作者王文系中国人民大学重阳金融研究院执行院长，陈晓晨系人大重阳国际研究部副主任、研究员，常玉迪系人大重阳实习研究员。本文刊于7月14日《新加坡海峡时报》。

　　7月12日，一个设在与海牙常设仲裁庭同一地点，却并不属于它的临时性仲裁庭，对于南海仲裁案做出了一致裁决。很明显，这一裁决支持了菲律宾的几乎所有仲裁主张。但是，这份500页仲裁书的精致与复杂并不能掩盖仲裁庭在程序上存在的诸多瑕疵及其对管辖权的滥用。总之，由于仲裁本身既缺少合法性，又不具有管辖权，这一仲裁结果是不合法的，从而也不具有法律约束力。

　　虽然这一裁决明确否定了中国对南海“断续线”内的历史性权利，但事实上，根据法律程序，它对领土争端根本不具有管辖权。的确，这份裁决表达了仲裁庭对中国利益的“充分考虑”，并努力查明争端的“真相”。然而，这一仲裁依然没有超越其先天的局限性——它刻意忽略了最为核心的程序正义以及南海问题的本质。

　　在仲裁程序与管辖权的维度上，这一所谓公正的仲裁实际上远非公正。简言之，仲裁庭在合法性上充满瑕疵，在涉及领土主权的争端中不具有任何管辖权。

　　首先，该仲裁是在与未与中国进行任何外交磋商的情况下，由菲律宾单方面发起的。但是，菲律宾共和国作为《南海各方行为宣言》的签字方，早已通过签署《宣言》做出了使用外交磋商和谈判解决争端的承诺。根据“禁止反言”的法律原则，其言辞应视为其所作保证。正因如此，我们将这次单边仲裁归为菲律宾阿基诺三世政府恶意所为。另外，《联合国海洋法公约》（下称《公约》）的“诉前义务”，即争端各方应通过沟通协商对争端解决方式达成共识的义务，亦未能得到菲律宾充分履行。仲裁书也没能对其主张提供充足的证据支撑。因此，甫一开始，仲裁庭自己的合法性就是值得怀疑的。

　　更重要的是，根据菲律宾单方面请求建立的仲裁庭，在对仲裁本身没有管辖权的同时，其建立也不合法。南海问题包含两个层面的争议：一是主权和领土争端，二是海洋权利争端，《联合国海洋法公约》只对后者有裁决权。众所周知，中国已于2006年根据《公约》做出排除性声明，将涉及海洋划界等方面的争议排除在《公约》规定的第三方争端强制解决程序之外。换句话说，菲律宾既不能根据《公约》申请强制仲裁，仲裁庭对南海争端也没有管辖权。菲律宾的行为，违反了《南海各方行为宣言》第四款的规定，滥用了《联合国海洋法公约》的仲裁程序，更侵犯了中国根据自己意愿选择争端解决方式的权利，因而是非法的。

　　仲裁庭在明知其没有管辖权的情况下仍然受理菲律宾的诉求，大肆扩权以至于超过了《联合国海洋法公约》的适用范围，荒谬至极。仲裁庭的行为已经违背了国际法治关于和平解决国际争端的精神与目标，也绝非公平。

　　诚然，仲裁庭在裁决中宣称，在整个仲裁程序中，力图通过中国同时期公开发表的声明和外交函件确定其立场。然而，仲裁庭实际上刻意操纵并滥用了中国对自身立场的表述。在缺乏透明度的条件下，这一仲裁过程对于包括中国在内的任何外部观察者来说，都像一个“黑箱”，其内部运作鲜为人知。所以，我们从一开始就不应对仲裁庭做出客观公正的裁决抱有任何期待。它从根本上背离了程序正义的基本原则。

　　最后，就连正规的国际组织也否定了仲裁庭的合法性。在其官方微博上，联合国已经澄清了该仲裁庭与联合国没有联系。这个仲裁庭根本不是法庭，因而也不是国际法院的一部分。甚至，该仲裁庭也不是海牙常设仲裁庭（PCA）的一个组成部分，媒体只不过对其进行了错误报道。实际上，该仲裁庭与国际常设仲裁庭的唯一联系只是二者共享了同一个办公楼并且前者使用了后者的会议室罢了。该仲裁庭与常设仲裁庭租用的都是属于卡内基基金会的办公楼。他们除了是同一业主的租户邻居之外，并无更多关联。

