关于南海仲裁案管辖权裁决的违法性研究--基于《联合国海洋法公约》第283条“交换意见的义务”  

Why the Award on Jurisdiction of the South China Sea Arbitration is Null and Void——Take the Article 283 of UNCLOS as an Example

作　　者：余敏友[1,2,3] 谢琼 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学中国边界与海洋研究院,湖北武汉430072 [2]国家领土主权与海洋权益协同创新中心,湖北武汉430072 [3]武汉大学国际法研究所,湖北武汉430072 [4]中央党校国际战略研究院,北京100091

出　　处：《边界与海洋研究》2016年第2期108-117,共10页Journal of Boundary and Ocean Studies

摘　　要：菲律宾南海仲裁案仲裁庭2015年10月作出的《管辖权和可受理性问题裁决》有关《联合国海洋法公约》第283条规定之"交换意见的义务"论证,存在严重缺陷。首先,用来证明履行交换意见的义务的事实不属于第283条所指"交换意见";其次,仲裁庭割裂交换意见的义务与谈判的义务之间的有机联系,从而使"交换意见的义务"本身毫无意义,有悖《联合国海洋法公约》的目的。仲裁庭没有有效地确立自身的管辖权,因而其管辖权裁决完全错误。基于无效"管辖权裁决"作出的实体裁决,也将无效。The arbitral tribunal of the South China Sea Arbitration, which initiated unilaterally by the Philippines, demonstrates its one-sided acts in the Award released on 29 October 2015 with their reasoning which are full of flaws, their finding of the facts and the application of law which are full of mistakes. In particular, the Award didn , t make a proper reasoning on the Article 283 of UNCLOS, named “the obligation to exchange views”. First of all, the facts to prove the fulfillment of the obligation to exchange views doesn’t belong to the “views exchanging”; further, the arbitral tribunal cuts off the relations between the obligation to exchange views and the obligation to negotiate, as a result, the “ obligation to exchange views ” becomes meaningless, which is contrary to the purpose of the UNCLOS. Accordingly, the arbitral tribunal does not effectively establish its jurisdiction ; the decisions in the Award are erroneous. The final Award, which is founded on the Award on the Jurisdiction, consequently will be also null and void.

关 键 词：《联合国海洋法公约》 交换意见的义务 南海仲裁案 

分 类 号：D993.5[政治法律—国际法学]