主页 > 军事 > 致富网赚案裁决全文(中文版)

致富网赚案裁决全文(中文版)

2020-01-16 17:18


      哈里斯的话也没白说,依照中本国人大金灿荣教授的讲法,美本国人是举动派,说干就干。

      在此进程中,仲裁庭指定了三位独立的珊瑚礁底栖生物学专门家来赞助其评估现有学左证以及菲律宾的专门家汇报。

      如其不管怎样中国裨益诉求的有悟性,一直渴求中国领受国际仲裁裁决,好似国际法的大棒是全天候的,这种设法并不合合国际瓜葛的内在论理。

      双航母决斗群!这是美国准备应对弈部战事的垂范战技术编组,普通以为,美国派一艘航母驶入热点地面是示意威胁的态度,派两艘即正正派经准备打一场局部战事,派三艘之上即准备大打脱手了。

      因该时间点与预测7月12日颁布的所谓致富网赚案最终裁夺异常临近,外媒3日纷纭将两者关联兴起。

      常设鉴定者民法院集体所有121个分子国,总位置于荷兰海牙的相安无事宫。

      国际常设仲裁庭南中国海案裁决英文通篇:THESOUTHCHINASEAARBITRATION(THEREPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESV.THEPEOPLE’SREPUBLICOFCHINA)TheHague,12July2016TheTribunalRendersItsAwardAunanimousAwardhasbeenissuedtodaybytheTribunalconstitutedunderAnnexVIItotheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea(theConvention)inthearbitrationinstitutedbytheRepublicofthePhilippinesagainstthePeople’sRepublicofChina.ThisarbitrationconcernedtheroleofhistoricrightsandthesourceofmaritimeentitlementsintheSouthChinaSea,thestatusofcertainmaritimefeaturesandthemaritimeentitlementstheyarecapableofgenerating,andthelawfulnessofcertainactionsbyChinathatwereallegedbythePhilippinestoviolatetheConvention.InlightoflimitationsoncompulsorydisputesettlementundertheConvention,theTribunalhasemphasizedthatitdoesnotruleonanyquestionofsovereigntyoverlandterritoryanddoesnotdelimitanyboundarybetweentheParties.ChinahasrepeatedlystatedthatitwillneitheracceptnorparticipateinthearbitrationunilaterallyinitiatedbythePhilippines.AnnexVII,however,providesthattheabsenceofapartyorfailureofapartytodefenditscaseshallnotconstituteabartotheproceedings.AnnexVIIalsoprovidesthat,intheeventthatapartydoesnotparticipateintheproceedings,atribunalmustsatisfyitselfnotonlythatithasjurisdictionoverthedisputebutalsothattheclaimiswellfoundedinfactandlaw.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,althoughChinesenavigatorsandfishermen,aswellasthoseofotherStates,hadhistoricallymadeuseoftheislandsintheSouthChinaSea,therewasnoevidencethatChinahadhistoricallyexercisedexclusivecontroloverthewatersortheirresources.TheTribunalconcludedthattherewasnolegalbasisforChinatoclaimhistoricrightstoresourceswithintheseaareasfallingwithinthe‘nine-dashline’.StatusofFeatures:TheTribunalnextconsideredentitlementstomaritimeareasandthestatusoffeatures.TheTribunalfirstundertookanevaluationofwhethercertainreefsclaimedbyChinaareabovewaterathightide.Featuresthatareabovewaterathightidegenerateanentitlementtoatleasta12nauticalmileterritorialsea,whereasfeaturesthataresubmergedathightidedonot.TheTribunalnotedthatthereefshavebeenheavilymodifiedbylandreclamationandconstruction,recalledthattheConventionclassifiesfeaturesontheirnaturalcondition,andreliedonhistoricalmaterialsinevaluatingthefeatures.TheTribunalthenconsideredwhetheranyofthefeaturesclaimedbyChinacouldgeneratemaritimezonesbeyond12nauticalmiles.UndertheConvention,islandsgenerateanexclusiveeconomiczoneof200nauticalmilesandacontinentalshelf,butrockswhichcannotsustainhumanhabitationoreconomiclifeoftheirownshallhavenoexclusiveeconomiczoneorcontinentalshelf.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.TheTribunalwasconstitutedon21June2013pursuanttotheproceduresetoutinAnnexVIIoftheConventiontodecidethedisputepresentedbythePhilippines.TheTribunaliscomposedofJudgeThomasA.MensahofGhana,JudgeJean-PierreCotofFrance,JudgeStanislawPawlakofPoland,ProfessorAlfredH.A.SoonsoftheNetherlands,andJudgeRüdigerWolfrumofGermany.JudgeThomasA.MensahservesasPresidentoftheTribunal.ThePermanentCourtofArbitrationactsastheRegistryintheproceedings.Furtherinformationaboutthecasemaybefoundatwww.pcacases.com/web/view/7,includingtheAwardonJurisdictionandAdmissibility,theRulesofProcedure,earlierPressReleases,hearingtranscripts,andphotographs.ProceduralOrders,submissionsbythePhilippines,andreportsbytheTribunal’sexpertswillbemadeavailableinduecourse,aswillunofficialChinesetranslationsoftheTribunal’sAwards.BackgroundtothePermanentCourtofArbitrationThePermanentCourtofArbitration(PCA)isanintergovernmentalorganizationestablishedbythe1899HagueConventiononthePacificSettlementofInternationalDisputes.ThePCAhas121MemberStates.HeadquarteredatthePeacePalaceinTheHague,theNetherlands,thePCAfacilitatesarbitration,conciliation,fact-finding,andotherdisputeresolutionproceedingsamongvariouscombinationsofStates,Stateentities,intergovernmentalorganizations,andprivateparties.ThePCA’sInternationalBureauiscurrentlyadministering8interstatedisputes,73investor-Statearbitrations,and34casesarisingundercontractsinvolvingaStateorotherpublicentity.ThePCAhasadministered12casesinitiatedbyStatesunderAnnexVIItotheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea.InJuly2013,theTribunalintheSouthChinaSeaArbitrationappointedthePCAtoserveasRegistryfortheproceedings.TheTribunal’sRulesofProcedureprovidethatthePCAshallmaintainanarchiveofthearbitralproceedingsandprovideappropriateregistryservicesasdirectedbytheArbitralTribunal.Suchservicesincludeassistingwiththeidentificationandappointmentofexperts;publishinginformationaboutthearbitrationandissuingpressreleases;organizingthehearingsatthePeacePalaceinTheHague;andthefinancialmanagementofthecase,whichinvolvesholdingadepositforexpensesinthearbitration,suchastopayarbitratorfees,experts,technicalsupport,courtreportersetc.TheRegistryalsoservesasthechannelofcommunicationsamongstthePartiesandtheTribunalandobserverStates.Photograph:Hearinginsession,July2015,PeacePalace,TheHague.Clockwisefromtopleft:RegistrarandPCASeniorLegalCounselJudithLevine;JudgeStanislawPawlak;ProfessorAlfredH.A.Soons;JudgeThomasA.Mensah(PresidingArbitrator);JudgeJean-PierreCot;JudgeRüdigerWolfrum;PCASeniorLegalCounselGarthSchofield;formerSecretaryforForeignAffairsofthePhilippines,Mr.AlbertF.DelRosario;formerSolicitorGeneralMr.FlorinT.Hilbay,CounselforthePhilippines;Mr.PaulS.Reichler;ProfessorPhilippeSands;ProfessorBernardH.Oxman;ProfessorAlanE.Boyle;Mr.LawrenceH.Martin.SUMMARYOFTHETRIBUNAL’SDECISIONSONITSJURISDICTIONANDONTHEMERITSOFTHEPHILIPPINES’CLAIMS1\.BackgroundtotheArbitrationTheSouthChinaSeaArbitrationbetweenthePhilippinesandChinaconcernedanapplicationbythePhilippinesforrulingsinrespectoffourmattersconcerningtherelationshipbetweenthePhilippinesandChinaintheSouthChinaSea.First,thePhilippinessoughtarulingonthesourceoftheParties’rightsandobligationsintheSouthChinaSeaandtheeffectoftheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea(Convention)onChina’sclaimstohistoricrightswithinitsso-called‘nine-dashline’.Second,thePhilippinessoughtarulingonwhethercertainmaritimefeaturesclaimedbybothChinaandthePhilippinesareproperlycharacterizedasislands,rocks,low-tideelevationsorsubmergedbanksundertheConvention.ThestatusofthesefeaturesundertheConventiondeterminesthemaritimezonestheyarecapableofgenerating.Third,thePhilippinessoughtrulingsonwhethercertainChineseactionsintheSouthChinaSeahaveviolatedtheConvention,byinterferingwiththeexerciseofthePhilippines’sovereignrightsandfreedomsundertheConventionorthroughconstructionandfishingactivitiesthathaveharmedthemarineenvironment.Finally,thePhilippinessoughtarulingthatcertainactionstakenbyChina,inparticularitslarge-scalelandreclamationandconstructionofartificialislandsintheSpratlyIslandssincethisarbitrationwascommenced,haveunlawfullyaggravatedandextendedtheParties’dispute.TheChineseGovernmenthasadheredtothepositionofneitheracceptingnorparticipatinginthesearbitralproceedings.Ithasreiteratedthispositionindiplomaticnotes,inthePositionPaperoftheGovernmentofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaontheMatterofJurisdictionintheSouthChinaSeaArbitrationInitiatedbytheRepublicofthePhilippinesdated7December2014(China’sPositionPaper),inletterstomembersoftheTribunalfromtheChineseAmbassadortotheKingdomoftheNetherlands,andinmanypublicstatements.TheChineseGovernmenthasalsomadeclearthatthesestatementsanddocumentsshallbynomeansbeinterpretedasChina’sparticipationinthearbitralproceedinginanyform.TwoprovisionsoftheConventionaddressthesituationofapartythatobjectstothejurisdictionofatribunalanddeclinestoparticipateintheproceedings:(a)Article288oftheConventionprovidesthat:Intheeventofadisputeastowhetheracourtortribunalhasjurisdiction,themattershallbesettledbydecisionofthatcourtortribunal.