Ministry explain why the arbitration case of South China Sea in violation of international law in the Philippines | | | international law of arbitration _ the South China Sea news

Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, May 12-title: detailed explanation of Director of the Law Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines referred to arbitration case why the South China Sea in violation of international law

Xinhua reporters Wu Yue

Director of the Department of Treaty and law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Xu Hong 12th explained to the media the Philippines raised the South China Sea international law aspects of the arbitration case, stresses that the arbitral tribunal does not have any legal effect, have no jurisdiction over the case, has no right to make a ruling.

Xu Hong said at a press briefing held on the same day, the peaceful settlement of international disputes is one of the most important principles of international law, but the ways of peaceful settlement of disputes, compulsory arbitration is just one of them. Moreover, compared with negotiation, mandatory arbitration is a secondary or supplementary means, its application is conditional, you need at least the following four conditions are met:

--First, to submit to arbitration matters beyond the United Nations law of the Sea Convention, compulsory arbitration could not be applied. Philippines to submit to arbitration is in essence part of the territorial sovereignty of Islands and reefs of South China Sea, is beyond the scope of application of the Convention and therefore could not initiate compulsory arbitration, the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction.

"On January 23, 2013, the Philippines started arbitration proceedings on the second day publishing a file, clear the purpose of arbitration is called protection of the territory and sovereignty of the country. Already speak out true intentions in the Philippines, we don′t understand why the Tribunal would also like to ignore, but also to cover up for the Philippine side. "Xu Hong said.

--Secondly, disputes relating to maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military or law enforcement activities, the United Nations Convention on the law of the State party has the right to declare that it does not accept compulsory arbitration. This exclusion also has the force of law for other States parties. This dispute has been ruled out of a State, other States may be instituted, jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal had no right to.

Xu Hong said the arbitration related matters, such as the determination of the legal status of Islands and maritime rights, constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation. Back in 2006, the Chinese Government on the basis of the United Nations Convention on the law of the relevant provisions of Article No. 298, exclusions of compulsory arbitration declared that it shall not initiate an arbitration so the Philippines.

--Third, if the parties choose other ways to solve the dispute, should not initiate compulsory arbitration, the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction.

In November 2002, China and ASEAN countries, including the Philippines signed the Declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea, the fourth article "by the sovereign States directly concerned through friendly consultations and negotiations, to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes in a peaceful manner." "This means that the Philippines has no right to unilateral recourse to arbitration. "Xu Hong said.

--Finally, parties have an obligation to exchange views on the dispute. If the parties did not comply with the obligation to exchange views, it should not initiate compulsory arbitration, the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction. While the Philippines does not make the dispute settlement obligations to exchange views with the Chinese side.

Xu Hong said that these four conditions are actually party to the United Nations Convention on the law of the arbitration, the arbitral tribunal to exercise jurisdiction "four threshold" is, balanced package of provisions should be fully and completely be understood and applied.

"According to the above criteria to measure the Philippines unilaterally referred to arbitration, is not difficult to see that it is a violation of international law, is a typical abuse of the Convention. Accordingly, this arbitration case should not exist from the very beginning. "Xu Hong said.

Xu Hong said, the arbitral tribunal did not uphold the principle of fair and objective stance, but misinterpret the provisions of the Convention, catering to the Philippine side argued that violation should be based on facts and the fundamental principle of law that has jurisdiction over the conclusion, made an unconvincing on the question of jurisdiction of the decision, the decision is not valid in international law, China, of course, is not recognized.

"Arbitration in the Philippines, helped in some countries, are not for the settlement of disputes in good faith, apparently another figure. "He said.

Responsible editor: Wang Hao

Article keywords:
South China Sea arbitration law
I want feedback
Save a Web page
Xinhua News Agency

外交部详解为何菲律宾南海仲裁案违反国际法|南海|仲裁|国际法_新闻资讯

　　新华社北京5月12日电题：外交部条法司司长详解菲律宾所提南海仲裁案为何违反国际法

　　新华社记者 伍岳

　　外交部条约法律司司长徐宏12日向中外媒体阐释了菲律宾所提南海仲裁案所涉国际法问题，强调有关仲裁庭不具任何法律效力，对这个案件没有管辖权，无权作出裁决。

　　徐宏在当日举行的吹风会上说，和平解决国际争端是国际法的一项重要原则，但和平解决争端的方式多种多样，强制仲裁只是其中之一。而且，与谈判协商等方式相比，强制仲裁是次要的、补充性方式，它的适用是有条件的，至少需要满足以下四个条件：

　　——首先，提请仲裁的有关事项如果超出了《联合国海洋法公约》规定，就不能采用强制仲裁。菲律宾提请仲裁的实质是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题，已经超出了公约的适用范围，因此不能提起强制仲裁，仲裁庭也没有管辖权。

　　“2013年1月23日，菲律宾在启动仲裁程序的第二天发布了一个文件，明确把提请仲裁的目的称作保护国家领土和主权。菲律宾早已把真实意图讲了出来，我们不明白为什么仲裁庭还要置若罔闻，还要替菲方掩饰。”徐宏说。

　　——其次，如果有关争端涉及海域划界、历史性海湾或所有权、军事活动或执法活动等，《联合国海洋法公约》的缔约国有权声明不接受强制仲裁。这种排除对于其他缔约国而言也具有法律效力。对于上述已被一国排除的争端，其他国家不得提起，仲裁庭也无权管辖。

　　徐宏说，此次提请仲裁的有关事项，比如对岛礁法律地位和海洋权益的认定，已经构成海域划界不可分割的组成部分。早在2006年，中国政府就依据《联合国海洋法公约》第298条有关规定，作出排除强制性仲裁的政府声明，因此菲方不得提起仲裁。

　　——第三，如果当事方自行选择了其他方法解决有关争端，不应再提起强制仲裁，仲裁庭也没有管辖权。

　　2002年11月，中国同包括菲律宾在内的东盟国家签署《南海各方行为宣言》，其第四条明确规定“由直接有关的主权国家通过友好磋商和谈判，以和平方式解决它们的领土和管辖权争端”。“这意味着菲律宾无权单方面提请仲裁。”徐宏说。

　　——第四，当事方有义务先就争端解决方式交换意见。如果当事方没有履行交换意见的义务，就不应提起强制仲裁，仲裁庭也没有管辖权。而菲律宾并没有尽到就争端解决方式与中方交换意见的义务。

　　徐宏表示，上述四个条件实际上是《联合国海洋法公约》缔约国提起仲裁、仲裁庭行使管辖权的“四道门槛”，是一揽子、平衡的规定，应该全面、完整地加以理解和适用。

　　“根据上述条件来衡量菲律宾单方面所提的仲裁，不难看出其已违反了国际法，属于典型的滥用公约。因此，这个仲裁案自始就不应该存在。”徐宏说。

　　徐宏表示，仲裁庭并没有秉持公正、客观的立场，而是曲解公约规定，迎合菲方主张，违背了应基于事实和法律得出具有管辖权结论的根本原则，在管辖权问题上作出了很难令人信服的裁决，这个裁决在国际法上是无效的，中国当然不予承认。

　　“菲律宾提起仲裁，一些国家推波助澜，都不是为了真诚地解决争端，显然另有所图。”他说。

责任编辑：王浩成

文章关键词：
南海 仲裁 国际法
我要反馈
保存网页
新华社