从《联合国海洋法公约》第283条“交换意见的义务”看“南海仲裁案”管辖权裁决的违法性
详细信息 查看官网全文
- 英文论文题名：Why the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the South China Sea Arbitration Is Null and Void? – Taking Article 283 of the UNCLOS as an Example
- 论文作者：余敏友 ; 谢琼 ; 李敬昌
- 英文论文作者：YU Minyou ; XIE Qiong ; Wuhan University China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies ; the Collaborative Innovation Center for Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Rights ; Wuhan University Institute of International Law(one of the National High-end Think Tanks in China) ; the Institute for International Strategic Studies ; the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China
- 年：2017
- 作者机构：武汉大学中国边界与海洋研究院;国家领土主权与海洋权益协同创新中心;国家高端智库武汉大学国际法研究所;中央党校国际战略研究院;
- 论文关键词：《联合国海洋法公约》 ; 交换意见的义务 ; "南海仲裁案"
- 英文论文关键词：UNCLOS ; Obligation to exchange views ; South China Sea Arbitration
- 会议召开时间：2017-06-01
- 会议录名称：中国海洋法学评论（2017年卷第1期 总第25期）
- 英文会议录名称：China Oceans Law Review(Volume 2017 Number 1)
- 语种：中文
- 分类号：D993.5
- 学会代码：XMHY
- 学会名称：厦门大学海洋法与中国东南海疆研究中心
- 页数：27
- 文件大小：1371k
- 原文格式：D
摘要
菲律宾"南海仲裁案"仲裁庭2015年10月作出了《管辖权和可受理性问题裁决》(以下简称"管辖权裁决"),其中有关《联合国海洋法公约》第283条规定之"交换意见的义务"论证,存在严重缺陷。首先,用来证明履行交换意见的义务的事实不属于第283条所指"交换意见";其次,仲裁庭割裂了交换意见的义务与谈判义务之间的有机联系,从而使"交换意见的义务"本身毫无意义,有悖《联合国海洋法公约》的目的。仲裁庭没有有效地确立自身的管辖权,因而其管辖权裁决完全错误。基于无效"管辖权裁决"作出的实体裁决,也将无效。
The Arbitral Tribunal of the South China Sea Arbitration, which was initiated unilaterally by the Philippines, declared its one-sided arguments in the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility(hereinafter "Award") released on 29 October 2015. The Award failed to make a proper reasoning on Article 283("the obligation to exchange views") of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS). First of all, the facts provided to prove the fulfillment of the obligation to exchange views don't belong to the category of "views exchanging". Further, the Tribunal cuts off the relations between the obligation to exchange views and the obligation to negotiate; as a result, the former obligation becomes meaningless, which is contrary to the purpose of the UNCLOS. Accordingly, the Tribunal failed to effectively establish its jurisdiction over the case; and the decisions in the Award are erroneous. The final Award, which is founded on this Award, consequently will be also null and void.
The Arbitral Tribunal of the South China Sea Arbitration, which was initiated unilaterally by the Philippines, declared its one-sided arguments in the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility(hereinafter "Award") released on 29 October 2015. The Award failed to make a proper reasoning on Article 283("the obligation to exchange views") of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS). First of all, the facts provided to prove the fulfillment of the obligation to exchange views don't belong to the category of "views exchanging". Further, the Tribunal cuts off the relations between the obligation to exchange views and the obligation to negotiate; as a result, the former obligation becomes meaningless, which is contrary to the purpose of the UNCLOS. Accordingly, the Tribunal failed to effectively establish its jurisdiction over the case; and the decisions in the Award are erroneous. The final Award, which is founded on this Award, consequently will be also null and void.
引文
1 《中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》(以下简称“《立场文件》”),2014年12月7日,第3段,下载于http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/ziliao_611306/tytj_611312/zcwj_611316/t1217143.shtml,2016年3月20日。
2 South China Sea Arbitration Case,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October2015,at http://www.pcacases.com/web/send Attach/1506,20 March 2016.[hereinafter“Award”]
3 刘衡:《论确立海洋争端强制仲裁管辖权的法律要件——以〈联合国海洋法公约〉附件七为视角》,载于《中国海洋法学评论》2015年第1期,第4~22页。
4 JoséManuel Cortés Martín,Prior Consultation and Jurisdictionat ITLOS,The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals,Vol.13,Issue 1,2004,pp.2~7,14~17;Mariano J.Aznar,The Obligation to Exchange Views before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:A Critical Appraisal,Revue Belge de Droit International,Vol.47,No.1,2014,pp.241~246.
5 由于第283条第2款适用于争端解决协议的执行阶段,与本案无关,本文不讨论第2款。
6 JoséManuel Cortés Martín,Prior Consultation and Jurisdiction at ITLOS,The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals,Vol.13,Issue 1,2004,p.16.
