Nonappearance and Procedural Delicacy: Some Observations on the Tribunal's Handling of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration

Xinjun Zhang

2018-01-01

Abstract:A court’s or tribunal’s handling of its own procedure regarding jurisdiction is taken as falling into its inherent power. With regard to this inherent power, an international court or tribunal must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction over the claims. In a normal case with the participation of both parties, this is an unspoken duty, and a court or a tribunal shall discharge this duty with due diligence when it can exercise vigilance aided by the presence of both parties to the proceedings. In cases of nonappearance, a treaty-based, expressive duty of satisfaction of jurisdiction is designed to ease the tension in the administration of procedural matters, requiring the judicial organ to take special care in handling procedural matters relating to jurisdictional issues. This paper finds that the following procedural measures taken in a case of nonappearance may fall into the category of such special care. First, jurisdictional objections raised in extraprocedural communications have been taken into consideration under any circumstances, and as a general practice, bifurcation will be granted. It is “special” in nonappearance cases in an Annex VII arbitration, as tribunals do not bifurcate the proceedings of a normal case with the participation of both parties, presumably to avoid the extra economic cost inherently associated with ad hoc arbitrations. Second, upon a request for an affirmative declaration on jurisdiction from the appearing applicant, the Court or a tribunal more often merely resumes the proceedings after rejecting jurisdictional objections raised by the nonappearing party. This practice is also in contrast to its routine practice of rendering affirmative jurisdictional judgments in normal cases where both parties participate. Third, notwithstanding the res judicata of the affirmative jurisdictional judgment, the effect of which, indeed, is a matter for discussion, the Court or a tribunal still pledges to take “special care” or “special responsibility” on jurisdictional issues in the subsequent phase of proceedings where a party refuses to appear. In the South China Sea Arbitration, although the tribunal bifurcated the proceedings to promote procedural legitimacy; the tribunal’s negligence of special care can be argued from two aspects: 1) a failure to state reasons in the ruling of China’s jurisdictional objection and no “special responsibility” taken in the merits phase on the previous failure and 2) a manifest violation of the rule of interpretation in determining the status of Taiping island – a vital jurisdictional question regarding the Philippines’ key submissions more than those reserved for consideration in the merits phase. The negligence may give rise to the traditional grounds for annulment.