Philippines asked to 'disregard' tribunal ruling on South China Sea, foreign minister says 菲律賓外長說: '別搭理'中國南海 法庭違法裁決

菲媒体称菲支付南海仲裁案律师费三千万美元

美霸迫害各國 土尔其也不敢去

給美干預南海藉口 菲媒：美應支付近10億仲裁費

Breaking the South China Sea stalemate

我在卡坦端內斯，在太平洋的這一邊一個島嶼省份，我們沒有法律法院甚至也不是一個村莊細胞對扣留那些誰擾亂和平的一個偏遠小村莊長大。根據需要，我們不得不保持零犯罪率。但鄰居和配偶吵架還，有時劇烈，每當發生這種情況，當事人會來我的父親，誰，作為一個公正，誠實的人的聲譽，調解或仲裁。他會跟當事人，問幾個問題，然後建議他們忽視對方的缺點，撰寫他們之間的分歧。不知怎的，它總是工作。

我記得在我早期的青春這個特殊的細節，我試著去了解常設仲裁法院，海牙前的仲裁案件，菲律賓和中國之間關於其在中國南海（單方面改名為西菲律賓爭議某些海洋功能由前政府阿基諾海）。我國政府曾要求法庭進行仲裁，並裁定對我們有利，所以我們大多數人都欣喜若狂了。但是，中國一直拒絕由執政的約束，說它從來不承認法院的管轄，也不是過程本身。

為什麼這是一個爛攤子？

我似乎無法理解為什麼小額仲裁國內爭吵我已故父親的簡單方法從來沒有失敗過，而這種昂貴，並且只生產了膠著狀態，一個可怕的混亂闡述國際化進程。作為一個公民，我同我的同胞在歡迎判決當中，就他們關心，使我們的巨人鄰居更易於管理的地方，但作為一個公正和誠實的人，我想確保我們腳踏實地和可以，問心無愧，堅持中國遵守判決。我想通過高級陪審法官安東尼奧·卡皮奧的關於這個問題很有啟發性的話語來指導，但是有，我們不能一起戲弄了一些小物品。

對於初學者來說，我不相信阿基諾政府也很坦率的一切了解仲裁過程中所需要的市民。其一，相反的是公眾已經被引導相信，在PCA是不是一個真正的法院，但對國際社會的爭議解決服務僅僅是提供者;一個政府間組織始於1899年，但它是不是說，在和平宮租用空間聯合國，這是在1945年成立只有一個機關或機構，在海牙，由卡內基基金會，其中擁有的大廈國際法院法庭總部設;但它沒有任何關係與國際法庭。

什麼是真正的成本是多少？

政府也從來沒有告訴公眾仲裁會花費多少菲律賓納稅人。憲法規定，沒有錢應當支付出庫除依照法律作出的撥款，還沒有撥款已被披露為這個特定的目的。一份報告說，單單律師費，政府已經花費了30億$（或P1.4十億）。它應該與對方分裂全過程的總成本，但由於對方並沒有參與，那麼它必須吸收了全部費用。多少錢，然後呢？涉及任何外國捐助者？

在大批律師和專家的政府送交海牙的頂部，它從事由著名的哈佛教授保羅Reichler，誰在對美國國際法院的代表尼加拉瓜在其著名的情況下，帶領指出外國律師的服務20世紀80年代。有大約Reichler的強大技能，幫助尼加拉瓜贏得其案件對美國，對在反對尼加拉瓜政府的叛亂支持反政府和挖掘尼加拉瓜的港口可以理解的興奮。

尼加拉瓜VS美國

但是，幾乎沒有的事實，任何提及，美國拒絕參加訴訟後，法院駁回了其反對質疑法院的管轄權審理案件，並拒絕遵守安全理事會和前體現在決議中判斷大會於1986年判決命令美國實際支付補償給尼加拉瓜政府。不應該公開已經事先警告，如美國，中國可以簡單地忽略仲裁裁決它應該輸？

作為記錄在維基百科中，國際法庭發現，美國違反其根據習慣國際法規定的義務不使用武力侵犯另一個國家，而不是在它的事務進行干預，不要違反其主權，並中斷和平海上貿易，並在違反其根據友好通商航海條約第十九條義務兩國在馬那瓜簽署於1956年1月21日。

但是，1982年至1985年，美國否決安理會決議敦促全面和立即遵守國際法院裁決;於1986年10月28日，它強加給安理會面前的措施的最終否決權。法國和英國，兩個常任委員會成員有否決權，加上泰國，在表決時投了棄權票。在11月3日，同樣的決議提請聯合國大會和只反對美國，以色列和薩爾瓦多投票批准。仍然是美國拒絕繳納罰款。

