《联合国海洋法公约》“强制性仲裁”的受案范围——毛里求斯仲裁案对中国的启示

The scope of the compulsory arbitration in the UNCLOS——the enlightenment of arbitration between Mauritius and Britain to China

2015年3月18日,根据《联合国海洋法公约》附件七而组成的仲裁庭公布了"毛里求斯诉英国海洋保护区案"的仲裁裁决。根据《联合国海洋法公约》附件七提起的仲裁具有强制性但是其受案范围应受限制条件约束。仲裁双方存在争端是"强制性仲裁"受案范围的前提,仲裁双方存在的争端必须是法律争端。判断仲裁双方争端是否属于"有关《联合国海洋法公约》的解释或适用的争端"需厘清表面争端与实质争端的区别、整体争端与部分争端的区别。主权对"强制性仲裁"受案范围的影响举足轻重,主权在对《联合国海洋法公约》的解释或适用的争端中发挥不同作用。中菲南海仲裁案中,菲律宾向仲裁庭提起的仲裁请求不符合"强制性仲裁"的受案范围,其仲裁请求理应被依法驳回。

The arbitration tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UNCLOS published the award between Mauritius and Britain on March 18, 2015. The arbitration under Annex VII of the UNCLOS have compulsive character, but its scope shall be subject to limitations. The existence of disputes is the precondition of the compulsory arbitration and it must be legal dis- putes. In deciding whether the disputes in question belong to those of of interpretation or application of the UNCLOS, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the apparent disputes and the material disputes as well as that between the overall disputes and partial disputes. Sovereignty affect the scope of compulsory arbitration deeply and it will play different roles in different cases. The request of Philippines in the arbitration between Philippines and China falls out of the scope of the com- pulsory arbitration which was constituted under Annex VII of the UNCLOS and should be rejected.