南海仲裁案 裁决全文
详解菲律宾南海问题仲裁案.
详解菲律宾南海问题仲裁案黎蜗藤2013年1月22日菲律宾外长罗萨里奥在媒体见面会上正式公布，在当天菲律宾正式向国际海洋法仲裁法庭（Arbitral tribunal）提出诉讼，要求法庭对中国在南海的主张提出仲裁[1]。
中国拒绝应诉，但国际法庭为中国找了一个律师，以之代表中国应诉。
此仲裁案至今已经进入法律程序。
但在中国，媒体的报道都是从负面的立场，这不利于人们对整个事件的了解。
在此，我特意客观地分析一下整个过程。
菲律宾提出仲裁申请的背景根据菲律宾的说法，菲律宾在南海问题上提出国际仲裁是迫于无奈。
从2012年黄岩岛事件开始，菲律宾就一直在南海处于守势。
黄岩岛的实控权被中国夺去，菲律宾军事实力和中国乃天渊之别。
即便菲律宾有意拉美国和日本为其撑腰，也是远水不能救近火。
菲律宾想借助东盟的力量和中国谈判，奈何中国关上了谈判的大门。
中国外交部发言人总是说中菲之间交流的渠道是畅通的。
但事实上，中国不承认黄岩岛存在主权争议，也不肯就这个问题和菲律宾展开谈判。
同时，菲律宾在南海其他海域还受到中国海监船只甚至军用船只的胁迫，比如今年5月底仁爱礁事件就是一例。
在军事和外交都无望的情况下，菲律宾只能使出最后一招，就是向国际法庭求助。
中国指责菲律宾是无事生非。
但事实上，南海、南沙和黄岩岛的争议是一个长久以来存在客观的事实。
可见无事生非之说不能成立。
菲律宾要求国际法庭裁决什么？尽管中国一再认为菲律宾向国际法庭提请的裁决是有关主权争议。
但这并非实情。
为了达到国际法庭的要求，菲律宾特意绕过了主权的争议。
菲律宾向国际法庭提出的仲裁有四项[2]，都和主权争议无关。
第一，菲律宾认为中国的九段线是不正当的要求（Invalid），是违反《国际海洋法公约》的。
第二，菲律宾认为中国目前在南海所占领的“岛礁”其实只能算是岩石，本身没有维持人类居住和经济生活的能力。
因此，这些岛屿无法拥有专属经济区的地位。
第三，中国在南海以水底礁石为基础所建造的人造建筑物，俗称高脚屋，没有生成专属经济区的地位。
南海仲裁内容
南海仲裁内容1. 背景介绍南海仲裁是指关于南海争议的仲裁案件。
南海争议是指中国、菲律宾、越南、马来西亚等国家在南海地区的领土、领海、海洋权益等方面存在争议。
在2013年，菲律宾单方面提起南海仲裁案，并于2016年7月12日，国际法院做出裁决。
本文将对南海仲裁的内容进行详细介绍。
2. 南海仲裁主要内容2.1. 仲裁庭的管辖权南海仲裁案是由菲律宾单方面提起的，而中国政府一直坚持不接受并参与仲裁。
然而，仲裁庭在裁决中宣布自己在此案中具有管辖权。
中国政府对于仲裁庭的管辖权表示强烈反对，并将此裁决视为无效。
2.2. 法理依据和界线判断在南海仲裁案中，仲裁庭根据联合国海洋法公约（UNCLOS）进行了界线判断和法理依据分析。
仲裁庭认为，中国在南海的岛礁没有产生专属经济区和大陆架的权益，同时判决菲律宾拥有南沙群岛及其附近海域的权益。
2.3. 其他争议问题南海仲裁案中还涉及一些其他争议问题，如南海岛礁的岩礁和人工岛的法律地位、南海航行自由问题等。
仲裁庭对这些问题也做出了裁决，但是中国政府坚决不接受这些裁决，并继续坚持在南海地区的主权和权益。
3. 中国政府立场中国政府一直坚决主张通过双边谈判解决南海问题，并主张通过直接当事国的协商和谈判来解决领土和海洋权益争议。
中国政府认为，南海争议不属于《UNCLOS》管辖的范围，并认为南海仲裁案是一次政治化的仲裁。
4. 结论南海仲裁案涉及诸多问题和争议，仲裁庭的裁决在解决南海争议的道路上起到了一定的推动作用。
然而，中国政府一直坚决不接受这一裁决，并继续坚持通过双边谈判解决南海问题的立场。
南海争议仍然是一个复杂而棘手的问题，需要所有相关国家共同努力来加以解决。
以上为南海仲裁内容的简要介绍，仅供参考。
具体情况请以相关权威机构或政府发布的资料为准。
中菲《南海仲裁案》
中菲《南海仲裁案》作者：王章平侯丽维来源：《青年生活》2019年第16期摘要：《联合国海洋法公约》第十五部分规定了解决国际争端必须遵守“用尽当地救济原则”，中菲南海仲裁案中，菲律宾未履行《联合国海洋法公约》中的交换意见义务与谈判义务，单方对中国提起仲裁。
本文将以《联合国海洋法公约》第十五部分为视角，剖析中菲南海仲裁案，菲方单方提起仲裁的非法性。
关键词：南海仲裁案;《联合国海洋法公约》;争端解决机制;交换意见义务与谈判义务;用尽当地救济原则一、南海仲裁案中所涉及的《联合国海洋法公约》十五部分的争端解决机制《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称公约）通常被称为“海洋宪法”或者关于海洋法的全面框架文件，同样，它被打上了“独特”这个标签，因为它在其第十五部分提供了强制争端解决程。
[1]虽然该公约确实提供了与世界海洋有关的法律关系框架，有众多的缔约国，并且在很大程度上反映了国际法惯例。
更为关键的是，从两方面看，《公约》在提供强制争端解决程序方面并非独特。
首先，争端解决程序只在一定程度上具有强制性，有着非常重要的附加解释和规避强制性的方式以及可选的排除性条款。
其次，有许多条约也提供具有强制性的解决争端机制。
当考虑到《公约》及其争端解决程序，在解决与南中国海有关的争端方面所发挥的作用时，该公约缺乏全面以及其强制争端解决程程序所发挥的作用时，其重大的局限性就体现了出来。
南中国海是一个巨大的，半封闭的海洋。
