El arbitraje del mar de China meridional: jurisdicción e implicancias

María Azul Giménez Losano

Autores/as

María Azul Giménez Losano

Palabras clave:

mar de china meridional, arbitraje, jurisdicción, convemar, china

Resumen

El Mar de China Meridional no está exento de tormentas jurídicas. Es así que China reclama para sí derechos históricos sobre ciertas islas y otros elementos marinos, mientras que Filipinas contesta que el reclamo es incompatible con las obligaciones internacionales asumidas por la potencia asiática. Este conflicto desembocó en el “Arbitraje del Mar de China Meridional”, iniciado por Filipinas en el marco del Anexo VII de la Convemar, que regula el procedimiento arbitral aplicable al conflicto. Sin embargo, China rechazó comparecer ante el tribunal arbitral argumentando que este carecía de competencia para pronunciarse en la materia. La presente investigación pretende abordar los problemas de jurisdicción emergentes de este laudo. Para ello, las complejidades del tema abordado en este ensayo motivan analizar la jurisdicción del tribunal arbitral constituido para entender en el caso y, en consiguiente, las consecuencias que el laudo produjo para China. A tales efectos, se desarrollará el marco teórico aplicable de la Convemar y de la Corte Permanente de Arbitraje para comprender las pretensiones de Filipinas, las posibles limitaciones a la jurisdicción del tribunal y las implicancias de la rebeldía procesal de China. Más aún, esta tormenta provocó importantes interrogantes en el ámbito jurídico y geopolítico, y reflejó cómo el examen de jurisdicción varía en las decisiones recientes para la resolución de disputas. A partir de todo lo expuesto, se concluirá que el tribunal arbitral para el “Arbitraje del Mar de China Meridional” era competente.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

ADVINCULA JR., Julian V., “China’s Leadership Transition and the Future of US-China Relations: Insights from the Spratly Islands Case”, en Journal of Chinese Political Science/Association of Chinese Political Studies, Vol. 20, 2015, pp. 51-65.

AMERASHINGHE, Chittharanjan F., Jurisdiction of International Tribunals, Kluwer Law International, 2003, La Haya-Londres-Nueva York.

American Enterprise Institute, “South China Sea of troubles”, MASTRO SKYLAR, Oriana, 25/11/2019, URL https://www.aei.org/articles/south-china-sea-of-troubles/.

Asociación de Naciones del Sudeste Asiático, Declaration on the South China Sea, 22/07/1992, Manila.

Bloomberg, “Fight Over Fish Fans a New Stage of Conflict in South China Sea”, VARLEY, Kevin & LEUNG, Adrian & DORMIDO, Hannah y otros/as, 01/09/2020, URL https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-dangerous-conditions-in-depleted-south-china-sea/.

Cambridge International Law Journal, “UNCLOS Annex VII Arbitration – Who, What, Where, When?”, BURKE, Naomi, 25/3/2019, URL http://cilj.co.uk/2013/03/25/unclos-annex-vii-arbitration-who-what-where-when-2/, consultado 30/11/2020.

CASTAN, Melissa, “Adrift in the South China Sea: International Dispute Resolution and the Spratly Islands Conflict”, en Asia Pacific Law Review, Vol. 6, Nro. 1, 1998, pp. 93-107.

Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias relativas a Inversiones, “The Southern Bluefin Tuna”, Laudo, 04/08/2000.

Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar, 10/12/1986, Montego Bay, Jamaica, e.v. 16/11/1994.

Corte Internacional de Justicia, “Aegean Sea Continental Shelf”, “Grecia c. Turquía”, 11/09/1976, ICJ Reports 1976.

——, “Fisheries Jurisdiction”, “España c. Canadá”, 04/12/1998, ICJ Reports 1998.

——, “Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain”, “Qatar v. Bahrain”, 16/03/2001, ICJ Reports 2001.

——, “Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua”, “Nicaragua c. Estados Unidos de América”, 27/06/1986, ICJ Reports 1986.

——, “Nuclear Test”, “Australia v. Francia”, 20/12/1974, ICJ Reports 1974.

——, “Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean”, “Bolivia c. Chile”, 24/09/2015, ICJ Reports 2015.

——, “Territorial and Maritime Dispute”, “Nicaragua c. Colombia”, 19/11/2012, ICJ Reports 2012.

——, “United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran”, “Estados Unidos de América c. Iran”, 24/05/1980, ICJ Reports 1980.

Corte Permanente de Arbitraje, “Contribution of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to the report of the Secretary-General on Oceans and the Law of the Sea”, 2015, La Haya, Países Bajos, URL https://docs.pca-cpa.org/2019/06/PCA-Contribution-to-DOALOS-2015.pdf, consultado 30/11/2020.

——, “Chagos Marine Protected Area”, “Mauritania c. Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña”, 18/03/2015.

——, Reglamento de Procedimiento, 27/08/2013.

——, Report and Recommendations on the Compulsory Conciliation Commission between Timor-Leste and Australia on the Timor Sea, 09/05/2018.

——, “The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration”, “Reino de Holanda c. Federación Rusa”, 14/08/2015.

——, The Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, 07/12/2014.

——, “The South China Sea Arbitration”, “República de Filipinas v. República Popular de China”, Laudo de Admisibilidad y Jurisdicción, 29/10/2015.

——, “The South China Sea Arbitration”, “República de Filipinas v. República Popular de China”, Laudo Final, 12/07/2016.

——, Procedural Order nro. 4, The South China Sea Arbitration, 21/04/2015, URL https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1807, consultado 01/12/2020.

Corte Permanente de Justicia Internacional, “Denunciation of the Treaty of November 2nd, 1865, between China and Belgium”, “Bélgica c. China”, 08/01/1927.

DAVENPORT, Tara, “Procedural Issues Arising from China’s Non-participation in the South China Sea Arbitration”, en JAYAKUMAR, Tommy & KOH, Robert & DAVENPORT, Tara y otros/as, The South China Sea Arbitration: The Legal Dimension, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018, United Kingdom, pp. 65-99.

DIMOLITSA, Antonias, “Autonomie et kompétenz-kompétenz”, en Revue de l’Arbitrage, Vol. 43, Nro.2, 1998.

DINH, Julia L., “China’s Dilemma in the South China Sea and the Arbitral Tribunal. Implications on China’s Regional Strategy in Southeast Asia”, en International Journal of China Studies, Vol. 7, Nro. 3, 2016, pp. 301-318.

El Economista, “Aumenta la tensión en el Mar de la China Meridional”, CHICHERO, Damián, 22/10/2020, URL https://eleconomista.com.ar/2020-10-aumenta-la-tension-en-el-mar-de-la-china-meridional/.

FRAVEL, Taylor, “China’s strategy in the South China Sea”, en Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 33, Nro. 3, 2011, pp. 292-319.

GONZALEZ CARRILLO, Adriana & BUCHER SUÁREZ, Greta, “La Corte Permanente de Arbitraje emite Fallo sobre Situación en el Mar Meridional del Sudeste Asiático: Argumentos Centrales y eventuales Implicaciones”, en Centro de Estudios Internacionales Gilberto Bosques, 2016, Ciudad de México, pp. 1-6.

HUDSON, Manley O., “The Permanent Court of Arbitration”, en American Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, Nro. 3, 1933, pp. 440-460.

JONES, Jessica, “Free the Sea: The Philippines v. China”, en SAIS Review of International Affairs, Vol. 36, Nro, 1, 2016, pp. 75-86.

KLEIN, Natalie, “Expansions and Restrictions in the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Regime: Lessons from Recent Decisions”, en Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, Nro. 2, 2017, pp. 403-415.

——, “The Vicissitudes of Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention”, en The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 32, Nro. 2, 2017, pp. 332-363.

KOPELA, Sophia, “Historic titles and historic rights in the law of the sea in the light of the South China Sea arbitration”, en Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 48, Nro. 2, 2017, pp. 181-207.

MCDORMAN, Ted, “The South China Sea Arbitration”, en American Society of International Law, Vol. 20, Nro. 17, 2016.

MCGARRY, Brian, “The Settlement of Maritime Boundary Disputes in Southeast Asia and Oceania”, en The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, Vol. 5, Nro. 2, 2018, pp. 24-45.

