Why China Says No to the Arbitration on the South China Sea

中国为什么对南海仲裁案说不

 

Fu Ying

傅莹

 

July 10, 2016

2016年7月10日

 

The Hague tribunal in the much-discussed South China Sea arbitration case between China and the Philippines has notified the world that it will issue a final verdict on July 12. Many Western countries seem to think they already know the result of the arbitration – that China will lose. They have already started urging China to accept the ruling. But Beijing’s position is clear: no acceptance, no participation, no recognition, and no implementation. There is solid international legal basis for China to oppose this case. And by doing so, China is not only safeguarding its national interests, but also protecting the integrity and legitimacy of the international maritime order.

 

菲律宾单方提起的南海仲裁案备受关注，海牙仲裁庭已经宣布将于7月12日公布最终裁决结果。一些西方国家和媒体似乎知晓裁决结果将对中国不利，早早开始敦促中方接受裁决。但中国对仲裁案的立场十分明确，即“不接受、不参与、不承认、不执行”。中国反对南海仲裁案有充分的国际法理依据。中国这样做不仅是在维护自身的国家利益，也是在捍卫国际海洋秩序的完整性和合法性。

 

Why does China refuse to accept and participate in the proceedings of this tribunal, being heard at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague? Because China, as a sovereign state, is entitled to choose its preferred means of dispute resolution – a legitimate right under international law. Moreover, the Philippines’ case is inherently flawed and illegitimated by such irregularities as the country’s abuse of the dispute settlement procedures, its distortion of concepts, and its deliberate disguise of the real nature of the disputes.

 

为什么中国拒绝接受和参与仲裁程序？因为中国作为主权国家，有权选择解决争议的方式，这是国际法赋予主权国家的合法权利。同时也是因为菲律宾单方提起的南海仲裁案存在滥用争端解决程序、偷换概念和刻意掩盖争议实质的诸多问题，自始就存在瑕疵，因此缺乏合法性。

 

The Philippines’ arbitration relates to the dispute over the sovereignty of islands and reefs in the South China Sea, and to maritime delimitation. But these territorial issues are not regulated by – and therefore beyond the scope of – the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). And in 2006, China declared it would exclude “disputes concerning maritime delimitation” from compulsory arbitration, under Article 298 of UNCLOS. Second, the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of compulsory arbitration did not meet UNCLOS preconditions for such initiation. The “no arbitration without the existence of a dispute” principle requires that before resorting to compulsory arbitration, there must have existed a real dispute between the parties. However, China has not yet presented specific claims with individual islands: Instead, it has always treated them as part of its Zhongsha Islands or Nansha Islands in the South China Sea.

 

首先，菲律宾提起仲裁的诉求涉及与中国一些岛礁争议和两国之间的海域划界问题。领土主权问题不属于《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称《公约》）调整范围;对于海域划界问题，中国已于2006年依据《公约》298条规定作出排除性声明，因而不再接受使用强制争端解决程序。

 

第二，菲方单方面提起的强制仲裁未满足《公约》规定的前置条件。根据“无争议不仲裁”的原则，提起任何强制仲裁前，双方就仲裁事项须确实存在争议。但是，例如菲律宾在仲裁中提出关于单个岛礁法律地位的问题，而中方从未就单个岛礁主张海洋权益，是一直将其当作群岛的组成部分。

 

UNCLOS

转载请注明出处。