查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- The International Court of Justice in the Context of the International Law, Human Rights Regimes and Taiwan's Standing Before the International Court of Justice
- 憲法解釋與「可訟性」原則初探--以釋字第520號解釋為例
- 末代皇帝遠東國際法庭作證記
- 國際法庭訪問記
- 非聯合國會員國之國際法院當事國適格性--比較分析與臺灣借鏡
- 論偵查方法及其取得證據之適格性
- 傀儡皇帝的自由:追述溥儀出席東京國際法庭作證記
- 從美國Myriad案探討經分離DNA之專利適格性
- 方興未艾之電子商務發明專利適格性的爭議--從智慧財產法院一○一年度民專上更(二)字第五號民事判決談起
- 由美國Bilski v. Kappos案探討商業方法發明之專利適格性
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | The International Court of Justice in the Context of the International Law, Human Rights Regimes and Taiwan's Standing Before the International Court of Justice=國際法庭裏有關國際法、人權、及臺灣適格性之研究 |
---|---|
作 者 | 葉錦鴻; | 書刊名 | 臺北大學法學論叢 |
卷 期 | 50 2002.06[民91.06] |
頁 次 | 頁199-228 |
分類號 | 578.155 |
關鍵詞 | 國際法庭; 適格性; 臺灣的適格性; 特別協訂管轄權(國際法庭規約第三十六條第一項); 強制管轄權(國際法庭規約第三十六條第二項); 國際法庭規約第三十五條第二項; International court of justice; Standing; Taiwan's standing; Special agreements jurisdiction; Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute; Compulsory jurisdiction; Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute; Article 35 (2) of the ICJ Statute; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 國際法庭 ( International Court of Justice)成立於1945年,是聯合國的主要司法機構。本文主要以國際法庭所做的判決為基礎,來研究在國際法庭提起訴訟時,所涉及的程序 (Procedural) 問題、實質 (Substantive) 問題及當事人適格性 (Standing) 問題;另,特將台灣在國際法庭的適格性做一分析研究。本文指出由於台灣並非聯合國的會員國,而中共又為安理會的成員,台灣要進入國際法庭並非易事。所幸,聯合國安全理事會1946年第九號決議案為台灣進入國際法庭開啟了一盞明燈。依規約第三十五條第二項及該第九號決議,台灣如向國際法庭聲明願意接受其管轄,台灣即可進入國際法庭程序,成為訴訟當事國。最後,本文認為雖然現今有許多解決人權爭議的法庭,例如歐洲人權法庭 (European Court of Human Rights),中美洲人權法庭 (Inter-American Court on Human rights);然,分析國際法庭規約,國際法庭乃解決人權問題最適當的法庭。 |
英文摘要 | The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was created with the inclusion of the Statute of the International Court of Justice in the United Nations Charter signing of June 1945. The paper examines the procedural aspects, substantive aspects and standing issues while a case is brought before the ICJ. Al1 the examinations are based on the decisions that the ICJ has found. Regarding the standing issue, Taiwan’s standing before the ICJ proceeding is specially discussed and analyzed. According to the analysis, since Taiwan is not a member of United Nations and China is one of the members of the Security Council, it is not easy for Taiwan to access ICJ. However, under Article 35 (2) of the ICJ Statute and Security Council resolution 9 (1946), Taiwan could have sanding before the ICJ proceeding if Taiwan deposited a declaration with the Court’s Register accepting the Court’s jurisdiction and the Statute. Finally, the paper considers that although there are some forums that could adjudicate human rights disputes, such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter American Courts on Human Rights, the ICJ is the best forum to resolve the human rights disputes in terms of the ICJ Statute. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。