People's Daily: S. China Sea arbitration case is just political farce

人民日报:南海仲裁案不过是场政治闹剧

Source
China Military Online
Editor
Yao Jianing
Time
2016-07-13

菲律宾南海仲裁案仲裁庭所作所为,从一开始就偏离公正客观方向,沦为某些国家和人士的私器。

BEIJING, July 13 (ChinaMil) -- The arbitral tribunal of the South China Sea arbitration initiated at the request of the Philippines was away from the fair and objective direction at the beginning, falling into a private tool of some countries and persons.

翻开7月12日公布的所谓仲裁文书会发现,菲律宾所有非法声索,一概被“落实”为仲裁结果,如此“原汁原味”与“予取予求”,实际上是向世人暴露了所谓仲裁庭既无任何合法性质,也无任何公正可言,是彻头彻尾的一场政治闹剧。

According to the so-called arbitration documents released on July 12, all illegal claims by the Philippines were strictly "implemented" as arbitration results. This "submissive" and "spoiling" attitude actually proves that the tribunal is illegal and injustice and the arbitration is completely a political farce.

所谓菲律宾南海仲裁案是披着法律外衣的政治挑衅,其实质是否定中国南海岛礁主权和海洋权益。当法律成为被政治操纵的工具,法律的公正性便荡然无存。仔细梳理仲裁庭在审案判案过程中的诸多“高光”表现,便不难发现其早已沦为外部势力代理人。

The so-called arbitration is a political provocation in the cloak of law, and its essence is to deny China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and reefs and maritime rights and interests.

When the law becomes a tool of political manipulation, the impartiality of the law will be gone. If we take a closer look at the actions of this arbitration tribunal, it is easy to find that it had become an agent of external forces.

在该案中,菲律宾阿基诺三世政府诉求的核心之一,是要求仲裁庭裁判中国历史性权利违反1982年《联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称《公约》),试图否定中国南海断续线,进而否定中国在南海的海洋权利。

One of the core demands of the administration of former Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino III is to ask the tribunal to judge that China’s historical rights violate the 1982 "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention"), in order to deny the South China Sea intermittent line, and further deny China’ smaritime rights in the South China Sea.

仲裁庭为了服务幕后推手的这一目标,不惜违背条约解释的基本规则,无视其他与《公约》具有同样效力的国际习惯法规则。中国在南海享有历史性权利,这一权利先于《公约》,并且依一般国际法形成。综观国际实践,国家通过长期实践取得的历史性权利复杂多样。正因如此,在《公约》起草和形成过程中,并未对历史性权利作出统一规定,也未说要以《公约》规定替代历史性权利。相反,《公约》将其留待由一般国际法规范,并在《公约》中多处体现对历史性权利的尊重。比如,《公约》在第298条对强制管辖的排除性条款中明确把“历史性所有权”排除在外。仲裁庭强行将历史性权利纳入《公约》的解释或适用范围,超越《公约》赋予仲裁庭的裁判授权。正是因为历史性权利本就不属于《公约》调整的范畴,仲裁庭只能笼统认定菲相关诉求构成涉及《公约》解释或适用的争端,但无法说明有关争端到底涉及《公约》哪一条哪一款,只能是牵强附会,难以服人。

To serve the driving force behind, the arbitration tribunal did not hesitate to violate the basic rules of treaty interpretation and ignored other customary international laws that have the same effect with the Convention.

China enjoys historical rights in the South China Sea. Such rights go before the "Convention" and are formed in accordance with general international law.

Looking at the international practice, the historical rights obtained through long-term practice are complex and diverse. For this reason, in the drafting and formation process of the "Convention", there are no unified regulations on historic rights, nor would it replace historical rights.

On the contrary, the Convention shows respect for historical rights. For example, the article 298 of the "Convention" explicitly excludes "historical ownership" in the exclusion clauses of compulsory jurisdiction.

However, the arbitral tribunal forced to include the historical rights in the interpretation or application of the Convention, which exceeds tribunal judge authorization endowed by the Convention.

It is precisely because the historic rights are not within the scope of the adjustment of the "Convention" and the tribunal can only rule that the Philippines’ claims relate to disputes of the interpretation or application of the Convention. But the tribunal was unable to find the exact clause in the Convention. This practice is far-fetched and is not convincing at all.

菲律宾阿基诺三世政府诉求的核心之二是要求仲裁庭判定中国南沙部分岛礁的法律地位。

The second core demand of the administration of former Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino III is to ask the tribunal to rule the legal status of some islands and reefs in China's Nansha Islands.

