（2014年12月7日） | Dec 7,2014 |
| 一、引言 | I. Introduction |
| 1. 2013年1月22日，菲律賓共和國外交部照會(huì )中華人民共和國駐菲律賓大使館稱(chēng)，菲律賓依據1982年《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)《公約》）第二百八十七條和附件七的規定，就中菲有關(guān)南海“海洋管轄權”的爭端遞交仲裁通知，提起強制仲裁。2013年2月19日，中國政府退回菲律賓政府的照會(huì )及所附仲裁通知。中國政府多次鄭重聲明，中國不接受、不參與菲律賓提起的仲裁。 | 1. On 22 January 2013, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines presented a note verbale to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Philippines, stating that the Philippines submitted a Notification and Statement of Claim in order to initiate compulsory arbitration proceedings under Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("Convention") with respect to the dispute with China over "maritime jurisdiction" in the South China Sea. On 19 February 2013, the Chinese Government rejected and returned the Philippines' note verbale together with the attached Notification and Statement of Claim. The Chinese Government has subsequently reiterated that it will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration thus initiated by the Philippines. |
| 2. 本立場(chǎng)文件旨在闡明仲裁庭對于菲律賓提起的仲裁沒(méi)有管轄權，不就菲律賓提請仲裁事項所涉及的實(shí)體問(wèn)題發(fā)表意見(jiàn)。本立場(chǎng)文件不意味著(zhù)中國在任何方面認可菲律賓的觀(guān)點(diǎn)和主張，無(wú)論菲律賓有關(guān)觀(guān)點(diǎn)或主張是否在本立場(chǎng)文件中提及。本立場(chǎng)文件也不意味著(zhù)中國接受或參與菲律賓提起的仲裁。 | 2. This Position Paper is intended to demonstrate that the arbitral tribunal established at the request of the Philippines for the present arbitration ("Arbitral Tribunal") does not have jurisdiction over this case. It does not express any position on the substantive issues related to the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines. No acceptance by China is signified in this Position Paper of the views or claims advanced by the Philippines, whether or not they are referred to herein. Nor shall this Position Paper be regarded as China's acceptance of or participation in this arbitration. |
| 3. 本立場(chǎng)文件將說(shuō)明：菲律賓提請仲裁事項的實(shí)質(zhì)是南海部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題，超出《公約》的調整范圍，不涉及《公約》的解釋或適用；以談判方式解決有關(guān)爭端是中菲兩國通過(guò)雙邊文件和《南海各方行為宣言》所達成的協(xié)議，菲律賓單方面將中菲有關(guān)爭端提交強制仲裁違反國際法；即使菲律賓提出的仲裁事項涉及有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的問(wèn)題，也構成中菲兩國海域劃界不可分割的組成部分，而中國已根據《公約》的規定于2006年作出聲明，將涉及海域劃界等事項的爭端排除適用仲裁等強制爭端解決程序。因此，仲裁庭對菲律賓提起的仲裁明顯沒(méi)有管轄權。基于上述，并鑒于各國有權自主選擇爭端解決方式，中國不接受、不參與菲律賓提起的仲裁有充分的國際法依據。 | 3. This Position Paper will elaborate on the following positions: ● The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the Convention and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention; ● China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations. By unilaterally initiating the present arbitration, the Philippines has breached its obligation under international law; ● Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter would constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation between the two countries, thus falling within the scope of the declaration filed by China in 2006 in accordance with the Convention, which excludes, inter alia, disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures; ● Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over the present arbitration. Based on the foregoing positions and by virtue of the freedom of every State to choose the means of dispute settlement, China's rejection of and non-participation in the present arbitration stand on solid ground in international law. |
| 二、菲律賓提請仲裁事項的實(shí)質(zhì)是南海部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題，不涉及《公約》的解釋或適用 | II. The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention |
| 4. 中國對南海諸島及其附近海域擁有無(wú)可爭辯的主權。中國在南海的活動(dòng)已有2000多年的歷史。中國最早發(fā)現、命名和開(kāi)發(fā)經(jīng)營(yíng)南海諸島，最早并持續對南海諸島實(shí)施主權管轄。20世紀30年代至40年代，日本在侵華戰爭期間非法侵占中國南海島礁。第二次世界大戰結束后，中國政府恢復對南海諸島行使主權，派遣軍政官員乘軍艦前往南海島礁舉行接收儀式，樹(shù)碑立標，派兵駐守，進(jìn)行地理測量，于1947年對南海諸島進(jìn)行了重新命名，并于1948年在公開(kāi)發(fā)行的官方地圖上標繪南海斷續線(xiàn)。中華人民共和國1949年10月1日成立以來(lái)，中國政府一直堅持并采取實(shí)際行動(dòng)積極維護南海諸島的主權。1958年《中華人民共和國政府關(guān)于領(lǐng)海的聲明》和1992年《中華人民共和國領(lǐng)海及毗連區法》均明確規定，中華人民共和國的領(lǐng)土包括東沙群島、西沙群島、中沙群島和南沙群島。上述行動(dòng)一再重申了中國在南海的領(lǐng)土主權和相關(guān)的海洋權益。 | 4. China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands (the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands) and the adjacent waters. Chinese activities in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago. China was the first country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources of the South China Sea Islands and the first to continuously exercise sovereign powers over them. From the 1930s to 1940s, Japan illegally seized some parts of the South China Sea Islands during its war of aggression against China. At the end of the Second World War, the Chinese Government resumed exercise of sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. Military personnel and government officials were sent via naval vessels to hold resumption of authority ceremonies. Commemorative stone markers were erected, garrisons stationed, and geographical surveys conducted. In 1947, China renamed the maritime features of the South China Sea Islands and, in 1948, published an official map which displayed a dotted line in the South China Sea. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China on 1 October 1949, the Chinese Government has been consistently and actively maintaining its sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. Both the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea of 1958 and the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1992 expressly provide that the territory of the People's Republic of China includes, among others, the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands. All those acts affirm China's territorial sovereignty and relevant maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. |
| 5. 20世紀70年代之前，菲律賓的法律對其領(lǐng)土范圍有明確限定，沒(méi)有涉及中國的南海島礁。1935年《菲律賓共和國憲法》第一條“國家領(lǐng)土”明確規定：“菲律賓的領(lǐng)土包括根據1898年12月10日美國同西班牙締結的《巴黎條約》割讓給美國的該條約第三條所述范圍內的全部領(lǐng)土，連同1900年11月7日美國同西班牙在華盛頓締結的條約和1930年1月2日美國同英國締結的條約中包括的所有島嶼，以及由菲律賓群島現政府行使管轄權的全部領(lǐng)土。”根據上述規定，菲律賓的領(lǐng)土范圍限于菲律賓群島，不涉及中國的南海島礁。1961年《關(guān)于確定菲律賓領(lǐng)海基線(xiàn)的法案》（菲律賓共和國第3046號法案）重申了菲律賓1935年憲法關(guān)于其領(lǐng)土范圍的規定。 | 5. Prior to the 1970s, Philippine law had set clear limits for the territory of the Philippines, which did not involve any of China's maritime features in the South China Sea. Article 1 of the 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, entitled "The National Territory", provided that "The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction." Under this provision, the territory of the Philippines was confined to the Philippine Islands, having nothing to do with any of China’s maritime features in the South China Sea. Philippine Republic Act No. 3046, entitled "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines", which was promulgated in 1961, reaffirmed the territorial scope of the country as laid down in the 1935 Constitution. |
| 6. 自20世紀70年代起，菲律賓非法侵占中國南沙群島的馬歡島、費信島、中業(yè)島、南鑰島、北子島、西月島、雙黃沙洲和司令礁等島礁；非法將中國南沙群島部分島礁宣布為所謂“卡拉延島群”，對上述島礁及其周邊大范圍海域提出主權主張；并對中國中沙群島的黃巖島提出非法領(lǐng)土要求。菲律賓還在有關(guān)島礁及其附近海域非法從事資源開(kāi)發(fā)等活動(dòng)。 | 6. Since the 1970s, the Philippines has illegally occupied a number of maritime features of China's Nansha Islands, including Mahuan Dao, Feixin Dao, Zhongye Dao, Nanyao Dao, Beizi Dao, Xiyue Dao, Shuanghuang Shazhou and Siling Jiao. Furthermore, it unlawfully designated a so-called "Kalayaan Island Group" to encompass some of the maritime features of China's Nansha Islands and claimed sovereignty over them, together with adjacent but vast maritime areas. Subsequently, it laid unlawful claim to sovereignty over Huangyan Dao of China's Zhongsha Islands. In addition, the Philippines has also illegally explored and exploited the resources on those maritime features and in the adjacent maritime areas. |
| 7. 菲律賓上述行為違反《聯(lián)合國憲章》和國際法，嚴重侵犯中國的領(lǐng)土主權和海洋權益，是非法、無(wú)效的。中國政府對此一貫堅決反對，一直進(jìn)行嚴正交涉和抗議。 | 7. The Philippines' activities mentioned above have violated the Charter of the United Nations and international law, and seriously encroached upon China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. They are null and void in law. The Chinese Government has always been firmly opposed to these actions of the Philippines, and consistently and continuously made solemn representations and protests to the Philippines. |
| 8. 菲律賓將其所提仲裁事項主要歸納為以下三類(lèi)： | 8. The Philippines has summarized its claims for arbitration in three categories: |
| 第一，中國在《公約》規定的權利范圍之外，對“九段線(xiàn)”（即中國的南海斷續線(xiàn)）內的水域、海床和底土所主張的“歷史性權利”與《公約》不符； | First, China's assertion of the "historic rights" to the waters, sea-bed and subsoil within the "nine-dash line" (i.e., China's dotted line in the South China Sea) beyond the limits of its entitlements under the Convention is inconsistent with the Convention. |
| 第二，中國依據南海若干巖礁、低潮高地和水下地物提出的200海里甚至更多權利主張與《公約》不符； | Second, China's claim to entitlements of 200 nautical miles and more, based on certain rocks, low-tide elevations and submerged features in the South China Sea, is inconsistent with the Convention. |
| 第三，中國在南海所主張和行使的權利非法干涉菲律賓基于《公約》所享有和行使的主權權利、管轄權以及航行權利和自由。 | Third, China's assertion and exercise of rights in the South China Sea have unlawfully interfered with the sovereign rights, jurisdiction and rights and freedom of navigation that the Philippines enjoys and exercises under the Convention. |
| 9. 菲律賓提請仲裁的上述事項的實(shí)質(zhì)是南海部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題，超出《公約》的調整范圍，不涉及《公約》的解釋或適用。仲裁庭對菲律賓提出的這些仲裁事項均無(wú)管轄權。 | 9. The subject-matter of the Philippines' claims is in essence one of territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the Convention and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention. Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the claims of the Philippines for arbitration. |
| 10. 關(guān)于菲律賓提出的第一類(lèi)仲裁事項，很顯然，菲律賓主張的核心是中國在南海的海洋權利主張超出《公約》允許的范圍。然而，無(wú)論遵循何種法律邏輯，只有首先確定中國在南海的領(lǐng)土主權，才能判斷中國在南海的海洋權利主張是否超出《公約》允許的范圍。 | 10. With regard to the first category of claims presented by the Philippines for arbitration, it is obvious that the core of those claims is that China's maritime claims in the South China Sea have exceeded the extent allowed under the Convention. However, whatever logic is to be followed, only after the extent of China's territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea is determined can a decision be made on whether China's maritime claims in the South China Sea have exceeded the extent allowed under the Convention. |
