《欧洲国际法杂志》2023年第1期摘要翻译
European Journal of International Law
欧洲国际法杂志
期刊介绍
《欧洲国际法杂志》围绕国际法问题的理论和实践方法，为探讨国际法的概念、理论以及专题问题的最新分析提供论坛，是系统研究国际法与欧盟及其成员国法律之间关系的期刊。
本期目录
01. 反思国际法：一次对第三世界国际法运动的回顾
Rethinking International Law: A TWAIL Retrospective
02. 国际人权法中关于气候变化恐惧话语
Discourses of Fear on Climate Change in International Human Rights Law
03. 国际组织法中隐藏的瑰宝——简介
Hidden Gems in International Organizations Law – A Brief Introduction
04. 国际组织法的非正式化：安妮-玛丽·勒罗伊的风险偏好
Deformalizing International Organizations Law: The Risk Appetite of Anne-Marie Leroy
05. 对国际法律地位的探寻：论芬恩·赛耶斯特德和国际组织法理论化的挑战
The Quest for International Legal Status: On Finn Seyersted and the Challenges of Theorizing International Organizations Law
06. 从《欧洲原子能共同体条约》的起草历史重新审视2005年欧盟委员会诉英国案判决
A Fresh Look at the 2005 Commission v. United Kingdom Judgment in Light of the Euratom Treaty’s Drafting History
07. 国际法的包容性或排他性
The In- or Ex-clusiveness of International Law
08. 贪婪与不满：冲突时期的公司、国家和国际投资法
Greed and Grievance: Corporations, States and International Investment Law in Times of Conflict
论文摘要
01.反思国际法：一次对第三世界国际法运动的回顾
作者：
安东尼·安吉(Antony Anghie), 新加坡国立大学法学院教授
摘要：
本刊前言部分是对第三世界国际法运动的个人回顾，介绍了第三世界国际法运动的起源及其在20世纪90年代出现的政治和知识背景。本文概述了第三世界国际法运动的一些关键主题和关注点，包括“殖民延续”、“资本主义、帝国主义和政治经济”以及“第三世界国际法运动和历史”。本文认为，通过研究 “第一世界”和“第三世界”之间的区别在国际法各个领域（如使用武力、国际移民法和人权）的运作情况，论证了这一区别仍然具有现实意义。前言部分随后概述了作者目前的两个研究项目，也是第三世界国际法运动学者们主要感兴趣的主题：第一，人权及其与帝国主义的关系；第二，种族与赔偿问题。前言最后指出，“第三世界国际法进路”不仅与“第三世界”有关，而且与全球都具有相关性。这促使我们将第三世界国际法运动视为一个国际化项目。
This EJIL Foreword is a personal retrospective of the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement. It provides an account of the origins of TWAIL and the political and intellectual context in which it emerged during the 1990s. It outlines some of the key themes and concerns of TWAIL – including ‘colonial continuities’, ‘capitalism, imperialism and political economy’, and ‘TWAIL and History’. It argues that the distinction between the ‘First’ and ‘Third’ Worlds continues to be relevant by examining the operation of this distinction in various fields of international law, such as the use of force, international migration law and human rights. The Foreword then outlines two of the author’s current research projects on themes that have been of major interest to TWAIL scholars: first, human rights and their relationship to imperialism; and second, race and reparations. The Foreword concludes by arguing that ‘Third World Approaches to International Law’ are relevant, not simply for the ‘third world’, but for the entire globe; it urges us to consider TWAIL as a cosmopolitan project.
02. 国际人权法中关于气候变化恐惧话语
作者：
安妮·萨博(Anne Saab)，瑞士日内瓦国际与发展研究院国际法副教授
摘要：
对气候变化的恐惧话语无处不在。国际人权法经常将气候变化视为对人权最严重的威胁之一，这种“威胁”描述性质的语言揭示了一种恐惧话语。对气候变化的恐惧描述是有科学数据依据的，这种方式可以有效地引起人们对这一问题的关注并激励人们采取必要的行动。然而，心理学家和传播专家已经证明，恐惧也会导致脱离、“气候变化疲劳”和对气候变化政策的积极反对。通过引发担忧气候变化的言论，人权行为者不仅反映了准确的气候科学，也参与到了情绪化措辞运动中。此外，将气候变化本身视为对人权的主要威胁的恐惧言论，将使得气候变化首先被视为一个物理和科学问题，并掩盖了气候变化的其他重要方面。那些参与国际人权法的个人必须承认他们所说的语言的修辞和情感力量，并更认真地考量有关恐惧的话语及其对广大受众有影响的文献。只有这样，才能真正致力于在国际法的支持下采取有效的应对气候变化行动。
Discourses of fear on climate change are pervasive. International human rights law frequently refers to climate change as one of the most serious threats to human rights, and this language of threat reveals a discourse of fear. Fearful representations of climate change are justified by scientific data and can be effective in drawing attention to the issue and incentivizing necessary action. However, psychologists and communications experts have demonstrated that fear can also lead to disengagement, ‘climate change fatigue’ and active opposition to climate change policies. By invoking a discourse of fear on climate change, human rights actors are not only reflecting accurate climate science but also engaging in emotional rhetoric. The discourse of fear that presents climate change itself as the main threat to human rights, moreover, contributes to framing climate change primarily as a physical and scientific problem and obscures other important dimensions of climate change. Those individuals engaging with international human rights law must acknowledge the rhetorical and emotive power of the language they speak and engage more seriously with the literature on discourses of fear and their effects on a broad general audience. Only then can we truly work towards effective action on climate change, supported by international law.