仲裁庭完全明白自己无权审理涉及领土主权问题的争议,但为了枉法裁判,对菲诉求在于否定中国领土主权的真实目的刻意选择性“失明”。事实却很清楚,菲律宾在启动仲裁程序当天,菲外交部就发布了一份仲裁程序问答文件,明确宣称本案是“为了保护我们国家的领土和海域”,强调“我们的行动是为了保卫我们的国家领土和海域”。据此可见,此案关乎领土主权这一不属于《公约》调整的事项。为此,仲裁庭故意回避主权问题,通过对中国南沙群岛“碎片化”处理的伎俩,扩权、越权,审理有关岛礁领土地位问题,这样做远远超出了所谓《公约》解释和适用问题。另外,包括宋斯在内的本案部分仲裁员,在本案中就岛礁法律地位与海洋划界之间的关系所持看法,与其本人此前长期所持观点完全相左。这一“自我背叛”显然很难单纯从学术和理论层面理解,让人无法不怀疑其法律良知,让人无法不怀疑仲裁庭的公正性。

The arbitral tribunal is fully aware that it has no rights to hear the dispute concerning territorial sovereignty. But it deliberately turned a blind eye to the Philippines’ demands to deny China's territorial sovereignty.

The fact is very clear. On the same day when the Philippines started arbitration proceedings, the Philippines' Department of Foreign Affairs issued a document on arbitration proceedings, stating clearly that the case is "to protect the territory and waters of our country" and "our actions aim to defend our national territory and waters." Accordingly, this is a case in respect of territorial sovereignty, which does not fall into the scope of the Convention.

However, the tribunal evaded the issue of sovereignty and proceeded with the trail on the territorial status of islands and reefs. This is far beyond the so-called interpretation and application of the Convention.

In addition, views on the relationship between the legal status of islands and reefs and maritime delimitation of some arbitrators in this case are completely contrary to their long-term point of view. This "self-betrayal" is obviously very difficult to understand from the academic and theoretical level. People cannot help but doubt arbitrators’ legal conscience and the impartiality of the tribunal.

同时,仲裁庭在整个审理和论证过程中完全背离了国际司法实践所秉持的程序正义,矛盾之处数不胜数。在这方面,中国国际法学会等多家学术机构已以专题报告形式对其提出质疑和批判。例如,仲裁庭预设结论,然后通过所谓“自由心证”来加以论证,实际上是一种“圆谎”。在援引相关国际仲裁案例时,刻意回避多数案例所证明的一般实践,仅采用对其有利、极具争议的个别案例或少数意见。在认定事实时,对有利于中国的事实或视而不见,或一带而过,故意贬低其权重。在采信证据上,无视证据的真实性、关联性和证明力问题,未能践行国际通行规则,偏听偏信,全盘倒向菲律宾。国际司法和仲裁的核心价值在于其公正客观性。作为匡扶正义的公器,它不能偏倒一方,否则就成为一方谋利的私器。反观本仲裁庭所作所为,显然从一开始就偏离这一方向,沦为某些国家和人士的私器,诚哉可悲。

At the same time, the contradictory trial and demonstration process of the arbitral tribunal is a complete departure from procedural justice in the practice of international justice.

In this regard, the Chinese Society of International Law and a number of academic institutions have published special reports to question and criticize the arbitral tribunal.

For example, the tribunal first preset conclusions, and then demonstrated it by the so-called "free proof." In invoking relevant international arbitration cases, the tribunal deliberately avoided common practice proved by most cases but only used controversial individual cases in its favor. The tribunal also ignored or deliberately belittled the weight of all the facts that favor China.

Moreover, the tribunal ignored authenticity, relevance and probative value of evidence, failed to practice international rules and favored the Philippines from the very beginning.

International judiciary and arbitration’s core values are fairness and objectivity. As a public tool to uphold justice, international judiciary and arbitration cannot take sides, otherwise, they will become a private tool.

Apparently, the tribunal deviated from this direction and become a private tool for some countries and persons in the first place. How pathetic it is!

临时拼凑起来的仲裁庭这个草台班子收场了。中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益在任何情况下都不受其所谓仲裁裁决的影响,中国不接受任何基于该仲裁裁决的主张和行动!

The so-called tribunal finally came to an end. China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea will not subject to the so-called impact of the award under any circumstances. China does not accept any claims and actions based on that arbitration award!

 

 

Related News

Continue...