ABSTRACT

This article discusses the insufficient consideration of the role of state practice in the interpretation and implementation of Article 121(3) of the UNCLOS by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Case. The article argues that the Tribunal's view on the “threshold” established and its conclusion that there was no evidence that an agreement existed based upon state practice on the interpretation of Article 121(3) are open to question.

中文翻译：

---

2016年7月的仲裁裁决，《联合国海洋法公约》第121条第3款的解释以及一些国家惯例不一致的例子

摘要

本文讨论了在南海仲裁案中，仲裁庭在解释和执行《联合国海洋法公约》第121条第3款时没有充分考虑国家实践的作用。该条认为，法庭关于“门槛”的观点已经确立，其结论是没有证据表明存在基于国家惯例的对第121条第3款的解释的协议。