03. 国际组织法中隐藏的瑰宝——简介
作者：
德维卡·霍维尔(Devika Hovell)，英国伦敦政治经济学院国际公法副教授
杨·可兰伯斯（Jan Klabbers），芬兰赫尔辛基大学法学院教授
盖伊·菲蒂·辛克莱( Guy Fiti Sinclair) ，新西兰奥克兰大学法学院副教授
摘要：
可以说，国际组织法以功能主义方法为主。简言之，各国建立国际组织来处理跨界问题。国家将职能和权限授予这些组织，而国际组织法的发展则是为了促进这些组织的工作。国际组织可以拥有其有效运作所需的“默示权力”，并通常被授予特权和豁免权，以确保其运作不受阻碍。
无论这种方法的优点是什么（这在很大程度上可能取决于所采用的政治观点），它都存在一些缺点。尤其是，一切在国际组织和其成员间不能用委托人/代理人关系来描绘的事情都会使解释和实践变得十分困难。最明显的问题是国际组织对于第三方的责任问题：因为第三方并不是委托人/代理人关系的其中一方，功能主义方法很难提供救济，建立问责制或责任制度的无数最终徒劳的尝试就证明了这一点。
International organizations law, it is fair to say, is dominated by a functionalist approach. States, so this approach provides in a nutshell, create international organizations to tackle transboundary problems. States delegate functions and competences to those organizations, and international organizations law has developed to facilitate the work of the organizations. International organizations can boast such ‘implied powers’ as are necessary for their effective functioning and are typically granted privileges and immunities to ensure that functioning is unimpeded.
Whatever the merits of such an approach (and much here may depend on the political perspective adopted), it comes with a few drawbacks. Most notably, everything that cannot be pictured in terms of the principal/agent relationship (between the organization and its member states) becomes difficult to explain and difficult to practice. The most obvious issue here is the accountability of international organizations towards third parties: since third parties are not part of the principal/agent relationship, the functionalist approach has little to offer – as numerous, ultimately fruitless attempts to establish accountability or responsibility regimes demonstrate.
04. 国际组织法的非正式化：安妮-玛丽·勒罗伊的风险偏好
作者：
迪米特里·范·登·梅尔舍(Dimitri Van Den Meerssche)，英国伦敦玛丽女王大学人文社会科学研究所讲师、研究员
摘要：
应本次研讨会的邀请，通过关注主流之外的学者和从业者来重新思考国际组织法，本文探讨并评估了2009年至2016年世界银行总法律顾问安妮-玛丽·勒罗伊的遗留之物。勒罗伊用严格的法律语言来描述畸形化的风险管理惯例——被描述为从“规则到原则”的“范式转变”—— 勒罗伊可以被描述为那些发展国际组织法的人的对立面。然而，正是通过关注学界之外（和反对）的人物，我们才能对国际机构的演变获得批判性的视角。本文特别关注勒罗伊的范式转变如何绕过、管理和克服业务扩张和机构对外部世界负责的问题——这也许是主流学者，即功能主义方法的概念规范置信度达到极限的两个前沿问题。本文显示，在这两个领域，勒罗伊的前辈们所灌输的自由法制主义的原则性（有时是禁止性的）姿态，已经被“灵活”态度和增强的“风险偏好”所取代。本文追溯了在国际法的专业敏感性和物质实践中的这些变化，并批判性地评估了支撑其的“风险”的“新规范架构”。正是通过深入了解熟悉的教义困境与现实的律师实践之间的脱节——一个充满意想不到的规则和惯例的空间——国际组织法的关键性质的重新振兴、重新定位和重新理论化才能发生。
Taking on this Symposium’s invitation to rethink international organizations law by focusing on scholars and practitioners outside the mainstream, this article explores and evaluates the legacy of Anne-Marie Leroy, the World Bank General Counsel from 2009 to 2016. In her attempt to trade the formal, rigid language of law for the deformalized routine of risk management – described as a ‘paradigm shift’ from ‘rules to principles’ – Leroy could be portrayed as an antipode to those who developed or nurtured the discipline of international organizations law. Yet it is precisely by focusing on figures working outside (and against) the diagrams of the discipline that we can gain a critical perspective on the evolving life of law in international institutions. The article specifically focuses on how Leroy’s paradigm shift sought to bypass, manage, and overcome problems of operational expansion and institutional accountability to the outside world – perhaps the two frontiers where the conceptual normative confidence of mainstream, functionalist approaches most manifestly hit their limits. In both domains, the article shows, the principled (occasionally prohibitive) posture of liberal legalism instilled by some of Leroy’s predecessors had to be traded for an attitude of ‘agility’ and enhanced ‘risk appetite’. This article traces these changes in the professional sensibility and material practice of international law(yering) and critically evaluates the ‘new normative architecture’ of ‘risk’ that underpins it. It is by dwelling in this disjunction between familiar doctrinal dilemmas and mundane material practices of lawyering – a space teeming with unexpected rules and routines – that a critical reinvigoration, reorientation, and re-theorization of international organizations law can emerge.