| 11. 國家的領(lǐng)土主權是其海洋權利的基礎，這是國際法的一般原則。國際法院指出，“海洋權利源自沿海國對陸地的主權，這可概括為‘陸地統治海洋’原則”（2001年卡塔爾－巴林案判決第185段，亦參見(jiàn)1969年北海大陸架案判決第96段和1978年愛(ài)琴海大陸架案判決第86段），“因此陸地領(lǐng)土狀況必須作為確定沿海國海洋權利的出發(fā)點(diǎn)”（2001年卡塔爾－巴林案判決第185段、2007年尼加拉瓜－洪都拉斯案判決第113段）。國際法院還強調，“國家對大陸架和專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區的權利基于陸地統治海洋的原則”，“陸地是一個(gè)國家對其領(lǐng)土向海延伸部分行使權利的法律淵源”（2012年尼加拉瓜－哥倫比亞案判決第140段）。 | 11. It is a general principle of international law that sovereignty over land territory is the basis for the determination of maritime rights. As the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") stated, "maritime rights derive from the coastal State's sovereignty over the land, a principle which can be summarized as 'the land dominates the sea'" (Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment of 16 March 2001, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 97, para. 185; cf. also North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 51, para. 96; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 19 December 1978, I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 36, para. 86). And, "[i]t is thus the terrestrial territorial situation that must be taken as starting point for the determination of the maritime rights of a coastal State" (Qatar v. Bahrain, I.C.J. Reports 2001, para. 185; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 696, para. 113). Recently the ICJ again emphasized that "[t]he title of a State to the continental shelf and to the exclusive economic zone is based on the principle that the land dominates the sea", and that "the land is the legal source of the power which a State may exercise over territorial extensions to seaward" (Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 51, para. 140). |
| 12. 《公約》序言開(kāi)宗明義地指出，“認識到有需要通過(guò)本公約，在妥為顧及所有國家主權的情形下，為海洋建立一種法律秩序”。顯然，“妥為顧及所有國家主權”是適用《公約》確定締約國海洋權利的前提。 | 12. The preamble of the Convention proclaims "the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans". It is apparent that "due regard for the sovereignty of all States" is the prerequisite for the application of the Convention to determine maritime rights of the States Parties. |
| 13. 就本案而言，如果不確定中國對南海島礁的領(lǐng)土主權，仲裁庭就無(wú)法確定中國依據《公約》在南海可以主張的海洋權利范圍，更無(wú)從判斷中國在南海的海洋權利主張是否超出《公約》允許的范圍。然而，領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題不屬于《公約》調整的范疇。 | 13. As far as the present arbitration is concerned, without first having determined China's territorial sovereignty over the maritime features in the South China Sea, the Arbitral Tribunal will not be in a position to determine the extent to which China may claim maritime rights in the South China Sea pursuant to the Convention, not to mention whether China's claims exceed the extent allowed under the Convention. But the issue of territorial sovereignty falls beyond the purview of the Convention. |
| 14. 菲律賓也十分清楚，根據《公約》第二百八十七條和附件七組成的仲裁庭對于領(lǐng)土爭端沒(méi)有管轄權。菲律賓為了繞過(guò)這一法律障礙，制造提起仲裁的依據，蓄意對自己提請仲裁的實(shí)質(zhì)訴求進(jìn)行精心的包裝。菲律賓一再表示自己不尋求仲裁庭判定哪一方對兩國均主張的島礁擁有主權，只要求仲裁庭對中國在南海所主張的海洋權利是否符合《公約》的規定進(jìn)行判定，使仲裁事項看起來(lái)好像只是關(guān)于《公約》的解釋或適用問(wèn)題，不涉及領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題。然而，菲律賓的包裝無(wú)法掩飾其提請仲裁事項的實(shí)質(zhì)就是南海部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題。 | 14. The Philippines is well aware that a tribunal established under Article 287 and Annex VII of the Convention has no jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty disputes. In an attempt to circumvent this jurisdictional hurdle and fabricate a basis for institution of arbitral proceedings, the Philippines has cunningly packaged its case in the present form. It has repeatedly professed that it does not seek from the Arbitral Tribunal a determination of territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features claimed by both countries, but rather a ruling on the compatibility of China's maritime claims with the provisions of the Convention, so that its claims for arbitration would appear to be concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, not with the sovereignty over those maritime features. This contrived packaging, however, fails to conceal the very essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration, namely, the territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features in the South China Sea. |
| 15. 關(guān)于菲律賓提出的第二類(lèi)仲裁事項，中國認為，南海部分島礁的性質(zhì)和海洋權利問(wèn)題與主權問(wèn)題不可分割。 | 15. With regard to the second category of claims by the Philippines, China believes that the nature and maritime entitlements of certain maritime features in the South China Sea cannot be considered in isolation from the issue of sovereignty. |
| 16. 首先，只有先確定島礁的主權，才能確定基于島礁的海洋權利主張是否符合《公約》。 | 16. In the first place, without determining the sovereignty over a maritime feature, it is impossible to decide whether maritime claims based on that feature are consistent with the Convention. |
| 17. 《公約》規定的有關(guān)專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區和大陸架的海洋權利均賦予對相關(guān)陸地領(lǐng)土享有主權的國家。脫離了國家主權，島礁本身不擁有任何海洋權利。只有對相關(guān)島礁擁有主權的國家，才可以依據《公約》基于相關(guān)島礁提出海洋權利主張。在確定了領(lǐng)土歸屬的前提下，如果其他國家對該國的海洋權利主張是否符合《公約》的規定提出質(zhì)疑或者提出了重疊的海洋權利主張，才會(huì )產(chǎn)生關(guān)于《公約》解釋或適用的爭端。如果島礁的主權歸屬未定，一國基于島礁的海洋權利主張是否符合《公約》規定就不能構成一個(gè)可以提交仲裁的具體而真實(shí)的爭端。 | 17. The holder of the entitlements to an exclusive economic zone ("EEZ") and a continental shelf under the Convention is the coastal State with sovereignty over relevant land territory. When not subject to State sovereignty, a maritime feature per se possesses no maritime rights or entitlements whatsoever. In other words, only the State having sovereignty over a maritime feature is entitled under the Convention to claim any maritime rights based on that feature. Only after a State's sovereignty over a maritime feature has been determined and the State has made maritime claims in respect thereof, could there arise a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, if another State questions the compatibility of those claims with the Convention or makes overlapping claims. If the sovereignty over a maritime feature is undecided, there cannot be a concrete and real dispute for arbitration as to whether or not the maritime claims of a State based on such a feature are compatible with the Convention. |
| 18. 就本案而言，菲律賓不承認中國對相關(guān)島礁擁有主權，意在從根本上否定中國依據相關(guān)島礁主張任何海洋權利的資格。在這種情形下，菲律賓要求仲裁庭先行判斷中國的海洋權利主張是否符合《公約》的規定，是本末倒置。任何國際司法或仲裁機構在審理有關(guān)島礁爭端的案件中，從未在不確定有關(guān)島礁主權歸屬的情況下適用《公約》的規定先行判定這些島礁的海洋權利。 | 18. In the present case, the Philippines denies China's sovereignty over the maritime features in question, with a view to completely disqualifying China from making any maritime claims in respect of those features. In light of this, the Philippines is putting the cart before the horse by requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to determine, even before the matter of sovereignty is dealt with, the issue of compatibility of China's maritime claims with the Convention. In relevant cases, no international judicial or arbitral body has ever applied the Convention to determine the maritime rights derived from a maritime feature before sovereignty over that feature is decided. |
| 19. 其次，在南沙群島中，菲律賓僅僅挑出少數幾個(gè)島礁，要求仲裁庭就其海洋權利作出裁定，實(shí)質(zhì)上是否定中國對南沙群島的領(lǐng)土主權。 | 19. Secondly, in respect of the Nansha Islands, the Philippines selects only a few features and requests the Arbitral Tribunal to decide on their maritime entitlements. This is in essence an attempt at denying China’s sovereignty over the Nansha Islands as a whole. |
| 20. 南沙群島包括眾多島礁。中國歷來(lái)對整個(gè)南沙群島、而非僅對其中少數幾個(gè)島礁享有主權。1935年中國政府水陸地圖審查委員會(huì )出版《中國南海各島嶼圖》，1948年中國政府公布《南海諸島位置圖》，均將現在所稱(chēng)的南沙群島以及東沙群島、西沙群島和中沙群島劃入中國版圖。1958年《中華人民共和國政府關(guān)于領(lǐng)海的聲明》指出，中華人民共和國的領(lǐng)土包括南沙群島。1983年中國地名委員會(huì )公布南海諸島部分標準地名，其中包括南沙群島的島礁。1992年《中華人民共和國領(lǐng)海及毗連區法》也明確規定，中華人民共和國的陸地領(lǐng)土包括南沙群島。 | 20. The Nansha Islands comprises many maritime features. China has always enjoyed sovereignty over the Nansha Islands in its entirety, not just over some features thereof. In 1935, the Commission of the Chinese Government for the Review of Maps of Land and Waters published the Map of Islands in the South China Sea. In 1948, the Chinese Government published the Map of the Location of the South China Sea Islands. Both maps placed under China’s sovereignty what are now known as the Nansha Islands as well as the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands and the Zhongsha Islands. The Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea of 1958 declared that the territory of the People's Republic of China includes, inter alia, the Nansha Islands. In 1983, the National Toponymy Commission of China published standard names for some of the South China Sea Islands, including those of the Nansha Islands. The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1992 again expressly provides that the Nansha Islands constitutes a part of the land territory of the People’s Republic of China. |
| 21. 2011年4月14日，中國常駐聯(lián)合國代表團就有關(guān)南海問(wèn)題致聯(lián)合國秘書(shū)長(cháng)的第CML/8/2011號照會(huì )中亦指出：“按照《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》、1992年《中華人民共和國領(lǐng)海及毗連區法》和1998年《中華人民共和國專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區和大陸架法》的有關(guān)規定，中國的南沙群島擁有領(lǐng)海、專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區和大陸架”。顯然，按照《公約》確定中國南沙群島的海洋權利，必須考慮該群島中的所有島礁。 | 21. In Note Verbale No. CML/8/2011 of 14 April 2011 addressed to Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Permanent Mission of China to the United Nations stated that "under the relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (1992) and the Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the People's Republic of China (1998), China's Nansha Islands is fully entitled to Territorial Sea, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf." It is plain that, in order to determine China's maritime entitlements based on the Nansha Islands under the Convention, all maritime features comprising the Nansha Islands must be taken into account. |
| 22. 菲律賓在仲裁訴求中對南沙群島作出“切割”，只要求對其聲稱(chēng)的“中國占領(lǐng)或控制的”島礁的海洋權利進(jìn)行判定，刻意不提南沙群島中的其他島礁，包括至今仍為菲律賓非法侵占或主張的島礁，旨在否定中國對整個(gè)南沙群島的主權，否認菲律賓非法侵占或主張中國南沙群島部分島礁的事實(shí)，從而篡改中菲南沙群島主權爭端的性質(zhì)和范圍。菲律賓還刻意將中國臺灣駐守的南沙群島最大島嶼——太平島排除在“中國占領(lǐng)或控制”的島礁之外，嚴重違反了一個(gè)中國的原則，侵犯了中國的主權和領(lǐng)土完整。顯而易見(jiàn)，此類(lèi)仲裁事項的實(shí)質(zhì)是中菲有關(guān)領(lǐng)土主權的爭端。 | 22. The Philippines, by requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to determine the maritime entitlements of only what it describes as the maritime features "occupied or controlled by China", has in effect dissected the Nansha Islands. It deliberately makes no mention of the rest of the Nansha Islands, including those illegally seized or claimed by the Philippines. Its real intention is to gainsay China's sovereignty over the whole of the Nansha Islands, deny the fact of its illegal seizure of or claim on several maritime features of the Nansha Islands, and distort the nature and scope of the China-Philippines disputes in the South China Sea. In addition, the Philippines has deliberately excluded from the category of the maritime features "occupied or controlled by China" the largest island in the Nansha Islands, Taiping Dao, which is currently controlled by the Taiwan authorities of China. This is a grave violation of the One-China Principle and an infringement of China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This further shows that the second category of claims brought by the Philippines essentially pertains to the territorial sovereignty dispute between the two countries. |
| 23. 最后，低潮高地能否被據為領(lǐng)土本身明顯是一個(gè)領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題。 | 23. Finally, whether or not low-tide elevations can be appropriated is plainly a question of territorial sovereignty. |
