悉尼唐人街，资料图
东南网澳大利亚站7月14日讯 （本站记者 彭寒）关于应菲律宾共和国单方面请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭于2016年7月12日作出的裁决，澳大利亚各大华人华侨社团于昨日纷纷公开发声，力挺中国政府维护南海主权。
在澳侨团力挺中国政府
关于应菲律宾共和国单方面请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭于2016年7月12日作出的裁决，中华人民共和国外交部郑重声明，该裁决是无效的，没有拘束力，中国不接受、不承认。
澳洲中国和平统一促进会（以下简称“和统会”）昨日发表严正声明，表示应菲律宾政府请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭罔顾基本事实，肆意践踏国际法，违反国际公理。仲裁庭对中菲的领土争端和海洋争端没有仲裁权，所作“裁决”是无效的。
该声明还认为，南海诸岛自古以来就是中国领土，仲裁无法否认中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益。
和统会常务副会长周建在他的署名文章中写道，“在整场闹剧中，中国政府一直保持客观冷静的态度并再三坚定重申，在领土问题和海洋划界争议上，中国不接受任何第三方争端解决方式，不接受任何强加于中国的争端解决方案。目前这场闹剧已经结束，是时候回到正确轨道了。”
澳大利亚维护和平与正义行动委员会也发表声明说，“南海国际仲裁庭”从合法性到司法管辖权再到仲裁的过程与规则，都存在着不合理、违反国际法和越权因素。
澳政府态度暧昧，专家称愚蠢
澳大利亚外长Julie Bishop（左）与中国外长王毅，资料图
澳大利亚外交部长Julie Bishop（朱莉·毕晓普）于昨晚发表媒体通告，称南海仲裁案仲裁庭所做出的裁决符合联合国海洋法公约(United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)，只于海洋权益有关，与主权无关，并呼吁中菲双方遵守并执行该裁决。
而与此同时，除了声明之外，Julie Bishop并没有证实澳大利亚会有任何进一步实质性的行动计划。
早在今年年初，Julie Bishop就曾多次表态，在南海问题上澳大利亚不会选边站，并指出澳大利亚在该地区的任何行动改变都将带来紧张态势加剧的危险。而在仲裁结果出炉之后，包括Julie Bishop本人和总理Malcolm Turnbull（马尔科姆·特恩布尔）在内的多名澳大利亚高层政客都公开表示，任何希望澳大利亚参与所谓“自由航行”（Freedom of Navigation）计划，并向南海派遣船只的声音都是“极为不负责任的”，将会“加剧整个地区的紧张气氛”。
“所有人都希望地区局势可以缓和下来。”澳总理Malcolm Turnbull昨天表示，自己也是其中一员。
对于澳大利亚政府相对暧昧的反应和态度，悉尼科技大学澳大利亚-中国关系研究院主席黄向墨先生在接受本站记者采访时表示，该声明的发表是在意料之中，是澳大利亚现政府作出的愚蠢决定。同是他也表示，目前来看澳大利亚不会参与所谓的“自由航行”计划。
自由航行
美国版的“自由航行”计划向多国领海“发出了挑战”，资料图
自由航行（Freedom of Navigation，FON）是国际习惯法中的一个原则，即除了国际法规定的例外情况，悬挂任何主权国家旗帜的船舶不受来自其他国家的干扰。而如果该船只要经过某国的领海，则必须建立在“无害通过”的前提下，即不损害沿海国的和平、安全和良好秩序。
而1979年，美国卡特政府推出了美国版的“自由航行”计划。该计划是美国政府的一项外交及军事行动计划，旨在防止沿海国家的“过度海洋主张”和保证美国军事力量在全世界机动畅通。换言之，美国通过向他国领海派遣军舰的方式，来表达自己不承认该国在此海域的主权。仅在在2014年自由航行行动中，美国就对中国、厄瓜多尔、印度、菲律宾、韩国、台湾等19个国家和地区的领海“提出了挑战”。
自由航行的权利已被《联合国海洋法公约》第87(1)a条加以法典化，但值得注意的是，美国并没有加入该公约。
South China Sea: Chinese Australian Associations Back Chinese Govt
By Han, Southeast Net Australia, 14 July
Numbers of overseas Chinese Associations in Australia have issued their statements of backing Chinese Government over the dispute of South China Sea yesterday, after the South China Sea arbitral tribunal in The Hague delivered an outrageously one-sided ruling in the case initiated by the Philippines.
China has been staying objective and calm throughout the whole process and insists on settling the dispute by dialogue, with its clear attitude of not accepting any third-party involvement, wrote James Zhou, deputy president of Australian Council for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China.
“It’s now the time of bringing the farce back on the right track.” He also wrote.
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, on the other hand, has admitted the binding power of the arbitration, and meanwhile denying any future plans of conducting Australian patrols within 12 nautical miles of the artificial islands built by China.
Mr. Xiangmo Huang, Chairman of Board of UTS Australia China Relations Institute, called the statement of Australian government of backing the arbitration expected but “silly”.
At this particular point, it’s unlikely for Australia to conduct any further move of the Freedom Of Navigation exercise within the claimed territory of China, said Huang.
Freedom of Navigation
Australia will continue to exercise our international law rights to freedom of navigation and overflight, and support the right of others to do so, wrote Julie Bishop in her statement, to which Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said he was “Shocked” by Julie Bishop’s remark.
"We hope that the Australian side will take international law seriously, instead of as a trifling matter," Lu Kang told a daily news briefing on Thursday.
The division of High Sea, Exlusive Economic Zone and Territorial Sea
The technical term of ‘Freedom of Navigation’ is a principle of customary international law that ships flying the flag of any sovereign state shall not suffer interference from other states in high sea and exclusive economic zone, codified as article 87(1) a of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which Australia has ratified.
Other states also enjoy the rights of innocent passage, being not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state, through the territorial sea of a coastal state, said United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; notably, the United States has signed, but not ratified the convention.
However, United State Freedom of Navigation program has been challenging other coastal states’ territorial claims for over 30 years, by sending Navy & Air Force within claimed territorial sea.