7 Mariano J.Aznar,The Obligation to Exchange Views before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:A Critical Appraisal,Revue Belge de Droit International,Vol.47,No.1,2014,pp.245~246.
8 Myron H.Nordquist ed.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982:A Commentary,Vol.V,Martinus Nijhoff Publisers,1989,p.29.
9 Myron H.Nordquist ed.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982:A Commentary,Vol.V,Martinus Nijhoff Publisers,1989,p.29.
10 Kari Hakap??,Negotiation,in R.Wolfrum ed.,Max Planck Encyclopediaon of Public International Law,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2015,para.16.
11 Anne Peters,International Dispute Settlement:A Network of Cooperational Duties,European Journal of International Law,Vol.14,No.1,2003,p.2.
12 Nuclear Tests(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,p.268,para.46.
13 Markus Kotzur,Good Faith(Bona fide),in R.Wolfrum ed.,Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2013,para.25.
14 Natalie Klein,Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,p.64.
15 Southern Bluefin Tuna Case(Australia and New Zealand v.Japan),Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,4 August 2000,para.55,at https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Documents/Award%20on%20Jurisdiction%20and%20Admissibility%20of%20August%204_2000.pdf,20 March 2016.
16 The MOX Plant Case(Ireland v.United Kingdom),Request for provisional measures,Order,ITLOS,3 December 2001,para.54,at http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_10/Order.03.12.01.E.pdf,20 March 2016.
17 Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Traits of Johor(Malaysia v.Singapore),Request for provisional measures,Order,ITLOS,8 October 2003,paras.33 ~34,at http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_12/Order.08.10.03.E.pdf,20 March 2016.
18 Case Concerning Land Reclamation,Separate Opinion of Judge Chandrasekhara Rao,para.11.
19 In the Matter of an Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,Award,Arbitral Tribunal,paras.201~203.
20 In the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname,Award,Arbitral Tribunal,paras.408~410.
21 In the Matter of the Arctic Sunrise Arbitration between the Kingdom of the Netherlands v.the Russian Federation,Award on the Merits,Arbitral Tribunal,paras.149~156.
22 The“Arctic Sunrise”Case(Kingdom of the Netherlands v.Russian Federation),Request for the Prescription of Provisional Measures,Order,ITLOS,22 November 2013,paras.72 ~75,http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.22/Order/C22_Ord_22_11_2013_orig_Eng.pdf,14 April 2016.
23 The“Ara Libertad”Case(Argentina v.Ghana),Request for the prescription of provisional measures,Order,ITLOS,15 December 2012,paras.68~72,at http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.20/C20_Order_15.12.2012.corr.pdf,20 March2016.
24 从实践来看,“南方蓝鳍金枪鱼案”仲裁庭比较慎重地对待了《公约》第283条规定的“交换意见的义务”,其他法庭都有逐步降低该条适用门槛的倾向。尤其是国际海洋法法庭在处理附件七仲裁庭初步管辖权的过程中,几乎将该条规定视为一种“空洞的形式”,偏离了法律的明确规定。这种做法对附件七仲裁庭明显产生了影响。降低第283 条的适用门槛,有助于确立法庭的管辖权,这与近年来出现的国际性法院或法庭不断扩张自身管辖权的趋势是一致的。限于主题,本文对此不作专门分析。
25 Natalie Klein,Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,p.64.
26 David Anderson,Article 283 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Modern Law of the Sea,Vol.59,2007,p.866.
27 David A.Colson and Dr.Peggy Hoyle,Satisfying the Procedural Prerequisites to the Compulsory Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention:Is the Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal Get It Right?,Ocean Development and International Law,Vol.34,No.1,2003,pp.59~82;Mariano J.Aznar,The Obligation to Exchange Views before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:A Critical Appraisal,Revue Belge de Droit International,Vol.47.No.1,2014,pp.237~254.
28 Award,para.334.
29 Award,para.335.
30 Award,para.336.
31 Award,para.337.
32 Award,paras.337~339.
33 Award,paras.340~341.
34 Award,para.343.
35 中国于1982年12月10日签署了《公约》,并于1996年5月15日批准《公约》。
36 《立场文件》,第50段。
37 Award,para.337.
38 Award,para.337.
39 Award,paras.337~339.
40 Award,para.343.
41 Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore In and Around the Traits of Johor(Malaysia v.Singapore),Request for provisional measures,Order,ITLOS,8 October 2003,paras.39~40,at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_12/12_order_081003_en.pdf,20 March 2016.
42 A.O.Adede,The System for Settlement of Disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:A Drafting History and A Commentary,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987,p.93.