（文莱，中国，印度尼西亚，马来西亚，菲律宾，越南）所有这些国家都是《公约》的缔约国，他们即对南中国海的海上地物提出主权声索，或对他们的大陆海岸或者岛屿所产生的水域提出主权声索。
《公约》的争端解决程序在该公约的第十五部分，他本来只是争端解决中涉及公约第十五部分或适用的一个仲裁条款，从这个意思上说，其和其他国际条约并他的独特性无多大區别，他的独特性在于他有一些附加条款和条件，在诉诸公约的争端解决程序都适用，而且它允许从可能的法庭名单中，包括常设法庭和仲裁法庭，选择争端解决机制。
南海仲裁案始末结果结局
南海仲裁案始末结果结局菲律宾南海仲裁案仲裁庭12日公布了所谓“最终裁决”。
这一恶意裁决完全颠倒黑白，混淆是非，是一张充斥谎言的废纸。
下面小编为大家带来南海仲裁案始末，南海仲裁的结果与结局，欢迎阅读。
真相与谎言南海仲裁案闹剧出笼始末中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益在任何情况下不受仲裁裁决的影响，中国反对且不接受任何基于该仲裁裁决的主张和行动。
持续42个月的菲律宾南海仲裁案，从一开始就注定是一场披着法律外衣的政治闹剧。
仲裁庭抛出的这纸裁决，把这场纵曲枉直的闹剧唱到了声嘶力竭的地步，在极不光彩中收场。
这一纸无效裁决既不可能改变南海“旧格局”，也不可能开创南海“新现实”，只是留下了一笔用伪规则破坏国际法治、破坏地区秩序的劣迹。
【剧本：一场披着法律外衣的政治闹剧】2013年1月，菲律宾提请仲裁，15项仲裁事项可简单归纳为三类。
针对这三类仲裁事项，中国外交部2014年12月7日受权发表的《中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》逐一予以反驳：一、只有首先确定中国在南海的领土主权，才能判断中国在南海的海洋权利主张是否超出《联合国海洋法公约》(以下简称《公约》)允许的范围;二、南海部分岛礁的性质和海洋权利问题与主权问题不可分割;三、中国在相关海域采取行动的合法性基于中国对有关岛礁享有的主权以及基于岛礁主权所享有的海洋权利。
表面上，菲律宾提请仲裁事项条条紧扣《公约》，是寻求仲裁庭依据《公约》作出相关认定和解释;实质上，仲裁内容的核心是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题和海域划界问题，前者不属于《公约》调整范围，后者已被中国于2006年的排除性声明所排除。
简而言之，菲律宾提请仲裁的不是法律问题，而是政治问题，是菲律宾试图借助法律手段非法侵占中国岛礁主权及海洋权利的政治野心。
仲裁庭没有理会中方立场主张，于2015年10月底裁定对菲部分诉求拥有管辖权，使菲律宾阿基诺三世政府精心编织的政治谎言正式披上了法律的外衣，堂而皇之地以“国际法治”的形式在世界舆论中发酵。
南海仲裁案裁决结果全文
海牙常设仲裁法庭“南海仲裁案裁决”全文南海仲裁案（菲律宾共和国v. 中华人民共和国）海牙，2016年7月12日仲裁庭发布裁决︰今日，根据《联合国海洋法公约》（“《公约》”）附件七组成的仲裁庭就菲律宾共和国对中华人民共和国提起的仲裁案作出了一致裁决。
该仲裁案涉及在南海的历史性权利的作用和海洋权利的渊源、某些岛礁的地位及其能够产生的海洋权利，以及菲律宾声称违反了《公约》的中国某些行为的合法性问题。
考虑到《公约》对强制争端解决的限制性规定，仲裁庭强调，它既不对任何涉及陆地领土主权的问题进行裁决，也不划定当事双方之间的任何边界。
中国反复申明“其不接受、不参与由菲律宾单方面提起的仲裁”。
然而，《公约》附件七规定，“争端一方缺席或不对案件进行辩护，应不妨碍程序的进行”。
附件七同时规定，在争端一方不参与程序的情况下，仲裁庭“必须不但查明对该争端确有管辖权，而且查明所提要求在事实上和法庭上均确有根据”。
因此，在整个程序中，仲裁庭采取了一些步骤验证菲律宾诉求的正确性，包括要求菲律宾提交进一步的书面论证，在两次庭审之前及庭审过程中对菲律宾进行询问，指定独立的专家就技术性问题向仲裁庭报告，以及获取关於南海岛礁的历史性证据并提供给当事双方予以评论。
通过2014年12月发布的《立场文件》和其他官方声明，中国明确表示，仲裁庭对本案涉及的事项缺乏管辖权。
《公约》第288条规定:“对於法院或法庭是否具有管辖权如果发生争端，这一问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决”。
据此，仲裁庭於2015年7月就管辖权和可受理性问题进行了开庭审理，并於2015年10月29日作出了《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》，其中对一些管辖权问题进行裁决并推迟对其他问题进行进一步审议。
2015年11月24日至30日，仲裁庭接着对实体问题进行了开庭审理。
今日的裁决审议了《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》未决的管辖权问题和仲裁庭有权管辖的菲律宾诉求的实体性问题。
根据《公约》第296条和附件七第11条的规定，该裁决具有终局性和拘束力。
南海仲裁案
中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会外事委员会就菲律宾共和国单பைடு நூலகம்面请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁
庭于2016年7月12日作出的裁决，郑重声明如下： 一、《中华人民共和国外交部关于应菲律宾共和国请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭所作裁决的声明》 和《中华人民共和国政府关于在南海的领土主权和海洋权益的声明》已表明了中国的立场，有关裁决对 中国没有约束力。全国人民代表大会外事委员会坚定支持这一立场。 二、中国对南海诸岛，包括东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛、南沙群岛拥有主权。中国南海诸岛 拥有内水、领海、毗连区、专属经济区和大陆架。中国在南海拥有历史性权利。任何国家、组织和机构 都无权否定中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益。 三、菲律宾单方面提起仲裁，违反中菲通过谈判解决有关争议的协议，违反《南海各方行为宣 言》，违反《联合国海洋法公约》规定，滥用《公约》规定的仲裁程序，严重侵犯中国作为主权国家和 《公约》缔约国享有的自主选择争端解决方式和程序的权利，严重损害《公约》的完整性和权威性。 应菲律宾单方面请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭，对有关事项不具有管辖权。其无视南海的历史和 基本事实，曲解和滥用《公约》赋予的权力，自行扩权、越权并对案件实体问题进行审理，违反包括 《公约》在内的国际法和国际仲裁的一般法理，所作的裁决是无效的。中国不承认仲裁庭的裁决。
中国
2014年12月7日，发布《中国政府关于菲律宾所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》。 2015年7月7日中华人民共和国外交部也发表声明，不承认常设仲裁法院对此案的司法管辖权，也拒绝接 受菲律宾任何形式有关此案的和解建议。 2015年10月30日中国外交部作出回应：南海仲裁案仲裁庭就有关问题的裁决是无效的，对中方没有拘束
南海仲裁案
南海仲裁案，即所谓“菲律宾 控告中国案”，是一个临时组 建的仲裁庭，就菲律宾阿基诺 三世政府单方面提起的南海仲 裁案进行的所谓“裁决”，其 实质是披着法律外衣的政治闹 剧。 2016年7月13日，联合国官 方微博声明，“常设仲裁法 院”与联合国没有 联合国出 面澄清 任何关系，海牙国际 法庭同时发表声明指出，国 际法院作为完全不同的另一 机构，自始至终未曾参与所 谓的南海仲裁案。
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
中国的立场非常坚定，绝对不 会退后半步2013年1月22日， 菲律宾共和国外交部照会中华 人民共和国驻菲律宾大使馆称， 菲律宾依据1982年《联合国海 洋法公约》（以下简称《公 约》）第二百八十七条和附件 七的规定，就中菲有关南海 “海洋管辖权”的争端递交仲 裁通知，提起强制仲裁。2013 年2月19日，中国政府退回菲律 宾政府的照会及所附仲裁通知。 中国政府多次郑重声明，中国 不接受、不参与菲律宾提起的 仲裁。
南海仲裁案裁决结果全文
xx常设仲裁法庭“xx仲裁案裁决”全文南海仲裁案（菲律宾共和国v.中华人民共和国）海牙，2016年7月12日xx发布裁决︰今日，根据《联合国海洋法公约》（“《公约》”）附件七组成的仲裁庭就菲律宾共和国对中华人民共和国提起的仲裁案作出了一致裁决。
该仲裁案涉及在南海的历史性权利的作用和海洋权利的渊源、某些岛礁的地位及其能够产生的海洋权利，以及菲律宾声称违反了《公约》的中国某些行为的合法性问题。
考虑到《公约》对强制争端解决的限制性规定，仲裁庭强调，它既不对任何涉及陆地领土主权的问题进行裁决，也不划定当事双方之间的任何边界。
中国反复申明“其不接受、不参与由菲律宾单方面提起的仲裁”。
然而，《公约》附件七规定，“争端一方缺席或不对案件进行辩护，应不妨碍程序的进行”。
附件七同时规定，在争端一方不参与程序的情况下，仲裁庭“必须不但查明对该争端确有管辖权，而且查明所提要求在事实上和法庭上均确有根据”。
因此，在整个程序中，仲裁庭采取了一些步骤验证菲律宾诉求的正确性，包括要求菲律宾提交进一步的书面论证，在两次庭审之前及庭审过程中对菲律宾进行询问，指定独立的专家就技术性问题向仲裁庭报告，以及获取关於南海岛礁的历史性证据并提供给当事双方予以评论。
通过2014年12月发布的《立场文件》和其他官方声明，中国明确表示，仲裁庭对本案涉及的事项缺乏管辖权。
《公约》第288条规定:“对於法院或法庭是否具有管辖权如果发生争端，这一问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决”。
据此，仲裁庭於2015年7月就管辖权和可受理性问题进行了开庭审理，并於2015年10月29日作出了《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》，其中对一些管辖权问题进行裁决并推迟对其他问题进行进一步审议。
2015年11月24日至30日，仲裁庭接着对实体问题进行了开庭审理。
今日的裁决审议了《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》未决的管辖权问题和仲裁庭有权管辖的菲律宾诉求的实体性问题。
根据《公约》第296条和附件七第11条的规定，该裁决具有终局性和拘束力。
南海仲裁案裁决全文.