05. 对国际法律地位的探寻：论芬恩·赛耶斯特德和国际组织法理论化的挑战
作者：
费尔南多·卢萨·博尔丁(Fernando Lusa Bordin)，英国剑桥大学法学院副教授
摘要：
国际组织出现几十年后，它们的国际法律地位的问题——即它们参与国际法律体系的条件——仍然是争论的一个话题。在所有为这场争辩做出贡献的学者中，因其对一般国际法下的国际组织是什么，以及它们因此拥有的国际权利、义务和能力是什么等问题，芬恩·塞耶斯泰德提出了前瞻性、复杂性和坚定的解释，并脱颖而出。然而，塞耶斯泰德被认为是一位奇怪固执的左翼学者，其作品经常被指名道姓地探讨，却很少被适当的处理。本文强调了塞耶斯泰德对国际组织理论的宝贵贡献，该理论的优点之一是感知到了国际实践的发展方向。在成为更有影响力的学者方面，本文也思考塞耶斯泰德相对成功的缺失如何被视为一个警示故事，因为在寻求国际法律地位的过程中存在着他的研究成果无法应对的经验、概念和规范挑战。
After so many decades since the emergence of international organizations, the question of their international legal status – the terms on which they participate in the international legal system – remains the subject of debate. Among all the scholars that have contributed to this debate, Finn Seyersted stands out for having offered a forward-looking, sophisticated and uncompromising account of what international organizations are under general international law and of what international rights, obligations and capacities they consequently possess. Yet Seyersted is perceived as a left-field scholar with a bee in his bonnet. His work is often name-checked but rarely engaged with properly. This article highlights Seyersted’s invaluable contribution to the theory of international organizations, which has the merit, among others, of having sensed the direction in which international practice was going. It also ponders how Seyersted’s relative lack of success in becoming a more influential scholar can be viewed as a cautionary tale, for there are empirical, conceptual and normative challenges in the quest for international legal status that his work was not able to meet.
06. 从《欧洲原子能共同体条约》的起草历史重新审视2005年委员会诉联合王国案判决
作者：
莎拉·拉坦齐(Sarah Lattanzi)，意大利那不勒斯大学欧盟法初级研究员、临时助理教授
摘要：
本文提供了“旧案新观”的一个新例。根据对欧洲联盟（欧盟）历史档案的研究，本文审视了2005年欧盟委员会诉联合王国一案。该档案拥有许多《建立欧洲原子能共同体条约》准备工作文件，这些文件在对条约的起草历史进行梳理和对条文的解释方面会非常有帮助。在欧盟委员会诉联合王国一案中，参与谈判进程的当事方非常依赖这些准备工作文件，欧洲联盟法院本身也对所涉条款进行了历史解释。将该案作为典型例子，本文深入探讨了与使用准备工作文件作为解释手段有关的问题，以及在执行阐明缔约方原始意愿和形成这一意愿的历史背景的任务方面，法官和历史学家各自的作用。
This article provides a new example of a ‘fresh look at an old case’. It examines the 2005 Commission v. United Kingdom case in light of a study conducted using the Historical Archives of the European Union. The historical holdings contain many travaux préparatoires of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Community. These documents can be very useful for reconstructing the drafting history of the founding treaties and developing a historical interpretation of their provisions. In Commission v. United Kingdom, the same parties that participated in the negotiation process relied on these travaux préparatoires, and the Court of Justice of the European Union itself engaged in a historical interpretation of the provisions at stake. Taking this case as an example, this article delves into questions pertaining to the use of travaux préparatoires as a means of interpretation and the respective role of judge and historians in performing the task of shedding light on the original will of the contracting parties and on the historical context in which this will was shaped.
