南海仲裁案仲裁庭近日出台了所谓裁决结果，引发广泛关注。英国媒体的报道林林总总，但大体意思不外乎一句话：仲裁庭的裁决代表了国际法，中国不接受仲裁就是不遵守国际法。事实果真如此吗？

The so-called award made by the South China Sea arbitral tribunal attracted wide attention. Media coverage here in the UK generally shared the same logic: this ruling represents the international law and China's non-acceptance of this ruling is in violation of international law. But is this true?

常识告诉我们，一场合法的仲裁至少要满足几个条件：一是在仲裁事项上确有管辖权；二是仲裁员本身要公正、权威；三是整个仲裁程序要合乎常理；四是对实体问题的裁决要达到化解矛盾的效果。南海仲裁满足这些条件吗？答案显然是否定的。

It is common sense that a legitimate arbitration needs to meet certain conditions. First, the tribunal shall have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Second, the arbitrators shall be impartial and authoritative. Third, the procedure must be reasonable. Fourth, the ruling on the substantive issues should help resolve disputes. Does the South China Sea arbitration meet any of these conditions? The answer is no.

先看管辖权。菲律宾单方面提起仲裁的有关事项，背后的本质和真正目的都指向领土主权和海洋划界问题，领土主权问题《联合国海洋法公约》根本管不着，海洋划界问题也早已被中国根据《公约》规定而作的声明所排除。仲裁庭实际上是在自己无权管辖的领域扩权、滥权。

First and foremost, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction. The subject matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines, and the real intention behind it, is in essence related to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Issues of territorial sovereignty are clearly beyond the scope of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and issues of maritime delimitation have been excluded by the declaration that China made years ago in accordance with UNCLOS. The arbitral tribunal in fact expanded its power into areas outside of its jurisdiction.