《联合国海洋法公约》附件七仲裁:定位、表现与问题——兼谈对“南海仲裁案”的启示

Arbitration under Annex Ⅶ of UNCLOS:Positioning,Performance and Paradox,and Their Implications for the South China Sea Arbitration

自1997年出现第一例案件以来,《联合国海洋法公约》附件七仲裁一直保持着稳定的利用率,成为海洋争端解决中的亮点。其主要原因有二:一是"唯一的剩余方法"之设计使得依附件七仲裁所设立的仲裁法庭在《联合国海洋法公约》争端解决机制中的实际地位高于国际海洋法法庭和国际法院;二是作为一种强制仲裁,附件七仲裁在相当程度上抛弃了传统仲裁的约定性,在规则上表现出"单方意志性"。它们虽然可直接带来附件七仲裁的高利用率,但是使附件七仲裁很可能成为一种"少数人裁决"的争端解决活动。实践中,附件七仲裁超过国际海洋法法庭和国际法院成为解决海洋争端的第一法律方法,少数人成为附件七仲裁庭的"常任"仲裁员和庭长这一现象验证了这一点。问题是,这种现象并不符合程序公正的基本要求。附件七仲裁规则与实践的这种悖论,源于附件七仲裁制度设计得不合理和《联合国海洋法公约》争端解决机制的体制性缺陷。遵守此种机制可导致实质的消极后果。这也为中国不接受、不参与菲律宾单方提起的"南海仲裁案"提供了一种论据。

Arbitration under Annex Ⅶ of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) keeps a record of stable utilization rate since the initiation of the first case in 1997,and this makes it become the highlight of the settlement of maritime disputes.There are two reasons to explain this:first,the actual status of the Annex Ⅶ arbitral tribunal in the dispute settlement system of UNCLOS is higher than that of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice for the design of ' the only default means';Second,the unilateral volition of the rules of the Annex Ⅶarbitration,as a type of compulsory arbitration,puts aside considerably the agreement of both parties to a dispute.They may directly bring the high utilization rate of the Annex Ⅶ arbitration,however,make it a kind of dispute settlement activity decided by the few people.This can be verified by the facts that the Annex Ⅶ arbitration has become the first legal means to settle maritime disputes and some people take the posts of arbitrator and the presidents of the arbitral tribunal frequently.However,these phenomena are inconsistent with the basic requirements of due process.The paradoxs concerning the Annex Ⅶ arbitration in theory and practice stem from the unreasonableness of the Annex Ⅶ arbitration rules and the institutional deficiencies of the dispute settlement system of UNCLOS,and may lead to substantially negative consequences which are incompatible with the rule of law.All above may enrich China's arguments for its position of non-acceptance of and non-participation in the proceedings of the South China Sea Arbitration initiated unilaterally by the Philippines.