{"title":"确定同意管辖权的模棱两可或明确的障碍","authors":"Bjørn Kunoy","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The legal consequence of the principle of sovereign equality is the fact that the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals in inter-State disputes is contingent on consent of the disputing States. Consent to jurisdiction may be expressed in different forms but requires in each instance the demonstration of unequivocal acceptance of consent. The case law is abundant on and under which circumstances consent can be considered present. Interestingly, the criteria that are set forward in the case law appear to present two different standards for determining whether consent to jurisdiction has been expressed. This arises unequivocally in the English and French texts of the relevant judicial decisions.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Equivocal or Unequivocal Bar for Determining Consent to Jurisdiction\",\"authors\":\"Bjørn Kunoy\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnlids/idab021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The legal consequence of the principle of sovereign equality is the fact that the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals in inter-State disputes is contingent on consent of the disputing States. Consent to jurisdiction may be expressed in different forms but requires in each instance the demonstration of unequivocal acceptance of consent. The case law is abundant on and under which circumstances consent can be considered present. Interestingly, the criteria that are set forward in the case law appear to present two different standards for determining whether consent to jurisdiction has been expressed. This arises unequivocally in the English and French texts of the relevant judicial decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Dispute Settlement\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Dispute Settlement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab021\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
An Equivocal or Unequivocal Bar for Determining Consent to Jurisdiction
The legal consequence of the principle of sovereign equality is the fact that the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals in inter-State disputes is contingent on consent of the disputing States. Consent to jurisdiction may be expressed in different forms but requires in each instance the demonstration of unequivocal acceptance of consent. The case law is abundant on and under which circumstances consent can be considered present. Interestingly, the criteria that are set forward in the case law appear to present two different standards for determining whether consent to jurisdiction has been expressed. This arises unequivocally in the English and French texts of the relevant judicial decisions.