菲律宾闹剧：南海仲裁案裁决全文（英文版）发表于2016年7月13日作者danke在上周7月5日的文章里，我们就分享了有关菲律宾南海闹剧的一些新闻热词，包括所谓仲裁庭的名称和仲裁相关的一些词汇，感兴趣的可以移步至：南海仲裁案英语热词| The South China Sea arbitration今天是7月12日，是菲律宾南海闹剧案，也就是南海仲裁案的裁决的日子，一下子朋友圈都火爆了关于中国一个点都不能少的图片，足以显现我们高昂的士气、不屈的意志和捍卫主权的誓死精神。
有关最终裁决的中文翻译版已经第一时间发布在了：菲律宾闹剧：南海仲裁案裁决全文（中文版）。
也有很多朋友表示对英文原版的裁决文感兴趣，一是想从原文角度了解下本次裁决的全部内容，二是想参考了解下相关裁决的英文表示方式，第三自然是更重要的是看看闹剧最终出的是一个什么样漏洞百出的裁决文件，我们好好地给他找找茬。
由于原文有501页，我就不在正文复制粘贴了，实在是放不下。
另外一方面，真是觉得帝国主义忘我之心不死啊，你们几个小子闹着玩，还费那么大劲搞个500来页的判决材料来，吓唬谁啊？此处是下载链接: /s/1gfi9Z7l 密码: 794i补充：为了方便大家阅读，我从整个裁决文件里面，把裁决的正文找出来了，贴在下面。
国际常设仲裁庭南中国海案裁决英文全文THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION (THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)The Hague, 12 July 2016The Tribunal Renders Its AwardA unanimous Award has been issued today by the Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention”) in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People’s Republic of China.This arbitration concerned the role of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain maritime features and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China that were alleged by the Philippines to violate the Convention. In light of limitations on compulsory dispute settlement under the Convention, the Tribunal has emphasized that it does not rule on any question of sovereignty over land territory and does not delimit any boundary between the Parties.China has repeatedly stated that “it will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines.” Annex VII, however, provides that the “[a]bsence of a party or failure of a pa rty to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings.” Annex VII also provides that, in the event that a party does not participate in the proceedings, a tribunal “must satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but a lso that the claim is well founded in fact and law.” Accordingly, throughout these proceedings, the Tribunal has taken steps to test the accuracy of the Philippines’ claims, including by requesting further written submissions from the Philippines, by questioning the Philippines both prior to and during two hearings, by appointing independent experts to report to the Tribunal on technical matters, andby obtaining historical evidence concerning features in the South China Sea and providing it to the Parties for comment.China has also made clear—through the publication of a Position Paper in December 2014 and in other official statements—that, in its view, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in this matter. Article 288 of the Convention provides that: “In the eve nt of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.” Accordingly, the Tribunal convened a hearing on jurisdiction and admissibility in July 2015 and rendered an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 29 October 2015, deciding some issues of jurisdiction and deferring others for further consideration. The Tribunal then convened a hearing on the merits from 24 to 30 November 2015.The Award of today’s date addresses the iss ues of jurisdiction not decided in the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility and the merits of the Philippines’ claims over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The Award is final and binding, as set out in Article 296 of the Convention and Article 11 of Annex VII.Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’: The Tribunal found that it has jurisdiction to consider the Parties’ dispute concerning historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea. On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention comprehensively allocates rights to maritime areas and that protections for pre-existing rights to resources were considered, but not adopted in the Convention. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention. The Tribunal also noted that, althoughChinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources. The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.Status of Features: The Tribunal next considered entitlements to maritime areas and the status of features. The Tribunal first undertook an evaluation of whether certain reefs claimed by China are above water at high tide. Features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, whereas features that are submerged at high tide do not. The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features. The Tribunal then considered whether any of the features claimed by China could generate maritime zones beyond 12 nautical miles. Under the Convention, islands generate an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and a continental shelf, but “[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” The Tribunal concluded that this provision depends upon the objective capacity of a feature, in its natural condition, to sustain either a stable community of people or economic activity that is not dependent on outside resources or purely extractive in nature. The Tribunal noted that the current presence of official personnel on many of the features is dependent on outside support and not reflective of the capacity of the features. The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen and that severalJapanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted. The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not constitute inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones. The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit. Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.Lawfulness of Chinese Actions: The Tribunal next considered the lawfulness of Chinese actions in the South China Sea. Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sove reign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone. The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access. The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.Harm to Marine Environment: The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species. The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities.Aggravation of Dispute: Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China’s actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties. The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement. The Tribunal found, however, that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties’ dispute.An exp anded summary of the Tribunal’s decisions is set out below.The Tribunal was constituted on 21 June 2013 pursuant to the procedure set out in Annex VII of theConvention to decide the dispute presented by the Philippines. The Tribunal is composed of Judge Thomas A.Mensah of Ghana, Judge Jean-Pierre Cot of France, Judge Stanislaw Pawlak of Poland, Professor AlfredH.A. Soons of the Netherlands, and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum of Germany. Judge Thomas A.Mensah serves as President of the Tribunal. The Permanent Court of Arbitration acts as the Registry in the proceedings.Further information about the case may be found at /web/view/7, including the Award onJurisdiction and Admissibility, the Rules of Procedure, earlier Press Releases, hearing transcripts, and photographs. Procedural Orders, submissions by the Philippines, and reports by the Tribunal’s experts will be made available in due course, as will unofficial Chinese translations of the Tribunal’s Awards.Background to the Permanent Court of ArbitrationThe Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization established by the1899 Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The PCA has 121 MemberStates. Headquartered at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands, the PCA facilitates arbitration, conciliation, fact-finding, and other dispute resolution proceedings among various combinations of States,State entities, intergovernmental organizations, and private parties. The PCA’s International Bureau is currently administering 8 interstate disputes, 73 investor-State arbitrations, and 34 cases arising under contracts involving a State or other public entity. The PCA has administered 12 cases initiated by States under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In July 2013, the Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration appointed the PCA to serve as Registry for the proceedings. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that the PCA shall “maintain an archive of the arbitr al proceedings and provide appropriate registry services as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal.” Such services include assisting with the identification and appointment of experts; publishing information about the arbitration and issuing press releases; organizing the hearings at the Peace Palace in The Hague; and the financial management of the case, which involves holding a deposit for expenses in the arbitration, such as to pay arbitrator fees, experts, technical support, court reporters etc. The Registry also serves as the channel of communications amongst the Parties and the Tribunal and observer States.Photograph: Hearing in session, July 2015, Peace Palace, The Hague. Clockwise from top left: Registrar and PCA Senior Legal Counsel Judith Levine; Judge Stanislaw Pawlak; Professor Alfred H.A. Soons; JudgeThomas A. Mensah (Presiding Arbitrator); Judge Jean-Pierre Cot; Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum; PCA SeniorLegal Counsel Garth Schofield; former Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, Mr. Albert F. DelRosario; former Solicitor General Mr. Florin T. Hilbay, Counsel for the Philippines; Mr. Paul S. Reichler;Professor Philippe Sands; Professor Bernard H. Oxman; Professor Alan E. Boyle; Mr. Lawrence H. Martin.SUMMARY OF THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISIONS ON ITS JURISDICTION AND ON THE MERITS OF THE PHILIPPINES’ CLAIMS1. Background to the ArbitrationThe South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China concerned an application bythe Philippines for rulings in respect of four matters concerning the relationship between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea. First, the Philippines sought a ruling on the source of the Parties’ rights and obligations in the South China Sea and the effect of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“Convention”) on China’s claims to historic rights within its so-called ‘nine-dash line’. Second, the Philippines sought a ruling on whether certain maritime features claimed by both China and the Philippines are properly characterized as islands, rocks, low-tide elevations or submerged banks under the Convention. The status of these features under the Convention determines the maritime zones they are capable of generating. Third, the Philippines sought rulings on whether certain Chinese actions in the South China Sea have violated the Convention, by interfering with the exercise of the Philippines’ sovereign rights and freedoms under the Convention or through construction and fishing activities that have harmed the marine environment. Finally, the Philippines sought a ruling that certain actions taken by China, in particular its large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands since this arbitration was commenced, have unlawfully aggravated and extended the Parties’ dispute.The Chinese Government has adhered to the position of neither accepting nor participating in these arbitral proceedings. It has reiterated this position in diplomatic notes, in the “Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of Chin a on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines” dated 7 December 2014 (“China’s Position Paper”), in letters to members of the Tribunal from the Chinese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and in many public statements. The Chinese Government has also made clear that these statements and documents “shall by no means be interpreted as China’s participation in the arbitral proceeding in any form.”Two provisions of the Convention address the situation of a party that objects to the jurisdiction of a tribunal and declines to participate in the proceedings:(a) Article 288 of the Convention provides that: “In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the m atter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.”