MINCAI, Yu, “China’s responses to the compulsory arbitration on the South China Sea dispute: legal effects and policy options”, en Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 45, Nro. 1, 2014, pp. 1-16.

MORTON, Brian & BLACKMORE, Graham, “South China Sea”, en Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 42, Nro. 12, 2001, pp. 1236-1263.

Observatorio de la Política China, “Filipinas contra China: el Mar de China Meridional, y un veredicto que podría cambiar Asia”, LÓPEZ NADAL, Juan M., 10/07/2016, URL https://politica-china.org/areas/seguridad-y-defensa/filipinas-contra-china-el-mar-de-china-meridional-y-un-veredicto-que-podria-cambiar-asia, consultado 01/12/2020.

OXMAN, Bernard, “The South China Sea Arbitration Award”, en University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 24, Nro. 2, 2017, pp. 235-281.

PHAN, Hao D. & NGUYEN, Lan N., “The South China Sea Arbitration: Bindingness, Finality, and Compliance with UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Decisions”, en Asian Journal of International Law, Vol. 8, Nro. 1, 2018, pp. 36-50.

PINEROS POLO, Elena, “Arbitraje del Mar del Sur de China. La Estrategia Procesal de la República Popular de China”, en Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales, Vol. 35, 2018, pp. 281-303.

RAO, Pemmaraju S., “The South China Sea Arbitration (The Phillippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility”, en Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, Nro. 2, 2016, pp. 265-307.

República de Filipinas, Department of Foreign Affairs, “The Notification and Statement of Claim of the Republic of the Philippines”, Nro. 13-0211, 22/01/2013, Manila.

República Popular de China, “Declaración de China bajo el artículo 298 de la Convemar”, 25/08/2006.

——, “Nota Verbal de la Embajada de China en Manila al Departamento de Relaciones Extranjeras de Filipinas”, 19/02/2013.

——, “Nota Verbal enviada por el Gobierno chino al Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas”, CML/17/2009, 07/05/2009, Nueva York.

SCHOENBAUM, Thomas, “The South China Sea Arbitration. Decision and Plan for Peaceful Resolution of the Disputes”, en Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol. 47, Nro. 4, 2016, pp 451-477.

TALMON, Stefan, “The Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration: Expansion of the Jurisdiction of UNCLOS Part XV Courts and Tribunals”, en International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 65, Nro. 4, 2006, pp. 927-951.

——, “The South China Sea Arbitration and the Finality of ‘Final’ Awards”, en Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 8, Nro. 2, 2017, pp. 388-401.

TANAKA, Yoshifumi, The South China Sea Arbitration: Toward an International Legal Order in the Oceans, Hart Publishing, 2019, Oxford.

The Diplomat, “China Refuses to Quit on the Philippines”, GROSSMAN, Derek, 22/07/2020, URL https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/china-refuses-to-quit-on-the-philippines/.

——, “Why the South China Sea Arbitration Case Matters (even if China ignores it)”, DAVENPORT, Tara, 08/07/2016, URL https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/why-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-case-matters-even-if-china-ignores-it/.

The South China Sea Issue, “Joint Press Release for the First Meeting of the China-Philippines bilateral consultation mechanism of the South China Sea”, 19/05/2017, URL http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/eng/wjbxw_1/t1463538.htm, consultado 13/11/2020.

VALENCIA, Mark J., “The Spratly Islands: Dangerous ground in the South China Sea”, en The Pacific Review, Vol. 1, Nro. 4, 1988, pp. 438-443.

VAN DEN HOUT, Tjaco T., “Resolution of International Disputes: The Role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration”, en Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, Nro. 3, 2008, pp. 643-661.

WONG, Kam C., “Who owns the Spratly Islands? The Case of China and Vietnam” en China Report, Vol. 38, Nro. 3, 2002, pp. 345-358.

YEE, Sienho, “The South China See Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Potential Jurisdictional Obstacles or Objections”, en Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, Nro. 4, 2014, pp. 663-739.

ZHANG, Feng, “Assessing China’s response to the South China Sea arbitration ruling”, en Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 71, Nro. 4, 2017, pp. 440-459.