43 Natalie Klein,Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005,p.33.
44 J.G.Merrills,The Mosaic of International Dispute Settlement Procedures:Complementary or Contradictory?,Netherlands International Law Review,Vol.54,No.2,2007,pp.364 ~366.
45 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Wolfrum,The M/V“Louisa”Case,Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v.Kingdom of Spanish,Request for Provisional Measures,Order,ITLOS,23December 2010,para.27.
46 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Treves,The M/V“Louisa”Case,Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v.Kingdom of Spanish,Request for Provisional Measures,Order,ITLOS,23December 2010,para.13.
47 《立场文件》,第45段。
1 Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines,7 December 2014,para.3,at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/ziliao_611306/tytj_611312/zcwj_611316/t1217143.shtml,20 March 2016.[hereinafter“Position Paper”]
3 LIU Heng,Legal Requirements for the Establishment of Jurisdiction over Compulsory Arbitration of Maritime Disputes:From the Perspective of Arbitration under Annex VII of the UNCLOS,China Oceans Law Review,Vol.2015,No.1,p.30.
5 The second paragraph of Article 283 has no legal significance to the present case,it thus will not be examined in this paper.
24 In practice,the arbitral tribunal of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fish Case seriously considered the“obligation to exchange views”as provided in Article 283 of UNCLOS,while other tribunals tended to lower the threshed to apply this article.Inter alia,when the ITLOS examined the preliminary jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII,it almost regarded this article as an“empty formality”,deviating from the express legal provisions.This act of the ITLOS obviously affected the tribunals under Annex VII.Lowering the threshed to apply Article 283 helps to establish a tribunal’s jurisdiction,which is consistent with the tendency where international courts or tribunals seek to gradually expand their jurisdiction.The paper will not dwell on this issue for the sake of topic relevance.
35 China signed the Convention on 10 December 1982,and ratified it on 15 May 1996.
36 Position Paper,para.50.
47 Position Paper,para.45.
2 South China Sea Arbitration Case,Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,29 October2015,at http://www.pcacases.com/web/send Attach/1506,20 March 2016.[hereinafter“Award”]
3 刘衡:《论确立海洋争端强制仲裁管辖权的法律要件——以〈联合国海洋法公约〉附件七为视角》,载于《中国海洋法学评论》2015年第1期,第4~22页。
4 JoséManuel Cortés Martín,Prior Consultation and Jurisdictionat ITLOS,The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals,Vol.13,Issue 1,2004,pp.2~7,14~17;Mariano J.Aznar,The Obligation to Exchange Views before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:A Critical Appraisal,Revue Belge de Droit International,Vol.47,No.1,2014,pp.241~246.
5 由于第283条第2款适用于争端解决协议的执行阶段,与本案无关,本文不讨论第2款。
6 JoséManuel Cortés Martín,Prior Consultation and Jurisdiction at ITLOS,The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals,Vol.13,Issue 1,2004,p.16.
7 Mariano J.Aznar,The Obligation to Exchange Views before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:A Critical Appraisal,Revue Belge de Droit International,Vol.47,No.1,2014,pp.245~246.
8 Myron H.Nordquist ed.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982:A Commentary,Vol.V,Martinus Nijhoff Publisers,1989,p.29.
9 Myron H.Nordquist ed.,United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982:A Commentary,Vol.V,Martinus Nijhoff Publisers,1989,p.29.
10 Kari Hakap??,Negotiation,in R.Wolfrum ed.,Max Planck Encyclopediaon of Public International Law,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2015,para.16.
11 Anne Peters,International Dispute Settlement:A Network of Cooperational Duties,European Journal of International Law,Vol.14,No.1,2003,p.2.
12 Nuclear Tests(Australia v.France),Judgment,ICJ Reports 1974,p.268,para.46.
13 Markus Kotzur,Good Faith(Bona fide),in R.Wolfrum ed.,Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2013,para.25.
14 Natalie Klein,Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,p.64.
15 Southern Bluefin Tuna Case(Australia and New Zealand v.Japan),Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility,Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,4 August 2000,para.55,at https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Documents/Award%20on%20Jurisdiction%20and%20Admissibility%20of%20August%204_2000.pdf,20 March 2016.
16 The MOX Plant Case(Ireland v.United Kingdom),Request for provisional measures,Order,ITLOS,3 December 2001,para.54,at http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_10/Order.03.12.01.E.pdf,20 March 2016.
17 Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Traits of Johor(Malaysia v.Singapore),Request for provisional measures,Order,ITLOS,8 October 2003,paras.33 ~34,at http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_12/Order.08.10.03.E.pdf,20 March 2016.
