再看仲裁庭的构成。仲裁庭并非国际法院，只是一个临时组建的机构。五名仲裁员中没有一位来自亚洲，不了解东亚文化和历史。更令人匪夷所思的是，有两位仲裁员还在仲裁过程中完全背弃了原来坚持的观点。这样一个仲裁庭有多少公正性、代表性和权威性，不能不让人怀疑。

Second, the composition of the tribunal – an ad hoc body having nothing to do with the International Court of Justice – is questionable. None of the five arbitrators is from Asia or has much knowledge of Asian history and culture. Most inconceivable in the arbitration process was that two arbitrators totally abandoned the opinions that they used to hold. This only increases doubts about the impartiality, representativeness and the authoritativeness of the tribunal.

再看仲裁程序。在《公约》设计的争端解决机制中，缔约国通过双边渠道解决争议应予以优先适用，但仲裁庭却反其道而行之，在中菲早已选择通过谈判协商解决争端的情况下，仍优先选择强制仲裁,强行审理。这种做法不合常理，违反《公约》的一般实践。

Third, the procedure of the arbitration went against normal practice. According to the dispute settlement system of the Convention, bilateral channels between state parties comes before arbitration. However, disregarding prior bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines to resolve the disputes through negotiations and consultations, the tribunal forced ahead with the arbitration proceedings. Such procedure is utterly unreasonable and it contravenes the general practice of international arbitration under the Convention.

最后看裁决效果。《公约》诞生的初衷是公正地解决问题、化解矛盾，仲裁庭的做法却与此背道而驰。中国有句俗话："吃人家的嘴软，拿人家的手短"，用来形容这个由菲律宾出钱组建的仲裁庭再合适不过。为了最大程度迎合菲律宾的主张，仲裁庭竟把太平岛硬称为"岩礁"，遭到海峡两岸中国同胞一致谴责；为了给菲律宾违反通过双边谈判解决争议的承诺开脱，它不惜贬低中国与东盟十国达成的《南海各方行为宣言》，否定其法律地位；为了否定中国的合法权利，它竟能把中国祖祖辈辈传承下来、受《联合国宪章》保护的主权权益一笔勾销。这种毫无顾忌的偏袒不是在解决问题，而是在制造问题；不是在化解矛盾，而是在激化矛盾。难怪英国前外交部法律顾问霍默斯雷先生会在研究报告中提出担忧：仲裁庭的有关做法将撼动国际关系的整体稳定。

Fourth is the ultimate effect of the ruling. The UNCLOS dispute settlement is designed to resolve problems and disputes in a just way. But the tribunal's ruling is anything but. "There's no free lunch". This sums up the actions of the tribunal, paid with Philippine money. To cater to the Philippines' claim, the tribunal shrank the Taiping Island into a rock and was denounced by all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. To save the Philippines from breaching its own commitment to bilateral negotiations, the tribunal belittled and nullified the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) reached between China and ASEAN countries. To deny China's legitimate rights and interests, the tribunal turned a blind eye to China's sovereign rights, which are inherited from past generations and are protected by the UN Charter. Such a recklessly partial tribunal creates more problems than it solves, and intensifies rather than solves disputes. No wonder a former FCO legal advisor Chris Whomersley believes that the tribunal is potentially destabilising the overall stability of international relations.