South China Sea Arbitration "boots" came to what's going to hit?
China News Agency, Beijing, July 11 (Xinhua Jiang Tao) South China Sea Arbitration "boots" will soon fall. The Chinese side has repeatedly stated, do not accept and does not recognize the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and the decisions and arbitral tribunal insists on dropping "boots", 12th to make a ruling. When the "boots" goes down, what's going to hit?
First of all, this "boots" goes down, legal basis and rules of order hit the South China Sea.
The Declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea (referred to as the Declaration) form the basis for laws and rules of order of the South China Sea. Among them, the fourth article of the Declaration, by direct negotiation the parties resolve the dispute. Meanwhile, the United Nations law of the Sea Convention (referred to as the Convention) 15th part expressly dispute settlement mechanisms must first respect the sovereignty of States, all States parties to the dispute will be the first to use choose any peaceful settlement and occupied first and priority dispute settlement mechanism as a whole.
The international community has long been consensus, should receive priority in the Declaration to respect, references and quotes.
"We actually see the arbitral tribunal determined to accept unilateral demands of the Philippines, without regard to the Declaration of the established rules of international law, did not take into account the role being played by the dialogue mechanisms, platforms and frameworks. "Gong Yingchun Diplomatic Academy of international law experts said.
Gong Yingchun, arbitral tribunal forced over the Convention protected by international law of peace dialogue, constitutes damage to international law and harm to the peace dialogue in the region, this is an obvious power and abuse of power.
Secondly, the "boots" fell, violated the rights of States parties to the Convention.
Dean Wu Shicun pointed out that the South China Sea, the consensus of all parties in the South China Sea issue, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on any issues related to sovereignty. While all acknowledged that China previously excluded based on Article No. 298 of the Convention declared lawful and valid, and China has been involved in maritime delimitation, historic bays or ownership disputes excluded from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of the Convention.
In fact, China, Russia, and France and the United Kingdom some 30 States parties to the Convention, such as the exclude statement not made unnecessary appendages to the Convention, but the Convention in the interpretation and application of an integral and important part.
"Regardless of the Philippines by the arbitral dispute is the nature of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, forced arbitration proceedings, substantive breaches of the Convention entitles a State party to the right to exercise an option to exclude specific types of disputes. "Wu Shicun said.
Wu Shicun pointed out that, Arbitration Chamber think case in the marine features of status (is low Highland, and island also is rock reef) and waters delimitation no relationship of advocates does not established, Arbitration Chamber according to Philip party requests made any about marine features nature of judge, will involved Convention 74th article and 83rd article of applies problem, due to China has made excluded sex statement, these arbitration matters should excluded in arbitration Chamber jurisdiction right zhiwai.
He pointed out that questions of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation is whole, delimitation of maritime features are similar between the status of close contacts and, therefore, in the case of no right to trial and the delimitation of territorial sovereignty, the Tribunal attempted to determine the status of maritime features, the appropriateness of this approach questionable.
Third, the "boots" goes down, will harm the development of international law.
"The arbitration against the South China Sea was by the United States for political manipulation. "Wu Shicun noted that arbitral tribunal 4 of 5 arbitrators are when the International Tribunal, Japanese Yanai, Shunji specified. Shunji Yanai former Japan resident United States Ambassador, Japan's Foreign Ministry, Deputy Foreign Minister, in the Abe Government Counsel in the constitutional review process, their professional background in face of China's question, he does not have a fair judgment and intentions.
At the international law seminar held recently at the Diplomatic Academy, several academics pointed out that international law, the arbitral tribunal's opinion is a minority opinion, the lack of representative and authoritative, easily lead to international judicial decisions "fragmented," causing the jurisprudence inconsistent, is not conducive to maintaining the integrity and purpose of the Convention, is not conducive to the development of international law.