18 Case Concerning Land Reclamation,Separate Opinion of Judge Chandrasekhara Rao,para.11.
19 In the Matter of an Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,Award,Arbitral Tribunal,paras.201~203.
20 In the Matter of an Arbitration between Guyana and Suriname,Award,Arbitral Tribunal,paras.408~410.
21 In the Matter of the Arctic Sunrise Arbitration between the Kingdom of the Netherlands v.the Russian Federation,Award on the Merits,Arbitral Tribunal,paras.149~156.
22 The“Arctic Sunrise”Case(Kingdom of the Netherlands v.Russian Federation),Request for the Prescription of Provisional Measures,Order,ITLOS,22 November 2013,paras.72 ~75,http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.22/Order/C22_Ord_22_11_2013_orig_Eng.pdf,14 April 2016.
23 The“Ara Libertad”Case(Argentina v.Ghana),Request for the prescription of provisional measures,Order,ITLOS,15 December 2012,paras.68~72,at http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.20/C20_Order_15.12.2012.corr.pdf,20 March2016.
24 从实践来看,“南方蓝鳍金枪鱼案”仲裁庭比较慎重地对待了《公约》第283条规定的“交换意见的义务”,其他法庭都有逐步降低该条适用门槛的倾向。尤其是国际海洋法法庭在处理附件七仲裁庭初步管辖权的过程中,几乎将该条规定视为一种“空洞的形式”,偏离了法律的明确规定。这种做法对附件七仲裁庭明显产生了影响。降低第283 条的适用门槛,有助于确立法庭的管辖权,这与近年来出现的国际性法院或法庭不断扩张自身管辖权的趋势是一致的。限于主题,本文对此不作专门分析。
25 Natalie Klein,Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,p.64.
26 David Anderson,Article 283 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Modern Law of the Sea,Vol.59,2007,p.866.
27 David A.Colson and Dr.Peggy Hoyle,Satisfying the Procedural Prerequisites to the Compulsory Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention:Is the Southern Bluefin Tuna Tribunal Get It Right?,Ocean Development and International Law,Vol.34,No.1,2003,pp.59~82;Mariano J.Aznar,The Obligation to Exchange Views before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea:A Critical Appraisal,Revue Belge de Droit International,Vol.47.No.1,2014,pp.237~254.
28 Award,para.334.
29 Award,para.335.
30 Award,para.336.
31 Award,para.337.
32 Award,paras.337~339.
33 Award,paras.340~341.
34 Award,para.343.
35 中国于1982年12月10日签署了《公约》,并于1996年5月15日批准《公约》。
36 《立场文件》,第50段。
37 Award,para.337.
38 Award,para.337.
39 Award,paras.337~339.
40 Award,para.343.
41 Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore In and Around the Traits of Johor(Malaysia v.Singapore),Request for provisional measures,Order,ITLOS,8 October 2003,paras.39~40,at https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_12/12_order_081003_en.pdf,20 March 2016.
42 A.O.Adede,The System for Settlement of Disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:A Drafting History and A Commentary,Leiden/Boston:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1987,p.93.
43 Natalie Klein,Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005,p.33.
44 J.G.Merrills,The Mosaic of International Dispute Settlement Procedures:Complementary or Contradictory?,Netherlands International Law Review,Vol.54,No.2,2007,pp.364 ~366.
45 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Wolfrum,The M/V“Louisa”Case,Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v.Kingdom of Spanish,Request for Provisional Measures,Order,ITLOS,23December 2010,para.27.
46 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Treves,The M/V“Louisa”Case,Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v.Kingdom of Spanish,Request for Provisional Measures,Order,ITLOS,23December 2010,para.13.
47 《立场文件》,第45段。
1 Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines,7 December 2014,para.3,at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/ziliao_611306/tytj_611312/zcwj_611316/t1217143.shtml,20 March 2016.[hereinafter“Position Paper”]
3 LIU Heng,Legal Requirements for the Establishment of Jurisdiction over Compulsory Arbitration of Maritime Disputes:From the Perspective of Arbitration under Annex VII of the UNCLOS,China Oceans Law Review,Vol.2015,No.1,p.30.
5 The second paragraph of Article 283 has no legal significance to the present case,it thus will not be examined in this paper.
24 In practice,the arbitral tribunal of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fish Case seriously considered the“obligation to exchange views”as provided in Article 283 of UNCLOS,while other tribunals tended to lower the threshed to apply this article.Inter alia,when the ITLOS examined the preliminary jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII,it almost regarded this article as an“empty formality”,deviating from the express legal provisions.This act of the ITLOS obviously affected the tribunals under Annex VII.Lowering the threshed to apply Article 283 helps to establish a tribunal’s jurisdiction,which is consistent with the tendency where international courts or tribunals seek to gradually expand their jurisdiction.The paper will not dwell on this issue for the sake of topic relevance.
35 China signed the Convention on 10 December 1982,and ratified it on 15 May 1996.
36 Position Paper,para.50.
47 Position Paper,para.45.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |