公道自在人心

DaoInhabits People’s Hearts

黃惠康

Huang Huikang

7月12日，南海仲裁案最終裁決結果出籠。這出由美國幕后操縱，日本協力搭臺，菲律賓前任政府獨角主演，草臺班子沽名釣譽，披著法律外衣的反華政治鬧劇，荒腔走板，終以“爛戲”收場，國際嘩然,惡評如潮。有識之士直呼“跌破眼鏡”。太平島“由島變礁”，更是匪夷所思。老師普遍認為，此案系“毒樹之果”，“有百害而無一益”。美國原本期望借仲裁案抹黑、“孤立”中國，然而始料未及，應者寥寥。即使在菲律賓，也有越來越多的人認識到，南海仲裁案是“美國利用菲律賓達成自己目的的陰謀”。這再次印證“得道多助，失道寡助”，公道自在人心。

On July 12, the award on the SouthChina Sea arbitration came out. This political anti-China farce in the disguiseof law, manipulated by the US, and acted by the former Philippine Government,eventually comes to an awful end. This award caused a storm of questions andnegative comments in the international community. A lot of professionals areshocked, not to speak of how ridiculous it is to define Taiping Island as a “reef”.As Professor Tom Zwart from the Netherlands said, “In the region (East Asia)the award will be widely regarded as the fruit of a poisonous tree, and it willfail, therefore, to garner the necessary support.” Abraham Sofaer, former legaladvisor to the US State Department, also pointed out that the arbitration hadbrought a lot of difficulties and anxiety, which were not good for any parties.

The US attempted to smear and “isolate”China with the arbitration, but unexpectedly received little response. China’sposition of non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration has wonmore and more support. Even the Philippine people realized that the arbitrationis a total conspiracy of the US for its own agenda. This proves again the oldsaying, “a just cause enjoys abundant support while an unjust cause findslittle support.”

何為道?公理、潮流、法則也。

Dao, a combined concept offairness, justice, rule, trend and direction derived from ancient Chinesephilosophy, inhabits people’s hearts.

當今世界之道，在于和平、發展、合作、共贏。國際爭端解決之道，在于公正合法、和平解決。在和平解決的大原則下，國際法賦予各國自主選擇爭端解決方式方法的權利。各國應本著合作精神，在國家同意的基礎上，善意使用，不得濫用。中國堅定不移奉行獨立自主和平外交政策，倡導人類命運共同體意識，反對冷戰思維和零和博弈，反對以強凌弱，不稱霸、不搞擴張，不覬覦他國權益，不嫉妒他國發展，不信邪也不怕邪，不惹事也不怕事。在領土問題和海洋劃界爭議上，中國主張由直接當事國通過雙邊友好協商談判解決，從不接受任何第三方爭端解決方式，不接受任何強加于中國的爭端解決方案。

The Dao of the present world lies in peace, development and win-wincooperation, and the Dao of solvinginternational disputes lies in fair, lawful and peaceful solution. On thepremise of peaceful settlement, international law provides the right of everystate to choose the means of dispute settlement, which should be based onconsent, used in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation. China persistsunswervingly in pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace, advocates theawareness about human common destiny, opposes to Cold War mindset and zero-sumgames, and opposes to bullying of the weak by the strong. China will never seekhegemony or engage in expansion. With regard to territorial issues and maritimedelimitation disputes, China adheres to settlement through amicable consultationand negotiation by directly concerned countries, and does not accept any meansof third party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on it.

