用户名: 密码: 验证码:    注册 | 忘记密码?
首页|听力资源|每日听力|网络电台|在线词典|听力论坛|下载频道|部落家园|在线背单词|双语阅读|在线听写|普特网校
您的位置:主页 > 英语能力 > 翻译 > 口译 > 练习材料 > 外交 >

钟声:罔顾事实法理何言公平正义(双语)

2016-01-11    来源:人民日报    【      美国外教 在线口语培训

菲律宾南海仲裁案闹剧系列评论(四)

钟声:罔顾事实法理何言公平正义(双语)

罔顾事实法理何言公平正义
Disregarding Facts and Jurisprudence, Arbitration Is Neither Fair Nor Just

钟声
Zhong Sheng

菲律宾南海仲裁案是披着法律外衣的政治挑衅。10月底,应菲律宾单方面请求而建立的仲裁庭作出管辖权和可受理性裁决,大玩倒黑为白的手法,竭其所能为菲方观点说项背书,罔顾基本事实,违背根本法理,为菲非法侵占中国领土和侵犯中国海洋权益张目。仲裁庭论证过程中充斥着牵强附会的主观臆断之辞,失实、失理、失义,完全没有显示出公正客观的立场。
The Philippines’ South China Sea arbitration is a political provocation under the cloak of law. In the end of October, in disregard of basic facts and fundamental jurisprudence, the Arbitral Tribunal set up at the unilateral request of the Philippines rendered the award on jurisdiction and admissibility of the arbitration. Confounding black and white, the Tribunal spared no effort to back up the Philippines’ arguments, thus rendering support and encouragement to the Philippines’ illegal occupation of China’s territory and encroachment upon China’s maritime rights and interests. Fraught with far-fetched and unfounded assumptions, the reasoning process of the Tribunal was by no means based on facts, common sense or justice, and its positions were neither fair nor impartial.

罔顾事实的仲裁掩盖不了真相。仲裁庭将以前中菲双方涉及领土主权和海洋划界争端进行的磋商,硬说成是双方就《联合国海洋法公约》解释适用所进行的磋商。仲裁庭还将中菲磋商认定为菲已履行交换意见义务的依据。而实际上中菲双方从未就仲裁事宜进行过谈判,哪怕是意见交换。
What has truly happened cannot be covered up by an arbitration that ignores facts. The Tribunal deliberately framed the previous consultations between China and the Philippines concerning disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation as consultations on the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and affirmed these consultations as evidence that the Philippines had fulfilled its obligation of exchange of views. As a matter of fact, China and the Philippines have never had any negotiations, not even exchange of views, on the arbitration matters.

违背法理的仲裁毫无公正可言。例如,仲裁庭自知无权审理涉及领土主权和海洋划界的案子。一方面有意回避中菲争议的实质,坚持认定此案不涉及领土主权,另一方面不顾中方2006年根据《联合国海洋法公约》做出的排除强制争端解决程序的声明,刻意将本质上涉及领土主权和海洋划界的事项纳入其管辖范围。这种执意擅权的做法,违背了司法机构在案件审理中本应恪守的审慎、自律精神,终将有损于司法手段解决争议的信誉和价值。
There is no trace of justice in an arbitration that violates jurisprudence. For example, the Tribunal knows full well that it has no jurisdiction over a case concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. On the one hand, it evaded the essence of the dispute and insisted that this case had nothing to do with territorial sovereignty. On the other hand, in disregard of China’ s declaration in accordance with UNCLOS in 2006 which excludes disputes concerning maritime delimitation from arbitral proceedings, the Tribunal deliberately included into its jurisdiction matters that, in essence, concern territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Such moves to arrogate power are a violation of the spirit of diligence and self-discipline which judicial bodies should honor when hearing cases. They are also detrimental to the credibility and value of dispute settlement through judicial means.

又如,仲裁庭在选择和援引司法判例方面的表现,存在严重的主观片面性,缺乏客观性。仲裁庭多次片面援引存在巨大争议的司法或仲裁判例,将个别争议性观点和判词作为支持本案裁决意见的法律先例。而有关有争议的观点和判词,恰恰是由本案仲裁庭有些仲裁员所提出的。这种自证其言,偏执臆断,严重损害了有关法律论断的严谨性、逻辑性和前后连贯性。
Another example is the one-sidedness and lack of impartiality in the Tribunal’s selection and citation of judicial cases. On many occasions, it cited biased, highly controversial judicial or arbitral cases and used controversial views and verdicts put forth by arbitrators of this very Tribunal as legal precedent in support of views on the verdict of this case. Such so called self-sufficient and partial arguments have seriously damaged the integrity, logic and consistency of the relevant legal conclusion.

再如,仲裁庭还恶意曲解《联合国海洋法公约》和习惯国际法的关系。仲裁庭一口一个《联合国海洋法公约》,企图让《联合国海洋法公约》管所有海上的事情,却对习惯国际法熟视无睹。国际法人士都应清楚,《联合国海洋法公约》所规定的各项国际海洋法律制度,本就是总结各国的海洋历史实践与共同意愿而成,《联合国海洋法公约》原文中也无一不体现着对习惯国际法的尊重。而仲裁庭以今否古,违背了《联合国海洋法公约》的基本宗旨和精神。
Yet another example is the malicious distortion of the relations between UNCLOS and customary international law. Turning a blind eye to customary international law, the Tribunal kept citing UNCLOS and attempted to make UNCLOS applicable to everything related to the sea. Anyone familiar with international law would know well that the regime of international law of the sea provided in UNCLOS is, in itself, a summary of maritime history and practices and a reflection of the common aspirations of countries, and that the very text of UNCLOS shows respect for customary international law. What the Tribunal has done is a breach of the basic purposes and spirit of UNCLOS.

仲裁庭无视菲方滥诉的基本事实,照单全收菲方的诬告言辞。其妄下定论在先,曲解证据和判例在后的做法,对倡导公平正义的国际司法将是莫大的伤害。
The Tribunal accepted the Philippines’ false arguments in its entirety in disregard of the basic fact of the country’s abuse of legal procedures. Its moves to jump to conclusions first and then prove them with distortion of evidence and verdicts will be a serious erosion of international judicial system that champions fairness and justice.



顶一下
(2)
100%
踩一下
(0)
0%
手机上普特 m.putclub.com 手机上普特
[责任编辑:elly]
------分隔线----------------------------
发表评论 查看所有评论
请自觉遵守互联网政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
评价:
表情:
用户名: 密码: 验证码:
  • 推荐文章
  • 资料下载
  • 讲座录音
普特英语手机网站
用手机浏览器输入m.putclub.com进入普特手机网站学习
查看更多手机学习APP>>