仲裁未化解爭議 南海反而更多事

<轉載自2016年7月14日 明報 社評>

所謂「南海仲裁案」裁決公布後，一如所料，菲律賓舉國歡騰，南海領土主權爭議其他當事國表示歡迎，美國和日本則聲稱裁決有約束力，要求中國服從遵守。不過，在衆聲喧嘩之際，審視裁決發揮了什麼建設性作用，怎樣促進化解南海爭議，各方面都說不出個所以然來，反而見到裁決使事態複雜化和激起更多紛爭。然後，審視海牙常設仲裁庭，從組成、職權、運作到程序公義，都令人有所質疑。連串情况，促成「南海仲裁案」是負面個案，被認為使國際法和國際爭端調解機制陷入尷尬景况。

仲裁庭備受質疑 聯合國劃清界線

裁決結果公布之後，聯合國在微博發文澄清，指海牙常設仲裁庭（下稱仲裁庭）與聯合國沒有任何關係。聯合國這番切割，被解讀為不欲捲入裁決而挑起的爭議。事實上，仲裁目的為解決爭議，用於民事、商界或國與國之間的爭端，就只有一個前提，那是爭議兩造或各方都同意交付仲裁，並同意執行仲裁結果，則仲裁才有意義和實效。如今是菲律賓單方面提請仲裁，中國從一開始就表明不參與、不承認和不接受，可是仲裁庭卻不理會，執意受理，其為仲裁而仲裁、罔顧可能出現的負面影響，十分明顯。

仲裁庭執行《聯合國海洋公約》（下稱公約），惟公約不涉及領土紛爭，而且中國早於2006年已經聲明將涉及海域劃界等事項爭端，排除適用包括仲裁在內的強制爭端解決程序。審視仲裁庭的裁決，雖然聲稱不對任何涉及領土主權的問題進行裁決，也不劃定當事國之間的任何邊界，但是裁決依然觸及專屬經濟區等主權權利範疇。例如裁決否定中國的九段線主張、指中國在一些島礁並無專屬經濟區和大陸架延伸的權利等，說明菲律賓提請的仲裁事項繞不過領土主權和劃界問題。可是，仲裁庭仍然受理，自行擴權，作出對中國不利的裁決；加上仲裁庭之組成，被質疑由日本前任外交官柳井俊二把持等。因此，仲裁庭由組成、越權到針對性，顯示並非一般仲裁，而是蘊含政治考量和操作的「法庭」，其裁決無法化解爭議，反而使事態複雜化和觸發更多紛爭，就不難理解了。

《聯合國海洋公約》並沒有執行機制。據一項統計，海牙常設仲裁庭成立117年以來，處理過16宗仲裁提請，仲裁協議執行率極低；美國多年前也曾不理會裁決，中國這次對仲裁表明「三不」，因此不會執行裁決，也不會有任何國家和力量可以迫使中國執行。美國和日本作為域外國家，拿到仲裁庭「完敗中國」這張牌，藉此向中國擠壓，做到強化「離間戰略」，使東盟愈益疏離中國，它們大概就感到滿意；作為東盟諸國、特別是爭議當事國的祈求，當然不會滿足於此，憧憬在裁決下得到實質好處。

中國不接受、不執行裁決結果，當事國不會有即時得益，反而仲裁庭把台灣控制的太平島劃為岩礁的裁決，各個當事國有可能「偷雞唔到蝕把米」。太平島面積0.51平方公里，在南沙諸島之中面積最大，上有樹林、淡水，可養殖動物，台灣長期派駐約200人，但是裁決認為太平島未有長期承載人類主群經濟生活的能力，將之降格為岩礁，只有12海里的領海範圍，不擁有200海里專屬經濟區和大陸架的權利。太平島既然如此，南沙群島所有「海上地物」都是岩礁，其中菲律賓控制的中業島、越南控制的南威島都被降格為「礁」，它們分別在其上設立的行政區，不也就變為非法組織？看來，這就是迄今所見，大多當事國表示歡迎裁決，卻不雀躍的原因，因為隱伏着紛爭。

南沙諸島盡皆「岩礁」「冲之鳥島」可例外？

就「岩礁」裁決，另一個忐忑的是日本。日本在西太平洋菲律賓海附近公海海域佔有一個珊瑚礁，水上面積不到10平方米，本來就是一堆礁石，日本卻命名為「冲之鳥島」。雖然在國際這是一個笑話，但是日本自我感覺良好，近期台灣漁民在那裏有漁權紛爭，民進黨政府竟然承認冲之鳥是「島」，被認為此乃媚日作為。若日本支持仲裁庭的裁決，「冲之鳥島」豈能不降格？否則周邊47萬平方公里專屬經濟區和約25.5萬平方公里大陸架，就有可能失去。日本如何應對，相信要費周章。

由此可見，設若認真體待仲裁庭的裁決，中國固然最受影響，日後在南海爭議更加被動；不過，美國所得暫時也是嘴巴上逼迫中國和伺機拉攏東盟的政治利益，其他如日本和當事國都受到一定程度影響，台灣則是躺着中槍。因此，裁決不僅未紓緩爭議，反而使事態複雜化和衍生更多紛爭；這樣的仲裁，不要也罷！中國提出與當事國直接談判，作出實際的臨時安排，包括共同開發相關海域，實現互利共贏，提供了最有可能解決爭議和得到實利的空間。南海爭議當事國一旦擺脫幕後有政治考量的鼓動，認清「發展之海」、「和諧之海」的目標，就會發現海闊天空，也會驚覺那些半賣半送的武器，原來蘊含着要把南海燃點為火海的惡毒心腸。

PCA ruling has complicated matters

CELEBRATIONS erupted in the Philippines after the ruling on the so-called "South China Sea arbitration case" was handed down - just as expected. Countries also involved in sovereignty disputes over the South China Sea have welcomed the ruling, while the United States and Japan have said that the ruling is binding and that China should obey it. However, amid all the sound and fury, no one can say for sure what constructive effect the ruling has produced and how the controversy over the South China Sea can be resolved. The ruling has, instead, complicated matters and provoked even more disagreements.