| 24. 菲律賓認為其仲裁訴求所涉及的幾個(gè)島礁是低潮高地，不能被據為領(lǐng)土。對于上述島礁是否屬于低潮高地，本立場(chǎng)文件不作評論。應該指出的是，無(wú)論這些島礁具有何種性質(zhì)，菲律賓自己從上世紀70年代以來(lái)卻一直對這些島礁非法主張領(lǐng)土主權。菲律賓1978年6月11日頒布第1596號總統令，對包括上述島礁在內的南沙群島部分島礁及其周邊大范圍的海域、海床、底土、大陸邊及其上空主張主權，并將該區域設立為巴拉望省的一個(gè)市，命名為“卡拉延”。雖然2009年3月10日菲律賓通過(guò)了第9522號共和國法案，規定“卡拉延島群”（即中國南沙群島部分島礁）和“斯卡伯勒礁”（即中國黃巖島）的海洋區域將與《公約》第一百二十一條（即“島嶼制度”）保持一致，但該規定僅是對上述區域內海洋地物的海洋權利主張進(jìn)行了調整，并沒(méi)有涉及菲律賓對這些海洋地物，包括低潮高地的領(lǐng)土主張。菲律賓常駐聯(lián)合國代表團在2011年4月5日致聯(lián)合國秘書(shū)長(cháng)的第000228號照會(huì )中還明確表示：“卡拉延島群構成菲律賓不可分割的一部分。菲律賓共和國對卡拉延島群的地理構造擁有主權和管轄權”。菲律賓至今仍堅持其對南沙群島中40個(gè)島礁的主張，其中就包括菲律賓所稱(chēng)的低潮高地。可見(jiàn)，菲律賓提出低潮高地不可被據為領(lǐng)土，不過(guò)是想否定中國對這些島礁的主權，從而可以將這些島礁置于菲律賓的主權之下。 | 24. The Philippines asserts that some of the maritime features, about which it has submitted claims for arbitration, are low-tide elevations, thus being incapable of appropriation as territory. As to whether those features are indeed low-tide elevations, this Position Paper will not comment. It should, however, be pointed out that, whatever nature those features possess, the Philippines itself has persisted in claiming sovereignty over them since the 1970s. By Presidential Decree No. 1596, promulgated on 11 June 1978, the Philippines made known its unlawful claim to sovereignty over some maritime features in the Nansha Islands including the aforementioned features, together with the adjacent but vast areas of waters, sea-bed, subsoil, continental margin and superjacent airspace, and constituted the vast area as a new municipality of the province of Palawan, entitled "Kalayaan". Notwithstanding that Philippine Republic Act No. 9522 of 10 March 2009 stipulates that the maritime zones for the so-called "Kalayaan Island Group" (i.e., some maritime features of China's Nansha Islands) and "Scarborough Shoal" (i.e., China's Huangyan Dao) be determined in a way consistent with Article 121 of the Convention (i.e., the regime of islands), this provision was designed to adjust the Philippines' maritime claims based on those features within the aforementioned area. The Act did not vary the territorial claim of the Philippines to the relevant maritime features, including those it alleged in this arbitration as low-tide elevations. In Note Verbale No. 000228, addressed to Secretary-General of the United Nations on 5 April 2011, the Philippine Permanent Mission to the United Nations stated that, "the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) constitutes an integral part of the Philippines. The Republic of the Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction over the geological features in the KIG." The Philippines has maintained, to date, its claim to sovereignty over 40 maritime features in the Nansha Islands, among which are the very features it now labels as low-tide elevations. It is thus obvious that the only motive behind the Philippines' assertion that low-tide elevations cannot be appropriated is to deny China's sovereignty over these features so as to place them under Philippine sovereignty. |
| 25. 低潮高地能否被據為領(lǐng)土本身是一個(gè)領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題，不是有關(guān)《公約》的解釋或適用問(wèn)題。《公約》沒(méi)有關(guān)于低潮高地能否被據為領(lǐng)土的規定。國際法院在2001年卡塔爾－巴林案的判決中明確表示：“條約國際法對于低潮高地能否被視為領(lǐng)土的問(wèn)題保持沉默。法院也不知道存在統一和廣泛的國家實(shí)踐，從而可能產(chǎn)生一項明確允許或排除將低潮高地據為領(lǐng)土的習慣法規則”（判決第205段）。這里的條約國際法當然包括1994年即已生效的《公約》。國際法院在2012年尼加拉瓜－哥倫比亞案的判決中雖然表示“低潮高地不能被據為領(lǐng)土”（判決第26段），但未指出此論斷的法律依據，未涉及低潮高地作為群島組成部分時(shí)的法律地位，也未涉及在歷史上形成的對特定的海洋區域內低潮高地的主權或主權主張。無(wú)論如何，國際法院在該案中作出上述判定時(shí)沒(méi)有適用《公約》。低潮高地能否被據為領(lǐng)土不是有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的問(wèn)題。 | 25. Whether low-tide elevations can be appropriated as territory is in itself a question of territorial sovereignty, not a matter concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. The Convention is silent on this issue of appropriation. In its 2001 Judgment in Qatar v. Bahrain, the ICJ explicitly stated that, "International treaty law is silent on the question whether low-tide elevations can be considered to be 'territory'. Nor is the Court aware of a uniform and widespread State practice which might have given rise to a customary rule which unequivocally permits or excludes appropriation of low-tide elevations" (Qatar v. Bahrain, I.C.J. Reports 2001, pp. 101-102, para. 205). "International treaty law" plainly includes the Convention, which entered into force in 1994. In its 2012 Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia, while the ICJ stated that "low-tide elevations cannot be appropriated" (Nicaragua v. Colombia, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 641, para. 26), it did not point to any legal basis for this conclusory statement. Nor did it touch upon the legal status of low-tide elevations as components of an archipelago, or sovereignty or claims of sovereignty that may have long existed over such features in a particular maritime area. On all accounts, the ICJ did not apply the Convention in that case. Whether or not low-tide elevations can be appropriated is not a question concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. |
| 26. 關(guān)于菲律賓提出的第三類(lèi)仲裁事項，中國認為，中國在南沙群島和黃巖島附近海域采取行動(dòng)的合法性是基于中國對有關(guān)島礁享有的主權以及基于島礁主權所享有的海洋權利。 | 26. As to the third category of the Philippines' claims, China maintains that the legality of China's actions in the waters of the Nansha Islands and Huangyan Dao rests on both its sovereignty over relevant maritime features and the maritime rights derived therefrom. |
| 27. 菲律賓聲稱(chēng)，中國在南海所主張和行使的權利非法干涉菲律賓基于《公約》所享有和行使的主權權利、管轄權以及航行權利和自由。菲律賓這一主張的前提是，菲律賓的海域管轄范圍是明確而無(wú)爭議的，中國的活動(dòng)進(jìn)入了菲律賓的管轄海域。然而事實(shí)并非如此。中菲尚未進(jìn)行海域劃界。對菲律賓這一主張進(jìn)行裁定之前，首先要確定相關(guān)島礁的領(lǐng)土主權，并完成相關(guān)海域劃界。 | 27. The Philippines alleges that China's claim to and exercise of maritime rights in the South China Sea have unlawfully interfered with the sovereign rights, jurisdiction and rights and freedom of navigation, which the Philippines is entitled to enjoy and exercise under the Convention. The premise for this claim must be that the spatial extent of the Philippines' maritime jurisdiction is defined and undisputed, and that China's actions have encroached upon such defined areas. The fact is, however, to the contrary. China and the Philippines have not delimited the maritime space between them. Until and unless the sovereignty over the relevant maritime features is ascertained and maritime delimitation completed, this category of claims of the Philippines cannot be decided upon. |
| 28. 需要特別指出的是，中國一貫尊重各國依據國際法在南海享有的航行自由和飛越自由。 | 28. It should be particularly emphasized that China always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all States in the South China Sea in accordance with international law. |
| 29. 綜上所述，菲律賓要求在不確定相關(guān)島礁主權歸屬的情況下，先適用《公約》的規定確定中國在南海的海洋權利，并提出一系列仲裁請求，違背了解決國際海洋爭端所依據的一般國際法原則和國際司法實(shí)踐。仲裁庭對菲律賓提出的任何仲裁請求作出判定，都將不可避免地直接或間接對本案涉及的相關(guān)島礁以及其他南海島礁的主權歸屬進(jìn)行判定，都將不可避免地產(chǎn)生實(shí)際上海域劃界的效果。因此，中國認為，仲裁庭對本案明顯沒(méi)有管轄權。 | 29. To sum up, by requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to apply the Convention to determine the extent of China's maritime rights in the South China Sea, without first having ascertained sovereignty over the relevant maritime features, and by formulating a series of claims for arbitration to that effect, the Philippines contravenes the general principles of international law and international jurisprudence on the settlement of international maritime disputes. To decide upon any of the Philippines' claims, the Arbitral Tribunal would inevitably have to determine, directly or indirectly, the sovereignty over both the maritime features in question and other maritime features in the South China Sea. Besides, such a decision would unavoidably produce, in practical terms, the effect of a maritime delimitation, which will be further discussed below in Part IV of this Position Paper. Therefore, China maintains that the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over the present case. |
| 三、通過(guò)談判方式解決在南海的爭端是中菲兩國之間的協(xié)議，菲律賓無(wú)權單方面提起強制仲裁 | III. There exists an agreement between China and the Philippines to settle their disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations, and the Philippines is debarred from unilaterally initiating compulsory arbitration |
| 30. 中國在涉及領(lǐng)土主權和海洋權利的問(wèn)題上，一貫堅持由直接有關(guān)國家通過(guò)談判的方式和平解決爭端。中菲之間就通過(guò)友好磋商和談判解決兩國在南海的爭端也早有共識。 | 30. With regard to disputes concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, China has always maintained that they should be peacefully resolved through negotiations between the countries directly concerned. In the present case, there has been a long-standing agreement between China and the Philippines on resolving their disputes in the South China Sea through friendly consultations and negotiations. |
| 31. 1995年8月10日《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國關(guān)于南海問(wèn)題和其他領(lǐng)域合作的磋商聯(lián)合聲明》指出，雙方“同意遵守”下列原則：“有關(guān)爭議應通過(guò)平等和相互尊重基礎上的磋商和平友好地加以解決”（第一點(diǎn)）；“雙方承諾循序漸進(jìn)地進(jìn)行合作，最終談判解決雙方爭議”（第三點(diǎn)）；“爭議應由直接有關(guān)國家解決，不影響南海的航行自由”（第八點(diǎn)）。 | 31. Under the Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines concerning Consultations on the South China Sea and on Other Areas of Cooperation, issued on 10 August 1995, both sides “agreed to abide by” the principles that "[d]isputes shall be settled in a peaceful and friendly manner through consultations on the basis of equality and mutual respect" (Point 1); that "a gradual and progressive process of cooperation shall be adopted with a view to eventually negotiating a settlement of the bilateral disputes" (Point 3); and that "[d]isputes shall be settled by the countries directly concerned without prejudice to the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea" (Point 8). |
| 32. 1999年3月23日《中菲建立信任措施工作小組會(huì )議聯(lián)合公報》指出，雙方承諾“遵守繼續通過(guò)友好磋商尋求解決分歧方法的諒解”（聯(lián)合公報第5段）。“雙方認為，中菲之間的磋商渠道是暢通的。他們同意通過(guò)協(xié)商和平解決爭議”（聯(lián)合公報第12段）。 | 32. The Joint Statement of the China-Philippines Experts Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures, issued on 23 March 1999, states that the two sides reiterated their commitment to "[t]he understanding to continue to work for a settlement of their difference through friendly consultations" (para. 5), and that "the two sides believe that the channels of consultations between China and the Philippines are unobstructed. They have agreed that the dispute should be peacefully settled through consultation" (para. 12). |
| 33. 2000年5月16日《中華人民共和國政府和菲律賓共和國政府關(guān)于21世紀雙邊合作框架的聯(lián)合聲明》第九點(diǎn)規定：“雙方致力于維護南海的和平與穩定，同意根據公認的國際法原則，包括1982年《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》，通過(guò)雙邊友好協(xié)商和談判促進(jìn)爭議的和平解決。雙方重申遵守1995年中菲兩國關(guān)于南海問(wèn)題的聯(lián)合聲明”。 | 33. The Joint Statement between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines on the Framework of Bilateral Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century, issued on 16 May 2000, states in Point 9 that, "The two sides commit themselves to the maintenance of peace and stability in the South China Sea. They agree to promote a peaceful settlement of disputes through bilateral friendly consultations and negotiations in accordance with universally-recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. They reaffirm their adherence to the 1995 joint statement between the two countries on the South China Sea ...". |
