國際公法上仲裁與授權的弔詭：以「南海仲裁案」為中心

The Paradoxes of International Arbitration and Delegation: With Special Reference to the South China Sea Arbitration

本文試圖從國際海洋法的強制仲裁制度出發，以「南海仲裁案」為中心進行討論，理解「國際司法」與「國際授權」（international delegations）對於仲裁權限的弔詭現象。基於近年領土爭端交付仲裁的實踐案例，本文探究爭端方走向國際仲裁的考量因素，從理論面討論國際仲裁與授權的概念範疇，釐清兩者對於爭端解決的影響效果。整體而言，本文試圖回答一個核心問題，當國家面對「強制性仲裁」，是否將造成一種國際法上的授權困境？主權國家如何對應？對此，本文以中國「南海仲裁案」立場做為分析對象，據以提出若干建議，期盼提供一種的理論修正的啟示。鑒於後仲裁時期的事實現象，研究發現認為，法律仲裁須有明確的「授權鏈」及辨析「爭端屬性」的辨別標準，俾避免讓仲裁機構做出不被採納、執行的仲裁，減損法律仲裁的聲譽。

This article takes the Sino-Philippines Arbitration on the South China Sea (SCS) disputes (Philippines v. China) as a case study object and analyzes the compulsory arbitration system of the international law of the sea in theory. Through a review of institution and practice, it observes the paradox of arbitration authority by “international justice” and “international delegations”. Based on the cases of territorial disputes submitted to arbitration in recent years, this article explores the motivation of dispute parties going to international arbitration, then discusses the conceptual categories of international arbitration and delegations from a theoretical perspective, and clarifies the effect of the two on dispute settlement. This article serves as scholarly advice as to when the country faces “compulsory arbitration,” will it create a kind of international law’s delegation dilemma? How do sovereign states respond it? Referring to the development trend in the Post-SCS Arbitration period, the result shows that arbitration institutions must establish a clear “authorization chain” and the criteria for distinguishing the nature of disputes to avoid allowing the tribunals make awards that are not adopted or enforced, thus detracting from the reputation of legal arbitration.