论文部分内容阅读
在澳大利亚诉日本“南极捕鲸案”判决中,国际法院认定日本第二个科研捕鲸项目不属于1946年《国际捕鲸管制公约》第8条第1款中规定的“为科学研究的目的”。该判决明确了“为科学研究的目的”的捕鲸并不排除产生附带的商业利润,具有积极意义。但该判决在认定日本行使特许捕鲸权问题上却违反了国际法院以往审理案件所坚持的“谁主张谁举证”原则;同时,国际法院没有从条约解释的角度对ICRW第8条中“为科学研究的目的”加以解释,而是以该项目的设计与实施之间是否具有内在合理性为标准认定其不属于为科学研究的目的,超出了国际法院作为司法机关的审理范围。
In Australia v. Japan’s Antarctic Whaling Decree, the International Court of Justice found that Japan’s second scientific whaling project was outside the scope of Article 8, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. “ the purpose of research”. The ruling made it clear that whaling “for the purpose of scientific research” does not preclude the production of incidental commercial profits and is of positive significance. However, the ruling violated the principle of “who advocates who evidence” that the International Court of Justice has tried in the past in cases of Japan’s concession of whaling. In the meantime, the International Court of Justice did not interpret Article 8 of the ICRW from the point of view of treaty interpretation. “For the purpose of scientific research ” to explain, but the design and implementation of the project is inherently reasonable as the standard that it does not belong to the purpose of scientific research, beyond the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as the judiciary .