Filipinas v China: el Tribunal Arbitral afirma su jurisdicción

octubre 29, 2015

Hoy se ha publicado la sentencia del Tribunal Arbitral constituido sobre la base del Anexo VII de la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar en el caso de la República de Filipinas contra la República Popular de China (PCA Case Nº 2013-19). El Tribunal Arbitral afirma su jurisdicción negando que la ausencia de China en los procedimientos prive al Tribunal de competencia, dice que no ha habido abuso de procedimiento por parte de Filipinas y niega la existencia de un ‘tercero indispensable’ (cf. sentencia de la CIJ en el caso Timor oriental, 1995). El párrafo dispositivo completo se puede leer a continuación:


413. For the above reasons, the Tribunal unanimously:

A. FINDS that the Tribunal was properly constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the Convention.

B. FINDS that China’s non-appearance in these proceedings does not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

C. FINDS that the Philippines’ act of initiating this arbitration did not constitute an abuse of process.

D. FINDS that there is no indispensable third party whose absence deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

E. FINDS that the 2002 China–ASEAN Declaration on Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea, the joint statements of the Parties referred to in paragraphs 231 to 232 of this Award, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, do not preclude, under Articles 281 or 282 of the Convention, recourse to the compulsory dispute settlement procedures available under Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention.

F. FINDS that the Parties have exchanged views as required by Article 283 of the Convention.

G. FINDS that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ Submissions No. 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13, subject to the conditions noted in paragraphs 400, 401, 403, 404, 407, 408, and 410 of this Award.

H. FINDS that a determination of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ Submissions No. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 14 would involve consideration of issues that do not possess an exclusively preliminary character, and accordingly RESERVES consideration of its jurisdiction to rule on Submissions No. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 14 to the merits phase.

I. DIRECTS the Philippines to clarify the content and narrow the scope of its Submission 15 and RESERVES consideration of its jurisdiction over Submission No. 15 to the merits phase.

J. RESERVES for further consideration and directions all issues not decided in this Award.

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: