南海仲裁案中的尽职调查与被忽视的证据

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Ocean Development and International Law Pub Date : 2019-04-19 DOI:10.1080/00908320.2019.1582631
Jianping Guo, Peng Wang
{"title":"南海仲裁案中的尽职调查与被忽视的证据","authors":"Jianping Guo, Peng Wang","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2019.1582631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the South China Sea Arbitration, the Tribunal decided that China had not breached the due diligence obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment under Articles 192 and 194(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning Chinese fishers fishing with explosives, but that China had breached the same obligation regarding Chinese fishers harvesting endangered species. This article looks at how the Tribunal interpreted and applied the due diligence obligation and argues, from a Chinese perspective, that there were facts overlooked by the Tribunal that China could have presented to counter the evidence of the Philippines, which might have been enough to affect the decision on destructive fishing had China participated in the Arbitration.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Due Diligence and Overlooked Evidence in the South China Sea Arbitration: A Note\",\"authors\":\"Jianping Guo, Peng Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00908320.2019.1582631\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In the South China Sea Arbitration, the Tribunal decided that China had not breached the due diligence obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment under Articles 192 and 194(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning Chinese fishers fishing with explosives, but that China had breached the same obligation regarding Chinese fishers harvesting endangered species. This article looks at how the Tribunal interpreted and applied the due diligence obligation and argues, from a Chinese perspective, that there were facts overlooked by the Tribunal that China could have presented to counter the evidence of the Philippines, which might have been enough to affect the decision on destructive fishing had China participated in the Arbitration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ocean Development and International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ocean Development and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1582631\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ocean Development and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2019.1582631","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要在南海仲裁案中,仲裁庭认为中国没有违反《联合国海洋法公约》第192条和第194(5)条关于中国渔民带炸药捕鱼的保护和保全海洋环境的尽职义务,但违反了中国渔民捕捞濒危物种的尽职义务。本文着眼于仲裁庭如何解释和适用尽职调查义务,并从中国的角度认为,仲裁庭忽略了一些事实,中国本可以提出这些事实来反驳菲律宾的证据,如果中国参与仲裁,这些事实可能足以影响对破坏性捕捞的裁决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Due Diligence and Overlooked Evidence in the South China Sea Arbitration: A Note
Abstract In the South China Sea Arbitration, the Tribunal decided that China had not breached the due diligence obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment under Articles 192 and 194(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning Chinese fishers fishing with explosives, but that China had breached the same obligation regarding Chinese fishers harvesting endangered species. This article looks at how the Tribunal interpreted and applied the due diligence obligation and argues, from a Chinese perspective, that there were facts overlooked by the Tribunal that China could have presented to counter the evidence of the Philippines, which might have been enough to affect the decision on destructive fishing had China participated in the Arbitration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Ocean Development and International Law is devoted to all aspects of international and comparative law and policy concerning the management of ocean use and activities. It focuses on the international aspects of ocean regulation, ocean affairs, and all forms of ocean utilization. The journal publishes high quality works of scholarship in such related disciplines as international law of the sea, comparative domestic ocean law, political science, marine economics, geography, shipping, the marine sciences, and ocean engineering and other sea-oriented technologies. Discussions of policy alternatives and factors relevant to policy are emphasized, as are contributions of a theoretical and methodological nature.
期刊最新文献
‘One Map to Rule Them All’? Revisiting Legalities Through Cartographic Representations of the Northwest Passage Challenging the Notion of a “Single Continental Shelf” The Polar Code Process and Sovereignty Bargains: Comparing the Approaches of Canada and Russia to POLARIS Can the International Regulatory Framework on Ships’ Routing, Ship Reporting, and Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Accommodate Marine Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)? From “Common Pools” to “Fish Pools”: Shifting Property Institutions in Traditional Waters of Norway and Canada
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1