| 34. 2001年4月4日《中國－菲律賓第三次建立信任措施專(zhuān)家組會(huì )議聯(lián)合新聞聲明》第四點(diǎn)指出：“雙方認識到兩國就探討南海合作方式所建立的雙邊磋商機制是富有成效的，雙方所達成的一系列諒解與共識對維護中菲關(guān)系的健康發(fā)展和南海地區的和平與穩定發(fā)揮了建設性作用。” | 34. The Joint Press Statement of the Third China-Philippines Experts' Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures, dated 4 April 2001, states in Point 4 that, "The two sides noted that the bilateral consultation mechanism to explore ways of cooperation in the South China Sea has been effective. The series of understanding and consensus reached by the two sides have played a constructive role in the maintenance of the sound development of China-Philippines relations and peace and stability of the South China Sea area." |
| 35. 中菲之間關(guān)于以談判方式解決有關(guān)爭端的共識在多邊合作文件中也得到確認。2002年11月4日，時(shí)任中國外交部副部長(cháng)王毅作為中國政府代表與包括菲律賓在內的東盟各國政府代表共同簽署了《南海各方行為宣言》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)《宣言》）。《宣言》第四條明確規定，“有關(guān)各方承諾根據公認的國際法原則，包括1982年《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》，由直接有關(guān)的主權國家通過(guò)友好磋商和談判，以和平方式解決它們的領(lǐng)土和管轄權爭議”。 | 35. The mutual understanding between China and the Philippines to settle relevant disputes through negotiations has been reaffirmed in a multilateral instrument. On 4 November 2002, Mr. Wang Yi, the then Vice Foreign Minister and representative of the Chinese Government, together with the representatives of the governments of the member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ("ASEAN"), including the Philippines, jointly signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea ("DOC"). Paragraph 4 of the DOC explicitly states that, "The Parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means?... through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea." |
| 36. 《宣言》簽署后，中菲兩國領(lǐng)導人又一再確認通過(guò)對話(huà)解決爭端。2004年9月3日，時(shí)任菲律賓總統格羅麗亞·馬卡帕加爾·阿羅約對中國進(jìn)行國事訪(fǎng)問(wèn)，雙方發(fā)表了《中華人民共和國政府和菲律賓共和國政府聯(lián)合新聞公報》，“雙方一致認為盡快積極落實(shí)中國與東盟于2002年簽署的《南海各方行為宣言》有助于將南海變?yōu)楹献髦！保?lián)合新聞公報第16段）。 | 36. Following the signing of the DOC, the leaders of China and the Philippines have repeatedly reiterated their commitment to the settlement of disputes by way of dialogue. Thus, a Joint Press Statement between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines was issued on 3 September 2004 during the State visit to China by the then Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, which states in paragraph 16 that, "They agreed that the early and vigorous implementation of the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea will pave the way for the transformation of the South China Sea into an area of cooperation." |
| 37. 2011年8月30日至9月3日，菲律賓總統貝尼尼奧·阿基諾對中國進(jìn)行國事訪(fǎng)問(wèn)。9月1日，雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國聯(lián)合聲明》，“重申將通過(guò)和平對話(huà)處理爭議”，并“重申尊重和遵守中國與東盟國家于2002年簽署的《南海各方行為宣言》”（聯(lián)合聲明第15段）。《聯(lián)合聲明》確認了《宣言》第四條關(guān)于談判解決有關(guān)爭端的規定。 | 37. Between 30 August and 3 September 2011, President Benigno S. Aquino III of the Philippines paid a State visit to China. On 1 September 2011, the two sides issued a Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines, which, in paragraph 15, "reiterated their commitment to addressing the disputes through peaceful dialogue" and "reaffirmed their commitments to respect and abide by the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed by China and the ASEAN member countries in 2002". The Joint Statement, consequently, reaffirmed Paragraph 4 of the DOC relating to settlement of relevant disputes by negotiations. |
| 38. 中菲雙邊文件在提及以談判方式解決有關(guān)爭端時(shí)反復使用了“同意”一詞，確立兩國之間相關(guān)義務(wù)的意圖非常明顯。《宣言》第四條使用了“承諾”一詞，這也是協(xié)議中通常用以確定當事方義務(wù)的詞語(yǔ)。國際法院在2007年波斯尼亞和黑塞哥維那訴塞爾維亞和黑山關(guān)于適用《防止和懲治滅種罪公約》案的判決中對“承諾”一詞有以下明確的解釋?zhuān)骸啊兄Z’這個(gè)詞的一般含義是給予一個(gè)正式的諾言，以約束自己或使自己受到約束，是給予一個(gè)保證或諾言來(lái)表示同意、接受某一義務(wù)。它在規定締約國義務(wù)的條約中經(jīng)常出現……它并非只被用來(lái)提倡或表示某種目標”（判決第162段）。此外，根據國際法，一項文件無(wú)論采用何種名稱(chēng)和形式，只要其為當事方創(chuàng )設了權利和義務(wù)，這種權利和義務(wù)就具有拘束力（參見(jiàn)1994年卡塔爾－巴林案判決第22段至第26段；2002年喀麥隆－尼日利亞案判決第258段、第262段和第263段）。 | 38. The bilateral instruments between China and the Philippines repeatedly employ the term "agree" when referring to settlement of their disputes through negotiations. This evinces a clear intention to establish an obligation between the two countries in this regard. Paragraph 4 of the DOC employs the term "undertake", which is also frequently used in international agreements to commit the parties to their obligations. As the ICJ observed in its Judgment in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, "[t]he ordinary meaning of the word 'undertake' is to give a formal promise, to bind or engage oneself, to give a pledge or promise, to agree, to accept an obligation. It is a word regularly used in treaties setting out the obligations of the Contracting Parties .... It is not merely hortatory or purposive" (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 111, para. 162). Furthermore, under international law, regardless of the designation or form the above-mentioned instruments employ, as long as they intend to create rights and obligations for the parties, these rights and obligations are binding between the parties (Cf. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 1 July 1994, I.C.J. Reports 1994, pp. 120-121, paras. 22-26; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equitorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, I.C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 427, 429, paras. 258, 262-263). |
| 39. 上述中菲兩國各項雙邊文件以及《宣言》的相關(guān)規定一脈相承，構成中菲兩國之間的協(xié)議。兩國據此承擔了通過(guò)談判方式解決有關(guān)爭端的義務(wù)。 | 39. The relevant provisions in the aforementioned bilateral instruments and the DOC are mutually reinforcing and form an agreement between China and the Philippines. On that basis, they have undertaken a mutual obligation to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations. |
| 40. 中菲雙邊文件和《宣言》第四條反復重申以談判方式和平解決南海爭端，并且規定必須在直接有關(guān)的主權國家之間進(jìn)行，顯然排除了第三方爭端解決程序。前述1995年8月10日《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國關(guān)于南海問(wèn)題和其他領(lǐng)域合作的磋商聯(lián)合聲明》第三點(diǎn)指出“雙方承諾循序漸進(jìn)地進(jìn)行合作，最終談判解決雙方爭議”，這里的“最終”一詞顯然在強調“談判”是雙方唯一的爭端解決方式，雙方?jīng)]有意向選擇第三方爭端解決程序。中菲雙邊文件和《宣言》第四條雖然沒(méi)有明文使用“排除其他程序”的表述，但正如2000年南方藍鰭金槍魚(yú)仲裁案裁決所稱(chēng)：“缺少一項明示排除任何程序[的規定]不是決定性的”（裁決第57段）。如前所述，中國在涉及領(lǐng)土主權和海洋權利的問(wèn)題上，一貫堅持由直接有關(guān)國家通過(guò)談判的方式和平解決爭端。在上述中菲雙邊文件和《宣言》的制訂過(guò)程中，中國的這一立場(chǎng)始終是明確的，菲律賓及其他有關(guān)各方對此也十分清楚。 | 40. By repeatedly reaffirming negotiations as the means for settling relevant disputes, and by emphasizing that negotiations be conducted by sovereign States directly concerned, the above-quoted provisions of the bilateral instruments and Paragraph 4 of the DOC obviously have produced the effect of excluding any means of third-party settlement. In particular, the above-mentioned Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines concerning Consultations on the South China Sea and on Other Areas of Cooperation of 10 August 1995 stipulates in Point 3 that "a gradual and progressive process of cooperation shall be adopted with a view to eventually negotiating a settlement of the bilateral disputes". The term "eventually" in this context clearly serves to emphasize that "negotiations" is the only means the parties have chosen for dispute settlement, to the exclusion of any other means including third-party settlement procedures. Although the above-mentioned bilateral instruments and Paragraph 4 of the DOC do not use such an express phrase as "exclude other procedures of dispute settlement", as the arbitral tribunal in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case stated in its Award, "the absence of an express exclusion of any procedure ... is not decisive" (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2000, p.97, para. 57). As discussed earlier, in respect of disputes relating to territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, China always insists on peaceful settlement of disputes by means of negotiations between the countries directly concerned. China's position on negotiations was made clear and well known to the Philippines and other relevant parties during the drafting and adoption of the aforementioned bilateral instruments and the DOC. |
| 41. 因此，對于中菲在南海的爭端的所有問(wèn)題，包括菲律賓提出的仲裁事項，雙方同意的爭端解決方式只是談判，排除了其他任何方式。 | 41. Consequently, with regard to all the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, including the Philippines' claims in this arbitration, the only means of settlement as agreed by the two sides is negotiations, to the exclusion of any other means. |
| 42. 即使菲律賓提出的仲裁事項涉及《公約》的解釋或適用問(wèn)題，在中菲之間已就通過(guò)談判方式解決有關(guān)爭端達成協(xié)議的情況下，《公約》第十五部分第二節的強制爭端解決程序也不適用。 | 42. Even supposing that the Philippines' claims were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, the compulsory procedures laid down in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention still could not be applied, given the agreement between China and the Philippines on settling their relevant disputes through negotiations. |
| 43. 《公約》第二百八十條規定：“本公約的任何規定均不損害任何締約國于任何時(shí)候協(xié)議用自行選擇的任何和平方法解決它們之間有關(guān)本公約的解釋或適用的爭端的權利。”《公約》第二百八十一條第一款規定：“作為有關(guān)本公約的解釋或適用的爭端各方的締約各國，如已協(xié)議用自行選擇的和平方法來(lái)謀求解決爭端，則只有在訴諸這種方法而仍未得到解決以及爭端各方間的協(xié)議并不排除任何其他程序的情形下，才適用本部分所規定的程序。” | 43. Article 280 of the Convention states that, "Nothing in this Part impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice." Article 281 (1) provides that, "If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful means of their own choice, the procedures provided for in this Part apply only where no settlement has been reached by recourse to such means and the agreement between the parties does not exclude any further procedure." |
| 44. 如前分析，中菲兩國已通過(guò)雙邊、多邊協(xié)議選擇通過(guò)談判方式解決有關(guān)爭端，沒(méi)有為談判設定任何期限，而且排除適用任何其他程序。在此情形下，根據《公約》上述條款的規定，有關(guān)爭端顯然應當通過(guò)談判方式來(lái)解決，而不得訴諸仲裁等強制爭端解決程序。 | 44. As analysed above, through bilateral and multilateral instruments, China and the Philippines have agreed to settle their relevant disputes by negotiations, without setting any time limit for the negotiations, and have excluded any other means of settlement. In these circumstances, it is evident that, under the above-quoted provisions of the Convention, the relevant disputes between the two States shall be resolved through negotiations and there shall be no recourse to arbitration or other compulsory procedures. |
| 45. 菲律賓聲稱(chēng)，1995年之后中菲兩國就菲律賓仲裁請求中提及的事項多次交換意見(jiàn)，但未能解決爭端；菲律賓有正當理由認為繼續談判已無(wú)意義，因而有權提起仲裁。事實(shí)上，迄今為止，中菲兩國從未就菲律賓所提仲裁事項進(jìn)行過(guò)談判。 | 45. The Philippines claims that, the two countries have been involved in exchanges of views since 1995 with regard to the subject-matter of the Philippines' claims for arbitration, without however reaching settlement, and that in its view, the Philippines is justified in believing that it is meaningless to continue the negotiations, and therefore the Philippines has the right to initiate arbitration. But the truth is that the two countries have never engaged in negotiations with regard to the subject-matter of the arbitration. |
