罔顾事实的仲裁掩盖不了真相。仲裁庭将以前中菲双方涉及领土主权和海洋划界争端进行的磋商，硬说成是双方就《联合国海洋法公约》解释适用所进行的磋商。仲裁庭还将中菲磋商认定为菲已履行交换意见义务的依据。而实际上中菲双方从未就仲裁事宜进行过谈判，哪怕是意见交换。

What has truly happened cannot be covered up by an arbitration that ignores facts. The Tribunal deliberately framed the previous consultations between China and the Philippines concerning disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation as consultations on the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and affirmed these consultations as evidence that the Philippines had fulfilled its obligation of exchange of views. As a matter of fact, China and the Philippines have never had any negotiations, not even exchange of views, on the arbitration matters.

违背法理的仲裁毫无公正可言。例如，仲裁庭自知无权审理涉及领土主权和海洋划界的案子。一方面有意回避中菲争议的实质，坚持认定此案不涉及领土主权，另一方面不顾中方2006年根据《联合国海洋法公约》做出的排除强制争端解决程序的声明，刻意将本质上涉及领土主权和海洋划界的事项纳入其管辖范围。这种执意擅权的做法，违背了司法机构在案件审理中本应恪守的审慎、自律精神，终将有损于司法手段解决争议的信誉和价值。

There is no trace of justice in an arbitration that violates jurisprudence. For example, the Tribunal knows full well that it has no jurisdiction over a case concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. On the one hand, it evaded the essence of the dispute and insisted that this case had nothing to do with territorial sovereignty. On the other hand, in disregard of China' s declaration in accordance with UNCLOS in 2006 which excludes disputes concerning maritime delimitation from arbitral proceedings, the Tribunal deliberately included into its jurisdiction matters that, in essence, concern territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Such moves to arrogate power are a violation of the spirit of diligence and self-discipline which judicial bodies should honor when hearing cases. They are also detrimental to the credibility and value of dispute settlement through judicial means.

又如，仲裁庭在选择和援引司法判例方面的表现，存在严重的主观片面性，缺乏客观性。仲裁庭多次片面援引存在巨大争议的司法或仲裁判例，将个别争议性观点和判词作为支持本案裁决意见的法律先例。而有关有争议的观点和判词，恰恰是由本案仲裁庭有些仲裁员所提出的。这种自证其言，偏执臆断，严重损害了有关法律论断的严谨性、逻辑性和前后连贯性。

Another example is the one-sidedness and lack of impartiality in the Tribunal's selection and citation of judicial cases. On many occasions, it cited biased, highly controversial judicial or arbitral cases and used controversial views and verdicts put forth by arbitrators of this very Tribunal as legal precedent in support of views on the verdict of this case. Such so called self-sufficient and partial arguments have seriously damaged the integrity, logic and consistency of the relevant legal conclusion.

再如，仲裁庭还恶意曲解《联合国海洋法公约》和习惯国际法的关系。仲裁庭一口一个《联合国海洋法公约》，企图让《联合国海洋法公约》管所有海上的事情，却对习惯国际法熟视无睹。国际法人士都应清楚，《联合国海洋法公约》所规定的各项国际海洋法律制度，本就是总结各国的海洋历史实践与共同意愿而成，《联合国海洋法公约》原文中也无一不体现着对习惯国际法的尊重。而仲裁庭以今否古，违背了《联合国海洋法公约》的基本宗旨和精神。

Yet another example is the malicious distortion of the relations between UNCLOS and customary international law. Turning a blind eye to customary international law, the Tribunal kept citing UNCLOS and attempted to make UNCLOS applicable to everything related to the sea. Anyone familiar with international law would know well that the regime of international law of the sea provided in UNCLOS is, in itself, a summary of maritime history and practices and a reflection of the common aspirations of countries, and that the very text of UNCLOS shows respect for customary international law. What the Tribunal has done is a breach of the basic purposes and spirit of UNCLOS.