After the ruling was announced, the United Nations (UN) explained on Weibo that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague is not related to the UN. The UN's move to distance itself from the PCA has been interpreted as its reluctance to get embroiled in the controversy provoked by the ruling. In fact, the aim of arbitration is to resolve controversies. There is a prerequisite to arbitrating in civil, commercial and international disputes - that both sides or all sides agree to take the matter to arbitration and act in accordance with the ruling. Otherwise the arbitration will be meaningless and useless. The Philippines took the matter to arbitration on its own, with China refusing outright to participate in, admit or accept the arbitration from the very beginning. The PCA turned a blind eye to this and stubbornly started the arbitration procedure. Obviously, the PCA was arbitrating for the sake of it in complete disregard of the negative consequences that could ensue.

The PCA enforces the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, the convention does not deal with sovereignty issues. Furthermore, back in 2006, the Chinese government declared that controversies involving the demarcation of sea areas would be excluded from mandatory dispute settlement procedures such as arbitration. The PCA claims that it does not rule on any issues involving sovereignty disputes or any boundaries between the countries concerned. Still, the ruling it has handed down touches on areas concerning sovereignty rights such as exclusive economic zones (EEZs). In the ruling, for example, the PCA rejects China's "nine-dash line" claim, adding that some of China's islands are not entitled to EEZ or extended continental shelf rights. This shows that the arbitration process, started by the Philippines, cannot avoid sovereignty or demarcation issues. The PCA agreed to arbitrate in the matter, thus expanding its power on its own, and made a ruling unfavourable to China. There are also queries about its composition, as it is thought to be dominated by Shunji Yanai, a former Japanese diplomat. To put it simply, the PCA's composition, its acting beyond its authority, and its taking aim at China illustrate that the ruling is not a normal piece of arbitration, but the work of a "court" full of political calculations and operations. In this light, it is easy to understand why the ruling has failed to resolve controversies, but has complicated matters and provoked even more disagreements.

The Chinese government has suggested direct negotiations with countries involved in the matter and making tentative but practical arrangements, including co-developing the sea areas in question, so as to bring about a win-win situation. By making such a suggestion, the Chinese government has offered the most possible solution to the disagreements as well as a way to profit from the situation. Countries involved in the matter will find that there is no limit to what they can achieve once they throw off the shackles of incitements started by those harbouring political considerations and identify the South China Sea as "the sea of development" and "the sea of harmony".

仲裁未化解爭議 南海反而更多事

所謂「南海仲裁案」裁決公布後，一如所料，菲律賓舉國歡騰，南海領土主權爭議其他當事國表示歡迎，美國和日本則聲稱裁決有約束力，要求中國服從遵守。不過，在衆聲喧嘩之際，審視裁決發揮了什麼建設性作用，怎樣促進化解南海爭議，各方面都說不出個所以然來，反而見到裁決使事態複雜化和激起更多紛爭。

裁決結果公布之後，聯合國在微博發文澄清，指海牙常設仲裁庭（下稱仲裁庭）與聯合國沒有任何關係。聯合國這番切割，被解讀為不欲捲入裁決而挑起的爭議。事實上，仲裁目的為解決爭議，用於民事、商界或國與國之間的爭端，就只有一個前提，那是爭議兩造或各方都同意交付仲裁，並同意執行仲裁結果，則仲裁才有意義和實效。如今是菲律賓單方面提請仲裁，中國從一開始就表明不參與、不承認和不接受，可是仲裁庭卻不理會，執意受理，其為仲裁而仲裁、罔顧可能出現的負面影響，十分明顯。

仲裁庭執行《聯合國海洋公約》（下稱公約），惟公約不涉及領土紛爭，而且中國早於2006年已經聲明將涉及海域劃界等事項爭端，排除適用包括仲裁在內的強制爭端解決程序。審視仲裁庭的裁決，雖然聲稱不對任何涉及領土主權的問題進行裁決，也不劃定當事國之間的任何邊界，但是裁決依然觸及專屬經濟區等主權權利範疇。例如裁決否定中國的九段線主張、指中國在一些島礁並無專屬經濟區和大陸架延伸的權利等，說明菲律賓提請的仲裁事項繞不過領土主權和劃界問題。可是，仲裁庭仍然受理，自行擴權，作出對中國不利的裁決；加上仲裁庭之組成，被質疑由日本前任外交官柳井俊二把持等。因此，仲裁庭由組成、越權到針對性，顯示並非一般仲裁，而是蘊含政治考量和操作的「法庭」，其裁決無法化解爭議，反而使事態複雜化和觸發更多紛爭，就不難理解了。

中國提出與當事國直接談判，作出實際的臨時安排，包括共同開發相關海域，實現互利共贏，提供了最有可能解決爭議和得到實利的空間。南海爭議當事國一旦擺脫幕後有政治考量的鼓動，認清「發展之海」、「和諧之海」的目標，就會發現海闊天空。