"Nanhai arbitral" arbitration proceedings seriously biased _ news

Philippines unilaterally filed arbitration cases in the South seas is expected end of May or early June will publish the results. From the beginning of the end of October 2015 phase decisions, "South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal" has no justice at all, which makes the upcoming so-called arbitration results unconvincing. In my opinion, the "South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal" grave injustice is reflected in the following aspects:

First, the Constitution of the Tribunal and arbitrators specified there is suspicion of manipulation. Permit holder does not accept, does not participate in the stand, the Government cannot appoint their arbitrator. In view of the absence of a party to the case, selection of arbitrators and specify the required caution, but Japanese Shunji Yanai, President of the International Tribunal on the Diaoyu Island dispute the most serious, China and Japan relations very tense situation is not active avoidance, but in April 2013, Sri Lankan judge Pinto was designated as President of the arbitral tribunal. But then Pinto resigned judge worried the truth exposed, because his wife is Filipino. This link has to cast doubt on the transparency of the Arbitration Tribunal.

Secondly, it was designated "stands for" Chinese freak arbitrators voted for the Philippines. On August 25, 2006, the Chinese Government under the United Nations Convention on the law of Article No. 298 submitted written statements to the UN Secretary General, for the 1th No. 298 of the Convention relates to maritime delimitation disputes, territorial disputes, military activities, the Chinese Government did not accept the Convention part 15th 2nd section of any international judicial or arbitral compulsory jurisdiction. In this regard, China dominated. However, the Philippine Government has shunned the excluded application of Article No. 298, treaty application and interpretation of the claims, bypassing relates to the substance of the issues of territorial sovereignty. This case Netherlands nationality sunds publicly several years ago wrote the arbitrator considered reef status and boundaries and sovereignty are inseparable, but now has backed out. In particular has been designated "stands for" Chinese Government arbitrators should have just supported the Chinese position, but in this case the program stage award, the arbitrator, not only for the Chinese Government said a fair remark, but voted in favour of the Philippines claims. Eventually, five arbitrators vote unanimous support in the Philippines, trying to evade the real issues such as sovereignty, maritime delimitation, which makes one wonder how the arbitrator professional conscience and impartiality of the decision itself.

Third, the preliminary ruling procedure is not in line with international practice. It is well known that procedure rule must be clearly explained and discussed the Philippines 15 claim whether the admissibility and belong to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. At that time, the arbitral tribunal's decision only 7 admissibility, 8 should be rejected. But the arbitral tribunal biased towards the Philippine Government, directly in the actual trial stage the remaining 8, last asked the Philippine Government to provide further comments in writing. This is no green light for the remaining 8, blatant support for the Philippines claims.

Finally, Tribunal ulterior motives. Unilaterally brought to the Philippines in the South China Sea arbitration case, the Chinese Government has not accepted, do not participate in firm, clear. To demonstrate to the international community the Chinese Government's reason for not responding, on December 7, 2014 issued by the Chinese Government on sea arbitration jurisdiction of the Philippine position paper. At that time, Chinese Ambassador to Netherlands Embassy position paper for letters instead of the note verbale sent to the arbitrator, and indicate the Chinese Government is not seen as involved in arbitration or accept the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. But even so, the Tribunal still regarded the Chinese Government has a valid defense, the intentions behind convoluted.

Face of the arbitration proceedings has serious flaws, the loss of neutrality of arbitrators in favour of the Philippines and other realities, "the South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal" if ultimately ruled against China's decisions were not a surprise. The Chinese Government does not recognize nor enforce decisions. (The author is a Professor of international law, Southwest University)

Responsible editor: Wang Hao

I want feedback
Save a Web page

“南海仲裁庭”仲裁程序严重偏颇_新闻资讯

　　菲律宾单方面提起的南海仲裁案预计5月底或6月初就将公布结果。而从2015年10月底的初期阶段裁决来看，“南海仲裁案仲裁庭”已无公正可言，这也使其即将公布的所谓仲裁结果难以令人信服。笔者认为，“南海仲裁案仲裁庭”的严重不公体现在如下方面：

　　首先，仲裁庭组成和仲裁员指定存在暗箱操作嫌疑。因持不接受、不参与立场，中国政府不可能指定自己的仲裁员。鉴于本案一方缺席，仲裁员的选择与指定本需十 分谨慎，可是国际海洋法法庭日籍庭长柳井俊二在钓鱼岛争端最严重、中国和日本关系极度紧张的情况下并未主动回避，而是在2013年4月指定斯里兰卡法官品托担任 仲裁庭庭长。但随后品托法官担心真相暴露主动辞职，原因是其夫人是菲律宾籍。这一环节不得不让人怀疑这个仲裁庭的透明性。

　　其次，被指定“代表”中国的仲裁员投票支持菲律宾让人匪夷所思。2006年8月25日，中国政府依据《联合国海洋法公约》第298条规定向联合国秘书长提 交书面声明，对于《公约》第298条第1款涉及海洋划界、领土争端、军事活动等争端，中国政府不接受《公约》第15部分第2节规定的任何国际司法或仲裁强 制管辖。在这点上，中国占据绝对优势。不过，菲律宾政府故意避开第298条的排除适用，提出条约适用和解释的诉讼请求，绕过涉及领土主权问题的实质。本案 荷兰籍仲裁员松斯几年前就曾公开撰文认为岛礁地位与划界和主权问题密不可分，但现在却出尔反尔。特别是被指定“代表”中国政府的仲裁员本应公正支持中国立 场，但在本案程序阶段裁决中，这位仲裁员不仅没为中国政府说一句公道话，反而投票赞成菲律宾的诉讼请求。最终，五位仲裁员在表决中一致支持菲律宾，故意回 避主权、海洋划界等实质问题，这不得不让人怀疑仲裁员的职业良知以及裁决本身的公正性。

　　第三，程序阶段的初步裁决不符合国际惯例。众所周知，程序阶段裁决必须明确解释和论述菲律宾的15项诉讼请求是否具有可受理性并属于仲裁庭管辖。当时，仲 裁庭的裁决只明确7项具有可受理性，另外8项本应予以驳回。但仲裁庭偏袒菲律宾政府，把剩余8项直接列入实际审理阶段，其中就最后一项要求菲律宾政府提供 进一步的书面意见。这实际上等于对剩余8项大开绿灯，明目张胆支持菲律宾的诉讼请求。

　　第四，仲裁庭裁决居心叵测。对菲律宾单方面提起的南海仲裁案，中国政府不接受、不参与的立场坚定、观点明确。为向国际社会表明中国政府不应诉的理 由，2014年12月7日中国政府发布关于菲律宾所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件。当时，中国驻荷兰大使馆将立场文件以便函而非照会形式寄给仲裁员， 并专门注明不能视之为中国政府参与仲裁或接受仲裁庭管辖。但即便如此，仲裁庭仍然将之视为中国政府有效答辩，其背后用心令人费解。

　　面对仲裁程序存在严重瑕疵、仲裁员丧失中立立场而偏袒菲律宾等种种现实情况，“南海仲裁案仲裁庭”如果最终做出不利于中国的裁决结果并不出人意料。中国政府不会承认更不会执行裁决结果。(作者是西南政法大学国际法教授)

责任编辑：王浩成

我要反馈
保存网页