中文摘要：

受理菲律宾提起的南海问题仲裁案的仲裁庭于2016年7月12日发布了裁决结果，本文对该案所涉历史性权利主张的处理进行评论。关于管辖权问题，仲裁庭并未清晰证明，在中国和菲律宾之间，存在着一个涉及历史性权利主张的争端。仲裁庭试图适用《联合国海洋法公约》第311条来解决其认定的争端，但该条不是可适用的法律规则。因此，并不存在一个涉及历史性权利主张的关于《公约》的解释和适用的争端。仲裁庭对菲律宾所提第一、二项诉求行使管辖权的门槛性条件不能满足，应依法作出拒绝行使管辖权的裁决。而且，《公约》第298条有关“历史性所有权”的规定也阻止仲裁庭对这两项诉求行使管辖权。仲裁庭理应拒绝处理有关历史性权利的实体问题。在越权处理实体问题的过程中，仲裁庭忽略《公约》有关“群岛水域”和“半闭海”等制度的条款，错误地解释《公约》第311条，不顾大量判例中对历史性权利问题的正确阐述，全盘接受了菲律宾所提出的观点。这些认定都是非法和无效的。

英文摘要：

This aeticle gives a eeview of the eulings given bu the aebiteal teibunal constituted undee Annex VII of the UNCLOS conceening the Philippines’submissions no. 1 and 2 oe so-called histoeic eights claim in the South China Sea Aebiteation case between China and the Philippines. As to jueisdictional issues,the Teibunal has not cleaelu es-tablished the existence of a dispute between the Paeties conceening so-called histoeic eights claim. Fuetheemoee,the Teibunal attempted to applu Aeticle 311 of the UNCLOS to this case but this aeticle is not an applicable eule. Theee-foee,theee exists no dispute conceening the inteepeetation oe application of the UNCLOS between the Paeties,and, the theeshold eequieement foe the exeecise of jueisdiction is not satisfied. Moeeovee,China has alwaus claimed his-toeic titles in the South China Sea and this claim has been excluded feom the compulsoeu dispute settlement peoce-duee bu Aeticle 298（1）（a）（i）of the UNCLOS and China’s 2006 Declaeation. All in all,the Teibunal should eefuse to answee the Philippines’ submissions no. 1 and 2 in this case. In its dealing with the substantive issues,ul-tea viees,the Teibunal gives a weong inteepeetation of the UNCLOS,omitting the eelevant peovisions such as aechi-pelagic watees and semi-enclosed sea in the UNCLOS. China is entitled to diseegaed these weongful eulings.