當時的美國常駐聯合國代表讓·柯克帕特里克解釋說，國際法庭是一個“半合法的，半司法，半政治機構，其中國家有時接受，有時沒有。”關於超級大國共同的印象，在其他地方是，他們不能被處罰和制裁的約束;他們決定國際法是什麼，它不是什麼。美國從來沒有實際支付的賠償金尼加拉瓜;負擔從美國的肩膀被奧萊塔·查莫羅政府行為的桑地諾總統奧爾特加在1990年打敗美國支持的政府廢除要求其尋求從美國賠償其作用的法律解除後魂斗羅反抗，並於1992年九月，撤回了對美國的法院提交訴狀。

中國的非介入

公眾沒有很好地理解另一個關鍵的一點是，雖然菲律賓是急於提交仲裁過程中，中國從一開始就拒絕了，並拒絕參加。因此，仲裁著手只有一方現在和中國方面是從來沒有聽說過。針對7000頁提交菲律賓政府，沒有一個來自中國的單頁捍衛其上的位置“九虛線。”我不相信，訂閱了法律和公平規則的國家，我們可以採用這個作為我們新的公平標準。

作為一名前參議員，我提出這個問題的國際化我自己微薄的貢獻，我認為這是正確的事情。在某些各國議會聯盟（IPU）大會，國內外亞太議會論壇，我曾與中國和日本的代表發生衝突，在這個問題上幾次。但我不認為這是公平的，迫使中國在過程，其有效性它從一開始就拒絕接受裁決。

引用一些研究，卡皮奧說，在許多情況下，政府是最初由一個國際法庭最終與它遵守，最終宣布的不利裁決的公開藐視。我們可以希望這會發生在中國。但它似乎並沒有從美國，日本和歐洲各國政府的聲音的合唱團可能反應，要求北京遵守它所認為的國際陰謀。現在，如果爭端各方和長線kibitzers的共同努力，緩解緊張的情緒，並為外交更好的氣候，馬尼拉和北京之間的雙邊談判可能有希望實現這一目標有委員會裁決不能。

這是我的希望。當我們終於結束了在斯卡伯勒淺灘對峙，我們現在必須打破僵局的新。

FVR特使

DU30總統的選擇，前總統菲德爾·拉莫斯作為特使習近平政府可以成為一個優秀的開放舉措。 FVR與中國大陸和台灣的領導人，這為1949年以來首次發現共同的事業對PAC裁決精湛的個人關係。而北京在媒體上炸開了鍋，台灣派出軍艦到太平（或太平）在南沙群島，作為對PAC的企圖重新定義有人居住的島嶼一種條件反射，用清水至少有11個溫泉，作為“搖滾。 “

FVR的父親，已故的前外交大臣納西索·拉莫斯，是台灣的外交使團多年的院長，直到菲律賓切斷了與島共和國的關係時，它下的“一個中國”政策，承認中國的人民共和國1975年與此同時，已經在西點軍校受過教育，轉戰韓國，並導致越南並肩與美國人菲律賓公民行動組，拉莫斯被許多人看作是人誰不會傷害美國人以任何方式只是為了取悅北京。

拉莫斯是最古老的四個倖存的菲律賓前總統。當他與政府，文化和文明把高溢價的智慧和從事的年齡，他很可能用他來充分利用。

I GREW up in a remote small village of Catanduanes, an island-province on this side of the Pacific where we had no court of law nor even a village cell to detain those who disturbed the peace. By necessity, we were obliged to maintain a zero crime rate. But neighbors and spouses still quarreled, sometimes violently, and whenever this happened, the parties would come to my father, who had a reputation for being a just and honest man, to conciliate or arbitrate. He would talk to the parties, ask a few questions, and then advise them to overlook each other’s defects and compose their differences. Somehow it always worked.

I recall this particular detail in my early youth as I try to understand the arbitration case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, at The Hague, between the Philippines and China on their dispute over certain marine features in the South China Sea (unilaterally renamed West Philippine Sea by the previous Aquino government). Our government had asked the court to arbitrate, and it has ruled in our favor, so most of us are ecstatic about it. But China has refused to be bound by the ruling, saying it never recognized the court’s jurisdiction nor the process itself.

Why is this a mess?
I cannot seem to understand why my late father’s simple way of arbitrating petty domestic quarrels never failed, while this expensive and elaborate international process has only produced a stalemate, a terrible mess. As a citizen, I join my countrymen in welcoming the ruling which, as far as they are concerned, puts our giant neighbor in a more manageable place, but as a just and honest man, I want to be sure we stand on solid ground and can, with a clear conscience, insist on China’s compliance with the verdict. I would like to be guided by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio’s highly instructive discourses on the subject, but there are a few minor items we cannot afford to trifle with.

For starters, I don’t believe the Aquino government was candid enough about everything the public needed to know about the arbitration process. For one, contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the PCA is not a real court but a mere provider of dispute resolution services to the international community; an intergovernmental organization which began in 1899, but not an organ or institution of the United Nations, which was founded only in 1945. It is said to rent space at the Peace Palace, at The Hague, a building owned by the Carnegie Foundation, where the International Court of Justice is headquartered; but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the World Court.

