| 余民才.中菲南海争端仲裁庭的法律问题[J].国际安全研究,2013,(5):21-35 |
| 中菲南海争端仲裁庭的法律问题 |
| Legal Issues of the China-Philippines Arbitral Tribunal for the South China Sea Dispute |
| 修订日期：2013-06-25 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 中菲仲裁庭 南海争端 南海各方行为宣言 参与后续仲裁程序 |
| 英文关键词: China-Philippines Arbitral Tribunal in South China Sea , the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, participation in the following-up arbitral proceedings |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1982 |
| 全文下载次数: 1415 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 菲律宾无视它与中国之间《南海各方行为宣言》的存在与有效性，以变相的岛礁主权争端和海洋划界争端的方式，单方面提起南海争端强制仲裁。虽然此举不符合《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称《公约》）规定的条件，但并不意味着菲律宾启动该程序具有非法性。即使中国不接受该仲裁和不参与仲裁程序，也不影响中菲仲裁庭的合法成立及其程序的合法性与对中国不利裁决的有效性。因此，对待仲裁庭的后续书面程序和口诉程序，中国是维持现行政策还是重新参与，是值得重新评估的一个问题。重新参与后续程序应该是中国的一个适当政策选择。因为参与所面临的最大挑战——南海“断续线”的法律地位——可以通过反驳《公约》对之不适用从而避免澄清其地位的棘手问题。更重要的是，依据“南方蓝鳍金枪鱼案”仲裁庭的推理与裁决和中国2006年声明以及国际海洋划界与外大陆架划界案例，《南海各方行为宣言》属于《公约》第281条第1款中排除附件7强制仲裁的“协议”，菲律宾的大部分实体请求属于不可裁决事项，因而仲裁庭应该裁定对本争端无管辖权或不可受理。即使中国继续奉行不参与政策，也不应该无所作为。中国可以采取“间接参与”的方式，在仲裁庭开始书面程序后，公开发表一份正式书面文件，以全面反对菲律宾提起仲裁和反对仲裁庭对争端的管辖权和可受理性。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| The Philippines’ unilateral initiation of the compulsory arbitration on the South China Sea dispute against China, by means of the disguised maritime boundary delimitation dispute concurrently involving the unsettled sovereignty over certain islands and reefs and of full denial of the present and the validity of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) between them, is incompatible with the requirements set out under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, it does not mean that the initiation of such proceedings by the Philippines is illegal in nature. China’s non-acceptance of the arbitration and default of the participation in the arbitral proceedings does not affect the lawful establishment of the China-Philippines Arbitral Tribunal and the legitimacy of its proceedings as well as the validity of the arbitral award thereby unfavorable to China. Therefore, whether China maintains its current policy or re-participates in the following-up proceedings by the Arbitral Tribunal is an issue worthy of reevaluating. Re-participation ought to be a right choice of policy for China because the legal status of the South China Sea “dotted line” could be argued that the Convention is inapplicable so as to avoid the thorny issue of clarifying its legal status. More important, pursuant to the Southern Bluefin Tuna case Annex VII arbitral tribunal and the 2006 Chinese Declaration, as well as cases related to maritime boundary delimitation or establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles, the DOC falls within the “agreement” in article 281(1) of the Convention that precludes the Annex VII compulsory arbitration, and the most parts of the Philippines’ claims are not justiciable; consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal should decide that it has no jurisdiction or inadmissibility on the present dispute. Even if continuing to purse its policy of non-participation, by means of “indirect participation”, China could publish a formal document after the arbitral tribunal begins its written proceedings that comprehensively rejects the request of the Philippines and objects to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and admissibility on the dispute. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|