案件中，[See Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ Reports (1993) 3; Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Spain), ICJ Reports (1999) 761; Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ Reports (2000) 111; Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), ICJ Reports (2008) 353; Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), ICJ Reports (2017) 104. See generally G. Zyberi, ‘Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice in Armed Conflict Situations’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23 (2010), 571–84.]这一程序对人权都相当重要。虽然监督和确保国家执行国际法院临时措施命令的程序仍有待发展，但国际法院在2001年的拉格朗案（LaGrand）中已牢固确立了这些命令的约束力。[LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), ICJ Reports (2001) 466, para.128(5).]不执行临时措施命令将招致国家责任。

（一）初步反对意见

如何进行诉讼程序及其内容的具体细节问题，这些内容涉及特定的事实情况。国际法院的初步反对意见阶段暴露出国际人权公约在管辖权上的局限和漏洞，同时也暴露出各国普遍不愿意以人权为主要案由向国际法院提起诉讼或主张。就国际法院管辖权的局限性而言，有两个问题必须事先指出。首先，在193个联合国成员国中，只有73个国家接受了《国际法院规约》第36（2）条项下的强制管辖权（compulsory jurisdiction）。[Statute of the International Court of Justice, San Francisco, 26 June 1945, in force 24 October 1945, 3 Bevans 1179; 59 Stat. 1031; T.S. 993; 39 AJIL Supp. 215 (1945), Article 36(2).]其次，如前所述，九个主要人权公约中只有五个包含任择强制争端解决条款，即关于消除种族歧视[International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), New York, 21 December 1965, in force 4 January 1969, UNGA Res. 2106 (XX), Annex, 20 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 14) at 47, UN Doc. A/6014 (1966); 660 UNTS 195, Article 22.]、消除对妇女的歧视[Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), New York, 18 December 1979, in force 3 September 1981, UNGA Res. 34/ 180, 34 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 46) at 193, UN Doc. A/34/46; 1249 UNTS 13, Article 29.]、防止和惩治酷刑[Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), New York, 10 December 1984, in force 26 June 1987, UNGA Res. 39/46, Annex, 39 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, UN Doc. A/39/51 (1984); 1465 UNTS 85, Article 30.]、保护移徙工人及其家庭成员的权利[International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW), New York, 18 December 1990, in force 1 July 2003, GA Res. 45/158, Annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 262, UN Doc. A/45/49 (1990); 2220 UNTS 3, Article 92.]、消除强迫失踪的公约。[International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED), New York, 20 December 2006, in force 23 December 2010, UNGA Res. 61/177, Annex; 2716 UNTS 3, Article 42]需要注意的是，有两个国际公约不包含任择强制争端解决条款。[See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), New York, 16 December 1966, in force 23 March 1976, GA Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966); 999 UNTS 171; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, New York, 16 December 1966, in force 3 January 1976, GA Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, UN Doc. A/ 6316 (1966); 993 UNTS 3.]这些管辖权上的漏洞和局限性，将导致各国对国际法院在《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》（《灭绝种族罪公约》）[Genocide Convention, Paris, 9 December 1948, in force 12 January 1951, 78 UNTS 277.]或《消除一切形式种族歧视国际公约》（ICERD）项下的管辖权基础扩张至严重侵犯人权或违反人道法的案件。

实际上，任择强制争端解决条款包括三种类型，这使得诉诸国际法院的程序更加复杂。第一种类型允许一国直接诉诸国际法院，无需穷尽其他救济。[Genocide Convention, Article IX: ‘[D]isputes ... relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.’]第二种类型要求争端一方在诉诸国际法院之前先进行谈判。第三种类型则是更有条理的次序要求，即先进行谈判，[ICERD, Article 22: ‘Any dispute ... with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement.’ See the Georgia case; the Ukraine case.]然后在其中一方的要求下提交仲裁，如果六个月后，双方无法就仲裁之组成达成一致意见，争端任何一方才可诉诸国际法院。[CEDAW, Article 29; CAT, Article 30; CMW, Article 92; CPED, Article 42.]简单回顾一下任择强制争端解决条款的变迁就会发现，随着时间的发展，诉诸国际法院的程序变得越来越复杂和困难。这将同时产生积极后果和消极后果。积极后果是，各国在诉诸国际法院之前应当先进行谈判并努力解决争端，以免国际法院徒增诉累。消极后果是，人权保护的工作可能被刻意拖延，通过外交渠道进行的国家谈判可能旷日持久，而严重侵犯人权的行为可能几个月甚至几年都得不到解决。

（二）案情实质阶段

案情实质阶段是国际法院诉讼程序的主要阶段。该阶段将阐明国家因其组织机构或行为归责于国家的个人之作为或不作为而侵犯人权的行为所产生的国家责任。[See, among others, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ Reports (2004) 136; the Genocide case I; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), ICJ Reports (2015) 3 (the Genocide case II); Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ Reports (2005) 168; Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), ICJ Reports (2012) 422; Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), ICJ Reports (2012) 99.]在一些案件中，国际法院判决国家违反了人权义务，包括非法驱逐出境、[Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), ICJ Reports (2010) 639, para. 165(2).]设置不恰当的逮捕和拘留条件[Ibid., para. 165(3).]、非法毁坏和征用财产[Wall, paras. 132, 152.]、对工作权、健康权、受教育权和适足生活水准权的行使设置障碍[Ibid., para. 134.]、不配合前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭（ICTY）[The Genocide case I, para. 471(6).]、未能调查和起诉严重侵犯人权的行为[Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, paras. 119–22, especially paras. 120 and 122(4), (5) and (6).]、未能防止种族灭绝[The Genocide case I, para. 471(5).]、不尊重民族自决权等。[Wall, paras. 155, 159.]需要注意的是，在严重侵犯人权的案件中，举证责任可能相当高。不过，近年来，国际法院不得不求助于其他联合国机构，包括联合国维持和平特派团（UN peacekeeping missions）撰写的报告和其他材料。

（三）赔偿和费用阶段

这是诉讼程序的最后阶段，国际法院将根据争端双方的陈述处理侵权赔偿事宜。迄今为止，国际法院已在三起案件中判定赔偿责任，即科孚海峡案（Corfu Channel）[Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), Assessment of the amount of compensation due from the People’s Republic of Albania to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ICJ Reports (1949) 244.]、隔离墙案（Wall）[Wall, paras. 151, 152, 163(3)(C).]和迪亚洛案（Diallo）[Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), ICJ Reports (2012) 324.]。从中可以看出，随着时间的推移，国际法院的立场发生了变化，越来越重视受害者个人的权利，而非行使外交保护的国家的权利。其中，在科孚海峡案中，国际法院判决阿尔巴尼亚就英国舰队海员在阿尔巴尼亚领水内的伤亡向英国作出赔偿。[Corfu Channel, ICJ Reps 1949, pp. 249–50.]在隔离墙案中，国际法院指出以色列“有义务赔偿在巴勒斯坦被占领土，包括东耶路撒冷及其周围修建隔离墙造成的一切损失”。[Wall, para. 163(3)(C).]关键是，国际法院认定，“鉴于以色列在巴勒斯坦被占领土修建隔离墙，并征用和毁坏房屋、企业、农田”，以色列“有义务赔偿给所有有关自然人或法人造成的损失”。[Wall, para. 152.]这是国际法院首次判决直接向受违反国际法行为影响的自然人和法人作出赔偿。在迪亚洛案中，国际法院判决刚果民主共和国赔偿迪亚洛先生所遭受的物质损害和精神损害。[Diallo (2012), paras. 61(1), 61(2). The non-material injury was fixed at US$85,000, and the material injury suffered by Mr. Diallo in relation to his personal property was fixed at US$10,000.]关键是，国际法院提及，“判给几内亚对迪亚洛先生行使外交保护的金额是为了对迪亚洛先生所遭受的损害给予赔偿”。[Ibid., para. 57.]不过，国际法院还认定，“刚果民主共和国不应对几内亚……在（迪亚洛先生）被非法拘留期间和被非法驱逐出境后的职业报酬损失作出赔偿”，[Ibid., para. 61(3).]也不应“因其潜在收入被剥夺而作出赔偿”。[Ibid., para. 61(4).]一个有争议的案件是《灭绝种族罪公约》适用案（Application of the Genocide Convention），其中国际法院对赔偿问题采取了严格的态度。在该案中，国际法院确立了一项检验标准，要求“不法行为（即一国）违反防止种族灭绝的义务与（受害国）遭受的损害之间有足够直接和明确的因果关系，包括灭绝种族行为造成的任何类型的损害，无论是物质损害还是精神损害”。[The Genocide case I, para. 462.]由于该案没有证明因果关系，国际法院判决“经济赔偿不是违反防止种族灭绝义务的适当赔偿形式”。[Ibid]国际法院对大规模暴行赔偿问题的这种处理方法饱受批评。[See inter alia C. McCarthy, ‘Reparation for Gross Violations of Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law at the International Court of Justice’, in C. Ferstman, M. Goetz and A. Stephens (eds.), Reparations for Victims of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: Systems in Place and Systems in the Making (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), pp. 283–311.]另外，在国家管辖豁免案（Jurisdictional Immunities of the State）中，国际法院以缺乏属时（ratione temporis）管辖权为由驳回了意大利就公民索赔权提出的反诉。在该案中，尽管这种处理实际上意味着在第二次世界大战期间纳粹德国严重违反国际人道法行为（包括谋杀、驱逐和奴役）的受害者获得赔偿的权利被剥夺，国际法院还是维护了一国受外国国内法院审理的国家豁免权。