论菲律宾南海仲裁请求中关于权利来源部分的管辖权

发布时间：2018-03-04 08:22

本文选题：南海仲裁案　切入点：权利来源　出处：《政治与法律》2016年04期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：中菲南海仲裁案由菲律宾单方面提起,该案关于管辖权的裁决至关重要。菲律宾的仲裁请求可以分为权利来源、岛礁地位和行为活动三个部分的内容,其中关于权利来源部分是菲律宾仲裁申请的核心,因为它试图从根本上彻底否定我国在"九段线"内海洋性权利的合法性。菲律宾认为,中国在"九段线"内主张的主权权利、管辖权和历史性权利超过《联合国海洋法公约》在地理和实体上允许的范围,因此不具有法律效力。为了避开领土主权与海域划界,菲律宾希望将仲裁庭的目光引向两个焦点,即海洋地形的法律地位和历史性权利的范围。在这两个焦点问题上,菲律宾请求确认的不单纯是权利的存在,实质是权利的范围,而确认权利的范围是海域划界的关键性因素,所以仲裁庭不能将其剥离后单独裁决,否则就破坏了海域划界的整体性。同时,上述焦点既涉及相关岛礁的主权归属,也属于《联合国海洋法公约》第298条关于"历史性海湾或所有权"的强制管辖权例外情况。因此,菲律宾的规避企图是徒劳的,仲裁庭对其请求中关于权利来源的部分仍然不具有管辖权。
[Abstract]:The arbitration case in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines was initiated unilaterally by the Philippines. The award on jurisdiction in this case is of paramount importance. The arbitration request of the Philippines can be divided into three parts: the source of rights, the status of islands and reefs, and the activities of conduct. The source of the right is at the heart of the Philippine arbitration application because it seeks to fundamentally deny the legitimacy of China's maritime rights in the "nine-dash line". The Philippines believes that China's sovereign rights in the "nine-dash line", Jurisdiction and historical rights go beyond the geographical and substantive scope permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and therefore have no legal effect... in order to avoid territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, the Philippines wishes to draw the attention of the arbitral tribunal to two focal points, That is, the legal status of the maritime terrain and the scope of historic rights. On these two focal issues, the Philippines' request for confirmation is not simply the existence of rights, but in essence the scope of rights, which is the key factor in the delimitation of maritime areas, Therefore, the arbitral tribunal cannot separate the decision after stripping it, otherwise it will undermine the integrity of the delimitation of the maritime area. At the same time, the above focus is related to the sovereignty of the relevant islands and reefs. Also falling within the compulsory jurisdictional exception of article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to "historic bay or title"... therefore, the Philippines' attempts to circumvent are futile, The arbitral tribunal still does not have jurisdiction over the part of its application relating to the source of the right.
【作者单位】：华东政法大学国际法学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学规划基金项目“海洋自由航行的国际法理论与实践研究”(项目编号:14YJ A820030)的阶段性成果上海市教育委员会重点学科建设项目“国际法学”(项目编号:国际法学J51103)资助
【分类号】：D993.5

【相似文献】