毕业旅行英文菲律宾闹剧：南海仲裁案裁决全文（英文版）
发表于2016年7月13日作者danke
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| The South China Sea arbitration
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：菲律宾闹剧：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。
opinionated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: /s/1gfi9Z7l 密码: 794i
补充：
基泰英为了方便大家阅读，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
THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION (THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)
The Hague, 12 July 2016
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.
wildchinaThis 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 emphasized that it does not rule on any question of sovereignty ov
er 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 “[a]bnce of a party or failure of a pa rty to defend its ca shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings.” Annex VII also 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 a lso 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 other official statements—that, in its view, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in this matter. Article 288 of the Convention provides that: “In the eve nt of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdict
ion, 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 iss ues 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 and 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 China 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 Tribu
nal also noted that, although
想去国外留学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 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 “[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive
吉隆坡英文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 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’ sove reign 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 obligation 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 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 exp anded summary of the Tribunal’s decisions is t out below.
The Tribunal was constituted on 21 June 2013 pursuant to the procedure t 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
Alfredalloys
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.
Background to the Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization established by the
1899 Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The PCA has 121 Member
States. Headquartered at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands, the PCA facilitates arbitration, conciliation, fact-finding, and other dispute resolution proceedings among various combinations of States,
State entities, intergovernmental organizations, and private parties. The PCA’s International Bureau is currently administering 8 interstate disputes, 73 investor-State arbitrations, and 34 cas arising under contracts involving a State or other public entity. The PCA has administered 12 cas initiated by States under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In July 2013, the Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration appointed the PCA to rve as Registry for the proceedings. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that the PCA shall “maintain an archive of the arbitr al proceedings and provide appropriate registry rvices as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal.” Such rvices include assisting with the identification and appointment of experts; publishing information about the arbitration and issuing press releas; organizing the hearings at the Peace Palace in The Hague; and the financial management of the ca, which involves holding a deposit for expens in the arbitration, such as to pay arbitrator fees, experts, technical support, court reporters etc. The Registry also rves as the channel of communications amongst the Parties and the Tribunal and obrver States.
Photograph: Hearing in ssion, July 2015, Peace Palace, The Hague. Clockwi from top left: Registrar and PCA Senior Legal Counl Judith Levine; Judge Stanislaw Pawlak; Professor Alfred H.
A. Soons; Judge
Thomas A. Mensah (Presiding Arbitrator); Judge Jean-Pierre Cot; Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum; PCA Seniorextra
Legal Counl Garth Schofield; former Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, Mr. Albert F. Delasiafriendfinder
Rosario; former Solicitor General Mr. Florin T. Hilbay, Counl for the Philippines; Mr. Paul S. Reichler;
Professor Philippe Sands; Professor Bernard H. Oxman; Professor Alan E. Boyle; Mr. Lawrence H. Martin.
SUMMARY OF THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISIONS ON ITS JURISDICTION AND ON THE MERITS OF THE PHILIPPINES’ CLAIMS
1. Background to the Arbitration
The South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China concerned an application by
the Philippines for rulings in respect of four matters concerning the relationship between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea. First, the Philippines sought a ruling on the source of the Parties’ rights and obligations in the South China Sea and the effect of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“Convention”) on China’s claims to historic rights within its so-called ‘nine-dash line’. Second, the Philippines sought a ruling on whether certain maritime features claimed by both China and the Philippines are properly characterized as islands, rocks, low-tide elevations or submerged banks under the Convention. The status of the features under the Convention determines the maritime zones they are capable of generating. Third, the Philippines sought rulings on whether certain Chine actions in the South China Sea have violated the Convention, by interfering with the exerci of the Philippines’ sovereign rights and freedoms under the Convention or through construction and fishing activities that have harmed the marine environment. Finally, the Philippines sought a ruling that certain actions taken by China, in particular its large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands since this arbitration was commenced, have unlawfully aggravated and extended the Parties’ dispute.
The Chine Government has adhered to the position of neither accepting nor participating in the arbitral proceedings. It has reiterated this position in diplomatic notes, in the “Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of Chin a on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines” dated 7 December 2014 (“China’s Position Paper”), in letters to members of the Tribunal from the Chine Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and in many public statements. The Chine Government has also made clear that the statements and documents “shall by no means be interpreted as China’s participation in the arbitral proceeding in any form.”
niceday是什么意思Two provisions of the Convention address the situation of a party that objects to the jurisdiction of a tribunal and declines to participate in the proceedings:
(a) Article 288 of the Convention provides that: “In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the m atter shall be ttled by decision of that court or tribunal.”(b) Article 9 of Annex VII to the Convention provides that:
If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its ca, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to make its award. Ab
nce of a party or failure of a party to defend its ca shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. Before making its award, the arbitral 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. Throughout the proceedings, the Tribunal has taken a number of steps to fulfil its duty to satisfy itlf as to whether it has jurisdiction and whether the Ph ilippines’ claims are “well founded in fact and law”. With respect to jurisdiction, the Tribunal decided to treat China’s informal communications as equivalent to an objection to jurisdiction, convened a Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 7 to 13 July 2015, questioned the Philippines both before and during the hearing on matters of jurisdiction, including potential issues not raid in China’s informal communications, and issued an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 29 October 2015 (the “Award on Jurisdiction”), deciding some issues of jurisdiction and deferring others for further consideration in conjunction with the merits of the Philippines’ claims. With respect to the merits, the Tribunal sought to test the accuracy of the Philippines’ claims by requesting further written submissions from the Philippines, by convening a hearing on the merits from 24
