南海仲裁案裁决全文Word格式.docx
- 文档编号:17859276
- 上传时间:2022-12-11
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:14
- 大小:27.80KB
南海仲裁案裁决全文Word格式.docx
《南海仲裁案裁决全文Word格式.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《南海仲裁案裁决全文Word格式.docx(14页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
在上周7月5日的文章里,我们就分享了有关菲律宾南海闹剧的一些新闻热词,包括所谓仲裁庭的名称和仲裁相关的一些词汇,感兴趣的可以移步至:
南海仲裁案英语热词|TheSouthChinaSeaarbitration
今天是7月12日,是菲律宾南海闹剧案,也就是南海仲裁案的裁决的日子,一下子朋友圈都火爆了关于中国一个点都不能少的图片,足以显现我们高昂的士气、不屈的意志和捍卫主权的誓死精神。
有关最终裁决的中文翻译版已经第一时间发布在了:
南海仲裁案裁决全文(中文版)。
也有很多朋友表示对英文原版的裁决文感兴趣,一是想从原文角度了解下本次裁决的全部内容,二是想参考了解下相关裁决的英文表示方式,第三自然是更重要的是看看闹剧最终出的是一个什么样漏洞百出的裁决文件,我们好好地给他找找茬。
由于原文有501页,我就不在正文复制粘贴了,实在是放不下。
另外一方面,真是觉得帝国主义忘我之心不死啊,你们几个小子闹着玩,还费那么大劲搞个500来页的判决材料来,吓唬谁啊?
此处是下载链接:
密码:
794i
补充:
为了方便大家阅读,我从整个裁决文件里面,把裁决的正文找出来了,贴在下面。
国际常设仲裁庭南中国海案裁决英文全文
THESOUTHCHINASEAARBITRATION(THEREPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESV.THEPEOPLE’SREPUBLICOFCHINA)
TheHague,12July2016
TheTribunalRendersItsAward
AunanimousAwardhasbeenissuedtodaybytheTribunalconstitutedunderAnnexVIItotheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea(the“Convention”)inthearbitrationinstitutedbytheRepublicofthePhilippinesagainstthePeople’sRepublicofChina.
ThisarbitrationconcernedtheroleofhistoricrightsandthesourceofmaritimeentitlementsintheSouthChinaSea,thestatusofcertainmaritimefeaturesandthemaritimeentitlementstheyarecapableofgenerating,andthelawfulnessofcertainactionsbyChinathatwereallegedbythePhilippinestoviolatetheConvention.InlightoflimitationsoncompulsorydisputesettlementundertheConvention,theTribunalhasemphasizedthatitdoesnotruleonanyquestionofsovereigntyoverlandterritoryanddoesnotdelimitanyboundarybetweentheParties.
Chinahasrepeatedlystatedthat“itwillneitheracceptnorparticipateinthearbitrationunilaterallyinitiatedbythePhilippines.”AnnexVII,however,providesthatthe“[a]bsenceofapartyorfailureofapartytodefenditscaseshallnotconstituteabartotheproceedings.”AnnexVIIalsoprovidesthat,intheeventthatapartydoesnotparticipateintheproceedings,atribunal“mustsatisfyitselfnotonlythatithasjurisdictionoverthedisputebutalsothattheclaimiswellfoundedinfactandlaw.”Accordingly,throughouttheseproceedings,theTribunalhastakenstepstotesttheaccuracyofthePhilippines’claims,includingbyrequestingfurtherwrittensubmissionsfromthePhilippines,byquestioningthePhilippinesbothpriortoandduringtwohearings,byappointingindependentexpertstoreporttotheTribunalontechnicalmatters,andbyobtaininghistoricalevidenceconcerningfeaturesintheSouthChinaSeaandprovidingittothePartiesforcomment.
Chinahasalsomadeclear—throughthepublicationofaPositionPaperinDecember2014andinotherofficialstatements—that,initsview,theTribunallacksjurisdictioninthismatter.Article288oftheConventionprovidesthat:
“Intheeventofadisputeastowhetheracourtortribunalhasjurisdiction,themattershallbesettledbydecisionofthatcourtortribunal.”Accordingly,theTribunalconvenedahearingonjurisdictionandadmissibilityinJuly2015andrenderedanAwardonJurisdictionandAdmissibilityon29October2015,decidingsomeissuesofjurisdictionanddeferringothersforfurtherconsideration.TheTribunalthenconvenedahearingonthemeritsfrom24to30November2015.
TheAwardoftoday’sdateaddressestheissuesofjurisdictionnotdecidedintheAwardonJurisdictionandAdmissibilityandthemeritsofthePhilippines’claimsoverwhichtheTribunalhasjurisdiction.TheAwardisfinalandbinding,assetoutinArticle296oftheConventionandArticle11ofAnnexVII.
HistoricRightsandthe‘Nine-DashLine’:
TheTribunalfoundthatithasjurisdictiontoconsidertheParties’disputeconcerninghistoricrightsandthesourceofmaritimeentitlementsintheSouthChinaSea.Onthemerits,theTribunalconcludedthattheConventioncomprehensivelyallocatesrightstomaritimeareasandthatprotectionsforpre-existingrightstoresourceswereconsidered,butnotadoptedintheConvention.Accordingly,theTribunalconcludedthat,totheextentChinahadhistoricrightstoresourcesinthewatersoftheSouthChinaSea,suchrightswereextinguishedtotheextenttheywereincompatiblewiththeexclusiveeconomiczonesprovidedforintheConvention.TheTribunalalsonotedthat,although
Chinesenavigatorsandfishermen,aswellasthoseofotherStates,hadhistoricallymadeuseoftheislandsintheSouthChinaSea,therewasnoevidencethatChinahadhistoricallyexercisedexclusivecontroloverthewatersortheirresources.TheTribunalconcludedthattherewasnolegalbasisforChinatoclaimhistoricrightstoresourceswithintheseaareasfallingwithinthe‘nine-dashline’.