(b) Article 9 of Annex VII to the Convention provides that:If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its case, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to make its award. Absence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. Before making its award, the arbitral tribunal must satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law. Throughout these proceedings, the Tribunal has taken a number of steps to fulfil its duty to satisfy itself as to whether it has jurisdiction and whether the Ph ilippines’ claims are “well founded in fact and law”. With respect to jurisdiction, the Tribunal decided to treat China’s informal communications as equivalent to an objection to jurisdiction, convened a Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 7 to 13 July 2015, questioned the Philippines both before and during the hearing on matters of jurisdiction, including potential issues not raised in China’s informal communications, and issued an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 29 October 2015 (the “Award on Jurisdiction”), deciding some issues of jurisdiction and deferring others for further consideration in conjunction with the merits of the Philippines’ claims. With respect to the merits, the Tribunal sought to test the accuracy of the Philippines’ claims by requesting further written submissions from the Philippines, by convening a hearing on the merits from 24to 30 November 2015, by questioning the Philippines both before and during the hearing with respect to its claims, by appointing independent experts to report to the Tribunal on technical matters, and by obtaining historical records and hydrographic survey data for the South China Sea from the archives of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, the National Library of France, and the French National Overseas Archives and providing it to the Parties for comment, along with other relevant materials in the public domain.2. The Parties’ PositionsThe Philippines made 15 Submissions in these proceedings, requesting the Tribunal to find that: (1) Ch ina’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, like those of the Philippines, may not extend beyond those expressly permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;(2) China’s claims to sovereign rights jurisdiction, and to “historic rights”, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the so-called “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s marit ime entitlements expressly permitted by UNCLOS;(3) Scarborough Shoal generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;(4) Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, and are not features that are capable of appropriation by occupation or otherwise;(5) Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines;(6) Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, but their low-water line may be used to determine the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Namyit and Sin Cowe, respectively, is measured;(7) Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;(8) China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf;(9) China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines;(10) China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal;(11) China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef;(12) China’s occupation of and construction activities on Mischief Reef(a) violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and structures;(b) violate China’s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Convent ion; and(c) constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention;(13) China has breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner, causing serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal;(14) Since the commencement of this arbitration in January 2013, China has unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute by, among other things:(a) interfering with the Philippines’ r ights of navigation in the waters at, and adjacent to, Second Thomas Shoal;(b) preventing the rotation and resupply of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal;(c) endangering the health and well-being of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal; and(d) conducting dredging, artificial island-building and construction activities at Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef; and (15) China shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines under the Convention, shall comply with its duties under the Convention, including those relevant to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the South China Sea, and shall exercise its rights and freedoms in the South China Sea with due regard to those of the Philippines under the Convention.With respect to jurisdiction, the Philippines has asked the Tribunal to declare that the Philippines’ claims “are entirely within its jurisdiction and are fully admissible.”China does not accept and is not participating in this arbitration but stated its position that the Tribunal “does not have jurisdiction over this case.” In its Position Paper, China advanced the following arguments:– The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the Convention and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention;– China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations. By unilaterally initiating the present arbitration, the Philippines has breached its obligation under international law;– Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter would constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation between the two countries, thus falling within the scope of the declaration filed by China in 2006 in accordance with the Convention, which excludes, inter alia, disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures;Although China has not made equivalent public statements with respect to the merits of the majority of the Philippines’ claims, the Tribunal has sought throughout the proceedings to ascertain China’s position on the basis of its contem poraneous public statements and diplomatic correspondence.3. The Tribunal’s Decisions on the Scope of its JurisdictionThe Tribunal has addressed the scope of its jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ claims both in its Award on Jurisdiction, to the extent that issues of jurisdiction could be decided as apreliminary matter, and in its Award of 12 July 2016, to the extent that issues of jurisdiction were intertwined with the merits of the Philippines’ claims. The Tribunal’s Award of 12 July 2016 also incorporates and reaffirms the decisions on jurisdiction taken in the Award on Jurisdiction.For completeness, the Tribunal’s decisions on jurisdiction in both awards are summarized here together.a. Preliminary MattersIn its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered a number of preliminary matters with respect to its jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that both the Philippines and China are parties