The Formulation and Essence of Dispute: Critical Reviews on the First Claim in the South China Sea Arbitration and the Award on Jurisdiction
- 法学院－已发表论文 
争端的构成和本质,不能仅依赖于当事方的论点,需要仲裁庭客观确定。结果一致性不是规避管辖权限制的合法理由。《联合国海洋法公约》第288条第1款确定的属事范围,是仲裁庭管辖权的固有限制。领土主权争端,即使仅为附带性或辅助性的,也不应作为规避管辖权限制的合法理由。"南海仲裁案"中,仲裁庭的争端定性明显忽视了争端的构成标准和《联合国海洋法公约》第288条第1款的限制。仲裁庭只能审议菲律宾所提及的法案或文件本身,而不是中国在南中国海的全面主张。海洋权利资格并不由《联合国海洋法公约》完全规定。中国在南中国海海洋权利资格其他法源的效力,本身不属于《联合国海洋法公约》解释和适用的事项。仲裁庭只能将此认定为一项事实,并且承认中国的主张符合历史性权利规则,有限考察历史性权利规则和《联合国海洋法公约》的特定条款相重叠和冲突的关系。谨慎的反思和自谦或可使《联合国海洋法公约》附件7仲裁庭建立与当事国的互信和支持,反之只能使其进退失据。With respect to the disputes of interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,the three constitutive criteria should be real dispute,positive opposability and the relevance with the Convention. The formulation,essence and applicable law of disputes can't depend on the Parties' arguments, rather on the objective determination of the Tribunal under the Annex VII. The circumvention of the limits of jurisdiction can't be justified by the consistency of concerned results. It is the inherent limitation to the Tribunal according to the jurisdiction ratione materiae under the Article 288. 1 of the Convention. With respect to any territorial sovereignty dispute,even if the latter is only incidental or ancillary,its certainty should not be governed by the Tribunal. In this case,the so-called qualification by the Tribunal obviously ignored the constitutive criteria of dispute and the limitation to the jurisdiction under the Article288. 1. The Tribunal can only hear the laws and official documents of China per se provided by the Philippines,rather than the China's full claims in the South China Sea. The maritime entitlements aren't exclusively defined and limited by the Convention. With respect to the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea,its form and effect will be determined by general international law and not be the matter concerned the interpretation and application of the Convention. The Tribunal can't make rulings on the rules of historic rights in general international law per se and the compatibility of the China's claims with these rules. Rather,it is deemed to be a matter of facts as a provisional conclusion. Only under this precondition the Tribunal can hear the overlap and conflict relationships between the historic rights rules and the specific provisions of the Convention. The deliberation and modest of the Tribunal can be helpful in the mutual trust and support with the Parties states,otherwise,the Tribunal will find itself in a dilemma.