| 46. 根據國際法，一般性的、不以爭端解決為目的的交換意見(jiàn)不構成談判。2011年國際法院在格魯吉亞－俄羅斯聯(lián)邦案的判決中表示，“談判不僅是雙方法律意見(jiàn)或利益的直接對抗，或一系列的指責和反駁，或對立主張的交換”，“談判……至少要求爭端一方有與對方討論以期解決爭端的真誠的努力”（判決第157段），且“談判的實(shí)質(zhì)問(wèn)題必須與爭端的實(shí)質(zhì)問(wèn)題相關(guān)，后者還必須與相關(guān)條約下的義務(wù)相關(guān)”（判決第161段）。 | 46. Under international law, general exchanges of views, without having the purpose of settling a given dispute, do not constitute negotiations. In Georgia v. Russian Federation, the ICJ held that, "Negotiations entail more than the plain opposition of legal views or interests between two parties, or the existence of a series of accusations and rebuttals, or even the exchange of claims and directly opposed counter-claims. As such, the concept of 'negotiations' … requires - at the very least - a genuine attempt by one of the disputing parties to engage in discussions with the other disputing party, with a view to resolving the dispute" (Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 1 April 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 132, para. 157). In addition, the ICJ considered that "the subject-matter of the negotiations must relate to the subject-matter of the dispute which, in turn, must concern the substantive obligations contained in the treaty in question" (Ibid., p. 133, para. 161). |
| 47. 南海問(wèn)題涉及多個(gè)國家，其解決絕非易事。有關(guān)各方至今仍在為最終談判解決南海問(wèn)題創(chuàng )造條件。在此背景下，中菲之間就有關(guān)爭端交換意見(jiàn)，主要是應對在爭議地區出現的突發(fā)事件，圍繞防止沖突、減少摩擦、穩定局勢、促進(jìn)合作的措施而進(jìn)行的。即使按照菲律賓列舉的證據，這些交換意見(jiàn)也遠未構成談判。 | 47. The South China Sea issue involves a number of countries, and it is no easy task to solve it. Up to the present, the countries concerned are still working together to create conditions conducive to its final settlement by negotiations. Against this background, the exchanges of views between China and the Philippines in relation to their disputes have so far pertained to responding to incidents at sea in the disputed areas and promoting measures to prevent conflicts, reduce frictions, maintain stability in the region, and promote measures of cooperation. They are far from constituting negotiations even on the evidence presented by the Philippines. |
| 48. 近年來(lái)，中國多次向菲律賓提出建立“中菲海上問(wèn)題定期磋商機制”的建議，但一直未獲菲律賓答復。2011年9月1日，雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國聯(lián)合聲明》，雙方再次承諾通過(guò)談判解決南海爭端。然而未待談判正式開(kāi)始，菲律賓卻于2012年4月10日動(dòng)用軍艦進(jìn)入中國黃巖島海域抓扣中國的漁船和漁民。對于菲律賓的挑釁性行動(dòng)，中國被迫采取了維護主權的反制措施。此后，中國再次向菲律賓建議重啟中菲建立信任措施磋商機制，仍未得到菲律賓回應。2012年4月26日，菲律賓外交部照會(huì )中國駐菲律賓大使館，提出要將黃巖島問(wèn)題提交第三方司法機構，沒(méi)有表達任何談判的意愿。2013年1月22日，菲律賓即單方面提起了強制仲裁程序。 | 48. In recent years, China has on a number of occasions proposed to the Philippines the establishment of a China-Philippines regular consultation mechanism on maritime issues. To date, there has never been any response from the Philippines. On 1 September 2011, the two countries issued a Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Philippines, reiterating the commitment to settling their disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations. But, before negotiations could formally begin, the Philippines sent on 10 April 2012 a naval vessel to the waters of China's Huangyan Dao to seize Chinese fishing boats together with the Chinese fishermen on board. In the face of such provocations, China was forced to take response measures to safeguard its sovereignty. Thereafter, China once again proposed to the Philippine Government that the two sides restart the China-Philippines consultation mechanism for confidence-building measures. That proposal again fell on deaf ears. On 26 April 2012, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs delivered a note verbale to the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines, proposing that the issue of Huangyan Dao be referred to a third-party adjudication body for resolution and indicating no willingness to negotiate. On 22 January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated the present compulsory arbitration proceedings. |
| 49. 中菲此前圍繞南海問(wèn)題所進(jìn)行的交換意見(jiàn)，也并非針對菲律賓所提的仲裁事項。例如，菲律賓援引1997年5月22日中國外交部關(guān)于黃巖島問(wèn)題的聲明，以證明中菲之間就黃巖島的海洋權利問(wèn)題存在爭端并已交換意見(jiàn)；但菲律賓故意沒(méi)有援引的是，中國外交部在聲明中明確指出：“黃巖島的問(wèn)題是領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題，專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區的開(kāi)發(fā)和利用是海洋管轄權問(wèn)題，兩者的性質(zhì)和所適用的法律規則都截然不同，不能混為一談。菲方試圖以海洋管轄權侵犯中國領(lǐng)土主權的企圖是完全站不住腳的。”這一聲明的含義是，菲律賓不得借口黃巖島位于其主張的專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區范圍內，否定中國對該島的領(lǐng)土主權。可見(jiàn)，上述交換意見(jiàn)的核心是主權問(wèn)題。 | 49. The previous exchanges of views regarding the South China Sea issue between the two countries did not concern the subject-matter of the Philippines' claims for arbitration. For instance, the Philippines cited a statement released by the Chinese Foreign Ministry on 22 May 1997 regarding Huangyan Dao, in order to show that there exists between the two countries a dispute concerning the maritime rights of Huangyan Dao and that the two countries had exchanged views with regard to that dispute. However, the Philippines deliberately omitted a passage from that statement, which reads: "The issue of Huangyandao is an issue of territorial sovereignty; the development and exploitation of the EEZ is a question of maritime jurisdiction, the nature of the two issues are different and hence the laws and regulations governing them are also different, and they should not be discussed together. The attempt of the Philippine side to use maritime jurisdictional rights to violate the territorial sovereignty of China is untenable." This passage makes clear the thrust of the statement: the Philippines shall not negate China's sovereignty over Huangyan Dao on the pretext that it is situated within the EEZ of the Philippines. This shows that the exchange of views in question was centred on the issue of sovereignty. |
| 50. 還需注意的是，菲律賓試圖說(shuō)明中菲兩國自1995年起交換意見(jiàn)的事項是關(guān)于《公約》解釋或適用的問(wèn)題，但這是不符合事實(shí)的。歷史上，菲律賓于1961年6月17日頒布第3046號共和國法案，將位于菲律賓群島最外緣各島以外、由1898年美西《巴黎條約》等國際條約所確定的菲律賓邊界線(xiàn)以?xún)鹊膹V闊水域納入菲律賓領(lǐng)海，領(lǐng)海的寬度大大超過(guò)12海里。菲律賓于1978年6月11日頒布第1596號總統令，對所謂“卡拉延島群”（即中國南沙群島部分島礁）及其周邊大范圍的海域、海床、底土、大陸邊及其上空主張主權。菲律賓自己也承認，直到2009年3月10日通過(guò)的第9522號共和國法令，菲律賓才開(kāi)始使其國內法與《公約》相協(xié)調，以期完全放棄與《公約》不符的海洋權利主張。該法令首次規定，“卡拉延島群”（即中國南沙群島部分島礁）和“斯卡伯勒礁”（即中國黃巖島）的海洋區域將與《公約》第一百二十一條（即“島嶼制度”）保持一致。既然菲律賓自己都認為，其直到2009年才開(kāi)始放棄以往與《公約》不符的海洋權利主張，那么何談中菲兩國自1995年起已就與本仲裁案有關(guān)的《公約》解釋或適用的問(wèn)題交換意見(jiàn)。 | 50. It should be further noted that, the Philippines has attempted to show that the subject-matter of the exchanges of views between China and the Philippines since 1995 concerns the interpretation or application of the Convention, but nothing could be farther from the truth than this. Historically, the Philippines, by Republic Act No. 3046 of 17 June 1961, proclaimed as part of its territorial sea the vast areas of sea between the most outlying islands in the Philippine archipelago and the treaty limits established in the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain in 1898, among other international treaties, thus claiming a belt of territorial sea far beyond 12 nautical miles. By Presidential Decree No. 1596 promulgated on 11 June 1978, the Philippines made its claim for sovereignty over the so-called "Kalayaan Island Group" (i.e., some maritime features of China's Nansha Islands), together with the adjacent but vast areas of waters, sea-bed, subsoil, continental margin, and superjacent airspace. As conceded by the Philippines itself, only with the adoption on 10 March 2009 of Republic Act No. 9522 did it begin the ongoing process to harmonize its domestic law with the Convention, with a view to eventually relinquishing all its maritime claims incompatible with the Convention. That Act provided, for the first time, that the maritime areas of the so-called "Kalayaan Island Group" (i.e., some maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands) and "Scarborough Shoal" (i.e., China's Huangyan Dao) "shall be determined" so as to be "consistent with Article 121" of the Convention (i.e., the regime of islands). Therefore, given that the Philippines itself considers that only in 2009 did it start to abandon its former maritime claims in conflict with the Convention, how could it have started in 1995 to exchange views with China on matters concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention that are related to the present arbitration? |
| 51. 菲律賓聲稱(chēng)，由于中國自己已嚴重違反了《宣言》的規定，所以無(wú)權援引《宣言》第四條來(lái)排除仲裁庭對本案的管轄權。上述說(shuō)法嚴重違背事實(shí)。菲律賓指責中國采取包括威脅使用武力的行動(dòng)驅離在黃巖島海域長(cháng)期、持續作業(yè)的菲律賓漁民，以及中國阻止菲律賓對在仁愛(ài)礁坐灘的軍艦和人員進(jìn)行補給，試圖說(shuō)明中國違反了《宣言》的規定。但事實(shí)是，在黃巖島問(wèn)題上，菲律賓首先采取威脅使用武力的手段，于2012年4月10日非法派出軍艦在黃巖島海域強行扣留、逮捕中國漁船和漁民。在仁愛(ài)礁問(wèn)題上，菲律賓一艘軍艦于1999年5月以所謂“技術(shù)故障”為借口，在中國南沙群島的仁愛(ài)礁非法坐灘。中國多次向菲律賓提出交涉，要求菲律賓立即拖走該艦。菲律賓也曾多次向中國明確承諾拖走因“技術(shù)故障”坐灘的軍艦。然而15年來(lái)，菲律賓不僅違背此前承諾，拒不拖走有關(guān)軍艦，反而試圖在該礁上修建固定設施。2014年3月14日，菲律賓還公開(kāi)宣稱(chēng)其在1999年是將該軍艦作為永久設施部署在仁愛(ài)礁。針對菲律賓的上述挑釁行為，中國被迫采取了必要的措施。因此，菲律賓對中國的指責是毫無(wú)道理的。 | 51. The Philippines claims that China cannot invoke Paragraph 4 of the DOC to exclude the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, given its own grave breach of the terms of the DOC. This is groundless. In support of its allegations against China, the Philippines claims that China has taken measures including the threat of force to drive away Philippine fishermen from the waters of Huangyan Dao in spite of their long-standing and continuous fishing activities in those waters, and that China has blocked the Philippines from resupplying a naval ship which ran and has stayed aground at Ren’ai Jiao and certain navy personnel on board. But the fact is that, regarding the situation at Huangyan Dao, it was the Philippines that first resorted to the threat of force by dispatching on 10 April 2012 a naval vessel to detain and arrest Chinese fishing boats and fishermen in the waters of Huangyan Dao. Regarding the situation at Ren’ai Jiao, which is a constituent part of China's Nansha Islands, the Philippines illegally ran a naval ship aground in May 1999 at that feature on the pretext of "technical difficulties". China has made repeated representations to the Philippines, demanding that the latter immediately tow away the vessel. The Philippines, for its part, had on numerous occasions made explicit undertaking to China to tow away the vessel grounded due to "technical difficulties". However, for over 15 years, instead of fulfilling that undertaking, the Philippines has attempted to construct permanent installations on Ren'ai Jiao. On 14 March 2014, the Philippines even openly declared that the vessel was deployed as a permanent installation on Ren'ai Jiao in 1999. China has been forced to take necessary measures in response to such provocative conduct. In light of these facts, the Philippines' accusations against China are baseless. |
| 52. 菲律賓一方面為支持其提起的仲裁而否認《宣言》第四條的效力，另一方面，卻又在2014年8月1日外交部聲明中提出解決南海問(wèn)題的倡議，要求各方遵守《宣言》第五條的規定，并且“全面、有效執行《宣言》”。菲律賓對《宣言》所采取的這種自相矛盾、出爾反爾的做法，明顯違反國際法上的誠信原則。 | 52. While it denies the effect of Paragraph 4 of the DOC for the purpose of supporting its institution of the present arbitration, the Philippines recently called on the parties to the DOC to comply with Paragraph 5 of the DOC and to provide "the full and effective implementation of the DOC", in a proposal made in its Department of Foreign Affairs statement dated 1 August 2014. This selective and self-contradictory tactic clearly violates the principle of good faith in international law. |