to the Convention and that the Convention does not permit a State to except itself generally from the mechanism for the resolution of disputes set out in the Convention. The Tribunal held that China’s non-participation does not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction and that the Tribunal had been properly constituted pursuant to the provisions of Annex VII to the Convention, which include a procedure to form a tribunal even in the absence of one party. Finally, the Tribunal rejected an argument set out in China’s Position Paper and held that the mere act of unilaterally initiating an arbitration cannot constitute an abuse of the Convention.b. Existence of a Dispute Concerning Interpretation and Application of the ConventionIn its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered whether the Parties’ disputes concerned the interpretation or application of the Convention, which is a requirement for resort to the dispute settlement mechanisms of the Convention.The Tribunal rejected the argument set out in China’s Position Paper that the Parties’ dispute is actually about territorial sovereignty and therefore not a matter concerning the Convention. The Tribunal accepted that there is a dispute between the Parties concerning sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea, but held that the matters submitted to arbitration by the Philippines do not concern sovereignty. The Tribunal considered that it would not need to implicitly decide sovereignty to address the Philippines’ Submissions and that doing so would not advance the sovereignty claims of either Party to islands in the South China Sea.The Tribunal also rejected the argument set out in China’s Position Paper that the Parties’ dispute is actually about maritime boundary delimitation and therefore excluded from dispute settlement by Article 298 of the Convention and a declaration that China made on 25 August 2006 pursuant to that Article. The Tribunal noted that a dispute concerning whether a State has an entitlement to a maritime zone is a distinct matter from the delimitation of maritime zones in an area in which they overlap. The Tribunal noted that entitlements, together with a wide variety of other issues, are commonly considered in a boundary delimitation, but can also arise in other contexts. The Tribunal held that it does not follow that a dispute over each of these issues is necessarily a dispute over boundary delimitation.Finally, the Tribunal held that each of the Philippines’ Submissions reflected a dispute concerning the Convention. In doing so, the Tribunal emphasized (a) that a dispute concerning the interaction between the Convention and other rights (including any Chinese “historic rights”) is a dispute concerning the Convention and (b) that where China has not clearly stated its position, the existence of a dispute may be inferred from the conduct of a State or from silence and is a matter to be determined objectively.c. Involvement of Indispensable Third-PartiesIn its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered whether the absence from this arbitration of other States that have made claims to the islands of the South China Sea would be a bar to theTribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the rights of other States would not form “the very subject-matter of the decision,” the standard for a third-party to be indispensable. The Tribunal further noted that in December 2014, Viet Nam had submitted a statement to the Tribunal, in which Viet Nam asserted that it has “no doubt that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in these proceedings.” The Tribunal also noted that Viet Nam, Malaysia, and Indonesia had attended the hearing on jurisdiction as observers, without any State raising the argument that its participation was indispensable.In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal noted that it had received a communication from Malaysia on 23 June 2016, recalling Malaysia’s claims in the South China Sea. Th e Tribunal compared its decisions on the merits of the Philippines’ Submissions with the rights claimed by Malaysia and reaffirmed its decision that Malaysia is not an indispensable party and that Malaysia’s interests in the South China Sea do not prevent the Tribunal from addressing the Philippines’ Submissions.d. Preconditions to JurisdictionIn its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered the applicability of Articles 281 and 282 of the Convention, which may prevent a State from making use of the mechanisms under the Convention if they have already agreed to another means of dispute resolution.The Tribunal rejected the argument set out in China’s Position Paper that the 2002 China–ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea prevented the Philippines from initiating arbitration. The Tribunal held that the Declaration is a political agreement and not legally binding, does not provide a mechanism for binding settlement, does not exclude other means of dispute settlement, and the refore does not restrict the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Articles 281 or 282. The Tribunal also considered the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and a series of joint statements issued by the Philippines and China referring to the resolution of disputes through negotiations and concluded that none of these instruments constitute an agreement that would prevent the Philippines from bringing its claims to arbitration.The Tribunal further held that the Parties had exchanged views regarding the settlement of their disputes, as required by Article 283 of the Convention, before the Philippines initiated the arbitration. The Tribunal concluded that this requirement was met in the record of diplomatic communications between the Philippines and China, in which the Philippines expressed a clear preference for multilateral negotiations involving the other States surrounding the South China Sea, while China insisted that only bilateral talks could be considered.e. Exceptions and Limitations to JurisdictionIn its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered whether the Philippines’ Submissions concerning Chinese historic rights and the ‘nine-dash line’ were affected by the exception from jurisdiction for d isputes concerning “historic title” in Article 298 of the Convention. The Tribunal reviewed the meaning of “historic title” in the law of the sea and held that this refers to claims of historic sovereignty over bays and other near-shore waters. Reviewing C hina’s claims and conduct in the South China Sea, the Tribunal concluded that China claims historic rights to resources within the ‘nine-dash line’, but does not claim historic title over the waters of the South China Sea. Accordingly, the Tribunal conclud ed that it had jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ claims concerning historic rights and, as between the Philippines and China, the ‘nine-dash line’.In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal also considered whether the Philippines’ Submissions。