07. 国际法的包容性或排他性
作者：
滕达伊·阿丘梅(E Tendayi Achiume)，美国加州大学洛杉矶分校法学院教授、南非比勒陀利亚大学法学系特聘教授
摘要：
我从美国洛杉矶远程加入你们，并且我首先想要承认加布里埃利诺-通瓦人是这片传统的、祖传的、未割让的领土的原住民。首先关于这片土地的承认，从某种意义上说，我已经预示了我对本届会议上向我们小组成员提出的问题的思考，即国际法的内部性和排他性。一个人可以去往洛杉矶，事实上，一个人甚至可以在洛杉矶生活，但非常明显的是，国际法的包容和排斥原则已经塑造这个城市的地理、人口、轨迹以及毫不夸张地说，这个城市的全部。但对于这片土地的传统守护者，加布里埃利诺-通瓦人来说，国际法的包容性和排他性，从其排除非欧洲人获得主权地位的历史，其允许剥夺和排斥财产权制度，其目前虽然要求前奴隶主和法国等前殖民国家需支付赔偿，却仍无法让殖民统治、种族灭绝和奴役的赔偿得到实际性质的支付来看，包容和排斥显然是国际法的核心。
I am joining you remotely from Los Angeles, in the United States, and I would like to begin by acknowledging my presence on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Gabrielino-Tongva, the peoples indigenous to this territory. In beginning with a land acknowledgment, there is a sense in which I have foreshadowed my reflections on the questions posed to us panelists in this session, on the in- and exclusiveness of international law. One could visit Los Angeles, and indeed one could even live in Los Angeles, but remain entirely oblivious to the ways in which doctrines of inclusion and exclusion in international law have shaped its geography, its demography, its trajectory and, without exaggeration, the totality of this city. But for the Gabrielino-Tongva, however, the indigenous peoples who are the traditional caretakers of this land, the inclusiveness and exclusiveness of international law, its history of excluding non-Europeans for sovereign status, its doctrine of discovery that permitted dispossession and exclusion from property regimes, its ongoing failure to deliver reparations for colonial domination, genocide and enslavement, notwithstanding reparations that were paid to former enslavers and to former colonial powers such as France, inclusion and exclusion quite obviously sit at the very core of international law.
08. 贪婪与不满：冲突时期的公司、国家和国际投资法
作者：
马夫卢达·萨托罗娃(Mavluda Sattorova)，英国利物浦大学法律与社会正义学院教授
摘要：
对现实生活中的人来说，冲突会带来破坏和流离失所。对于经常四处寻求商业机会的外国投资者来说，冲突不仅是一个伴生因素，而且是国际投资法的构思和形成的过程中的一个关键因素。本文旨在揭示在冲突时期支撑起外国公司、国家和当地社区之间关系的一些基本和首要的主题。通过聚焦于公司在冲突局势中扮演的独特角色——作为受害者、贡献者、受益人、肇事者和共犯——本文阐明国际法的复杂起源、偏见和共谋，并强调对长期缺乏有效途径的公司责任的日益担忧。
For those on the ground, conflict brings about devastation and displacement. For foreign investors who frequently seek commercial opportunities far and wide, conflict is not just a fellow traveller but also a crucial element of the environment in which international investment law was conceived and later took shape. This review essay seeks to uncover some of the fundamental and overarching themes underpinning the relationships between foreign corporations, states and local communities in times of conflict. By focusing on the distinct roles played by the corporation in situations of conflict – as a victim, contributor, beneficiary, perpetrator and accomplice – the essay aims to cast light on international law’s troublesome origins, biases and complicities and to highlight a growing concern over the enduring lack of effective avenues for corporate accountability.
以上观点不代表本平台立场
本推文图片转自期刊网站，若有侵权，请联系删除
“法眼看南海”由暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院徐奇副教授及其团队运营，旨在介绍和分析与国际法和南海问题有关的信息动态和名家学说
联系邮箱：xuqi2019@jnu.edu.cn
译者|李庆贺，中国政法大学国际法学院研究生
初审|陈嘉怡，暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院研究生
终审|张孟雪，暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院研究生
图文编辑| 周雅湉 暨南大学外国语学院本科生
审校| 徐奇 暨南大学法学院/知识产权学院讲师
欢迎关注、转发或分享朋友圈，如需转载独家刊文请注明“文章转自法眼看南海公众号”