Commentary on Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Philippines-instituted Arbitration under Annex vii to the unclos: A Discussion on Fact-Finding and Evidence

H. Tiantian
{"title":"Commentary on Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Philippines-instituted Arbitration under Annex vii to the unclos: A Discussion on Fact-Finding and Evidence","authors":"H. Tiantian","doi":"10.1163/23525207-12340017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Arbitral Tribunal in the arbitration instituted by the Philippines against China has issued its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility. Juridical practices have something in common. The arbitral proceedings generally comprise two indispensable stages: findings of fact and application of law. The production, collection, and evaluation of evidence serve a particular purpose: they are meant to enable the adjudicative body to find facts. Thus, evidence is meant to prove or disprove facts. This review paper aims to discuss evidence and fact-finding process in the Award. As a general rule, international judges or arbitrators have wide discretion in the evaluation of evidence, but the guiding principle of the rules governing evidence should be the principle of fair trial. The problems of evidence evaluation and fact-finding revealed in the Award would be much serious at the merits stage, thus have negative implications for the Tribunal to deliver its decision impartially.","PeriodicalId":31142,"journal":{"name":"The Chinese Journal of Global Governance","volume":"2 1","pages":"96-128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/23525207-12340017","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Chinese Journal of Global Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/23525207-12340017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The Arbitral Tribunal in the arbitration instituted by the Philippines against China has issued its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility. Juridical practices have something in common. The arbitral proceedings generally comprise two indispensable stages: findings of fact and application of law. The production, collection, and evaluation of evidence serve a particular purpose: they are meant to enable the adjudicative body to find facts. Thus, evidence is meant to prove or disprove facts. This review paper aims to discuss evidence and fact-finding process in the Award. As a general rule, international judges or arbitrators have wide discretion in the evaluation of evidence, but the guiding principle of the rules governing evidence should be the principle of fair trial. The problems of evidence evaluation and fact-finding revealed in the Award would be much serious at the merits stage, thus have negative implications for the Tribunal to deliver its decision impartially.
评菲律宾根据《公约》附件七提起的仲裁管辖权和可受理性裁决:关于事实认定和证据问题的讨论
菲律宾仲裁案仲裁庭已就管辖权和可受理性问题作出裁决。司法实践有一些共同之处。仲裁程序一般包括两个不可缺少的阶段:事实认定和法律适用。证据的产生、收集和评估服务于一个特定的目的:它们是为了使审判机构能够发现事实。因此,证据意味着证明或反驳事实。本文旨在讨论该奖项的证据和事实调查过程。一般来说,国际法官或仲裁员在证据评估方面拥有广泛的自由裁量权,但证据规则的指导原则应是公平审判原则。《裁决书》所揭示的证据评价和事实调查问题在是非曲实阶段将十分严重,从而对法庭公正地作出裁决产生不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信