| 53. 誠信原則要求各國對相互達成的協(xié)議作出誠實(shí)的解釋?zhuān)坏脼榱双@取不正當的利益，而對協(xié)議作出違反原意的曲解。誠信原則至關(guān)重要，它體現在《聯(lián)合國憲章》第二條第二款中，涉及國際法的各個(gè)方面（參見(jiàn)羅伯特·詹寧斯和亞瑟·瓦茨1992年所編《奧本海國際法》第9版第一卷第38頁(yè)）。國際法院在1974年澳大利亞－法國核試驗案的判決中指出，“指導制訂和履行國際義務(wù)的基本原則之一就是誠信原則，無(wú)論這種義務(wù)是基于什么淵源，信任與信心是國際合作的根本”（判決第46段）。 | 53. The principle of good faith requires all States to honestly interpret agreements they enter into with others, not to misinterpret them in disregard of their authentic meaning in order to obtain an unfair advantage. This principle is of overriding importance and is incorporated in Article 2(2) of the Charter of the United Nations. It touches every aspect of international law (Cf. Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law, 9th ed., 1992, vol. 1, p. 38). In the Nuclear Tests Case, the ICJ held that, "One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations, whatever their source, is the principle of good faith. Trust and confidence are inherent in international co-operation" (Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 268, para. 46). |
| 54. 中國愿借此機會(huì )強調，《宣言》是中國與東盟國家經(jīng)過(guò)多年耐心的談判，在相互尊重、互諒互讓的基礎上達成的重要文件。在《宣言》中，有關(guān)各方承諾由直接有關(guān)的主權國家通過(guò)友好磋商和談判解決它們的領(lǐng)土和管轄權爭議；各方重申以《聯(lián)合國憲章》宗旨和原則、1982年《公約》、《東南亞友好合作條約》、和平共處五項原則以及其它公認的國際法原則作為處理國家間關(guān)系的基本準則；各方承諾根據上述原則，在平等和相互尊重的基礎上，探討建立信任的途徑；各方重申尊重并承諾包括1982年《公約》在內的公認的國際法原則所規定的在南海的航行及飛越自由；各方承諾保持自我克制，不采取使爭議復雜化、擴大化和影響和平與穩定的行動(dòng)，包括不在現無(wú)人居住的島、礁、灘、沙或其他自然構造上采取居住的行動(dòng)，并以建設性的方式處理它們的分歧。此外，《宣言》還詳細列出有關(guān)各方在和平解決它們的領(lǐng)土和管轄權爭議之前，建立相互信任的途徑和開(kāi)展合作的領(lǐng)域。作為落實(shí)《宣言》的后續行動(dòng)，各方承諾將磋商制定“南海行為準則”。 | 54. On this occasion, China wishes to emphasize that the DOC is an important instrument, adopted by China and the ASEAN member States following many years of arduous negotiations on the basis of mutual respect, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation. Under the DOC, the parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign States directly concerned. In addition, the parties reaffirm their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1982 Convention, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and other universally recognized principles of international law which shall serve as the basic norms governing state-to-state relations. The Parties commit themselves to exploring ways for building trust and confidence in accordance with the above-mentioned principles and on the basis of equality and mutual respect; reaffirm their respect for and commitment to the freedom of navigation in, and overflight above, the South China Sea as provided for by universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 Convention; and undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features, and to handle their differences in a constructive manner. The DOC also lists a number of ways to build trust and areas of cooperation for the Parties concerned to seek and explore pending the peaceful settlement of territorial and jurisdictional disputes. As a follow-up to the DOC, the parties have undertaken to negotiate a "Code of Conduct in the South China Sea". |
| 55. 《宣言》對穩定南海局勢、促進(jìn)中國與東盟國家的海上合作和增信釋疑起到了積極作用。《宣言》每項條款均構成該文件不可分割的組成部分。否定《宣言》的作用，將導致中國和東盟國家南海合作關(guān)系的嚴重倒退。 | 55. The DOC has played a positive role in maintaining stability in the South China Sea, and in enhancing maritime cooperation, building trust and reducing misgivings between China and the ASEAN member States. Every provision of the DOC constitutes an integral part of the document. To deny the significance of the DOC will lead to a serious retrogression from the current relationship of cooperation between China and the ASEAN member States in the South China Sea. |
| 56. 菲律賓作為東盟成員，參與了《宣言》的整個(gè)磋商過(guò)程，應當十分清楚《宣言》對通過(guò)談判和平解決南海問(wèn)題的重要性。目前，中國和包括菲律賓在內的東盟國家已建立工作機制積極落實(shí)《宣言》，并就“南海行為準則”展開(kāi)磋商，維護南海局勢的穩定，為南海問(wèn)題的最終和平解決創(chuàng )造條件。菲律賓現在提起強制仲裁程序，與中國和東盟國家的共同愿望和努力背道而馳，其目的并非像菲律賓所標榜的那樣尋求和平解決南海問(wèn)題，而是試圖通過(guò)仲裁向中國施加政治壓力，以通過(guò)對《公約》的所謂“解釋或適用”來(lái)達到否定中國在南海的合法權利，并按其單方面主張和意愿解決南海問(wèn)題的目的。對此，中國當然不能接受。 | 56. As a member of the ASEAN and having been involved throughout the consultations on the DOC, the Philippines should have fully appreciated the significance of the DOC for the peaceful settlement of the disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations. At present, in order to maintain stability in the region and create conditions for peaceful settlement of the South China Sea issue, China and the ASEAN member States have established working mechanisms to effectively implement the DOC, and have been engaged in consultations regarding the "Code of Conduct in the South China Sea". By initiating compulsory arbitration at this juncture, the Philippines is running counter to the common wish and joint efforts of China and the ASEAN member States. Its underlying goal is not, as the Philippines has proclaimed, to seek peaceful resolution of the South China Sea issue, but rather, by resorting to arbitration, to put political pressure on China, so as to deny China's lawful rights in the South China Sea through the so-called "interpretation or application" of the Convention, and to pursue a resolution of the South China Sea issue on its own terms. This is certainly unacceptable to China. |
| 四、即使菲律賓提出的仲裁事項涉及有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的問(wèn)題，也構成海域劃界不可分割的組成部分，已被中國2006年聲明所排除，不得提交仲裁 | IV. Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter would still be an integral part of maritime delimitation and, having been excluded by the 2006 Declaration filed by China, could not be submitted for arbitration |
| 57. 《公約》第十五部分確認了締約國可以書(shū)面聲明就特定事項排除適用該部分第二節規定的強制爭端解決程序。中國2006年作出此類(lèi)聲明，符合《公約》有關(guān)規定。 | 57. Part XV of the Convention establishes the right for the States Parties to file a written declaration to exclude specified categories of disputes from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures as laid down in section 2 of that Part. In 2006 China filed such a declaration in full compliance with the Convention. |
| 58. 2006年8月25日，中國根據《公約》第二百九十八條的規定向聯(lián)合國秘書(shū)長(cháng)提交聲明。該聲明稱(chēng)：“關(guān)于《公約》第二百九十八條第1款（a）、（b）和（c）項所述的任何爭端，中華人民共和國政府不接受《公約》第十五部分第二節規定的任何程序”。也就是說(shuō)，對于涉及海域劃界、歷史性海灣或所有權、軍事和執法活動(dòng)以及安理會(huì )執行《聯(lián)合國憲章》所賦予的職務(wù)等爭端，中國政府不接受《公約》第十五部分第二節下的任何強制爭端解決程序，包括強制仲裁。中國堅信，直接有關(guān)的主權國家進(jìn)行友好磋商和談判，是和平解決中國與周邊鄰國間的海洋爭端最有效的方式。 | 58. On 25 August 2006, China deposited, pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention, with Secretary-General of the United Nations a written declaration, stating that,"The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention". In other words, as regards disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities, and disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, the Chinese Government does not accept any of the compulsory dispute settlement procedures laid down in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention, including compulsory arbitration. China firmly believes that the most effective means for settlement of maritime disputes between China and its neighbouring States is that of friendly consultations and negotiations between the sovereign States directly concerned. |
| 59. 中國與菲律賓是海上鄰國，兩國屬于《公約》第七十四條和第八十三條所指的“海岸相向或相鄰的國家”，兩國之間存在海域劃界問(wèn)題。由于中菲有關(guān)島礁領(lǐng)土爭端懸而未決，兩國尚未進(jìn)行海域劃界談判，但已開(kāi)展合作為最終劃界創(chuàng )造條件。 | 59. China and the Philippines are maritime neighbours and "States with opposite or adjacent coasts" in the sense of Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention. There exists an issue of maritime delimitation between the two States. Given that disputes between China and the Philippines relating to territorial sovereignty over relevant maritime features remain unresolved, the two States have yet to start negotiations on maritime delimitation. They have, however, commenced cooperation to pave the way for an eventual delimitation. |
| 60. 2004年9月3日，中菲雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國政府和菲律賓共和國政府聯(lián)合新聞公報》，指出“雙方重申將繼續致力于維護南海地區的和平與穩定。在尚未全面并最終解決南海地區的領(lǐng)土和海洋權益爭端前，雙方將繼續探討共同開(kāi)發(fā)等合作”（聯(lián)合新聞公報第16段）。 | 60. On 3 September 2004, the two sides issued a Joint Press Statement of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, stating that "[t]he two sides reaffirmed their commitment to the peace and stability in the South China Sea and their readiness to continue discussions to study cooperative activities like joint development pending the comprehensive and final settlement of territorial disputes and overlapping maritime claims in the area" (para. 16). |
| 61. 上述聯(lián)合聲明發(fā)表的前兩天，經(jīng)中菲兩國政府批準并在兩國元首的見(jiàn)證下，中國海洋石油總公司與菲律賓國家石油公司簽署《南中國海部分海域聯(lián)合海洋地震工作協(xié)議》。該協(xié)議于2005年3月14日擴大為中國、菲律賓、越南三方之間的協(xié)議。這是有關(guān)國家加強合作，為談判解決南海爭端創(chuàng )造條件的有益嘗試。該協(xié)議適用范圍就在菲律賓此次提起仲裁所涉海域之內。 | 61. Two days before the issuance of the Joint Press Statement, upon approval by both governments and in the presence of the Heads of State of the two countries, China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company signed the "Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in Certain Areas in the South China Sea". On 14 March 2005, the agreement was expanded to a tripartite agreement, with the participation of Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation. This is a good example of the constructive efforts made by the States concerned to enhance cooperation and create conditions for a negotiated settlement of the disputes in the South China Sea. The maritime area covered by that agreement is within that covered in the present arbitration initiated by the Philippines. |
| 62. 2005年4月28日，時(shí)任中國國家主席胡錦濤對菲律賓進(jìn)行國事訪(fǎng)問(wèn)期間，雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國聯(lián)合聲明》，“同意繼續致力于維護南海地區的和平與穩定”，“對中國海洋石油總公司、越南油氣總公司和菲律賓國家石油公司簽訂《南中國海協(xié)議區三方聯(lián)合海洋地震工作協(xié)議》表示歡迎”（聯(lián)合聲明第16段）。 | 62. On 28 April 2005, during a State visit to the Philippines by the then Chinese President Hu Jintao, China and the Philippines issued a Joint Statement of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines, in which the two sides "agreed to continue efforts to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea and ... welcomed the signing of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea by China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company" (para. 16). |
| 63. 2007年1月16日，時(shí)任中國國務(wù)院總理溫家寶對菲律賓進(jìn)行正式訪(fǎng)問(wèn)期間，雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國聯(lián)合聲明》，再次表示，“南海三方聯(lián)合海洋地震工作可以成為本地區合作的一個(gè)示范。雙方同意，可以探討將下一階段的三方合作提升到更高水平，以加強本地區建立互信的良好勢頭”（聯(lián)合聲明第12段）。 | 63. On 16 January 2007, during the official visit to the Philippines by the then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, China and the Philippines issued a Joint Statement of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines, which stated that "the Tripartite Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the South China Sea serves as a model for cooperation in the region. They agreed that possible next steps for cooperation among the three parties should be explored to bring collaboration to a higher level and increase the momentum of trust and confidence in the region" (para. 12). |
| 64. 可見(jiàn)，中菲之間對于通過(guò)合作促進(jìn)海域劃界問(wèn)題的最終解決已有共識。鑒于中國2006年作出的聲明，菲律賓不得單方面將海域劃界問(wèn)題提交仲裁。 | 64. In light of the above, it is plain that China and the Philippines have reached mutual understanding to advance final resolution of the issue of maritime delimitation through cooperation. In any event, given China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines should not and cannot unilaterally initiate compulsory arbitration on the issue of maritime delimitation. |