美國之失道，在于貪圖霸權和危險的“帝國思維”。二次大戰后，美國的全球目標一直是謀求“領導世界”。2009年始，奧巴馬政府推出“亞太再平衡”戰略，南海問題迅速成為美國維護地區霸權地位，對中國進行戰略牽制的重要抓手。在菲律賓單方面提起和推進南海仲裁案的前前后后，美國的“深度參與”幾乎無處不在。美國表面上佯稱“中立不介入”，骨子里卻唯恐南海不亂，明里暗地為阿基諾三世政府出謀劃策，出錢出力，并在國際上“拉幫結伙”，大肆炒作，為仲裁案造勢張目。美國總是以“世界法官”自居，但歷史和現實一再表明，美國對待國際法，總是對人不對己，合則用，不合則棄。美國口口聲聲維護“海洋法治”，卻為一己私利迄未批準加入《聯合國海洋法公約》(以下簡稱《公約》);口口聲聲要求中國接受仲裁裁決，卻忘了自己在與尼加拉瓜的國際法院訴訟中，不僅中途撤出庭審，拒絕執行判決，而且撤回了接受國際法院強制管轄的聲明;口口聲聲反對南海軍事化，自己卻頻繁地派遣軍機、軍艦到本地區挑釁滋事，甚至大費周章地將航母戰斗群開進南海，炫耀武力。越多越多國家已經看清，誰是當今世界最大的“麻煩制造者”。美國的插手往往會讓事情變得更糟。今天的阿富汗、伊拉克、利比亞，無一例外地落入美國的干預陷阱，留下了一個又一個貽害地區的爛攤子。難怪菲律賓新任總統杜特爾特上任伊始即坦言，“伊拉克及其他西亞北非國家流血沖突的禍根就是美國的干涉政策。”就在仲裁裁決出籠前夕，美國最親盟友英國公布伊拉克戰爭獨立調查委員會報告，指稱美英發動伊戰的決策是基于“有瑕疵”的情報和評估。如此失道，豈能指望“一呼百應”。

The violation of Dao by the US lies in its “imperialistmindset” and pursuit of hegemony. After World War II, the US global strategyhas always been seeking the “leadership of the world”. In 2009, the Obamaadministration launched the Asia PacificRebalance Strategy, and took the South China Sea issue as the pivot tomaintain its regional hegemony and achieve strategic containment of China. Itis obvious that during the whole process of the arbitration unilaterallyinitiated and pushed by the Aquino III administration, the US has deeplyinvolved in every step. Although alleging “neutrality and non-involvement”, theUS manipulated behind the scene, and tried to forge a “coalition” to hype upthe issue, resulting in rise of tension in the South China Sea.

The US always regards itself as “judgeof the world”, but history and reality have repeatedly shown that the US hasalways adopted double-standards. In the eyes of the US, international law isonly applicable to other countries rather than itself. It only applies the lawwhen it is consistent with its own interest and resolutely abandons itotherwise. For instance, while advocating “the rule of law on the sea”, it hasnot acceded to the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While insisting that China mustaccept the arbitration award, it chooses to forget the Nicaragua case in whichit not only withdrew from the proceedings, refused to implement the ruling, butalso revoked the declaration of accepting the compulsory jurisdiction by theInternational Court of Justice. While opposing militarization in the SouthChina Sea, it has been provocatively dispatching military aircraft and warshipsinto the area, and even deploying aircraft carrier fleets to this region.

More and more countries have foundout who is the biggest “trouble-maker” in the world. It is the US interventionthat makes the world worse. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all fallen intoits trap and are left with mess in the region. As the new Philippine PresidentRodrigo Duterte frankly said, the root of the bloodshed in Iraq and otherMiddle Eastern countries lies in the intervention of the US. Furthermore, justprior to the arbitration award, the UK Iraq Inquiry published its report,stating that the decision of the US and UK to start the Iraq War was based on “flawed”intelligence. Under such circumstance, who will to follow such a “leader of theworld”?

菲律賓前任政府之失道，在于背信棄義、仗勢生非。菲中本是友好鄰邦，然而近年來卻因南海問題特別是仲裁案飽受困擾。在某些域外勢力的策劃操縱下，阿基諾三世政府甘愿充當美國“亞太再平衡”戰略的馬前卒，在南海問題上倒行逆施、背信棄義，公然走上了與中國對抗的歧途。先是蓄意挑起“黃巖島事件”，繼而變本加厲，單方面提起所謂強制仲裁并強行推進，還圖謀綁架東盟，瘋狂炒作，妄圖抹黑中國，“以小欺大”，并指望通過“一紙裁決”獲取非法利益。其目的是惡意的,行為是違法的。一是在明知領土問題不屬于《公約》調整范圍，海洋劃界爭議已被中國有關聲明排除的情況下，刻意將有關爭議包裝成單純的《公約》解釋或適用問題。二是侵犯了中國作為《公約》締約國享有的自主選擇爭端解決程序和方式的權利。中國早在2006年即根據《公約》第298條發表聲明，將涉及海洋劃界、歷史性海灣或所有權、軍事和執法活動等方面的爭端排除出《公約》強制爭端解決程序。做出同樣聲明的還有30多個國家。三是違反中菲兩國達成并多年來一再確認的通過談判解決南海有關爭議的雙邊協議。四是違反與中國及其他東盟國家在《宣言》中共同作出的由直接有關當事國通過談判解決有關爭議的承諾。阿基諾三世政府自以為聰明，但豈能蒙蔽得了世人的眼睛。柬埔寨首相洪森指出，南海仲裁案是“國際政治框架內最糟糕的政治勾結”。這些域外國家糾集力量反對中國，“將給東盟和地區和平帶來負面影響”。菲律賓《旗幟報》專欄作家羅德·卡普南指出，阿基諾三世執政六年，積極追隨美國“重返亞太”政策，肆意誤導菲民眾，煽動對鄰國的敵意。在南海問題上，“菲律賓人是在替美國火中取栗”。南海局勢出現緊張，對于地區乃至全球安全都是巨大隱患。菲方應迷途知返，與中方相向而行，及時回到和平談判的正確軌道上來。