What’s the real cost?
The government also never told the public how much the arbitration would cost the Filipino taxpayers. The Constitution provides that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law, yet no appropriation has been disclosed for this particular purpose. One report says that on lawyer’s fees alone, the government has spent $30 million (or P1.4 billion). It was supposed to split the total cost of the entire process with the other party, but since the other party did not participate, then it must have absorbed the entire cost. How much then is it? Are any foreign donors involved?

On top of the large number of lawyers and experts the government sent to The Hague, it engaged the services of noted foreign lawyers led by the famous Harvard professor Paul Reichler, who represented Nicaragua in its celebrated case in the ICJ against the United States in the 1980s. There was understandable excitement about Reichler’s formidable skills which helped Nicaragua win its case against the US, for supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and for mining Nicaragua’s harbors.

Nicaragua vs the US
But there was hardly any mention of the fact that the US refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its objection questioning the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case, and refused to comply with the judgment embodied in resolutions before the UN Security Council and the General Assembly in 1986. The judgment commanded the US to pay actual compensation to the Nicaraguan government. Shouldn’t the public have been forewarned that like the US, China could simply ignore the arbitral ruling should it lose?

As recorded in Wikipedia, the World Court found the US in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another state, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty, and to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce, and in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed between the two countries in Managua on Jan. 21, 1956.

But from 1982 to 1985, the US vetoed the Security Council resolution urging full and immediate compliance with the ICJ judgment; on Oct. 28, 1986, it imposed a final veto on the measure before the Security Council. France and the United Kingdom, two permanent SC members with veto powers, together with Thailand, abstained during the voting. On Nov. 3, the same resolution was brought to the UN General Assembly and approved with only the US, Israel and El Salvador voting against it. Still the US refused to pay the fine.

Then-US Permanent Representative to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick explained that the World Court was a “semi-legal, semi-judicial, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes not.” The common impression about superpowers elsewhere is that they cannot be bound by penalties and sanctions; they decide what international law is, and what it is not. The US never paid actual damages to Nicaragua; the burden was lifted from the shoulders of the US by action of the Violeta Chamorro government after the defeat of the Sandinista President Daniel Ortega in 1990. The US-supported government repealed the law requiring it to seek compensation from the US for its role in the Contra revolt, and in Sept. 1992, withdrew its court complaint against the US.

China’s non-involvement
Another critical point not well-appreciated by the public is that although the Philippines was eager to submit to the arbitral process, China rejected it from the very beginning and refused to participate. Thus the arbitration proceeded with only one party present, and China’s side was never heard. Against the 7,000-page submission of the Philippine government, there is not a single page from China defending its position on the “nine-dash line.” I don’t believe that as a nation that subscribes to the rule of law and equity, we could adopt this as our new standard of fairness.

As a former senator, I had made my own modest contribution to the internationalization of this issue, when I thought it was the right thing to do. In some Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Conferences, and the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forums abroad, I had clashed with Chinese and Japanese delegates a few times on this issue. But I don’t believe it is fair to compel China to accept a ruling in a process whose validity it had rejected from the very beginning.

Quoting some studies, Carpio says that in many cases governments that had initially declared open defiance of an adverse ruling by an international tribunal eventually complied with it, in the end. We could hope that this would happen to China. But it does not seem a likely response to the chorus of voices from the US, Japan and European governments, calling on Beijing to comply with what it considers an international conspiracy. Now, if the parties to the dispute and the long line of kibitzers work together to ease the tension and create a better climate for diplomacy, bilateral negotiations between Manila and Beijing could hopefully achieve that which the PAC ruling could not.

This is my hope. As we finally ended the standoff on Scarborough Shoal, we must now break the new stalemate.

FVR as special envoy
President DU30’s choice of former President Fidel V. Ramos as special envoy to the Xi Jinping government could be an excellent opening move. FVR has superb personal relations with the leaders of China and Taiwan, which for the first time since 1949 have found common cause against the PAC ruling. While Beijing raged in the media, Taiwan sent a warship to Itu Aba (or Taiping) in the Spratlys, as a reflex reaction to the PAC’s attempt to redefine the inhabited island, with at least 11 springs of fresh water, as a “rock.”

FVR’s father, the late former Foreign Secretary Narciso Ramos, was dean of the diplomatic corps in Taiwan for many years until the Philippines cut off relations with the island-republic when it recognized the People’s Republic of China under the “one-China” policy in 1975. At the same time, having been educated at West Point, fought in Korea and led the Philippines’ civic action group in Vietnam side by side with the Americans, Ramos is seen by many as someone who will not hurt the Americans in any way just to please Beijing.

Ramos is the oldest of the four surviving former Filipino Presidents. As he engages with a government, culture and civilization that put a high premium on wisdom and age, he could probably use his to full advantage.