(b)Article9ofAnnexVIItotheConventionprovidesthat:Ifoneofthepartiestothedisputedoesnotappearbeforethearbitraltribunalorfailstodefenditscase,theotherpartymayrequestthetribunaltocontinuetheproceedingsandtomakeitsaward.Absenceofapartyorfailureofapartytodefenditscaseshallnotconstituteabartotheproceedings.Beforemakingitsaward,thearbitraltribunalmustsatisfyitselfnotonlythatithasjurisdictionoverthedisputebutalsothattheclaimiswellfoundedinfactandlaw.Throughouttheseproceedings,theTribunalhastakenanumberofstepstofulfilitsdutytosatisfyitselfastowhetherithasjurisdictionandwhetherthePhilippines’claimsarewellfoundedinfactandlaw.Withrespecttojurisdiction,theTribunaldecidedtotreatChina’sinformalcommunicationsasequivalenttoanobjectiontojurisdiction,convenedaHearingonJurisdictionandAdmissibilityon7to13July2015,questionedthePhilippinesbothbeforeandduringthehearingonmattersofjurisdiction,includingpotentialissuesnotraisedinChina’sinformalcommunications,andissuedanAwardonJurisdictionandAdmissibilityon29October2015(theAwardonJurisdiction),decidingsomeissuesofjurisdictionanddeferringothersforfurtherconsiderationinconjunctionwiththemeritsofthePhilippines’claims.Withrespecttothemerits,theTribunalsoughttotesttheaccuracyofthePhilippines’claimsbyrequestingfurtherwrittensubmissionsfromthePhilippines,byconveningahearingonthemeritsfrom24to30November2015,byquestioningthePhilippinesbothbeforeandduringthehearingwithrespecttoitsclaims,byappointingindependentexpertstoreporttotheTribunalontechnicalmatters,andbyobtaininghistoricalrecordsandhydrographicsurveydatafortheSouthChinaSeafromthearchivesoftheUnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice,theNationalLibraryofFrance,andtheFrenchNationalOverseasArchivesandprovidingittothePartiesforcomment,alongwithotherrelevantmaterialsinthepublicdomain.2\.TheParties’PositionsThePhilippinesmade15Submissionsintheseproceedings,requestingtheTribunaltofindthat:(1)China’smaritimeentitlementsintheSouthChinaSea,likethoseofthePhilippines,maynotextendbeyondthoseexpresslypermittedbytheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea;(2)China’sclaimstosovereignrightsjurisdiction,andtohistoricrights,withrespecttothemaritimeareasoftheSouthChinaSeaencompassedbytheso-callednine-dashlinearecontrarytotheConventionandwithoutlawfuleffecttotheextentthattheyexceedthegeographicandsubstantivelimitsofChina’smaritimeentitlementsexpresslypermittedbyUNCLOS;(3)ScarboroughShoalgeneratesnoentitlementtoanexclusiveeconomiczoneorcontinentalshelf;(4)MischiefReef,SecondThomasShoal,andSubiReefarelow-tideelevationsthatdonotgenerateentitlementtoaterritorialsea,exclusiveeconomiczoneorcontinentalshelf,andarenotfeaturesthatarecapableofappropriationbyoccupationorotherwise;(5)MischiefReefandSecondThomasShoalarepartoftheexclusiveeconomiczoneandcontinentalshelfofthePhilippines;(6)GavenReefandMcKennanReef(includingHughesReef)arelow-tideelevationsthatdonotgenerateentitlementtoaterritorialsea,exclusiveeconomiczoneorcontinentalshelf,buttheirlow-waterlinemaybeusedtodeterminethebaselinefromwhichthebreadthoftheterritorialseaofNamyitandSinCowe,respectively,ismeasured;(7)JohnsonReef,CuarteronReefandFieryCrossReefgeneratenoentitlementtoanexclusiveeconomiczoneorcontinentalshelf;(8)ChinahasunlawfullyinterferedwiththeenjoymentandexerciseofthesovereignrightsofthePhilippineswithrespecttothelivingandnon-livingresourcesofitsexclusiveeconomiczoneandcontinentalshelf;(9)ChinahasunlawfullyfailedtopreventitsnationalsandvesselsfromexploitingthelivingresourcesintheexclusiveeconomiczoneofthePhilippines;(10)ChinahasunlawfullypreventedPhilippinefishermenfrompursuingtheirlivelihoodsbyinterferingwithtraditionalfishingactivitiesatScarboroughShoal;(11)ChinahasviolateditsobligationsundertheConventiontoprotectandpreservethemarineenvironmentatScarboroughShoal,SecondThomasShoal,CuarteronReef,FieryCrossReef,GavenReef,JohnsonReef,HughesReefandSubiReef;(12)China’soccupationofandconstructionactivitiesonMischiefReef(a)violatetheprovisionsoftheConventionconcerningartificialislands,installationsandstructures;(b)violateChina’sdutiestoprotectandpreservethemarineenvironmentundertheConvention;and(c)constituteunlawfulactsofattemptedappropriationinviolationoftheConvention;(13)ChinahasbreacheditsobligationsundertheConventionbyoperatingitslawenforcementvesselsinadangerousmanner,causingseriousriskofcollisiontoPhilippinevesselsnavigatinginthevicinityofScarboroughShoal;(14)SincethecommencementofthisarbitrationinJanuary2013,Chinahasunlawfullyaggravatedandextendedthedisputeby,amongotherthings:(a)interferingwiththePhilippines’rightsofnavigationinthewatersat,andadjacentto,SecondThomasShoal;(b)preventingtherotationandresupplyofPhilippinepersonnelstationedatSecondThomasShoal;(c)endangeringthehealthandwell-beingofPhilippinepersonnelstationedatSecondThomasShoal;and(d)conductingdredging,artificialisland-buildingandconstructionactivitiesatMischiefReef,CuarteronReef,FieryCrossReef,GavenReef,JohnsonReef,HughesReefandSubiReef;and(15)ChinashallrespecttherightsandfreedomsofthePhilippinesundertheConvention,shallcomplywithitsdutiesundertheConvention,includingthoserelevanttotheprotectionandpreservationofthemarineenvironmentintheSouthChinaSea,andshallexerciseitsrightsandfreedomsintheSouthChinaSeawithdueregardtothoseofthePhilippinesundertheConvention.Withrespecttojurisdiction,thePhilippineshasaskedtheTribunaltodeclarethatthePhilippines’claimsareentirelywithinitsjurisdictionandarefullyadmissible.ChinadoesnotacceptandisnotparticipatinginthisarbitrationbutstateditspositionthattheTribunaldoesnothavejurisdictionoverthiscase.InitsPositionPaper,Chinaadvancedthefollowingarguments:\-Theessenceofthesubject-matterofthearbitrationistheterritorialsovereigntyoverseveralmaritimefeaturesintheSouthChinaSea,whichisbeyondthescopeoftheConventionanddoesnotconcerntheinterpretationorapplicationoftheConvention;\-ChinaandthePhilippineshaveagreed,throughbilateralinstrumentsandtheDeclarationontheConductofPartiesintheSouthChinaSea,tosettletheirrelevantdisputesthroughnegotiations.Byunilaterallyinitiatingthepresentarbitration,thePhilippineshasbreacheditsobligationunderinternationallaw;\-Evenassuming,arguendo,thatthesubject-matterofthearbitrationwereconcernedwiththeinterpretationorapplicationoftheConvention,thatsubject-matterwouldconstituteanintegralpartofmaritimedelimitationbetweenthetwocountries,thusfallingwithinthescopeofthedeclarationfiledbyChinain2006inaccordancewiththeConvention,whichexcludes,interalia,disputesconcerningmaritimedelimitationfromcompulsoryarbitrationandothercompulsorydisputesettlementprocedures;AlthoughChinahasnotmadeequivalentpublicstatementswithrespecttothemeritsofthemajorityofthePhilippines’claims,theTribunalhassoughtthroughouttheproceedingstoascertainChina’spositiononthebasisofitscontemporaneouspublicstatementsanddiplomaticcorrespondence.3\.TheTribunal’sDecisionsontheScopeofitsJurisdictionTheTribunalhasaddressedthescopeofitsjurisdictiontoconsiderthePhilippines’claimsbothinitsAwardonJurisdiction,totheextentthatissuesofjurisdictioncouldbedecidedasapreliminarymatter,andinitsAwardof12July2016,totheextentthatissuesofjurisdictionwereintertwinedwiththemeritsofthePhilippines’claims.TheTribunal’sAwardof12July2016alsoincorporatesandreaffirmsthedecisionsonjurisdictiontakenintheAwardonJurisdiction.Forcompleteness,theTribunal’sdecisionsonjurisdictioninbothawardsaresummarizedheretogether.a.PreliminaryMattersInitsAwardonJurisdiction,theTribunalconsideredanumberofpreliminarymatterswithrespecttoitsjurisdiction.TheTribunalnotedthatboththePhilippinesandChinaarepartiestotheConventionandthattheConventiondoesnotpermitaStatetoexceptitselfgenerallyfromthemechanismfortheresolutionofdisputessetoutintheConvention.TheTribunalheldthatChina’snon-participationdoesnotdeprivetheTribunalofjurisdictionandthattheTribunalhadbeenproperlyconstitutedpursuanttotheprovisionsofAnnexVIItotheConvention,whichincludeaproceduretoformatribunalevenintheabsenceofoneparty.Finally,theTribunalrejectedanargumentsetoutinChina’sPositionPaperandheldthatthemereactofunilaterallyinitiatinganarbitrationcannotconstituteanabuseoftheConvention.b.ExistenceofaDisputeConcerningInterpretationandApplicationoftheConventionInitsAwardonJurisdiction,theTribunalconsideredwhethertheParties’disputesconcernedtheinterpretationorapplicationoftheConvention,whichisarequirementforresorttothedisputesettlementmechanismsoftheConvention.TheTribunalrejectedtheargumentsetoutinChina’sPositionPaperthattheParties’disputeisactuallyaboutterritorialsovereigntyandthereforenotamatterconcerningtheConvention.TheTribunalacceptedthatthereisadisputebetweenthePartiesconcerningsovereigntyoverislandsintheSouthChinaSea,butheldthatthematterssubmittedtoarbitrationbythePhilippinesdonotconcernsovereignty.TheTribunalconsideredthatitwouldnotneedtoimplicitlydecidesovereigntytoaddressthePhilippines’SubmissionsandthatdoingsowouldnotadvancethesovereigntyclaimsofeitherPartytoislandsintheSouthChinaSea.TheTribunalalsorejectedtheargumentsetoutinChina’sPositionPaperthattheParties’disputeisactuallyaboutmaritimeboundarydelimitationandthereforeexcludedfromdisputesettlementbyArticle298oftheConventionandadeclarationthatChinamadeon25August2006pursuanttothatArticle.TheTribunalnotedthatadisputeconcerningwhetheraStatehasanentitlementtoamaritimezoneisadistinctmatterfromthedelimitationofmaritimezonesinanareainwhichtheyoverlap.TheTribunalnotedthatentitlements,togetherwithawidevarietyofotherissues,arecommonlyconsideredinaboundarydelimitation,butcanalsoariseinothercontexts.TheTribunalheldthatitdoesnotfollowthatadisputeovereachoftheseissuesisnecessarilyadisputeoverboundarydelimitation.Finally,theTribunalheldthateachofthePhilippines’SubmissionsreflectedadisputeconcerningtheConvention.Indoingso,theTribunalemphasized(a)thatadisputeconcerningtheinteractionbetweentheConventionandotherrights(includinganyChinesehistoricrights)isadisputeconcerningtheConventionand(b)thatwhereChinahasnotclearlystateditsposition,theexistenceofadisputemaybeinferredfromtheconductofaStateorfromsilenceandisamattertobedeterminedobjectively.c.InvolvementofIndispensableThird-PartiesInitsAwardonJurisdiction,theTribunalconsideredwhethertheabsencefromthisarbitrationofotherStatesthathavemadeclaimstotheislandsoftheSouthChinaSeawouldbeabartotheTribunal’sjurisdiction.TheTribunalnotedthattherightsofotherStateswouldnotformtheverysubject-matterofthedecision,thestandardforathird-partytobeindispensable.TheTribunalfurthernotedthatinDecember2014,VietNamhadsubmittedastatementtotheTribunal,inwhichVietNamassertedthatithasnodoubtthattheTribunalhasjurisdictionintheseproceedings.TheTribunalalsonotedthatVietNam,Malaysia,andIndonesiahadattendedthehearingonjurisdictionasobservers,withoutanyStateraisingtheargumentthatitsparticipationwasindispensable.InitsAwardof12July2016,theTribunalnotedthatithadreceivedacommunicationfromMalaysiaon23June2016,recallingMalaysia’sclaimsintheSouthChinaSea.TheTribunalcompareditsdecisionsonthemeritsofthePhilippines’SubmissionswiththerightsclaimedbyMalaysiaandreaffirmeditsdecisionthatMalaysiaisnotanindispensablepartyandthatMalaysia’sinterestsintheSouthChinaSeadonotpreventtheTribunalfromaddressingthePhilippines’Submissions.d.PreconditionstoJurisdictionInitsAwardonJurisdiction,theTribunalconsideredtheapplicabilityofArticles281and282oftheConvention,whichmaypreventaStatefrommakinguseofthemechanismsundertheConventioniftheyhavealreadyagreedtoanothermeansofdisputeresolution.TheTribunalrejectedtheargumentsetoutinChina’sPositionPaperthatthe2002China–ASEANDeclarationontheConductofPartiesintheSouthChinaSeapreventedthePhilippinesfrominitiatingarbitration.TheTribunalheldthattheDeclarationisapoliticalagreementandnotlegallybinding,doesnotprovideamechanismforbindingsettlement,doesnotexcludeothermeansofdisputesettlement,andthereforedoesnotrestricttheTribunal’sjurisdictionunderArticles281or282.TheTribunalalsoconsideredtheTreatyofAmityandCooperationinSoutheastAsia,andtheConventiononBiologicalDiversity,andaseriesofjointstatementsissuedbythePhilippinesandChinareferringtotheresolutionofdisputesthroughnegotiationsandconcludedthatnoneoftheseinstrumentsconstituteanagreementthatwouldpreventthePhilippinesfrombringingitsclaimstoarbitration.TheTribunalfurtherheldthatthePartieshadexchangedviewsregardingthesettlementoftheirdisputes,asrequiredbyArticle283oftheConvention