论文部分内容阅读
在第三次海洋法会议上,第298条作为争端解决强制程序的“任择性例外”被纳入《联合国海洋法公约》。缔约国可以依据第298条,通过声明的方式将海洋划界、历史性海湾或历史性所有权等争端排除在争端解决强制程序之外。南海仲裁案管辖权问题中的核心之一就是,除了可受理性问题,菲律宾所提的15项诉求是否落入中国于2006年声明所排除的争端中,从而仲裁庭无权管辖。在重点论述第298条的缔约历史和该条款的文本内容后,本文将针对仲裁庭2015年《管辖权和可受理性裁决》和2016年的最终裁决,对其与第298条的关联问题进行分析,指出仲裁庭在管辖权问题上的不当和谬误。
At the Third Law of the Sea Conference, Article 298 was included in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as an “optional exception” to the mandatory procedure of dispute settlement. By virtue of article 298, a State Party may, by way of declaration, exclude maritime delimitation, historic bays or historic ownership from its mandatory procedures of dispute settlement. One of the core issues in the jurisdiction of the South China Sea arbitration case lies in whether or not the 15 claims filed by the Philippines fall into the dispute that China excludes from the 2006 statement except for the admissibility issue and thus the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over it. After focusing on the contracting history of Article 298 and the text of the clause, this article will address the issue of its relation to Article 298 in the light of the 2015 Arbitral Tribunal’s “Jurisdiction and Admissibility Award” and the final ruling in 2016 Analyze and point out the improper and fallacious tribunal’s jurisdiction over the issue of jurisdiction.