StatusofFeatures:
TheTribunalnextconsideredentitlementstomaritimeareasandthestatusoffeatures.TheTribunalfirstundertookanevaluationofwhethercertainreefsclaimedbyChinaareabovewaterathightide.Featuresthatareabovewaterathightidegenerateanentitlementtoatleasta12nauticalmileterritorialsea,whereasfeaturesthataresubmergedathightidedonot.TheTribunalnotedthatthereefshavebeenheavilymodifiedbylandreclamationandconstruction,recalledthattheConventionclassifiesfeaturesontheirnaturalcondition,andreliedonhistoricalmaterialsinevaluatingthefeatures.TheTribunalthenconsideredwhetheranyofthefeaturesclaimedbyChinacouldgeneratemaritimezonesbeyond12nauticalmiles.UndertheConvention,islandsgenerateanexclusiveeconomiczoneof200nauticalmilesandacontinentalshelf,but“[r]ockswhichcannotsustainhumanhabitationoreconomiclifeoftheirownshallhavenoexclusiveeconomiczoneorcontinentalshelf.”TheTribunalconcludedthatthisprovisiondependsupontheobjectivecapacityofafeature,initsnaturalcondition,tosustaineitherastablecommunityofpeopleoreconomicactivitythatisnotdependentonoutsideresourcesorpurelyextractiveinnature.TheTribunalnotedthatthecurrentpresenceofofficialpersonnelonmanyofthefeaturesisdependentonoutsidesupportandnotreflectiveofthecapacityofthefeatures.TheTribunalfoundhistoricalevidencetobemorerelevantandnotedthattheSpratlyIslandswerehistoricallyusedbysmallgroupsoffishermenandthatseveralJapanesefishingandguanominingenterpriseswereattempted.TheTribunalconcludedthatsuchtransientusedoesnotconstituteinhabitationbyastablecommunityandthatallofthehistoricaleconomicactivityhadbeenextractive.Accordingly,theTribunalconcludedthatnoneoftheSpratlyIslandsiscapableofgeneratingextendedmaritimezones.TheTribunalalsoheldthattheSpratlyIslandscannotgeneratemaritimezonescollectivelyasaunit.HavingfoundthatnoneofthefeaturesclaimedbyChinawascapableofgeneratinganexclusiveeconomiczone,theTribunalfoundthatitcould—withoutdelimitingaboundary—declarethatcertainseaareasarewithintheexclusiveeconomiczoneofthePhilippines,becausethoseareasarenotoverlappedbyanypossibleentitlementofChina.
LawfulnessofChineseActions:
TheTribunalnextconsideredthelawfulnessofChineseactionsintheSouthChinaSea.HavingfoundthatcertainareasarewithintheexclusiveeconomiczoneofthePhilippines,theTribunalfoundthatChinahadviolatedthePhilippines’sovereignrightsinitsexclusiveeconomiczoneby(a)interferingwithPhilippinefishingandpetroleumexploration,(b)constructingartificialislandsand(c)failingtopreventChinesefishermenfromfishinginthezone.TheTribunalalsoheldthatfishermenfromthePhilippines(likethosefromChina)hadtraditionalfishingrightsatScarboroughShoalandthatChinahadinterferedwiththeserightsinrestrictingaccess.TheTribunalfurtherheldthatChineselawenforcementvesselshadunlawfullycreatedaseriousriskofcollisionwhentheyphysicallyobstructedPhilippinevessels.
HarmtoMarineEnvironment:
TheTribunalconsideredtheeffectonthemarineenvironmentofChina’srecentlarge-scalelandreclamationandconstructionofartificialislandsatsevenfeaturesintheSpratlyIslandsandfoundthatChinahadcausedsevereharmtothecoralreefenvironmentandviolateditsobligationtopreserveandprotectfragileecosystemsandthehabitatofdepleted,threatened,orendangeredspecies.TheTribunalalsofoundthatChineseauthoritieswereawarethatChinesefishermenhaveharvestedendangeredseaturtles,coral,andgiantclamsonasubstantialscaleintheSouthChinaSea(usingmethodsthatinflictseveredamageonthecoralreefenvironment)andhadnotfulfilledtheirobligationstostopsuchactivities.
AggravationofDispute:
Finally,theTribunalconsideredwhetherChina’sactionssincethecommencementofthearbitrationhadaggravatedthedisputebetweentheParties.TheTribunalfoundthatitlackedjurisdictiontoconsidertheimplicationsofastand-offbetweenPhilippinemarinesandChinesenavalandlawenforcementvesselsatSecondThomasShoal,holdingthatthisdisputeinvolvedmilitaryactivitiesandwasthereforeexcludedfromcompulsorysettlement.TheTribunalfound,however,thatChina’srecentlarge-scalelandreclamationandconstructionofartificialislandswasincompatiblewiththeobligationsonaStateduringdisputeresolutionproceedings,insofarasChinahasinflictedirreparableharmtothemarineenvironment,builtalargeartificialislandinthePhilippines’exclusiveeconomiczone,anddestroyedevidenceofthenaturalconditionoffeaturesintheSouthChinaSeathatformedpartoftheParties’dispute.
AnexpandedsummaryoftheTribunal’sdecisionsissetoutbelow.
TheTribunalwasconstitutedon21June2013pursuanttotheproceduresetoutinAnnexVIIofthe
ConventiontodecidethedisputepresentedbythePhilippines.TheTribunalis
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 南海 仲裁 裁决 全文
![提示](https://static.bdocx.com/images/bang_tan.gif)