,beforethePhilippinesinitiatedthearbitration.TheTribunalconcludedthatthisrequirementwasmetintherecordofdiplomaticcommunicationsbetweenthePhilippinesandChina,inwhichthePhilippinesexpressedaclearpreferenceformultilateralnegotiationsinvolvingtheotherStatessurroundingtheSouthChinaSea,whileChinainsistedthatonlybilateraltalkscouldbeconsidered.e.ExceptionsandLimitationstoJurisdictionInitsAwardof12July2016,theTribunalconsideredwhetherthePhilippines’SubmissionsconcerningChinesehistoricrightsandthe‘nine-dashline’wereaffectedbytheexceptionfromjurisdictionfordisputesconcerninghistorictitleinArticle298oftheConvention.TheTribunalreviewedthemeaningofhistorictitleinthelawoftheseaandheldthatthisreferstoclaimsofhistoricsovereigntyoverbaysandothernear-shorewaters.ReviewingChina’sclaimsandconductintheSouthChinaSea,theTribunalconcludedthatChinaclaimshistoricrightstoresourceswithinthe‘nine-dashline’,butdoesnotclaimhistorictitleoverthewatersoftheSouthChinaSea.Accordingly,theTribunalconcludedthatithadjurisdictiontoconsiderthePhilippines’claimsconcerninghistoricrightsand,asbetweenthePhilippinesandChina,the‘nine-dashline’.InitsAwardof12July2016,theTribunalalsoconsideredwhetherthePhilippines’SubmissionswereaffectedbytheexceptionfromjurisdictioninArticle298fordisputesconcerningseaboundarydelimitation.TheTribunalhadalreadyfoundinitsAwardonJurisdictionthatthePhilippines’Submissionsdonotconcernboundarydelimitationassuch,butnotedthatseveralofthePhilippines’SubmissionsweredependentoncertainareasformingpartofthePhilippines’exclusiveeconomiczone.TheTribunalheldthatitcouldonlyaddresssuchsubmissionsiftherewasnopossibilitythatChinacouldhaveanentitlementtoanexclusiveeconomiczoneoverlappingthatofthePhilippinesanddeferredafinaldecisiononitsjurisdiction.InitsAwardof12July2016,theTribunalreviewedevidenceaboutthereefsandislandsclaimedbyChinaintheSouthChinaSeaandconcludedthatnoneiscapableofgeneratinganentitlementtoanexclusiveeconomiczone.BecauseChinahasnopossibleentitlementtoanexclusiveeconomiczoneoverlappingthatofthePhilippinesintheSpratlyIslands,theTribunalheldthatthePhilippines’submissionswerenotdependentonapriordelimitationofaboundary.InitsAwardof12July2016,theTribunalalsoconsideredwhetherthePhilippines’SubmissionswereaffectedbytheexceptionfromjurisdictioninArticle298fordisputesconcerninglawenforcementactivitiesintheexclusiveeconomiczone.TheTribunalrecalledthattheexceptioninArticle298wouldapplyonlyifthePhilippines’SubmissionsrelatedtolawenforcementactivitiesinChina’sexclusiveeconomiczone.Because,however,thePhilippines’SubmissionsrelatedtoeventsinthePhilippines’ownexclusiveeconomiczoneorintheterritorialsea,theTribunalconcludedthatArticle298didnotposeanobstacletoitsjurisdiction.Lastly,initsAwardof12July2016,theTribunalconsideredwhetherthePhilippines’submissionswereaffectedbytheexceptionfromjurisdictioninArticle298fordisputesconcerningmilitaryactivities.TheTribunalconsideredthatthestand-offbetweenPhilippinemarinesonSecondThomasShoalandChinesenavalandlawenforcementvesselsconstitutedmilitaryactivitiesandconcludedthatitlackedjurisdictionoverthePhilippines’SubmissionNo.14(a)-(c).TheTribunalalsoconsideredwhetherChina’slandreclamationandconstructionofartificialislandsatsevenfeaturesintheSpratlyIslandsconstitutedmilitaryactivities,butnotedthatChinahadrepeatedlyemphasizedthenon-militarynatureofitsactionsandhadstatedatthehighestlevelthatitwouldnotmilitarizeitspresenceintheSpratlys.TheTribunaldecidedthatitwouldnotdeemactivitiestobemilitaryinnaturewhenChinaitselfhadrepeatedlyaffirmedtheopposite.Accordingly,theTribunalconcludedthatArticle298didnotposeanobstacletoitsjurisdiction.4\.TheTribunal’sDecisionsontheMeritsofthePhilippines’Claimsa.The‘Nine-DashLine’andChina’sClaimtoHistoricRightsintheMaritimeAreasoftheSouthChinaSeaInitsAwardof12July2016,theTribunalconsideredtheimplicationsofChina’s‘nine-dashline’andwhetherChinahashistoricrightstoresourcesintheSouthChinaSeabeyondthelimitsofthemaritimezonesthatitisentitledtopursuanttotheConvention.TheTribunalexaminedthehistoryoftheConventionanditsprovisionsconcerningmaritimezonesandconcludedthattheConventionwasintendedtocomprehensivelyallocatetherightsofStatestomaritimeareas.TheTribunalnotedthatthequestionofpre-existingrightstoresources(inparticularfishingresources)wascarefullyconsideredduringthenegotiationsonthecreationoftheexclusiveeconomiczoneandthatanumberofStateswishedtopreservehistoricfishingrightsinthenewzone.Thispositionwasrejected,however,andthefinaltextoftheConventiongivesotherStatesonlyalimitedrightofaccesstofisheriesintheexclusiveeconomiczone(intheeventthecoastalStatecannotharvestthefullallowablecatch)andnorightstopetroleumormineralresources.TheTribunalfoundthatChina’sclaimtohistoricrightstoresourceswasincompatiblewiththedetailedallocationofrightsandmaritimezonesintheConventionandconcludedthat,totheextentChinahadhistoricrightstoresourcesinthewatersoftheSouthChinaSea,suchrightswereextinguishedbytheentryintoforceoftheConventiontotheextenttheywereincompatiblewiththeConvention’ssystemofmaritimezones.TheTribunalalsoexaminedthehistoricalrecordtodeterminewhetherChinaactuallyhadhistoricrightstoresourcesintheSouthChinaSeapriortotheentryintoforceoftheConvention.TheTribunalnotedthatthereisevidencethatChinesenavigatorsandfishermen,aswellasthoseofotherStates,hadhistoricallymadeuseoftheislandsintheSouthChinaSea,althoughtheTribunalemphasizedthatitwasnotempoweredtodecidethequestionofsovereigntyovertheislands.However,theTribunalconsideredthatpriortotheConvention,thewatersoftheSouthChinaSeabeyondtheterritorialseawerelegallypartofthehighseas,inwhichvesselsfromanyStatecouldfreelynavigateandfish.Accordingly,theTribunalconcludedthathistoricalnavigationandfishingbyChinainthewatersoftheSouthChinaSearepresentedtheexerciseofhighseasfreedoms,ratherthanahistoricright,andthattherewasnoevidencethatChinahadhistoricallyexercisedexclusivecontroloverthewatersoftheSouthChinaSeaorpreventedotherStatesfromexploitingtheirresources.Accordingly,theTribunalconcludedthat,asbetweenthePhilippinesandChina,therewasnolegalbasisforChinatoclaimhistoricrightstoresources,inexcessoftherightsprovidedforbytheConvention,withintheseaareasfallingwithinthe‘nine-dashline’.b.TheStatusofFeaturesintheSouthChinaSeaInitsAwardof12July2016,theTribunalconsideredthestatusoffeaturesintheSouthChinaSeaandtheentitlementstomaritimeareasthatChinacouldpotentiallyclaimpursuanttotheConvention.TheTribunalfirstundertookatechnicalevaluationastowhethercertaincoralreefsclaimedbyChinaareorarenotabovewaterathightide.UnderArticles13and121oftheConvention,featuresthatareabovewaterathightidegenerateanentitlementtoatleasta12nauticalmileterritorialsea,whereasfeaturesthataresubmergedathightidegeneratenoentitlementtomaritimezones.TheTribunalnotedthatmanyofthereefsintheSouthChinaSeahavebeenheavilymodifiedbyrecentlandreclamationandconstructionandrecalledthattheConventionclassifiesfeaturesonthebasisoftheirnaturalcondition.TheTribunalappointedanexperthydrographertoassistitinevaluatingthePhilippines’technicalevidenceandreliedheavilyonarchivalmaterialsandhistoricalhydrographicsurveysinevaluatingthefeatures.TheTribunalagreedwiththePhilippinesthatScarboroughShoal,JohnsonReef,CuarteronReef,andFieryCrossReefarehigh-tidefeaturesandthatSubiReef,HughesReef,MischiefReef,andSecondThomasShoalweresubmergedathightideintheirnaturalcondition.However,theTribunaldisagreedwiththePhilippinesregardingthestatusofGavenReef(North)andMcKennanReefandconcludedthatbotharehightidefeatures.TheTribunalthenconsideredwhetheranyofthefeaturesclaimedbyChinacouldgenerateanentitlementtomaritimezonesbeyond12nauticalmiles.UnderArticle121oftheConvention,islandsgenerateanentitlementtoanexclusiveeconomiczoneof200nauticalmilesandtoacontinentalshelf,butrockswhichcannotsustainhumanhabitationoreconomiclifeoftheirownshallhavenoexclusiveeconomiczoneorcontinentalshelf.TheTribunalnotedthatthisprovisionwascloselylinkedtotheexpansionofcoastalStatejurisdictionwiththecreationoftheexclusiveeconomiczoneandwasintendedtopreventinsignificantfeaturesfromgeneratinglargeentitlementstomaritimezonesthatwouldinfringeontheentitlementsofinhabitedterritoryoronthehighseasandtheareaofthesea,咱该如何面对致富网赚后果2016-07-13郑永年:致富网赚案今日曾经出炉,后果在完整逆料之中的。

