《联合国海洋法公约》仲裁和强制仲裁之分析——明显排除:仲裁案因单方面提请而立案而裁判

On Arbitration and Compulsory Arbitration in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

要尊重中国签署的中文版《公约》及其语义,又没规定判例法。《公约》定义了一些歧义型语词而没定义"仲裁",是视之为共识型语词。在汉语和中国的仲裁实践里,仲裁的必要前提是争议双方的同意,而且这在国际上也有共识;作为仲裁本质特征的同意不限于规则级同意,关键是案件级同意。事实上,《公约》排除了仲裁名义下的伪仲裁(霸裁):没规定原则上(在满足某些条件下)仲裁可因单方面提请而立案和裁判,没规定争端的另方有义务提请仲裁,即为另方保留了是否提请仲裁的决定权,尊重了当事国同意的基础地位;《公约》没有把"仲裁"歪曲为一种"强制调解",而是规定了其本质区别。《公约》里的强制仲裁是(仲裁案能成立之前提下的)强制继续而非强制提请,逻辑上它只能是针对中途退场的现象。

We should respect the meaning of the Chinese version of the Convention that was signed by China. Moreover, the Convention doesn＇t stipulate that it applies ＂ case law＂ The Convention defines some ambiguity words, doesn＇t define ＂arbitration＂, this shows that ＂arbitration＂ is a clear word. In Chinese and Chinese practice, the necessary premise of arbitration is the consent of both parties, moreover, there is consensus in the international community; as a characteristic of arbitration, the consent isn＇t only rule-level consent, but also case-level consent. In fact, the Convention exclude the pseudo arbitration （under the name of arbitration） ： The Convention does not distort ＂arbitration＂ into a kind of ＂compulsory mediation＂, which provides the essential difference between them. The Convention does not stipulate that in principle （under certain conditions） arbitration may be submitted for arbitration and adjudication, it does not require the other party to submit the dispute to arbitration; That is to say, the other party reserves the right to decide whether to appeal to arbitration, It respects the fundamental status of the parties＇ consent. Compulsory point of compulsory arbitration lies in continuation, not submission. The premise is that the arbitration case can be established. Logically, it can onty be for the phenomenon of half-way exit.