Gong Yingchun pointed out that now the reality is that arbitration case to complicate the situation in the South China Sea was calm, and frequent intervention by outside forces, neighboring countries divided more areas affected people's livelihood. "This is trying to abuse the complicated historical and political disputes solved by one Convention rules, abuse result is damage to international and regional peace and stability. ”
(Editors: Zhong Qinghui UN660)
2016-07-11 22:31:03
China News Network

南海仲裁的“靴子”落下会砸到什么？
中新社北京7月11日电  （记者　蒋涛）南海仲裁案的“靴子”将于近日落下。中方已多次声明，不接受和不承认仲裁庭管辖和裁决，而仲裁庭执意扔下“靴子”，称将于12日作出裁决。当这只“靴子”落下，会砸到什么？
　　首先，这只“靴子”落下，砸伤了南海地区法律和规则秩序基础。
　　《南海各方行为宣言》（简称《宣言》）构成了南海地区法律和规则秩序的基础。其中，《宣言》第四条明确规定，由直接当事国谈判解决有关争议。同时，《联合国海洋法公约》（简称《公约》）第十五部分明确规定，争端解决机制需首先尊重国家主权，所有争端应当首先使用缔约国自行选择的任何和平方法解决，并在整个争端解决机制中占据首要和优先地位。
　　国际法学界早有共识，《宣言》理应受到优先尊重、参考与援引。
　　“我们实际看到的却是仲裁庭执意受理菲律宾单方面诉求，完全没有顾及《宣言》等已经建立的国际法规则，没有顾及正在发挥作用的对话机制、平台与框架。”外交学院国际法专家龚迎春说。
　　龚迎春表示，仲裁庭把《公约》强制凌驾于受国际法保护的既有和平对话框架之上，构成了对国际法的伤害和对地区和平对话机制的损害，这是明显的扩权和滥权。
　　其次，这只“靴子”落下，侵犯了《公约》缔约国所享有的权利。
　　中国南海研究院院长吴士存指出，各方在南海问题上的共识，即仲裁庭在任何涉及主权的问题上没有管辖权。同时各方都承认，中国先前依据《公约》第298条做出的排除性声明合法有效，中国已将涉及海域划界、历史性海湾或所有权等方面的争端排除在《公约》强制争端解决程序之外。
　　事实上，中国、俄罗斯、法国、英国等约30个《公约》缔约国作出的各种排除性声明不是《公约》可有可无的附属物，而是《公约》解释和适用过程中不可分割的重要组成部分。
　　“仲裁庭不顾中菲南海争议的本质是领土主权和海洋划界问题的事实，强推仲裁程序，实质性违反了《公约》赋予缔约国行使选择权排除特定类型争端的权利。”吴士存说。
　　吴士存指出，仲裁庭认为此案中海洋地物的地位（是低潮高地、岛屿还是岩礁）与海域划界没有关系的主张并不成立，仲裁庭依菲方请求作出任何有关海洋地物性质的判定，都会涉及《公约》第74条和第83条的适用问题，由于中国已作出排除性声明，这些仲裁事项应当排除在仲裁庭管辖权之外。
　　他指出，领土主权问题和海域划界问题是整体关联的，海域划界与海洋地物地位之间也存在类似的紧密联系，因此，在无权审判领土主权和海域划界的情况下，仲裁庭试图判定海洋地物的地位，这种做法的妥当性令人质疑。
　　其三，这只“靴子”落下，将损害国际法的发展。
　　“此次针对南海的仲裁是由美国进行的政治操纵。”吴士存指出，仲裁庭5名仲裁员中有4名都是时任国际海洋法法庭庭长、日本人柳井俊二指定的。柳井俊二曾任日本驻美国大使、日本外务省副外相，在安倍政府修宪过程中担任法律顾问，其职业背景使他在面对中国问题时不具有公正的裁决能力和意向。
　　在外交学院日前举办的国际法研讨会上，多名国际法学界人士指出，仲裁庭的意见是少数人意见，缺乏代表性和权威性，容易导致国际司法裁决“碎片化”，造成司法判例前后不一，不利于维护《公约》的宗旨和整体性，不利于国际法的发展。
　　龚迎春指出，现在的现实是，仲裁案使本来平静的南海局势变得复杂，外部势力频繁介入，周边国家分歧趋多，地区民生受到波及。“这是试图滥用某一部公约规则解决复杂历史和政治争议，滥用的结果是对国际法和地区和平稳定的损害。”
(责任编辑：钟庆辉 UN660)
2016-07-11 22:31:03
中国新闻网