张琪悦接受CGTN采访，谈“南海仲裁案裁决不是国际法”

张琪悦    来源：CGTN

7月16日上午，张琪悦接受中国国际电视台（CGTN）采访，围绕她参与撰写的《关于南海仲裁案裁决的法律批驳——“南海仲裁案裁决不是国际法”》报告，谈中国不参与所谓“仲裁裁决”的理由与正当性。

张琪悦回答：When we talk about the illegality of this so called arbitral tribunal, it lies in three parts: First, Philippines claims are on the territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, and their territorial sovereign issues are not regulated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. For the second part, china has already made a declaration to exclude the maritime delimitation, historic titles and bays, bring to compulsory arbitral tribunal. And lastly, it lacks of state consent worldwide. China’s non appearance and non acceptance of these so called arbitral proceedings, is not a violation of international law. On the opposite, it is a legitimate attitude to refuse to obey the illegal act. China is trying our best to maintain the peace and stability and true international law.

      7月16日晚，张琪悦接受CGTN Asia Today栏目采访，谈所谓“仲裁裁决”的非法性。

主持人提问：Dr. Zhang, help us put the report into perspective. From the lens of international law, what do you see as the key legal flaws in the 2016 arbitration?

张琪悦回答：

The key legal flaws mainly exist in three dimensions: jurisdiction, merits, and procedural justice.

First, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and admissibility. It disregarded the declaration made by China in 2006 under Article 298 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and it compulsorily asserted jurisdiction over disputes involving territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. This act is abuse of jurisdiction.

Second, the Tribunal misinterpreted UNCLOS in merits ruling. A typical mistake is it created additional criteria of Article 121, the Regime of Islands, and invalidated China’s maritime rights in Nansha Islands. It violated the principle of good faith of treaty interpretation.

Third, the procedure of the Tribunal gravely violated the principle of justice. The Tribunal even actively gathered evidence on behalf of the Philippines, and intentionally ignored the historical evidence of China. And the expert appointment process was not transparent, and the experts finished the report in a hasty.

So the ruling is unlawful in every aspect. What China rejects is an illegal award. What China upholds is the genuine international rule of law.