　　在仲裁案的实质问题维度，该仲裁庭亦同样远非公正。

　　首先，仲裁实体的本质是由菲律宾占领部分南海岛礁造成的领土争端，这超出了《联合国海洋法公约》的解释和适用范围。在本案中，如果不确定中国对南海岛礁的领土主权，仲裁庭就无法确定中国依据《公约》在南海可以主张的海洋权利范围，更无从判断中国在南海的海洋权利主张是否超出《公约》允许的范围。从本质上讲，领土主权问题不属于《公约》调整的范围。

　　这就是为什么仲裁庭在发布的判决书中大胆而直接地否定中国对“九段线”的历史权利让几乎所有关注此事的观察者，甚至是那些偏向菲律宾的人都感到吃惊的原因。

　　在此，我们对中国“九段线”的历史性权利的实质不会多加叙述，因为这早已在许多文献中得到证明。我们在此所要强调的是，在没有明确的管辖权的情况下，仲裁庭根本无权仲裁此案，更不用说全面否定中国的权利。

　　第二，菲律宾在仲裁诉求中对南沙群岛做出“切割”，只要求对“中国占领或控制的”岛礁的海洋权利进行判定，刻意不提南沙群岛中的其他岛礁，包括至今仍未菲律宾非法侵占或主张的岛礁。这旨在否定中国对南沙群岛的主权，否认菲律宾非法侵占或主张中国南海群岛部分岛礁的事实，从而篡改中菲南沙群岛主权争端的性质和范围。

　　更加荒谬的是，裁决宣称南沙群岛的最大岛屿、目前由中国台湾当局控制的太平岛不是岛。事实上，这更多地引发了学者的嘲弄而非愤怒。如果太平岛是礁，那么冲之鸟礁呢？那么菲律宾呢？这将会在很大程度上削弱《联合国海洋法公约》的可信度，并且全然不顾南海既有事实与秩序，使得仲裁庭本身沦为一个笑话。

　　而且，南海岛礁的地物性质，无论是不是低潮高地，仍然取决于领土主权归属，这是这个仲裁实质上的核心问题。

　　另外，还需要指出的是，无论这些岛礁具有何种地物性质，菲律宾自己从上世纪70年代以来就在违反其自己的1935年宪法的情况下一直对这些岛礁非法主张领土主权。

　　第三，仲裁庭声称，中国在南海所主张和行使的权利非法干涉菲律宾基于《公约》所享有和行使的主权权利、管辖权以及航行权利和自由。这一主张的前提是，菲律宾的海域管辖范围是明确而无争议的，中国的活动进入了菲律宾的管辖海域。然而事实并非如此。中菲尚未进行海域划界。对这一主张进行裁定之前，首先要确定相关岛礁的领土主权，并完成相关海域划界。

　　总之，通过要求仲裁庭错误适用《公约》规定削弱甚至推翻中国在南海的权利，菲律宾阿基诺政府违背了解决国际海洋争端所依据的一般国际原则和国际司法实践。而且，仲裁庭对菲律宾提出的任何仲裁请求做出判定，都将不可避免地直接或间接对南海岛礁我的主权归属进行判定，这是不具有合法性的并且超出了其管辖权范围。这就是为什么中国不参与仲裁，不接受、不承认、不执行这份裁决书。

　　但这并不意味着中国拒绝对话。事实上，中国一向主张与直接有关当事国通过协商谈判解决主权归属和海洋权利争端。不管南海仲裁和裁决书如何，中国都会继续和包括菲律宾在内的东盟国家紧密合作捍卫南海和平、稳定和航行自由，最终使南海成为“和平、友好、合作之海”。

　　On July 12, a temporarily established Arbitral Tribunal located in The Hague, sharing office service with the Permanent Court of Arbitration but not a part of that, released a unanimous award over the South China Sea Arbitration.

