This paper provides an assessment of the Tribunal’s Award on the merits relating to the Philippines’ Submissions No. 1 and 2. First, it argues that the Convention is not the sole legal source of maritime rights. Second, the Tribunal erroneously infers from Article 311 that the Convention prevails over customary international law. Meanwhile, Article 293 does not terminate rules of general international law that are incompatible with the Convention. Third, the Tribunal, by deciding that historic rights under general international law have been superseded by the regimes of exclusive economic zone and continental shelf established under the Convention, fails to draw a distinction between the two separate legal regimes, namely the Convention and general international law. Fourth, as one of the “matters not regulated by the Convention”, historic rights should be governed by, and have been well established in, general international law.

中文翻译：

---

南海仲裁案中与历史权利有关的优异奖：评估

本文对仲裁庭就菲律宾第 1 号和第 2 号诉求的案情作出的裁决进行了评估。首先，它认为《公约》不是海洋权利的唯一法律来源。其次，法庭错误地从第 311 条推断公约优先于习惯国际法。同时，第 293 条并未终止与公约不符的一般国际法规则。第三，仲裁庭裁定一般国际法规定的历史性权利已被《公约》确立的专属经济区和大陆架制度所取代，未能区分《公约》和一般国际法两种独立的法律制度。法律。第四，作为“公约未规定的事项”之一，