Phán Quyết Tòa PCA: Tái xác định chủ quyền các quốc gia ven Biển Đông – Dân tộc VN cần phải làm gì?

[Hồ Sơ Chi Tiết về Phán Quyết 501 Trang]

382. Based on the considerations outlined above, the Tribunal reaches the following conclusions regarding the status of features in the South China Sea. The following features include, or in their natural condition did include, rocks or sand cays that remain above water at high tide and are, accordingly, high-tide features: (a) Scarborough Shoal, (b) Cuarteron Reef, (c) Fiery Cross Reef, (d) Johnson Reef, (e) McKennan Reef, and (f) Gaven Reef (North).

383. The following features are, or in their natural condition were, exposed at low tide and submerged at high tide and are, accordingly low-tide elevations: (a) Hughes Reef, (b) Gaven Reef (South), (c) Subi Reef, (d) Mischief Reef, (e) Second Thomas Shoal.

384. The Tribunal additionally records that Hughes Reef lies within 12 nautical miles of the high-tide features on McKennan Reef and Sin Cowe Island, Gaven Reef (South) lies within 12 nautical miles of the high-tide features at Gaven Reef (North) and Namyit Island, and that Subi Reef lies within 12 nautical miles of the high-tide feature of Sandy Cay on the reefs to the west of Thitu.

643. Based on the considerations outlined above (see paragraphs 333 to 334), the Tribunal finds with respect to the Philippines’ Submission No. 3 that Scarborough Shoal contains, within the meaning of Article 121(1) of the Convention, naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water at high tide. However, under Article 121(3) of the Convention, the high-tide features at Scarborough Shoal are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

644. Based on the considerations outlined above (see paragraphs 335 to 351), the Tribunal finds with respect to the Philippines’ Submission No. 7 that Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef contain, within the meaning of Article 121(1) of the Convention, naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water at high tide. However, for purposes of Article 121(3) of the Convention, the high-tide features at Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

645. Having found—contrary to the Philippines’ Submission No. 6—that Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef are naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water at high tide (see paragraphs 354 and 366 above), the Tribunal finds that for purposes of Article 121(3) of the Convention, the high-tide features at Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

646. Based on the considerations outlined above (see paragraphs 374 to 381), the Tribunal concludes that Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are both low-tide elevations that generate no maritime zones of their own. The Tribunal also concludes that none of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands are capable of sustaining human habitation or an economic life of their own within the meaning of those terms in Article 121(3) of the Convention. All of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands are therefore legally rocks for purposes of Article 121(3) and do not generate entitlements to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. There is, accordingly, no possible entitlement by China to any maritime zone in the area of either Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal and no jurisdictional obstacle to the Tribunal’s consideration of the Philippines’ Submission No. 5.647. With respect to the Philippines’ Submission No. 5, the Tribunal concludes that both Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are located within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’ coast on the island of Palawan and are located in an area that is not overlapped by the entitlements generated by any maritime feature claimed by China. It follows, therefore, that, as between the Philippines and China, Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal form part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.

Qua Phán Quyết Tòa PCA, các đảo, bãi đá ngầm, rặng thuộc quần đảo Trường Sa (và cũng có giá trị cho các đảo tại Hoàng Sa), dù cao hơn mức thủy triều cao, nhưng hầu như không có dân cư, đời sống bình thường, không được hưởng vùng EEZ 200 hải lý mà chỉ có một vùng lãnh hải chủ quyền (territorial water) 12 hải lý bao bọc chung quanh. Việc này sẽ vô hiệu hóa các công trình xây dựng của TC, trên các đảo nhân tạo, trên các bãi đá ngầm nhằm có được một vùng EEZ chung quanh và cũng vừa biến các bãi đá ngầm này thành các căn cứ quân sự (phi trường, đài kiểm thính, căn cứ hải quân) nhằm khống chế toàn Biển Đông.

Luận cứ 8 đến 14: Các hành động vi phạm chủ quyền, gây hấn, hủy hoại môi sinh, xây dựng đảo nhân tạo của TC.

[Thông Cáo Báo Chí 12/07/2016: các luận cứ đệ trình của Phi]

(8) China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf;

(9) China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines;

(10) China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal;

(11) China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef;

(12) China s occupation of and construction activities on Mischief Reef

(a) violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and structures;
(b) violate China s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Convention; and
(c) constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention;

(13) China has breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner, causing serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal;

(14) Since the commencement of this arbitration in January 2013, China has unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute by, among other things:

(a) interfering with the Philippines rights of navigation in the waters at, and adjacent to, Second Thomas Shoal;
(b) preventing the rotation and resupply of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal;
(c) endangering the health and well-being of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal; and
(d) conducting dredging, artificial island-building and construction activities at Mischief Reef,
Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef; and

Phán Quyết Tòa PCA liên quan đến 7 luận cứ từ 8 đến 14 của hồ sơ kiện TC của Phi Luật Tân:

Xác nhận TC vi phạm chủ quyền Phi về mặt khai thác các hải sản trong vùng EEZ, vi phạm điều khoản 56, 58 của UNCLOS, về mặt khai thác khoáng sản, vi phạm điều khoản 77, ngăn cấm không cho ngư dân Phi đánh cá tại bãi Hoàng Nham.

Xác nhận TC hủy hoại môi trường ngư sản vi phạm điều khoản 192 và 194(5).

Xác nhận TC xây dựng các công trình nhân tạo trên Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef (North), Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef, Subi Reef and Mischief Reef, vi phạm điều khoản 192, 194(1), 194(5), 197, 123, và 206 của UNCLOS.

Xác nhận TC dùng tầu chiến và ngư thuyền săn đuổi tầu và ngư dân Phi, gây nguy hiểm cho sinh mạng, vi phạm Điều 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, và 16 của COLREGS (Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea), và điều khoản 94 của UNCLOS.

Xác nhận các hành động của TC làm trầm trọng thêm cuộc tranh chấp trên Biển Đông.

Xác nhận các luận cứ của Phi.

[Hồ Sơ Chi Tiết về Phán Quyết 501 Trang]

716. Based on the considerations outlined above, the Tribunal finds that China has, through the operation of its marine surveillance vessels with respect to M/V Veritas Voyager on 1 to 2 March 2011 breached Article 77 of the Convention with respect to the Philippines’ sovereign rights over the non-living resources of its continental shelf in the area of Reed Bank. The Tribunal further finds that China has, by promulgating its 2012 moratorium on fishing in the South China Sea, without exception for areas of the South China Sea falling within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines and without limiting the moratorium to Chinese flagged vessels, breached Article 56 of the Convention with respect to the Philippines’ sovereign rights over the living resources of its exclusive economic zone.

757. Based on the considerations outlined above, the Tribunal finds that China has, through the operation of its marine surveillance vessels in tolerating and failing to exercise due diligence to prevent fishing by Chinese flagged vessels at Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal in May 2013, failed to exhibit due regard for the Philippines’ sovereign rights with respect to fisheries in its exclusive economic zone. Accordingly, China has breached its obligations under Article 58(3) of the Convention.

814. Based on the considerations outlined above, the Tribunal finds that China has, through the operation of its official vessels at Scarborough Shoal from May 2012 onwards, unlawfully prevented Filipino fishermen from engaging in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal. The Tribunal records that this decision is entirely without prejudice to the question of sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal.

992. Based on the considerations outlined above, the Tribunal finds that China has, through its toleration and protection of, and failure to prevent Chinese fishing vessels engaging in harmful harvesting activities of endangered species at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal and other features in the Spratly Islands, breached Articles 192 and 194(5) of the Convention.