The violation of Dao by the former government of thePhilippines lies in breaching previous commitment and causing a lot of troublein the shelter of a super power. The Philippines and China had been friendlyneighbors in a long history. However, in recent years, the bilateral ties weredamaged by the Philippine policy of confrontation, especially the unilateralarbitration claim. The government of Aquino III willingly acted as the pawn ofthe US Rebalance Strategy and tookthe road to confront China. It deliberately provoked the Huangyan Island(Scarborough Shoal) incident, unilaterally initiated and pushed thearbitration, and tried to hijack other ASEAN countries to smear China andbenefit from the unlawful arbitration award. Its intention is vicious, and itsaction illegal.

First, although fully aware thatterritorial issues are not subject to UNCLOSand maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlementprocedures by China, the Philippines deliberately packaged the disputes as mereissues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS.

Second, the arbitration infringesupon China’s right to choose the procedures and means for dispute settlement.In 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China declared to exclude fromthe compulsory procedures disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historicbays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. There are over 30countries that have made similar declaration.

Third, the unilateral arbitrationbroke the bilateral agreements reached between China and the Philippines overthe years to resolve relevant disputes in the South China Sea throughnegotiation.

Fourth, the arbitration violatedthe commitment jointly made by China and ASEAN countries, including thePhilippines, in the Declaration on theConduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) to resolve the relevantdisputes through negotiations by states directly concerned.

The Aquino III administrationthought itself clever, but how can it deceive the whole world? As CambodianPrime Minister Hun Sen said, the arbitration is “the worst political collusionin the framework of international politics”, and “would bring negative impactsto ASEAN and peace in the region”. Rod P. Kapunan, Philippine columnist of the Standard, pointed out that “after sixyears of hypocrisy and deceit, this shameless stooge (here refers to AquinoIII) has brought us right into the doorstep of possible armed conflict withChina all because it has chosen to pursue the US-designed policy of incitinghostility with our neighbor.” Regarding the South China Sea situation, he wrotethat “the lives of the Filipinos would be sacrificed to enforce a decision thatif examined closely is a US proxy war which the Philippines would serve ascannon fodder in securing its interest in this part of the globe.”

The escalation in the South ChinaSea will bring enormous risks to the regional even global security. ThePhilippines should recognize its mistakes and return to bilateral negotiationwith China.

仲裁庭之失道，在于政治操縱、違法不公。南海仲裁案從頭到尾就是一場披著法律外衣的政治鬧劇。仲裁庭的成立缺乏合法性，組成缺乏公正性，對案件的審理缺乏管轄權，明顯擴權、越權、濫權，所謂的“裁決”更是荒誕離奇、謬誤百出。有老師指出，由提起仲裁的菲律賓一方支付仲裁庭的全部費用，包括仲裁員的巨額酬勞，這本身就會引發眾多擔心和問題。難怪社會上不乏菲律賓花大錢雇“裁判”為其張目的質疑。

The violation of Dao by the arbitral tribunal lies inpolitical manipulation, unfairness and unlawfulness. The arbitration iscompletely a political farce under legal pretext. The establishment of thistribunal is lack of legitimacy; the arbitrators it chose are lack of fairness;the tribunal is lack of jurisdiction, which evidently expanded, exceeded andabused its power. The so-called “award” is even ridiculous. Experts pointed outthat, all the fees of the tribunal, including the huge reimbursement to thearbitrators, are borne by the Philippines. This has raised a lot of concernsand problems. People are asking if the Philippines “hired the judges”.