| 65. 為了掩蓋中菲海域劃界爭端的實(shí)質(zhì)，繞過(guò)中國2006年聲明，菲律賓將海域劃界爭端拆分，抽取其中幾個(gè)事項作為孤立的問(wèn)題提交仲裁，要求仲裁庭分別進(jìn)行所謂的“法律解釋”。 | 65. To cover up the maritime delimitation nature of the China-Philippines dispute and to sidestep China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines has split up the dispute of maritime delimitation into discrete issues and selected a few of them for arbitration, requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to render the so-called "legal interpretation" on each of them. |
| 66. 不難看出，菲律賓提出的各項仲裁事項，包括海洋權利主張、島礁性質(zhì)和海洋權利范圍，以及海上執法活動(dòng)等等，均是國際司法或仲裁機構在以往海域劃界案中所審理的主要問(wèn)題，也是國家間海域劃界實(shí)踐中需要處理的問(wèn)題。這些問(wèn)題屬于海域劃界不可分割的組成部分。 | 66. It is not difficult to see that such legal issues as those presented by the Philippines in the present arbitration, including maritime claims, the legal nature of maritime features, the extent of relevant maritime rights, and law enforcement activities at sea, are all fundamental issues dealt with in past cases of maritime delimitation decided by international judicial or arbitral bodies and in State practice concerning maritime delimitation. In short, those issues are part and parcel of maritime delimitation. |
| 67. 海域劃界是一項整體、系統工程。《公約》第七十四條和第八十三條規定，海岸相向或相鄰國家間的海域劃界問(wèn)題，“應在《國際法院規約》第三十八條所指國際法的基礎上以協(xié)議劃定，以便得到公平解決”。國際司法判例和國家實(shí)踐均確認，為使海域劃界取得公平的結果，必須考慮所有相關(guān)因素。基于上述，適用于海域劃界的國際法，既包括《公約》，也包括一般國際法。海域劃界既涉及權利基礎、島礁效力等問(wèn)題，也涉及劃界原則和方法，以及為實(shí)現公平解決所必須考慮的所有相關(guān)因素。 | 67. Maritime delimitation is an integral, systematic process. Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention stipulate that maritime delimitation between States with opposite or adjacent coasts "shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution". Both international jurisprudence and State practice have recognized that all relevant factors must be taken into account to achieve an equitable solution. In this light, the international law applicable to maritime delimitation includes both the Convention and general international law. Under this body of law, maritime delimitation involves a consideration of not only entitlements, effect of maritime features, and principles and methods of delimitation, but also all relevant factors that must be taken into account, in order to attain an equitable solution. |
| 68. 菲律賓提出的仲裁事項構成中菲海域劃界不可分割的組成部分，只能在中菲海域劃界的框架下，與有關(guān)當事方基于《公約》、一般國際法和長(cháng)期歷史實(shí)踐所享有的相關(guān)權利和利益結合起來(lái)，予以綜合考慮。菲律賓將中菲海域劃界問(wèn)題拆分并將其中的部分問(wèn)題提交仲裁，勢必破壞海域劃界問(wèn)題的整體性和不可分割性，違背海域劃界應以《國際法院規約》第三十八條所指國際法為基礎以及必須“考慮所有相關(guān)因素”的原則，將直接影響今后中菲海域劃界問(wèn)題的公平解決。 | 68. The issues presented by the Philippines for arbitration constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines, and, as such, can only be considered under the overarching framework of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines, and in conjunction with all the relevant rights and interests the parties concerned enjoy in accordance with the Convention, general international law, and historical or long-standing practice in the region for overall consideration. The Philippines’ approach of splitting its maritime delimitation dispute with China and selecting some of the issues for arbitration, if permitted, will inevitably destroy the integrity and indivisibility of maritime delimitation and contravene the principle that maritime delimitation must be based on international law as referred to in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and that "all relevant factors must be taken into account". This will adversely affect the future equitable solution of the dispute of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. |
| 69. 菲律賓表面上不要求進(jìn)行劃界，但卻請求仲裁庭裁定部分島礁是菲律賓專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區和大陸架的一部分，裁定中國非法干涉菲律賓對其專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區和大陸架享有和行使主權權利，等等。上述仲裁請求顯然是要求仲裁庭確認相關(guān)海域屬于菲律賓的專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區和大陸架，菲律賓在該海域有權行使主權權利和管轄權，這實(shí)際上是在變相地要求仲裁庭進(jìn)行海域劃界。菲律賓提出的各項仲裁事項，實(shí)際上已涵蓋了海域劃界的主要步驟和主要問(wèn)題，如果仲裁庭實(shí)質(zhì)審議菲律賓的各項具體主張，就等于是間接地進(jìn)行了海域劃界。 | 69. Ostensibly, the Philippines is not seeking from the Arbitral Tribunal a ruling regarding maritime delimitation, but instead a decision, inter alia, that certain maritime features are part of the Philippines' EEZ and continental shelf, and that China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise by the Philippines of sovereign rights in its EEZ and continental shelf. But that obviously is an attempt to seek a recognition by the Arbitral Tribunal that the relevant maritime areas are part of the Philippines' EEZ and continental shelf, in respect of which the Philippines is entitled to exercise sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This is actually a request for maritime delimitation by the Arbitral Tribunal in disguise. The Philippines' claims have in effect covered the main aspects and steps in maritime delimitation. Should the Arbitral Tribunal address substantively the Philippines' claims, it would amount to a de facto maritime delimitation. |
| 70. 締約國根據《公約》第二百九十八條作出的排除性聲明理應受到尊重，菲律賓試圖繞過(guò)中國排除性聲明提起強制仲裁的做法是濫用《公約》規定的爭端解決程序。 | 70. The exclusionary declarations filed by the States Parties to the Convention under Article 298 of the Convention must be respected. By initiating the present compulsory arbitration as an attempt to circumvent China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines is abusing the dispute settlement procedures under the Convention. |
| 71. 中國2006年排除性聲明一經(jīng)作出即應自動(dòng)適用，其效力是，根據《公約》第二百九十九條的規定，未經(jīng)中方同意，其他國家不得針對中國就相關(guān)爭端單方面提交強制爭端解決程序。同時(shí)，中國也放棄了就同類(lèi)爭端針對其他國家單方面提起強制爭端解決程序的權利，體現了權利與義務(wù)的對等。 | 71. China's 2006 declaration, once filed, automatically comes into effect. Its effect, as prescribed under Article 299 of the Convention, is that, without the consent of China, no State Party can unilaterally invoke any of the compulsory procedures specified in section 2 of Part XV against China in respect of the disputes covered by that declaration. In return, China simultaneously gives up the right to unilaterally initiate compulsory procedures against other States Parties in respect of the same disputes. The rights and obligations are reciprocal in this regard. |
| 72. 菲律賓辯稱(chēng)，中國作為《公約》的締約國，按照《公約》第二百八十七條的規定，未在該條所列的四種強制爭端解決程序中作出選擇，應被視為已接受強制仲裁程序。這種觀(guān)點(diǎn)是有意誤導。中國2006年聲明的目的和效果就是對于特定事項完全排除適用強制爭端解決程序。無(wú)論中國對《公約》第二百八十七條所列的四種強制爭端解決程序是否作出選擇，只要是屬于中國2006年聲明所涵蓋的爭端，中國就已經(jīng)明確排除了適用《公約》第十五部分第二節下的任何強制爭端解決程序包括強制仲裁的可能性。 | 72. The Philippines claims that, having chosen none of the four compulsory dispute settlement procedures listed under Article 287 of the Convention, China as a State Party shall therefore be deemed to have accepted compulsory arbitration. This is a deliberately misleading argument. The purpose and the effect of China's 2006 declaration is such that the disputes listed therein are fully excluded from the compulsory settlement procedures under the Convention. Whether or not China has selected any of the four compulsory procedures under Article 287, as long as a dispute falls within the scope of China's 2006 declaration, China has already explicitly excluded it from the applicability of any compulsory procedures under section 2 of Part XV of the Convention, including compulsory arbitration. |
| 73. 盡管菲律賓認為其所提仲裁事項不屬于中方2006年聲明所涵蓋的爭端，但在中國對此持不同看法的情況下，菲律賓應先行與中國解決該問(wèn)題，然后才能決定能否提交仲裁。如果按照菲律賓的邏輯，任何國家只要單方面聲稱(chēng)有關(guān)爭端不是另一國排除性聲明所排除的爭端，即可單方面啟動(dòng)強制仲裁程序，那么《公約》第二百九十九條的規定就變得毫無(wú)意義。 | 73. Although the Philippines professes that the subject-matter of the arbitration does not involve any dispute covered by China's 2006 declaration, since China holds a different view in this regard, the Philippines should first take up this issue with China, before a decision can be taken on whether or not it can be submitted for arbitration. Should the Philippines' logic in its present form be followed, any State Party may unilaterally initiate compulsory arbitration against another State Party in respect of a dispute covered by the latter's declaration in force simply by asserting that the dispute is not excluded from arbitration by that declaration. This would render the provisions of Article 299 meaningless. |
| 74. 自《公約》生效以來(lái)，本案是第一例在一國已作出排除性聲明的情況下，另一國針對該聲明所涵蓋的爭端單方面啟動(dòng)強制仲裁程序的案件。如果菲律賓這種“設計”的爭端被認為可以滿(mǎn)足強制仲裁管轄權的條件，那么可以設想，第二百九十八條所列的任何爭端均可以按照菲律賓的方法與《公約》某些條款的解釋或適用問(wèn)題聯(lián)系起來(lái)，都可以提起第十五部分第二節的強制爭端解決程序。若可以如此適用《公約》，那么，《公約》第二百九十八條還有何價(jià)值？目前35個(gè)國家所作出的排除性聲明還有何意義？中國認為，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁，是在濫用《公約》規定的強制爭端解決程序，對《公約》爭端解決機制的嚴肅性構成嚴重的挑戰。 | 74. Since the entry into force of the Convention, the present arbitration is the first case in which a State Party has unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitration in respect of a dispute covered by a declaration of another State Party under Article 298. If this twisted approach of the Philippines could be accepted as fulfilling the conditions for invoking compulsory arbitration, it could be well imagined that any of the disputes listed in Article 298 may be submitted to the compulsory procedures under section 2 of Part XV simply by connecting them, using the Philippines' approach, with the question of interpretation or application of certain provisions of the Convention. Should the above approach be deemed acceptable, the question would then arise as to whether the provisions of Article 298 could still retain any value, and whether there is any practical meaning left of the declarations so far filed by 35 States Parties under Article 298. In light of the foregoing reasons, China can only conclude that, the unilateral initiation by the Philippines of the present arbitration constitutes an abuse of the compulsory procedures provided in the Convention and a grave challenge to the solemnity of the dispute settlement mechanism under the Convention. |
| 75. 綜上所述，即使菲律賓提請仲裁的事項涉及有關(guān)《公約》的解釋或適用的問(wèn)題，也是海域劃界爭端不可分割的組成部分，已被中國2006年聲明所排除，菲律賓不得就此提起強制仲裁程序。 | 75. To sum up, even assuming that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, it would still be an integral part of the dispute of maritime delimitation between the two States. Having been excluded by China's 2006 declaration, it could not be submitted to compulsory arbitration under the Convention. |
| 五、中國自主選擇爭端解決方式的權利應得到充分尊重，中國不接受、不參與菲律賓提起的仲裁具有充分的國際法依據 | V. China's right to freely choose the means of dispute settlement must be fully respected, and its rejection of and non-participation in the present arbitration is solidly grounded in international law? |
| 76. 根據國際法，各國享有自主選擇爭端解決方式的權利。任何國際司法或仲裁機構針對國家間爭端行使管轄權必須以當事國的同意為基礎，即“國家同意原則”。基于這一原則，出席第三次聯(lián)合國海洋法會(huì )議的各國代表經(jīng)過(guò)長(cháng)期艱苦的談判，作為一攬子協(xié)議，達成了《公約》第十五部分有關(guān)爭端解決機制的規定。 | 76. Under international law, every State is free to choose the means of dispute settlement. The jurisdiction of any international judicial or arbitral body over an inter-State dispute depends on the prior consent of the parties to the dispute. This is known as the principle of consent in international law. It was on the basis of this principle that the States participating in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea reached, after extended and arduous negotiations, a compromise on Part XV relating to dispute settlement as a package deal. |
