论文部分内容阅读
《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》连同先前一系列通过外交抗议方式否定仲裁庭管辖权的声明,构成了中国反对仲裁庭行使管辖权的抗辩。虽然仲裁《程序规则》中并未明确规定此种抗辨的法律地位,但是通过对国际司法和仲裁实践的分析,可以得出结论,即以非正式参与为形式的对仲裁庭管辖权的外交抗议应被视为与正式参与仲裁程序所提出的“先决性抗辩”具有相同法律地位和法律效力。因此,仲裁庭应在审理案件实体问题以前单独设立对案件管辖权的审理程序,并对自身是否具备管辖权作出裁决。
The “Position Paper of the People’s Republic of China on the Issue of Jurisdiction over the Nanhai Arbitration Case Proposed by the Philippine Republic of China” together with the previous series of statements that denied the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal through diplomatic protests constitute a defense against China’s opposition to the exercise by the arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction. Although such anti-discrimination legal status is not expressly set out in the Arbitration’s Rules of Procedure, the analysis of international judicial and arbitral practice leads to the conclusion that diplomacy in the form of informal participation in the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals The protest shall be deemed to have the same legal status and legal effect as the “preliminary defense” put forward by the formal participation in the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the arbitral tribunal should set up a separate hearing procedure on the jurisdiction of the case before hearing the issue entity and decide whether or not it has jurisdiction over it.