评菲律宾就南海争端提起国际仲裁的法律运作

The International Maritime Dispute Settlement Organs' Jurisdiction Power on China: A Case Study of the Philippines' Applying for International Arbitration on South China Sea Disputes

《联合国海洋法公约》确立了以国际海洋法法庭为中心、以仲裁法庭为辅助的海洋争端解决机制,这也是菲律宾就南海争端提请国际仲裁的依据。但组成仲裁法庭不等于表明法庭有管辖权,在进行任何正式的审理之前,法庭都必须查明对案件确有管辖权。而根据公约第298条以及中国事先所作的书面声明,仲裁法庭对本案应当不具有管辖权。从法理上讲,菲律宾要求中国接受其从未同意的所谓"管辖权",是不符合国际法内在逻辑的。从法律操作上讲,菲律宾苦心孤诣地"包装"其诉求以绕开中方依据公约所做书面声明的作法,是违背公约本意的恶意操作,属于不折不扣的滥诉行为。对此中方应当打好舆论战,指出菲律宾因滥用公约争端解决机制而违背了公约第300条的诚信义务,明确斥责菲方"包装"诉求的滥诉行径并积极提出管辖权异议。

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes an international maritime disputes settlement mechanism centered on the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea and supplemented by international arbitral tribunals,which is the foundation of the Philippines' applying for international arbitration on South China Sea disputes. However,the forming of the arbitral tribunal does not equal to the determination of jurisdiction,so the tribunal must find out it really has jurisdiction over the case before entering into any formal hearings. According to Article 298 of the Convention and the written announcement that China made in advance,the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the case. According to jurisprudence,the Philippines' claim that China should accept the jurisdiction she has never admitted is against the logic of international law. Therefore,the Philippines' practice is an unjustified abuse of the right to sue. China should point out the Philippines' abuse of this disputes settlement mechanism has violated the good faith obligation posed by Article 300,raise an objection to the jurisdiction and make clear that China,if with no choice,has the right to withdraw from the Convention in order to protect its sovereignty.