《BBNJ協定》爭端解決機制評析：自願、強制抑或另一視角？

Compulsory, Voluntary, or Another Perspective? : An Analysis of Dispute Settlement Mechanism in the BBNJ Agreement

爭端解決條款是《BBNJ協定》的重要構成部分，其以1995年《魚類種群協定》為藍本，參考適用《聯合國海洋法公約》爭端解決機制。如果從爭端解決機制“強制性—自願性”的對抗性視角看，儘管存在一定限制，《BBNJ協定》第60條仍然強調了強制性法律程序，特別是強制仲裁的核心地位，理論上可能推動當前海洋法司法仲裁實踐中強制性管轄權的進一步擴張。該協定還首次納入對國際海洋法法庭全庭諮詢意見的規定，這可能對法庭和各國態度產生重要影響，但這是否會成為強制性程序擴張的新路徑，仍有待觀察。同時，該協定對防止爭端制度的規定可能超越“強制性—自願性”二元對立的傳統思路，為我們提供另一種爭端處理的視角。對此，我國可考慮針對有關條款嚴謹設計法律聲明，並積極發展防止爭端機制，以求更好地處理爭端和避免濫訴。

Dispute settlement forms an important part of the Draft BBNJ Agreement. This part is modeled on the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, with reference to the mechanism in UNCLOS. From an antagonistic perspective of“compulsory vs voluntary”, Article 60 still favors and emphasizes compulsory legal procedures, especially compulsory arbitration, although not without specific restrictions. Theoretically，this may further the current expansion of compulsory jurisdiction of judicial and arbitral practices within the law of the sea. The Agreement also for the first time incorporates a provision on the advisory function of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which may have a great impact on the positions of the Tribunal and different States. Nevertheless, it is still early to conclude whether this will lead to a new track of expanding compulsory jurisdiction. Meanwhile, it should be noted that the articles on the prevention of disputes can provide an alternative perspective of dispute management, beyond the traditional dichotomy of compulsory and voluntary procedures. In this regard, China may consider issuing legal statements on relevant articles, and actively develop the dispute- prevention mechanism in order to better its dispute management while avoiding abusive litigations.