南海仲裁中文版原文综述
南海仲裁案（菲律宾共和国v. 中华人民共和国）海牙，2016年7月12日仲裁庭发布裁决︰今日，根据《联合国海洋法公约》（“《公约》”）附件七组成的仲裁庭就菲律宾共和国对中华人民共和国提起的仲裁案作出了一致裁决。
该仲裁案涉及在南海的历史性权利的作用和海洋权利的渊源、某些岛礁的地位及其能够产生的海洋权利，以及菲律宾声称违反了《公约》的中国某些行为的合法性问题。
考虑到《公约》对强制争端解决的限制性规定，仲裁庭强调，它既不对任何涉及陆地领土主权的问题进行裁决，也不划定当事双方之间的任何边界。
中国反复申明“其不接受、不参与由菲律宾单方面提起的仲裁”。
然而，《公约》附件七规定，“争端一方缺席或不对案件进行辩护，应不妨碍程序的进行”。
附件七同时规定，在争端一方不参与程序的情况下，仲裁庭“必须不但查明对该争端确有管辖权，而且查明所提要求在事实上和法庭上均确有根据”。
因此，在整个程序中，仲裁庭采取了一些步骤验证菲律宾诉求的正确性，包括要求菲律宾提交进一步的书面论证，在两次庭审之前及庭审过程中对菲律宾进行询问，指定独立的专家就技术性问题向仲裁庭报告，以及获取关於南海岛礁的历史性证据并提供给当事双方予以评论。
通过2014年12月发布的《立场文件》和其他官方声明，中国明确表示，仲裁庭对本案涉及的事项缺乏管辖权。
《公约》第288条规定:“对於法院或法庭是否具有管辖权如果发生争端，这一问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决”。
据此，仲裁庭於2015年7月就管辖权和可受理性问题进行了开庭审理，并於2015年10月29日作出了《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》，其中对一些管辖权问题进行裁决并推迟对其他问题进行进一步审议。
2015年11月24日至30日，仲裁庭接着对实体问题进行了开庭审理。
今日的裁决审议了《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》未决的管辖权问题和仲裁庭有权管辖的菲律宾诉求的实体性问题。
根据《公约》第296条和附件七第11条的规定，该裁决具有终局性和拘束力。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
南海仲裁案裁决全文（中文版）南海仲裁案（菲律宾共和国v. 中华人民共和国）海牙，2016年7月12日仲裁庭发布裁决︰今日，根据《联合国海洋法公约》（“《公约》”）附件七组成的仲裁庭就菲律宾共和国对中华人民共和国提起的仲裁案作出了一致裁决。
该仲裁案涉及在南海的历史性权利的作用和海洋权利的渊源、某些岛礁的地位及其能够产生的海洋权利，以及菲律宾声称违反了《公约》的中国某些行为的合法性问题。
考虑到《公约》对强制争端解决的限制性规定，仲裁庭强调，它既不对任何涉及陆地领土主权的问题进行裁决，也不划定当事双方之间的任何边界。
中国反复申明“其不接受、不参与由菲律宾单方面提起的仲裁”。
然而，《公约》附件七规定，“争端一方缺席或不对案件进行辩护，应不妨碍程序的进行”。
附件七同时规定，在争端一方不参与程序的情况下，仲裁庭“必须不但查明对该争端确有管辖权，而且查明所提要求在事实上和法庭上均确有根据”。
因此，在整个程序中，仲裁庭采取了一些步骤验证菲律宾诉求的正确性，包括要求菲律宾提交进一步的书面论证，在两次庭审之前及庭审过程中对菲律宾进行询问，指定独立的专家就技术性问题向仲裁庭报告，以及获取关於南海岛礁的历史性证据并提供给当事双方予以评论。
通过2014年12月发布的《立场文件》和其他官方声明，中国明确表示，仲裁庭对本案涉及的事项缺乏管辖权。
《公约》第288条规定:“对於法院或法庭是否具有管辖权如果发生争端，这一问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决”。
据此，仲裁庭於2015年7月就管辖权和可受理性问题进行了开庭审理，并於2015年10月29日作出了《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》，其中对一些管辖权问题进行裁决并推迟对其他问题进行进一步审议。
2015年11月24日至30日，仲裁庭接着对实体问题进行了开庭审理。
今日的裁决审议了《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》未决的管辖权问题和仲裁庭有权管辖的菲律宾诉求的实体性问题。
根据《公约》第296条和附件七第11条的规定，该裁决具有终局性和拘束力。
历史性权利和“九段线”︰历史性权利和“九段线”：仲裁庭认为，它对当事双方涉及南海的历史性权利和海洋权利渊源的争端具有管辖权。
在实体问题上，仲裁庭认为，《公约》对海洋区域的权利作了全面的分配，考虑了对资源的既存权利的保护，但并未将其纳入条约。
因此，仲裁庭得出结论，即使中国曾在某种程度上对南海水域的资源享有历史性权利，这些权利也已经在与《公约》关於专属经济区的规定不一致的范围内归於消灭。
仲裁庭同时指出，尽管历史上中国以及其他国家的航海者和渔民利用了南海的岛屿，但并无证据显示历史上中国对该水域或其资源拥有排他性的控制权。
仲裁庭认为，中国对“九段线”内海洋区域的资源主张历史性权利没有法律依据。
岛礁的地位︰仲裁庭接下来审议了海洋区域的权利和岛礁的地位。
仲裁庭首先评估了中国主张的某些礁石在高潮时是否高於水面。
高潮时高於水面的岛礁能够产生至少12海里的领海，而高潮时没入水中的岛礁则不能。
仲裁庭注意到，这些礁石已经被填海和建设活动所严重改变，重申《公约》基於岛礁的自然状态对其进行归类,并依据历史资料对这些岛礁进行评估。
然後，仲裁庭考虑了中国主张的任一岛礁能否产生超过12海里的海洋区域。
根据《公约》，岛屿能够产生200海里的专属经济区和大陆架，但是“不能维持人类居住或其本身的经济生活的岩礁，不应有专属经济区或大陆架”。
仲裁庭认为，这项规定取决於一个岛礁在自然状态下，维持一个稳定的人类社群或者不依赖於外来资源或纯采掘业的经济活动的客观承载力。
仲裁庭注意到，现在很多岛礁上驻紮的政府人员依赖於外来的支持，不能反映这些岛礁的承载力。
仲裁庭认为历史证据更具有相关性，并注意到历史上小规模的渔民曾经利用南沙群岛，且有若干在其上建立日本渔业和肥料开采企业的尝试。
仲裁庭认定，这种短暂的利用并不构成稳定的人类社群的定居，且历史上所有的经济活动都是纯采掘性的。
据此，仲裁庭得出结论，认为南沙群岛无一能够产生延伸的海洋区域。
仲裁庭还认为南沙群岛不能够作为一个整体共同产生海洋区域。
在认定中国主张的岛礁无一能够产生专属经济区之後，仲裁庭认为它可以在不划分边界的情况下裁定某些海洋区域位於菲律宾的专属经济区内，因为这些区域与中国任何可能的权利并不重叠。
中国行为的合法性：仲裁庭接下来审议了中国在南海行为的合法性。
在认定特定区域位於菲律宾的专属经济区的基础上，仲裁庭裁定中国的以下行为违法了菲律宾在其专属经济区享有的主权权利：（a）妨碍菲律宾的捕鱼和石油开采；（b）建设人工岛屿；（c）未阻止中国渔民在该区域的捕鱼活动。
仲裁庭还认为，菲律宾渔民（如中国渔民一样）在黄岩岛有传统的渔业权利，而中国限制其进入该区域从而妨碍了这些权利的行使。
仲裁庭进一步认为，中国执法船对菲律宾船只进行拦截的行为非法地造成了严重的碰撞危险。
对海洋环境的损害：仲裁庭考虑了中国近期在南沙群岛七个岛礁上的大规模填海和人工岛屿建设对海洋环境的影响，查明中国对珊瑚礁环境造成了严重损害，违反了其保全和保护脆弱的生态系统以及衰竭、受威胁或有灭绝危险的物种的生存环境的义务。
仲裁庭还查明，中国官方对中国渔民在南海（使用对珊瑚礁环境造成严重损害的方法）大量捕捞有灭绝危险的海龟，珊瑚及大砗磲的行为知情，却未履行其阻止此类活动的义务。
争端的加剧：最後，仲裁庭审议了中国自本仲裁启动之後的行为是否加剧了当事双方之间的争端。
仲裁庭裁定，它对菲律宾海军与中国海军和执法船只在仁爱礁的对峙可能造成的後果没有管辖权进行审议，因为此项争端涉及军事活动，因此为强制争端解决所排除。
但是，仲裁庭认为，中国近期大规模的填海和建设人工岛屿的活动不符合缔约国在争端解决程序中的义务，因为中国对海洋环境造成了不可恢复的损害，在菲律宾专属经济区内建设大规模的人工岛屿，并破坏了构成双方部分争端的南海岛礁自然状态的证据。
下文为仲裁庭裁决的扩展摘要本案仲裁庭於2013 年6 月21 日根据《公约》附件七规定的程序组成，以对菲律宾提交的争端进行裁决。
本案仲裁庭由加纳籍法官Thomas A. Mensah，法国籍法官Jean-Pierre Cot，波兰籍法官Stanislaw Pawlak，荷兰籍教授Alfred H.A. Soons 和德国籍法官RüdigerWolfrum 组成。
Thomas A. Mensah 法官担任首席仲裁员。
常设仲裁法院担任本案的书记处。
关於本案的更多信息，包括《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》、《程序规则》和早先新闻稿以及庭审记录和照片，请见/web/view/7。
程序令、菲律宾的诉求、仲裁庭专家的报告和仲裁庭裁决的非官方中译文将在之後适时发布。
常设仲裁法院背景资料常设仲裁法院是根据1899 年海牙《和平解决国际争端公约》成立的政府间组织。
常设仲裁法院共有121 个成员国，总部位於荷兰海牙的和平宫。
常设仲裁法院为国家、国家实体、政府间组织、私人主体间的仲裁、调解、事实调查以及其他争端解决程序提供服务。
常设仲裁法院国际局目前为8 个国家间仲裁案件，73 个国际投资仲裁案件，以及34 个涉及国家或其他公共主体的合同仲裁案件提供书记处服务。
常设仲裁法院共管理过12 个主权国家在《联合国海洋法公约》附件七下提起的仲裁案。
2013 年7 月，南海仲裁案的仲裁庭指定常设仲裁法院作为案件的书记处。
仲裁庭的《程序规则》规定，常设仲裁法院应当“为仲裁程序提供档案管理，并根据仲裁庭指令提供适当的书记处服务”。
这些服务包括协助查找和指定专家；发布关於仲裁案的信息和发布新闻稿；组织在海牙和平宫进行庭审；管理案件财务，包括管理案件费用保证金，例如支付仲裁员，专家，技术支持人员和庭审记录员的费用等。
书记处也为当事方，仲裁庭和观察员国之间提供官方交流渠道。
仲裁庭关於管辖权和菲律宾诉求的实体问题的裁决摘要1. 仲裁案的背景菲律宾和中国间的南海仲裁案涉及菲律宾对其与中国在南海关系的四个事项进行裁决的请求。
第一，菲律宾请求仲裁庭对当事双方在南海的权利和义务渊源，以及《联合国海洋法公约》（“《公约》”）对中国在所谓的“九段线”内主张的历史性权利的效力作出裁决。
第二，菲律宾请求仲裁庭裁定某些被菲律宾和中国同时主张的岛礁能否被恰当地定义为《公约》下的岛屿，礁石，低潮高地或者水下地物。
这些岛礁在《公约》下的地位决定它们所能产生的海洋区域。
第三，菲律宾请求仲裁庭裁定中国在南海的某些活动是否违反了《公约》的规定，包括妨碍菲律宾行使《公约》下的主权权利和自由或者进行损害海洋环境的建设和渔业活动。
最後，菲律宾请求仲裁庭裁定中国的某些行为，尤其是自本仲裁启动之後在南沙群岛大规模填海和建设人工岛屿的活动，非法地加剧并扩大了双方之间的争端。
中国政府在此前进行的一系列程序中坚持不接受、不参与仲裁的立场，并在其外交照会、2014年12月7日发布的《中华人民共和国政府关於菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》（“中国《立场文件》”）、中国驻荷兰王国大使至仲裁庭成员的信函以及多次的公开声明中重申了这一立场。
中国政府同时明确表示，这些声明和文件“决不得被解释为中国以任何形式参与仲裁程序”。
《公约》的以下两个条款规定了争端一方反对法庭的管辖权但是拒绝参与程序的情况：（a）《公约》第288条规定:“对於法院或法庭是否具有管辖权如果发生争端，这一问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决”。
（b）《公约》附件七第9条规定:“如争端一方不出庭或对案件不进行辩护，他方可请示仲裁法庭继续进行程序并作出裁决。
争端一方缺席或不对案件进行辩护，应不妨碍程序的进行。
仲裁法庭在作出裁决前，必须不但查明对该争端确有管辖权，而且查明所提要求在事实上和法庭上均确有根据”。
在整个仲裁程序中，仲裁庭采取了一些步骤以履行查明其是否具有管辖权以及菲律宾的诉求是否“在事实上和法庭上均确有根据”的义务。
关於管辖权，仲裁庭决定将中国的非正式函文视为等同於对管辖权的异议，并於2015年7月7日至13日进行了管辖权和可受理性问题的开庭审理。
仲裁庭在庭审之前及庭审过程中就管辖权问题向菲律宾提问，其中包括中国非正式函文中没有提出的潜在问题，并於2015年10月29日发布了《关於管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》（“《管辖权裁决》”），对一些管辖权问题作出了裁决并推迟将其他问题进一步与菲律宾诉求的实体问题一同审议。
关於实体问题，为了验证菲律宾的诉求的正确性，仲裁庭要求菲律宾提交进一步书面陈述，於2015年11月24至30日对实体问题进行开庭审理，并在庭审之前和庭审过程中就菲律宾诉求向其提问。
仲裁庭还指定独立的专家就技术性问题向仲裁庭报告，从英国水文办公室、法国国家图书馆、法国国家海外档案馆的档案中获取南海的历史记录和水文测量数据，并与其它公共领域的相关资料一起提供给当事双方进行评论。