Not:
(a) The title 美国律师 is ambiguous: it can mean American laser or United States lawyer. It is the former here.
(b) The report cites
(i) Andrew Browne, Philippines Takes China's Sea Claims to Court A Washington Lawyer Helps Manila Challenge Beijing's Sea Claims. Wall Street Journal, Oct 15, 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB ... 35220056016750.html
(Paul Reichler's "first big victory made headlines in the 1980s when the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that US support for Contra rebels trying to overthrow the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua violated international law")
The report says the proceedings is before "Arbitral Tribunal" (capitalized in original) which is a generic term, not a proper name. See arbitral tribunal (in lower cases) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitral_tribunal
The Philippines case against China--the legalese is "forum"--is Before the Arbitral Tribunal of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), rather than International Court of Justice.
(c) Filipino's claim against China is before the Arbitral Tribunal of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Like ANY international tribunal, a nation needs to submit itself to that tribunal before the tribunal can decide the substance of the case. China has long said it would not submit its claim over South China Sea to any tribunal. So the philippines is just posturing. There is NO need to read any of the reports here.