南海仲裁案是一场政治闹剧

　　Liu Xiaoming, Chinese Ambassador to London

　　中国驻英国大使 刘晓明

　　23 July 2016

　　2016年7月23日

　　The so-called award made by the South China Sea arbitral tribunal attracted wide attention. Media coverage here in the UK generally shared the same logic: this ruling represents the international law and China’s non-acceptance of this ruling is in violation of international law. But is this true?

　　南海仲裁案仲裁庭近日出台了所谓裁决结果，引发广泛关注。英国媒体的报道林林总总，但大体意思不外乎一句话：仲裁庭的裁决代表了国际法，中国不接受仲裁就是不遵守国际法。事实果真如此吗?

　　It is common sense that a legitimate arbitration needs to meet certain conditions. First, the tribunal shall have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Second, the arbitrators shall be impartial and authoritative. Third, the procedure must be reasonable. Fourth, the ruling on the substantive issues should help resolve disputes.Does the South China Sea arbitration meet any of these conditions? The answer is no.

　　常识告诉我们，一场合法的仲裁至少要满足几个条件：一是在仲裁事项上确有管辖权;二是仲裁员本身要公正、权威;三是整个仲裁程序要合乎常理;四是对实体问题的裁决要达到化解矛盾的效果。南海仲裁满足这些条件吗?答案显然是否定的。

　　First and foremost, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction. The subject matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines, and the real intention behind it, is in essence related to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Issues of territorial sovereignty are clearly beyond the scope of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and issues of maritime delimitation have been excluded by the declaration that China made years ago in accordance with UNCLOS. The arbitral tribunal in fact expanded its power into areas outside of its jurisdiction.

　　先看管辖权。菲律宾单方面提起仲裁的有关事项，背后的本质和真正目的都指向领土主权和海洋划界问题，领土主权问题《联合国海洋法公约》根本管不着，海洋划界问题也早已被中国根据《公约》规定而作的声明所排除。仲裁庭实际上是在自己无权管辖的领域扩权、滥权。

　　Second, the composition of the tribunal – an ad hoc body having nothing to do with the International Court of Justice – is questionable. None of the five arbitrators is from Asia or has much knowledge of Asian history and culture. Most inconceivable in the arbitration process was that two arbitrators totally abandoned the opinions that they used to hold. This only increases doubts about the impartiality, representativeness and the authoritativeness of the tribunal.

　　再看仲裁庭的构成。仲裁庭并非国际法院，只是一个临时组建的机构。五名仲裁员中没有一位来自亚洲，不了解东亚文化和历史。更令人匪夷所思的是，有两位仲裁员还在仲裁过程中完全背弃了原来坚持的观点。这样一个仲裁庭有多少公正性、代表性和权威性，不能不让人怀疑。

　　Third, the procedure of the arbitration went against normal practice. According to the dispute settlement system of the Convention, bilateral channels between state parties comes before arbitration. However, disregarding prior bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines to resolve the disputes through negotiations and consultations, the tribunal forced ahead with the arbitration proceedings. Such procedure is utterly unreasonable and it contravenes the general practice of international arbitration under the Convention.

　　再看仲裁程序。在《公约》设计的争端解决机制中，缔约国通过双边渠道解决争议应予以优先适用，但仲裁庭却反其道而行之，在中菲早已选择通过谈判协商解决争端的情况下，仍优先选择强制仲裁,强行审理。这种做法不合常理，违反《公约》的一般实践。

　　Fourth is the ultimate effect of the ruling. The UNCLOS dispute settlement is designed to resolve problems and disputes in a just way. But the tribunal’s ruling is anything but. “There’s no free lunch”. This sums up the actions of the tribunal, paid with Philippine money. To cater to the Philippines’ claim, the tribunal shrank the Taiping Island into a rock and was denounced by all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. To save the Philippines from breaching its own commitment to bilateral negotiations, the tribunal belittled and nullified the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) reached between China and ASEAN countries. To deny China’s legitimate rights and interests, the tribunal turned a blind eye to China’s sovereign rights, which are inherited from past generations and are protected by the UN Charter. Such a recklessly partial tribunal creates more problems than it solves, and intensifies rather than solves disputes. No wonder a former FCO legal advisor Chris Whomersley believes that the tribunal is potentially destabilising the overall stability of international relations.

　　最后看裁决效果。《公约》诞生的初衷是公正地解决问题、化解矛盾，仲裁庭的做法却与此背道而驰。中国有句俗话：“吃人家的嘴软，拿人家的手短”，用来形容这个由菲律宾出钱组建的仲裁庭再合适不过。为了最大程度迎合菲律宾的主张，仲裁庭竟把太平岛硬称为“岩礁”，遭到海峡两岸中国同胞一致谴责;为了给菲律宾违反通过双边谈判解决争议的承诺开脱，它不惜贬低中国与东盟十国达成的《南海各方行为宣言》，否定其法律地位;为了否定中国的合法权利，它竟能把中国祖祖辈辈传承下来、受《联合国宪章》保护的主权权益一笔勾销。这种毫无顾忌的偏袒不是在解决问题，而是在制造问题;不是在化解矛盾，而是在激化矛盾。难怪英国前外交部法律顾问霍默斯雷先生会在研究报告中提出担忧：仲裁庭的有关做法将撼动国际关系的整体稳定。

　　Anyone who is fair-minded will have by now come to a conclusion: a temporary body with insufficient representation went beyond its jurisdiction and violated the reasonable procedures to successfully intensify disputes rather than solve problems. The impressive-looking arbitration is in essence a political farce under the cloak of law. Pretty words about protecting the law cannot gloss over the illegal essence and practice of the tribunal.Throughout this farce, the law has been a victim of politics. If such a farce were regarded as international law, and if international disputes were to be “settled” in this way, the authority of international law and the peace between nations would be compromised. By not accepting or recognising the ruling, China is not violating but upholding the authority and dignity of international law.

　　从以上种种，任何不抱偏见的人都能得出结论：一个缺乏代表性的临时机构，强行插手它本不该管的事，经过不合常理的程序，最后不仅没有解决问题，反而激化了矛盾。这场仲裁看似冠冕堂皇，实质却是一场披着法律外衣的政治闹剧。完全是打着合法的招牌，干着非法的勾当;打着护法的旗号，从事违法的活动。在这场闹剧中，法律成了政治的牺牲品。如果这样的闹剧能代表国际法，如果国际上的争议都靠这种模式“解决”，那么法律的严肃性将荡然无存，世界将永无安宁之日。因此，中国不接受、不承认这场仲裁，不但不是不遵守国际法，而是在捍卫国际法的权威和尊严。

　　History has told us mortal beings time and again that solutions to disputes will come only when countries concerned sit down face to face for equal and friendly consultation. It is China’s consistent position to resolve issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation through peaceful negotiations. We welcome the new Philippine government’s recent statement about its willingness to re-open consultation and dialogue with China on the South China Sea issue. We hope this positive gesture will be followed by real actions and that the Philippines will return to the track of negotiation at an early date, work with China to properly manage differences and jointly maintain the peace and stability of the South China Sea.

　　无数事实已经证明，只有让当事国自己坐下来进行平等友好的协商，才能最终解决争议。中国一贯主张在尊重历史事实的基础上通过谈判和平解决领土和海洋划界争议。我们欢迎菲律宾新政府最近表示愿同中国就南海问题恢复协商对话。我们期待菲律宾新政府将这一积极表态变为实际行动，与中方相向而行，尽早回到谈判解决问题的轨道，妥善管控分歧，共同维护南海地区的和平与安宁。