仲裁庭之失道首先在于仲裁庭組成是純粹政治操作的結果。日本在其中扮演了“操盤手”的角色。仲裁的靈魂是自愿和公正。為此，仲裁庭的組建應基于當事雙方的合議。但在美日和國際海洋法法庭時任日籍庭長柳井的操弄下，仲裁庭組成可謂“奇葩”。5名仲裁員中4名來自歐洲，1位長期居住在歐洲，對亞洲文化、南海問題經緯缺乏最基礎的了解。一個鮮人為知的內幕更能揭示仲裁庭組成的“暗箱操作”。2013年4月組建仲裁庭時，柳井最初任命斯里蘭卡籍資深外交官平托出任庭長。平托因夫人系菲律賓籍而特地征詢爭端雙方的意見，并得到菲方的首肯。但稍后當平托在履職時流露出仲裁庭對本案無管轄權的裁決傾向后，引起美日菲的嚴重擔憂，菲律賓遂貌似公正地要求柳井撤換平托。5月，平托被迫辭職。

The composition of the tribunal isa result of political manipulation. Japan and Yanai Shunji, then president ofthe International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, acted as the broker. Thecomposition of the tribunal is quite weird: four of the five arbitrators arefrom Europe, the fifth one is a permanent resident in Europe, and all of themare lack of basic understanding of Asian culture and the South China Sea issue.

One fact could better show the playunder the table. When the tribunal was established in April 2013, the firstpresident appointed by Mr. Yanai was Mr. Chris Pinto, a senior Sri Lankandiplomat. Since Pinto’s wife is Philippine, he especially asked advice fromboth parties to the dispute and was recognized by the Philippines. However,when Mr. Pinto later hinted that the tribunal might not have jurisdiction overthe case, it raised deep concern of the US, Japan and the Philippines. Thelatter asked Yanai to find somebody to replace Mr. Pinto for a so-called “justcause”. In May 2013, Mr. Pinto was forced to resign.

仲裁庭之失道更體現在仲裁庭為一己私利而濫權。國際法老師普遍認為，仲裁庭對領土主權和海洋劃界問題沒有管轄權。正如前美國國務院法律顧問索費爾指出的那樣，“南海仲裁案事關主權爭端，這個案件從一開始就不應該立案，更何況審理和裁決。”根據《公約》第298條規定，仲裁庭無權調解或仲裁領土主權和海洋劃界糾紛，特別是在爭端一方以書面聲明的形式拒絕接受此類強制程序之后。索費爾也認為，“仲裁庭無視中方的合法要求，片面接受菲律賓的強制仲裁要求，這不是遵守國際法，而是踐踏國際法。”然而，仲裁庭無視菲律賓提起仲裁事項的實質是領土主權和海洋劃界問題，錯誤解讀中菲對爭端解決方式的共同選擇，錯誤解讀《宣言》中有關承諾的法律效力，惡意規避中國根據《公約》第298條作出的排除性聲明，有選擇性地把有關島礁從南海諸島的宏觀地理背景中剝離出來并主觀想象地解釋和適用《公約》。其行為和裁決嚴重背離國際仲裁一般實踐，完全背離《公約》促進和平解決爭端的目的及宗旨，嚴重損害《公約》的完整性和權威性，嚴重侵犯中國作為主權國家和《公約》締約國的合法權利，是顯失公允和不合法的，在國際法上開創了一個惡劣先例。

The tribunal abused the power forits own interest. Many experts of international law believe that the tribunalhas no jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.Just as Mr. Sofaer said, this arbitration is related to sovereignty disputes.It shouldn’t have been started, especially when a state party has declared inwriting that it does not accept compulsory procedures over such disputes asmaritime delimitation according to Article298 of UNCLOS. The tribunal’sruling “will broadly undermine the potential utility of internationaladjudication.”

