论南海仲裁裁决对《联合国海洋法公约》第121(3)条的错误解释

On the Questionable Interpretation of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS in the Award of the South China Sea Arbitration

《联合国海洋法公约》第121(3)条的文字有意模糊,中菲南海仲裁案《7月12日裁决》竟给出解释。几位负有盛名的国际法学者研究发现这些解释背离国家实践。本文使用《维也纳条约法公约》第31条关于条约解释原则进行评价。笔者认为,就用语的通常意义而言,仲裁庭忽略待解释条款第一个字(rocks,即复数"岩礁")及第二个字(which)的含义。就上下文而言,仲裁庭对于第121(2)条前七个字视而不见。就条约解释学而言,仲裁庭使用无足轻重的材料来寻求"目的及宗旨";就"立法准备文件"而言,仲裁庭也选取无关紧要的材料。藉此,《联合国海洋法公约》谈判时未被采纳的特定提案遂能复活为被解释后的条文内涵。显然,仲裁庭对于第121(3)条的解释明显违反诸项条约解释原则,未来难以被公约缔约国遵循。

The interpretation of Article121(3)of the1982United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS)was finally done by the tribunal for the SinoPhilippine arbitration on the South China Sea issue in July2016.Examinations by renowned scholars demonstrated that the tribunal's interpretation deviated from international practice.The paper employs the principles of treaty interpretation codified by Article31of the1969Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to evaluate such an interpretation process.The paper proposes that the tribunal paid scant attention to the key words such as“rocks”in plural form as the first word and“which”as the second word of Article121(3).The tribunal also turned a blind eye to the first seven words in Article121(2),which makes up the immediate context for an impartial interpretation of Article121(3).Furthermore,insignificant materials were adopted by the tribunal to define the object and purpose,which also goes to travaux préparatoires.In such a way of“interpretation”,the tribunal revived unaccepted proposals submitted during the treaty negotiation.Given the fact that lots of general principles of treaty interpretation were violated,the non-conformity with such an interpretation by UNCLOS contracting parties shall be expected and justified.