THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION
living in a big city>alphabetic(THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)
The Hague, 12 July 2016
北京街舞培训班
The Tribunal Renders Its Award
A unanimous Award has been issued today by the Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention”) in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People’s Republic of China.This arbitration concerned the role of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain maritime features and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China that were alleged by the Philippines to violate the Convention. In light of limitations on compulsory dispute ttlement under the Convention, the Tribunal has empha sized that it does not rule on any question of sovereignty over land territory and does not delimit any boundary between the Parties.China has repeatedly stated that “it will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines.”Annex VII, however, provides that the “be nce of a party or failure of a party to defend its ca shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings.”Annex VII als
o provides that, in the event that a party does not participate in the proceedings, a tribunal “must satisfy itlf not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.”Accordingly, throughout the proceedings,the Tribunal has taken steps to test the accuracy of the Philippines’claims, including by requesting further written submissions from the Philippines, by questioning the Philippines both prior to and during two hearings, by appointing independent experts to report to the Tribunal on technical matters, and by obtaining historical evidence concerning features in the South China Sea and providing it to the Parties for comment.China has also made clear—through the publication of a Position Paper in December 2014 and in othe rofficial statements—that, in its view, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in this matter. Article 288 of the Convention provides that: “In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be ttled by decision of that court or tribunal.”Accordingly, the Tribunal convened a hearing on jurisdiction and admissibility in July 2015 and rendered an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 29 October 2015, deciding some issues of jurisdiction and deferring others for further consideration. The Tribunal then convened a hearing on the merits from 24 to 30 November 2015.The Award of today’s date address the issues of jurisdiction not decided in the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility and the merits of the Philippines’claims over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The Award is final and binding, as t out in Article 296 of the Convention a
nd Article 11 of Annex VII.Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’: The Tribunal found that it has jurisdiction to consider the Parties’dispute concerning historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea.On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention comprehensively allocates rights to maritime areas and that protections for pre-existing rights to resources were considered, but not adopted in the Convention. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, to the extent
roger federerChina had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention. The Tribunal also noted that, although Chine navigators and fishermen, as well as tho of other States, had historically made u of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercid exclusive control over the waters or their resources. The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the a areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.Status of Features: The Tribunal next considered entitlements to maritime areas and the status of features.The Tribunal first undertook an evaluation of whether certain reefs claimed by China are above water at high tide. Features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12 nautical mile territorial a, whereas
idp留学怎么样
features that are submerged at high tide do not. The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features. The Tribunal then considered whether any of the features claimed by China could generate maritime zones beyond 12 nautical miles. Under the Convention, islands generate an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and a continental shelf, but “ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”The Tribunal concluded that this provision depends upon the objective capacity of a feature, in its natural condition, to sustain either a stable community of people or economic activity that is not dependent on outside resources or purely extractive in nature. The Tribunal noted that the current prence of official personnel on many of the features is dependent on outside support and not reflective of the capacity of the features. The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and noted that the Spratly Islands were historically ud by small groups of fishermen and that veral Japane fishing and guano mining enterpris were attempted. The Tribunal concluded that such transient u does not constitute inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones. The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate cdata
maritime zones collectively as a unit. Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain a areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, becau tho areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.
Lawfulness of Chine Actions: The Tribunal next considered the lawfulness of Chine actions in the South China Sea. Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chine fishermen from fishing in the zone.
The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like tho from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with the rights in restricting access. The Tribunal further held that Chine law enforcement vesls had unlawfully created a rious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vesls.Harm to Marine Environment: The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at ven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caud vere harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligatio
n to prerve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species. The Tribunal also found that Chine authorities were aware that Chine fishermen have harvested endangered
考研英语词汇下载a turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict vere damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities.Aggravation of Dispute: Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China’s actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties. The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chine naval and law enforcement vesls at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory ttlement. The Tribunal found, however, that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties’dispute.An expanded summary of the Tribunal’s decisions is t out below.The Tribunal was constituted on 21 June 2013 pursuant to the procedure s
话题英文
et out in Annex VII of the Convention to decide the dispute prented by the Philippines. The Tribunal is compod of Judge Thomas A. Mensah of Ghana, Judge Jean-Pierre Cot of France, Judge Stanislaw Pawlak of Poland, Professor Alfred H.A. Soons of the Netherlands, and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum of Germany. Judge Thomas A. Mensah rves as President of the Tribunal. The Permanent Court of Arbitration acts as the Registry in the proceedings.Further information about the ca may be found at /web/view/7, including the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Rules of Procedure, earlier Press Releas, hearing transcripts, and photographs. Procedural Orders, submissions by the Philippines, and reports by the Tribunal’s experts will be made available in due cour, as will unofficial Chine translations of the Tribunal’s Awards.cyndi
>英语手抄报版面设计图