　　The award was in favour of almost all the Philippines` claims. However, no matter how sophisticated the 500-page award may appear, it comes from an arbitration that is flawed in procedure, and is not in accordance with its jurisdiction. In short, with the arbitration`s lack of legitimacy and jurisdiction, the award is not legal, and thus not binding.

　　While the award categorically denied China`s historic rights in its nine-dash-line map, in fact it does not even have authority and jurisdiction over territorial disputes, as stated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

　　This is inconsistent with the Philippines` own commitment, in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in South China Sea, to resolve the dispute through consultations and negotiations. According to the Equitable Estoppel, its words should be its bond. That is why we see the unilateral arbitration as an act of bad faith of the Aquino government of the Philippines.

　　Thus, the lawfulness of the arbitration itself is doubtful from the very beginning.

　　Fundamentally, therefore, we cannot expect any objective judgment to emerge from the tribunal. It simply does not accord with procedural justice.

　　Merits of the case When it comes to the actual merits of the case and the subject matter of the arbitration, the tribunal`s ruling cannot be justified as well.

　　The essence of the subject matter of the arbitration is the territorial disputes over the maritime features in the South China Sea.

　　Territorial disputes are beyond the scope of the Unclos and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention. As far as the present arbitration is concerned, without first having determined China`s territorial sovereignty over the maritime features in the South China Sea, the tribunal will not be in a position to determine the extent to which China may claim maritime rights in the South China Sea pursuant to the Convention, not to mention whether China`s claims exceed the extent allowed under the Convention. In essence, the sovereignty issue falls beyond the purview of the Convention.

　　That is why it is so surprising to many observers, even to those who are inclined to the Philippine side, that the tribunal boldly claimed jurisdiction and then directly denied China`s historic rights in the "nine-dash line".

　　That China has historic rights over the areas within the nine-dotted line has been the subject of much historical and academic writings, so we will not go into them here.

　　What we want to emphasise here is that, without clear jurisdiction, the tribunal simply has no rights to even arbitrate the case, let alone fundamentally deny China`s rights.

　　Second, the Philippines, by requesting the tribunal to determine the maritime features "occupied or controlled by China", has in effect dissected the Nansha Islands as a whole. It deliberately makes no mention of the rest of the Nansha Islands, including those illegally captured or claimed by the Philippines.

　　Its real intention is to gainsay China`s sovereignty over the whole of the Nansha Islands, to deny the fact of its own illegal seizure of or claim on several maritime features of the Nansha Islands, and to distort the nature and scope of the China- Philippines disputes in the South China Sea.

　　It sounds even more ridiculous for the award to claim that the largest island in the Nansha Islands, Taiping Dao (Taiping Island), currently controlled by the Taiwan authorities of China, is not an island. In fact, this section has triggered more ridicule than anger among scholars.

　　Third, the tribunal also alleges that China`s claim to and exercises of maritime rights in the South China Sea have unlawfully interfered with the sovereign rights, jurisdiction and rights and freedom of navigation which the Philippines is entitled to enjoy and exercise under the Convention.

　　The premise for this claim must be that the spatial extent of the Philippines` maritime jurisdiction is defined and undisputed, and that China`s actions have encroached upon such defined areas. The fact is, however, to the contrary.

　　China and the Philippines have not delimited the maritime space between them. Until and unless the sovereignty over the relevant maritime features is ascertained and maritime delimitation completed, this category of claims of the Philippines cannot be decided upon.

　　To decide upon any of the Philippines` claims, the tribunal would inevitably have to determine, directly or indirectly, sovereignty over the maritime features, which is beyond its legitimacy and jurisdiction. That is why China does not participate in the arbitration, nor accept, recognise or implement the award.

　　But it does not mean China refuses to talk. In fact, China has always been committed to settling disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime rights through consultation and negotiation between the sovereign states directly concerned.

　　Regardless of the award and the arbitration, China will continue to work closely with Asean countries, including the Philippines, to safeguard the peace and stability and uphold the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, so as to eventually turn it into a "sea of peace, friendship and cooperation".

（欢迎关注人大重阳新浪微博：@人大重阳，微信公众号：rdcy2013）