331. In respect of an exchange of views on the substance of the Parties’ dispute, the Philippinesrecalled the correspondence set out in its Memorial that “shows that the parties exchanged viewson numerous occasions over many years.”297 The Philippines went on to address the degree ofspecificity required of an exchange of views on the substance of the Parties’ dispute. Drawingon the decisions in Chagos Marine Protected Area and Guyana v. Suriname, the Philippinesargued that “several general propositions can be extracted.” These are:(a) “it is not necessary to exchange views on the substance of each and every submissionper se”;298(b) “as long as there has been an exchange of views on the general subject matter of thedispute, broadly construed, Article 283 is satisfied, both with respect to the main disputeas well as any incidental issues that are subsumed within it”;299 and(c) “relatedly, there is no need for an exchange of views to touch upon specific articles of theConvention. Indeed it is not even necessary that the Convention itself be mentioned inthe course of the relevant exchanges.”300
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..