1945年《聯合國憲章》賦予國家有義務針對彼此爭端協議和平解決爭端之方法，並且有權自由選擇和平方法解決爭端。1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》進一步確認《聯合國憲章》的和平解決爭端規範，並在尊重國家主權原則的前提下，特別載明一套關鍵維持世界海洋法制穩定存續的強制爭端解決規定。 中國大陸與東協各國於2002年針對日益激化的南海爭端簽訂《南海各方行為宣言》，其中明文重申《聯合國憲章》以及《海洋法公約》等國際法規範下的和平解決爭端原則。爾後，南海爭端隨著大國政治的發展與抗衡而顯得更加動盪，菲律賓進一步在2013年初將與中國大陸的南海爭端提交到《海洋法公約》強制仲裁程序來解決。因此，本文探討既存的《南海行為宣言》是否構成強制仲裁庭的管轄權障礙，來保障國家有自主選擇爭端解決方式的權利？又《南海行為宣言》在陸菲南海爭端中扮演何種和平解決爭端的角色，並且其意義與不足之處為何？ 在此問題意識下，首先就爭端標的進行分析，採取以國際關係及仲裁庭的角度來檢視陸菲南海爭端的性質。以國際關係的角度來檢視能發揮以下三個作用：一、理解爭端國在國際政治中的實力評估；二、檢視小國採取司法利用，以及與大國結盟以增加抗衡大國之談判籌碼及獲取法律正當性的策略；三、同時考量所涉爭端的政治與法律性質。另一方面，以仲裁庭的角度來檢視則能瞭知法院如何以國際公法原則來判斷爭端性質。 其次整理《海洋法公約》爭端解決機制以及《南海行為宣言》的內容，分析《海洋法公約》強制爭端解決機制設計的立意與《南海行為宣言》的制訂脈絡，得出《南海行為宣言》在《海洋法公約》的規範下僅為一載有「斡旋」精神的協議，爭端解決的責任仍舊交由簽署國解決。 此外，進一步再藉由仲裁庭的裁判，來分析《南海行為宣言》的法律性質。最後本文發現，中國大陸與東協各國所制訂的《南海行為宣言》僅為一重申既存和平解決規範精神的不具法律拘束力之文件，且未替簽署國創設必須由談判來解決爭端的義務。 最後，對於《南海行為宣言》作出整體評價，其彰顯具有國際法所承認之斡旋精神，展現其類似軟法性質的衝突預防之功能，然而《南海行為宣言》不具有法律實質拘束力，因而無法排除基於《海洋法公約》所提起的強制司法管轄。縱然如此，在「跨國法制歷程」概念中，《南海行為宣言》並非毫無建樹，其為透過各國「互動」而產生一行為模式之規範，然而《南海行為宣言》制訂後至仲裁庭啟動期間，並未使得相關國家對該規範進行有力「內化」的工程，使得該項規範的原則無法發揮效用。然此部分之推論尚待進一步詳細論證分析。 綜上所述，本文透過對於《南海行為宣言》之相關分析，認為我方在擬定未來南海政策時應在尊重各國主權原則的前提下，提升自身國家綜合實力以增加對外談判之籌碼，同時應增進國際法中關於和平解決爭端之研究，有效在各種方面落實國際法爭端解決規範的內化進程。

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

L’action en justice intentée en matière de Responsabilité Sociale de l’Entreprise révèle certaines limites lorsque les justiciables parties prenantes souhaitent protéger leurs intérêts. Par une juridicisation du droit de la RSE à mi-chemin entre la soft law et la hard law, l’action en justice des parties prenantes pourrait être véritablement efficiente. Dès lors, les mécanismes processuels traditionnels sont insuffisants lorsqu’il s’agit d’agir en justice dans ce domaine. C’est notamment à travers l’intérêt et la qualité à agir en justice des parties prenantes que des aménagements de la procédure civile vont être véritablement nécessaires. Des améliorations supplémentaires telles que l’instauration d’une action de groupe élargie au domaine de la RSE et davantage américanisée permettrait notamment aux parties prenantes d’assurer leur défense grâce à un dispositif nouveau très efficace. De plus et par la voie extrajudiciaire des modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges, les acteurs de la RSE peuvent également décider de porter le différend qui les oppose hors de la connaissance du juge étatique. Ce choix d’action peut être révélateur d’une préférence pour une justice davantage négociée. Ces propositions semblent être indispensables à la mise en œuvre d’une action en justice efficace en matière de RSE. Les parties prenantes pourront alors agir en justice de manière inédite afin de parachever leur protection. Les nécessités juridiques et sociales actuelles semblent ainsi faire évoluer le droit afin que les parties prenantes puissent bénéficier d’une action en justice considérée comme un véritable contre-pouvoir face à l’entreprise. / Legal actions brought to court concerning Corporate Social Responsability reveal certain limits when litigants’ stakeholders wish to protect their interests. The Corporate Social Responsability law falls between soft law and hard law. Going through CSR law’s judicalization could really make litigation of stakeholders efficient. Usual processual mechanisms are insufficient once an action has to be brought to court dealing with CSR. The civil procedure will need some changes, specifically relating to legal standing and stakeholder interest. Some added improvement would allow stakeholders to ensure their legal defence thanks to this new and efficient legal device. The setting up of a collective action including a CSR with more resemblance to the American one would represent one such improvement. Moreover, stakeholders can decide to settle the matter out-of-court with an extrajudicial approach, using alternative dispute resolution. This choice could amount to a more negotiated inflection of justice. These proposals seem to be necessary to settle an efficient legal action concerning CSR. In this way stakeholders will be able to litigate in a whole new way in order to consolidate their protection. Current legal and social needs seem to make the law evolve so that stakeholders benefit from a legal action which can be considered as a real countervailing power against a corporation.