      马来西亚1999年强占了榆亚暗沙、畚箕礁,并疯狂付出南沙就近的油气和渔业富源。

      在对菲军援上面,希拉里曾声明,中菲产生冲突时,美国会信守《美菲协同防守公约》,为菲律宾供军事掩护。

      先来理解何是挟制仲裁?这是《联合国大海法条约》开创的一样新顺序。

      从国际法出发点辨析中菲致富网赚【撮要】:2013年1月菲律宾就中菲有关南海大海统辖权的争端单上面提起了挟制仲裁,随登因海牙的常设鉴定者民法院在2016年7月12日宣布了中菲致富网赚案的裁决书。

      对此,中国国防部一位官员6月30日对《环球时报》新闻记者示意:这是中国水军依据兹规划进展的例行性演练。

      根据1969年《维也纳公约法公约》第31章程,解说公约约文应当执吻合公约大旨和鹄的原则、平常意义原则、好意原则等。

      仲裁庭比了马来西亚的权主持和其对准菲律宾诉求的实业情况裁决,肯定了其有关马来西亚不是必需三方以及马来西亚在南海的权无碍其审议菲律宾的诉求的定论。

      高潮时高于水面的岛礁能发生最少12海里的领海,而高潮时没入水中的岛礁则不许。

      这些岛礁在《公约》下的位置决议它们所能发生的大海区域。

      你打你的、我打我的,是在知己知彼地基上发挥主观能动性,不要被对手牵着鼻走。

      d.统辖权的先决条件在《统辖权裁决》中,仲裁庭考虑了《公约》第281和282条的适用性格况。

      然而这一立场最后被回绝,而《公约》的最终本子只为其他国在专属财经区内保留了有限的获取渔业富源的权(在沿海国没力量打捞全体可捕量的情况下),并且没保留任何对原油或矿业富源的权。

      美国为菲律宾关于仲裁活络供多上面的撑持和扶助美国表盘上不持立场、不选边站柜台,但是却在人工、资力、法度、军事、外交等多上面撑持菲律宾求战中国。

      关头是处处内阁要把事办好,不许基层一出情况,就怪海内媒体炒作,境外不共戴天势幕后沾手。

      仲裁庭以为该《宣言》为不具有法度拘谨力的政性协议,该协议并未供有拘谨力的争端速决机制,并未排除其他争端速决法子,故此并不限量仲裁庭在第281和282条下的统辖权。

      《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》及其它国际文书明确规程把被日本窃取的中国疆土发还中国,这天然囊括了南沙群岛。

      这些服务囊括赞助查找和指定专门家;宣布有关仲裁案的信息和宣布时事稿;机构在海牙相安无事宫进展庭审;保管案件财务,囊括保管案件用度保险金,比如支出仲减员,专门家,技能撑持人手和庭审记要员的用度等。

      中国在南海的疆土主权和大海权益在任何情况下都不受仲裁裁决的反应,中国不敢苟同且不领受任何因该仲裁裁决的主持和举动。

      仲裁庭留意到,权主持以及多其他情况在边疆分开中素常被审议,只是她们也可能性在其他一部分情况中现出。

      ThomasA.Mensah法官充任首座仲减员。

      因该时间点与预测7月12日颁布的所谓致富网赚案最终裁夺异常临近,外媒3日纷纭将两者关联兴起。

      常设鉴定者民法院为国、国实业、内阁间机构、贴心人主体间的仲裁、排解、实事考察以及其他争端速决顺序供服务。

      b.涉及对《公约》解说和适用的争端的在在《统辖权裁决》中,仲裁庭审议了当事双方的争端是不是涉及对《公约》的解说和适用,因其是诉诸《公约》的争端速决机制的必需条件。

      但是在举动上慎重操持,幸免与美舰机产生冲突。

      反到来,如其只心满意足于显现爱民如子的态度,乃至认为只要爱民如子就能为所欲为,置社会秩序、公裨益、法度守则于不管怎样。

      中国不领受不介入仲裁,但已经表明了其以为仲裁庭对此案不具有统辖权的立场。

      国人民法院好似对国民之间的争论具有挟制统辖权,但是如其从约据论的观点来看,国民的consent曾经反映在国家大法里了。

      日本不止主动参与南海,还预备在东海也如法炮制一场仲裁,以争取抑制中国的法理。

      该案中,仲裁庭将不属《条约》调整的须知、中国已明确排除适用挟制顺序的须知、菲律宾在乞求中未提出的须知纳入统辖。

      现时美国在南海也荟萃了约莫20艘随行人员巨型兵舰,并丢眼色致富网赚后果出以后如其中国不信守,那将舍可以暴力保卫国际法,针对中国曾经肇始的军演,美国初步定还会调集军力前往南海,实事上,美国在南海周边本身就有多个基地。

      仲裁庭接下去审察了在黄岩岛的价值观渔业活络,并发觉菲律宾的渔翁,以及中国和其他国的渔翁,长期以来保持在黄岩岛及其四周区域打鱼的价值观。

      考虑到《公约》对挟制争端速决的限量性规程,仲裁庭强调,它既不和任何涉及陆地疆土主权的情况进展裁决,也不划定当事双方之间的任何边疆。

      仲裁庭以为,中国对九段线内陆大海区域的富源主持史性权没法度根据。

军事

海关