The tribunal disregards the factthat the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the issue ofterritorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. It erroneously interpretsthe common choice of means of dispute settlement already made jointly by Chinaand the Philippines, erroneously construes the legal effect of the relevantcommitment in the DOC, deliberatelycircumvents the optional exceptions declaration made by China, selectivelytakes relevant islands and reefs out of the macro-geographical framework of theSouth China Sea Islands, and subjectively and speculatively interprets andapplies UNCLOS. The conduct of thetribunal and its award seriously contravene the general practice ofinternational arbitration, completely deviate from the object and purpose of UNCLOS to promote peaceful settlement ofdisputes, substantially impair the integrity and authority of UNCLOS, gravely infringe upon China’slegitimate rights as a sovereign state and state party to UNCLOS, and are unjust and unlawful. It has set an extremelydangerous precedent in the history of international law.

仲裁庭之失道還在于仲裁員廣受詬病的職業操守。在這場自導自演的鬧劇中，仲裁員和老師證人的“變臉”表演實在讓人咂舌。他們對本案有關問題的意見與他們以老師身份曾經發表過的觀點和意見自相矛盾，庭內庭外，判若兩人。就以仲裁員阿爾弗雷德·松斯為例。這位荷蘭知名海洋法教授公開發表的學術意見認為，在兩國存在重疊海域主張的情況下，相關島礁的法律地位和海洋權利問題不能脫離海洋劃界爭端而獨立出現，它們構成海洋劃界不可分割的組成部分。然而，在南海仲裁案關于管轄權的裁決中，包括松斯在內的5名仲裁員不顧中菲南海爭端的根源和實質是島礁主權及海洋劃界之爭的基本事實，強行以全體一致的方式裁定仲裁庭對菲律賓關于黃巖島、美濟礁等南沙爭議島礁的法律地位問題的訴求享有管轄權。這顯然與松斯本人一貫的學術觀點相悖。再以老師證人克里夫·斯庫菲爾德為例。其證詞與其學術觀點截然不同。就同一個問題，斯庫菲爾德用同樣的資料、理由進行論證，但在仲裁庭內外的結論卻完全相反。難道有償服務就可以放棄職業操守嗎?

The professional ethics of thearbitrators are widely criticized. All the Western arbitrators and expertwitnesses played a shameful role as though they were chameleons. They reversedtheir previous position as stated in published papers and even backtracked fromtheir long-held views to make the case for the Philippines. Arbitrator AlfredSoons had published his opinion that the status of islands was closelyassociated with demarcation and sovereignty issues. However, when the tribunalruled on jurisdiction and admissibility, he said that the tribunal has theright to decide on the Philippines’ submissions concerning legal status andmaritime entitlement of certain islands including Huangyan Island (ScarboroughShoal) and Meiji Reef (Mischief Reef), which was entirely contradictory to hisprevious viewpoint. Expert witness Clive Schofield also changed his views atthe proceedings. On the same subject, using the same materials, he drew totallydifferent conclusions in and out of the tribunal. People must be wondering: howcould they discard professional ethics to serve the interests of those who paythem?

事實勝于雄辯。菲律賓阿基諾三世政府單方面提起仲裁違背國際法，仲裁庭對此案沒有管轄權，仲裁庭自行擴權、越權、濫權做出的裁決違法無效，中國不接受、不參與仲裁，不承認、不執行仲裁裁決，理所當然，合理合法。

Facts speak louder than words. Theunilateral arbitration initiated by Aquino III administration violatesinternational law. The tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case. The awardof the tribunal is null and void. China’s position is justified and lawful.

世界潮流浩浩蕩蕩，順之者昌，逆之者亡。結盟、對抗的冷戰思維早已過時，和平、合作與發展是當今世界不可阻擋的潮流。公道自在人心，菲律賓南海仲裁鬧劇可以休矣。解決國與國之間的糾紛，友好協商才是正道。中國致力于與東盟國家在全面有效落實《南海各方行為宣言》框架下，加快推進“南海行為準則”磋商進程，妥善管控好有關爭議，探討開展海上合作，努力讓南海成為和平之海、友誼之海、合作之海。

It is time to put an end to thearbitration on the South China Sea. Consultation is the right way to settledisputes between states. China will continue to work together with ASEANcountries to implement the DOCcomprehensively and effectively, promote the consultation on a code of conductin the South China Sea, manage and control relevant disputes properly andexplore maritime cooperation, in order to build the South China Sea into a seaof peace, friendship and cooperation.