基於《聯合國海洋法公約》提起海洋環境訴訟背景下日本核污水排海問題的分析與應對

Reflections and Countermeasures on the Dispute Settlement Procedure in the Dispute over the Discharge of Nuclear Sewage from Japan into the Sea

鑒於日本核污水的排放有可能因違反《聯合國海洋法公約》第十二部分的海洋環境保護規定而被提交到該《公約》第十五部分的強制爭端解決程序，本文回顧了該程序中處理的海洋環境案件，並總結了我國可以基於日本核污水排海提起海洋環境訴訟的問題及其對其他權利主張的影響。《公約》第十二部分的規定具有廣泛的空間範圍，更容易超越公約的管轄權階段而進入案情實質階段。然而，針對實質內容而言，由於個別規則的內容和範圍模糊，往往需要由其他國際規則或標準加以補充，或強調專家在聽證過程中的作用。根據申訴國申訴的性質以及法庭在以往判例法中的結論，日本核污水排海很可能違反了《公約》第十二部分的規定，由此申請臨時措施的可能性原則上也是開放的。然而，為了得出一個更有意義的結論，重要的是要在科學證據的基礎上，根據客觀的國際標準證明海洋環境污染，並在實踐中有效地提出證據。此外，考慮到提起訴訟的負擔，在考量政策目標的情形下，可以通過談判等非訴訟方式解決該問題。

In view of the possibility that the discharge of Japanese nuclear effluent may be referred to the compulsory dispute settlement procedure under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for violation of the marine environmental protection provisions of Part XII of the Convention, this paper reviews the marine environment cases dealt with in that procedure and summarizes the issues on which our country may bring a marine environment lawsuit based on Japan's nuclear effluent discharges to the sea, and their implications for other claims. The provisions of Part XII of the Convention, with its broad spatial scope, make it easier to move beyond the jurisdictional phase of the Convention to the merits phase. However, in relation to the merits, the vagueness of the content and scope of the individual rules often necessitates that they be supplemented by other international rules or standards, or that the role of experts in the hearing process be emphasized. In the light of the nature of the Applicant's claims and the Tribunal's conclusions in its previous case law, the discharge of nuclear effluent from Japan into the sea is likely to be in violation of Part XII of the Convention, and the possibility of a consequent application for provisional measures is, in principle, open. However, in order to reach a more meaningful conclusion, it is important that pollution of the marine environment be demonstrated on the basis of scientific evidence, in accordance with objective international standards, and that evidence be effectively presented in practice. In addition, given the burden of litigation, the possibility of resolving the issue through non-litigious means, such as negotiation, is also reasonable in the light of the policy objectives.