Scholar: China′s tactics on how to deal with the "South China Sea Arbitration" Nanhai | | | Government arbitration _ news
Original title: Yu Zhirong: "South China Sea Arbitration", tactics to deal with
The Philippines proposed the so-called "sea arbitration" announce "final decision" soon, official China Taiping Island recently proposed be referred to the Permanent Court of arbitration in the Hague. In this regard, we should be despised on the strategy, but to mobilize all forces, tactical importance "final decision" made efforts to change the relatively passive posture of international public opinion.
The best policy is to induce or force the Philippine initiative to withdraw, is also the most difficult one. Would consider organizing experts and scholars and Government officials to the Philippines to work with reason, emotional appeals. Objects should include the Philippine Government led by President Benigno Aquino III sector, groups of candidates for the next President, and the country′s influential people in China. However, the most difficult part is most likely to be breached, the most vulnerable place, as long as the proper methods, proper, not without hope of success and possible.
If the way is not possible, to initiate the second programme, through the mouth of the Philippines, possible extension of the Permanent Court of arbitration in the Hague announced that "a final decision", preferably to the Philippines after the new President took office. As a result, Sino-Philippine relations improved arbitration case, the two sides reached a settlement likely will increase.
In this process, we work with, including the Permanent Court of arbitration in the Hague of the international community to maintain contact. The current "South China Sea arbitration case" attitude of not accepting, not to participate in future does not perform "final judgement" is also a statutory right. But using the negative right to not having positive rights, does not mean not to speak, unreasonable, and the Permanent Court of arbitration in the Hague and its judges to do it. Without violating the principle of the premise, channels and means of communication, contact directly with the judge still exists: we can through the non-governmental international academic seminar, expressing ideas, opinions, prompted the judge to reconsider, or to consider related issues.
What is meant by "should not go against the principle of"? A is Philippines violation sea parties behavior Declaration fourth article provides, no proposed arbitration of qualification, so not legal not and trustworthy not reasonable; II is Philip party "sea arbitration case" by v content all involved sovereignty, and delimitation, and military, not is Hague standing Arbitration Court of jurisdiction range; three is this case obviously is United States in scenes manipulation, not normal of legal litigation case.
"South China Sea Arbitration" final solution not open around "nine line" legal status, the key lies in whether China "nine lines" in the South China Sea delimitation, "nine lines" and the United Nations Convention on the law of contradiction and confrontations, and irreconcilable, and is unifying, inclusive, to reconcile. If we are unable to "nine lines" legitimacy, "nine lines" feasibility of delimitation and "nine lines" connotation of historic note make more international persuasion, similar to the "arbitration case" cannot be avoided.
Any situation Xia, China are should insisted "nine paragraph line" is sea jurisdiction waters of external border line: on line within island has sovereignty and can exercise all dominated right; on line within Shang covered water and sea bed subsoil has sovereignty right and jurisdiction right, others enjoys over flew over the free, and sea sailing free and laying Harbour cable pipeline of free, and advance application by China Government approved of others can to sea sea bed and subsoil exploration development Harbour resources. Maritime delimitation between China and the South China Sea neighbouring countries must be "nine lines", based in the line Islands, the overlying water, sea-bed and subsoil of interpretation can be used of the Convention on the legal status of territorial sea system, the system of exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf system, but references to the latter two must exclude the concept of distance of 200 nautical miles. (The author is a researcher at the development research center of China National offshore)
Crack the South China Sea arbitration case has two programs: hand made Aquino the withdrawal
Responsible editor: Wang Hao
Article keywords: Nanhai Government of arbitration
I want feedback
Save a Web page
Global times
学者：中国战术上如何应对“南海仲裁”|南海|仲裁|政府_新闻资讯
原标题：郁志荣：“南海仲裁”，战术上如何应对
菲律宾提出的所谓“南海仲裁案”宣布“最后裁决”在即，菲官方日前又提出将我国太平岛交由海牙常设仲裁法院。对此，我们尽管应在战略上予以藐视，但须动员一切力量，在战术上给予重视，“最终裁决”前做出最大努力，改变目前相对被动的国际舆论态势。
上上策是促使或迫使菲律宾主动撤诉，也是难度最大的一招。可考虑组织专家学者及政府官员对菲国做工作，晓之以理，动之以情。工作对象应包括阿基诺三世总统为首的菲律宾政府部门、下届总统的候选人群，以及菲律宾国内有影响的有识之士。然而，最困难的地方也是最容易被攻破的、最脆弱的地方，只要方法得当，时机恰到好处，不是没有成功的希望和可能。
若上上策无法实现，可适时启动第二方案，即通过菲律宾之口，尽可能延长海牙常设仲裁法院宣布“最终裁决”的时间，最好拖到菲律宾新总统上台之后。如此一来，中菲关系得到改善、双方就仲裁案达成和解的几率将会增加。
在这一过程中，我们应与包括海牙常设仲裁法院法官在内的国际社会保持接触。我国目前对“南 海仲裁案”采取不接受、不参与的态度，今后不执行“最终裁决”也是法定权利。但使用消极权利不等于不用积极权利，不等于不说话、不讲理，与海牙常设仲裁法 院及其法官对着干。在不违反原则的前提下，与法官直接沟通、接触的渠道和途径依然存在：我们可以通过非政府形式的国际学术讨论会，表达观点、意见，促使法 官重新认识或考虑相关问题。
何谓“不可违反之原则”？一是菲律宾违反《南海各方行为宣言》第四条规定，没有提出仲裁的资格，因此不合法不守信不讲理;二是 菲方“南海仲裁案”所诉内容全部涉及主权、划界、军事，不属海牙常设仲裁法院的管辖范围;三是本案明显是美国在幕后操纵，不是正常的法律诉讼案。
“南海仲裁案”的最终解决绕不开“九段线”的法律地位，关键在于中国能否用“九段线”对南海划界，“九段线”究竟与《联合国海洋法公约》是矛盾的、对立的、不可调和的，还是统一的、兼容的、可调和的。我们若不能对“九段线”存在的合法性、以“九段线”划界的可行性及“九段线”内涵的历史性做出更有国际说服力的说明，类似的“仲裁案”无法避免。
任何情况下，我国都应坚持“九段线”是南海管辖海域的外部边界线：对线内岛屿拥有 主权并可以行使全部支配权;对线内上覆水和海床底土拥有主权权利和管辖权，他国享有上空飞越自由、海上航行自由以及铺设海底电缆管道的自由、预先申请经我 国政府批准的他国可到南海海床和底土勘探开发海底资源。我国与南海邻国海上划界必须以“九段线”为基础，对线内的岛屿、上覆水、海床和底土的法律地位解释 可借用《公约》的领海制度、专属经济区制度以及大陆架制度，但引用后两项时须排除200海里的距离概念。(作者是中国海洋发展研究中心研究员)
中国破解南海仲裁案有两方案：可出手逼阿基诺撤诉
责任编辑：王浩成
文章关键词： 南海 仲裁 政府
我要反馈
保存网页
环球时报