| 77. 《公約》第十五部分規定的強制爭端解決程序只適用于有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的爭端；締約國有權自行選擇第十五部分規定以外的其他爭端解決方式；《公約》第二百九十七條和第二百九十八條還針對特定種類(lèi)的爭端規定了適用強制爭端解決程序的限制和例外。 | 77. The compulsory dispute settlement procedures provided in Part XV of the Convention apply only to disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. States Parties are entitled to freely choose the means of settlement other than those set out in Part XV. Articles 297 and 298 of the Convention, moreover, provide for limitations on and optional exceptions to the applicability of the compulsory procedures with regard to specified categories of disputes. |
| 78. 《公約》第十五部分這種平衡的規定，也是許多國家決定是否成為《公約》締約國時(shí)的重要考慮因素。在1974年第三次聯(lián)合國海洋法會(huì )議第二期會(huì )議上，薩爾瓦多大使雷納多·佳林多·波爾在介紹關(guān)于《公約》爭端解決的第一份草案時(shí)強調，有必要將直接涉及國家領(lǐng)土完整的問(wèn)題作為強制管轄的例外。否則，許多國家可能不會(huì )批準甚至不會(huì )簽署《公約》（參見(jiàn)沙巴泰·羅森和路易斯·索恩1989年所編《1982年<聯(lián)合國海洋法公約>評注》第5卷第88頁(yè)第297.1段）。因此，在解釋和適用《公約》第十五部分的規定時(shí)，必須維護該部分的平衡和完整。 | 78. The balance embodied in the provisions of Part XV has been a critical factor for the decision of many States to become parties to the Convention. At the second session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Ambassador Reynaldo Galindo Pohl of El Salvador, co-chair of the informal group on the settlement of disputes, on introducing the first general draft on dispute settlement, emphasized the need for exceptions from compulsory jurisdiction with respect to questions directly related to the territorial integrity of States. Otherwise, as has been noted, "a number of States might have been dissuaded from ratifying the Convention or even signing it" (Shabtai Rosenne and Louis B. Sohn (eds.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, 1989, vol. v, p. 88, para. 297.1). It follows that the provisions of Part XV must be interpreted and applied in such a manner so as to preserve the balance in and the integrity of Part XV. |
| 79. 中國重視《公約》強制爭端解決程序在維護國際海洋法律秩序方面的積極作用。中國作為《公約》締約國，接受了《公約》第十五部分第二節有關(guān)強制爭端解決程序的規定。但是，中國接受該規定的適用范圍不包括領(lǐng)土主權爭端，不包括中國與其他締約國同意以自行選擇的方式加以解決的爭端，也不包括《公約》第二百九十七條和中國2006年根據《公約》第二百九十八條所作聲明排除的所有爭端。對于菲律賓所提仲裁事項，中國從未接受《公約》第十五部分第二節規定的任何強制爭端解決程序。 | 79. China highly values the positive role played by the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of the Convention in upholding the international legal order for the oceans. As a State Party to the Convention, China has accepted the provisions of section 2 of Part XV on compulsory dispute settlement procedures. But that acceptance does not mean that those procedures apply to disputes of territorial sovereignty, or disputes which China has agreed with other States Parties to settle by means of their own choice, or disputes already excluded by Article 297 and China's 2006 declaration filed under Article 298. With regard to the Philippines' claims for arbitration, China has never accepted any of the compulsory procedures of section 2 of Part XV. |
| 80. 根據國家主權原則，爭端當事國可自行選擇爭端解決方式，《公約》對此予以確認。《公約》第二百八十條規定：“本公約的任何規定均不損害任何締約國于任何時(shí)候協(xié)議用自行選擇的任何和平方法解決它們之間有關(guān)本公約的解釋或適用的爭端的權利。” | 80. By virtue of the principle of sovereignty, parties to a dispute may choose the means of settlement of their own accord. This has been affirmed by the Convention. Article 280 provides that, "Nothing in this Part impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice." |
| 81. 當事國自行選擇的爭端解決方式優(yōu)先于《公約》第十五部分第二節規定的強制爭端解決程序。《公約》第十五部分第一節的第二百八十一條第一款規定：“作為有關(guān)本公約的解釋或適用的爭端各方的締約各國，如已協(xié)議用自行選擇的和平方法來(lái)謀求解決爭端，則只有在訴諸這種方法而仍未得到解決以及爭端各方間的協(xié)議并不排除任何其他程序的情形下，才適用本部分所規定的程序。”《公約》第二百八十六條也規定：“在第三節限制下，有關(guān)本公約的解釋或適用的任何爭端，如已訴諸第一節而仍未得到解決，經(jīng)爭端任何一方請求，應提交根據本節具有管轄權的法院或法庭。”可見(jiàn)，只要當事方已經(jīng)自行選擇爭端解決方式并且排除其他任何程序，《公約》規定的強制爭端解決程序就完全不適用。 | 81. The means thus chosen by the States Parties to the Convention takes priority over the compulsory procedures set forth in section 2 of Part XV. Article 281(1) of section 1 of Part XV provides that, "If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful means of their own choice, the procedures provided for in this Part apply only where no settlement has been reached by recourse to such means and the agreement between the parties does not exclude any further procedure." Article 286 states that, "Subject to section 3, any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, where no settlement has been reached by recourse to section 1, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section." Accordingly, where parties to a dispute have already chosen a means of settlement and excluded other procedures, the compulsory procedures of the Convention shall not apply to the dispute in question. |
| 82. 締約國自行選擇爭端解決方式的優(yōu)先性和重要性在2000年南方藍鰭金槍魚(yú)仲裁案裁決中得到了進(jìn)一步肯定。仲裁庭指出，“《公約》遠未建立一個(gè)真正全面的、有拘束力的強制管轄制度”（裁決第62段），“《公約》第二百八十一條第一款允許締約國將第十五部分第二節強制程序的適用限定在所有當事方均同意提交的案件”（裁決第62段）。如果第十五部分第一節的規定不能得到有效遵守，就會(huì )實(shí)質(zhì)上剝奪締約國基于國家主權自行選擇爭端解決方式的權利，從而違反國家同意原則，破壞《公約》第十五部分的平衡和完整。 | 82. The priority and significance of the means of dispute settlement chosen by States Parties to the Convention have been further affirmed in the arbitral award in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case. The tribunal recognized that the Convention "falls significantly short of establishing a truly comprehensive regime of compulsory jurisdiction entailing binding decisions", and that "States Parties ... are permitted by Article 281(1) to confine the applicability of compulsory procedures of section 2 of Part XV to cases where all parties to the dispute have agreed upon submission of their dispute to such compulsory procedures" (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan, pp. 102-103, para. 62). Were the provisions of section 1 of Part XV not complied with faithfully, it would result in deprivation of the right of the States Parties to freely choose means of peaceful settlement based on State sovereignty. That would entail a breach of the principle of consent and upset the balance in and integrity of Part XV. |
| 83. 相關(guān)司法或仲裁機構在行使確定自身管轄權方面的權力時(shí)，也必須充分尊重締約國自行選擇爭端解決方式的權利。《公約》第二百八十八條第四款規定：“對于法院或法庭是否具有管轄權如果發(fā)生爭端，這一問(wèn)題應由該法院或法庭以裁定解決。”中國尊重相關(guān)司法或仲裁機構根據《公約》所享有的上述權力，但同時(shí)強調，相關(guān)司法或仲裁機構在行使其權力時(shí)不應損害締約國自行選擇爭端解決方式的權利，不應損害國際司法或仲裁必須遵循的國家同意原則。中國認為，這是仲裁庭在適用第二百八十八條第四款的規定確定自身管轄權時(shí)所必須受到的限制。總而言之，“爭端當事方是爭端解決程序完全的主人”（沙巴泰·羅森和路易斯·索恩1989年所編《1982年<聯(lián)合國海洋法公約>評注》第5卷第20頁(yè)第280.1段）。 | 83. In exercise of its power to decide on its jurisdiction, any judicial or arbitral body should respect the right of the States Parties to the Convention to freely choose the means of settlement. Article 288(4) of the Convention provides that "[i]n the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal". China respects that competence of judicial or arbitral bodies under the Convention. Equally important, China would like to emphasize, the exercise of judicial or arbitral power shall not derogate from the right of the States Parties to choose the means of settlement of their own accord, or from the principle of consent which must be followed in international adjudication and arbitration. China holds that this is the constraint that the Arbitral Tribunal must abide by when considering whether or not to apply Article 288(4) in determining its jurisdiction in the present arbitration. After all, "the parties to the dispute are complete masters of the procedure to be used to settle it" (Shabtai Rosenne and Louis B. Sohn (eds.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, 1989, vol. v, p. 20, para. 280.1). |
| 84. 中國尊重所有締約國依據《公約》的規定適用強制爭端解決程序的權利。同時(shí)，需要強調的是，《公約》第三百條規定：“締約國應誠意履行根據本公約承擔的義務(wù)，并應以不致構成濫用權利的方式，行使本公約所承認的權利、管轄權和自由。”菲律賓明知其所提出的仲裁事項本質(zhì)上是島礁領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題，明知中國從未同意就有關(guān)爭端接受強制爭端解決程序，明知中菲之間存在關(guān)于通過(guò)談判方式解決有關(guān)爭端的協(xié)議，還要單方面提起強制仲裁，違反了《公約》的相關(guān)規定，無(wú)助于爭端的和平解決。 | 84. China respects the right of all States Parties to invoke the compulsory procedures in accordance with the Convention. At the same time, it would call attention to Article 300 of the Convention, which provides that, "States Parties shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed under this Convention and shall exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognized in this Convention in a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right." While being fully aware that its claims essentially deal with territorial sovereignty, that China has never accepted any compulsory procedures in respect of those claims, and that there has been an agreement existing between the two States to settle their relevant disputes by negotiations, the Philippines has nevertheless initiated, by unilateral action, the present arbitration. This surely contravenes the relevant provisions of the Convention, and does no service to the peaceful settlement of the disputes. |
| 85. 鑒于上述，并基于仲裁庭對本案顯然不具有管轄權，中國政府決定不接受、不參與仲裁程序，以捍衛中國自主選擇爭端解決方式的主權權利，確保中國依據《公約》于2006年作出的排除性聲明起到應有的效力，維護《公約》第十五部分的完整性以及國際海洋法律制度的權威性和嚴肅性。中國的這一立場(chǎng)不會(huì )改變。 | 85. In view of what is stated above and in light of the manifest lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Chinese Government has decided not to accept or participate in the present arbitration, in order to preserve China's sovereign right to choose the means of peaceful settlement of its own free will and the effectiveness of its 2006 declaration, and to maintain the integrity of Part XV of the Convention as well as the authority and solemnity of the international legal regime for the oceans. This position of China will not change. |
| 六、結論 | VI. Conclusions |
| 86. 中國認為，仲裁庭對于菲律賓單方面就中菲在南海的爭端提起的強制仲裁明顯沒(méi)有管轄權。 | 86. It is the view of China that the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over this arbitration, unilaterally initiated by the Philippines, with regard to disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea. |
| 第一，菲律賓提請仲裁事項的實(shí)質(zhì)是南海部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權問(wèn)題，超出《公約》的調整范圍，不涉及《公約》的解釋或適用； | Firstly, the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over the relevant maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the Convention and is consequently not concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention. |
| 第二，以談判方式解決在南海的爭端是中菲兩國通過(guò)雙邊文件和《宣言》所達成的協(xié)議，菲律賓單方面將中菲有關(guān)爭端提交強制仲裁違反國際法； | Secondly, there is an agreement between China and the Philippines to settle their disputes in the South China Sea by negotiations, as embodied in bilateral instruments and the DOC. Thus the unilateral initiation of the present arbitration by the Philippines has clearly violated international law. |
| 第三，即使菲律賓提出的仲裁事項涉及有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的問(wèn)題，也構成中菲兩國海域劃界不可分割的組成部分，而中國已經(jīng)根據《公約》的規定于2006年作出聲明，將涉及海域劃界等事項的爭端排除適用仲裁等強制爭端解決程序； | Thirdly, even assuming that the subject-matter of the arbitration did concern the interpretation or application of the Convention, it has been excluded by the 2006 declaration filed by China under Article 298 of the Convention, due to its being an integral part of the dispute of maritime delimitation between the two States. |
| 第四，中國從未就菲律賓提出的仲裁事項接受過(guò)《公約》規定的強制爭端解決程序；仲裁庭應充分尊重締約國自行選擇爭端解決方式的權利，在《公約》規定的限度內行使其確定管轄權方面的權力；菲律賓提起仲裁是對《公約》強制爭端解決程序的濫用。中國不接受、不參與該仲裁具有充分的國際法依據。 | Fourthly, China has never accepted any compulsory procedures of the Convention with regard to the Philippines' claims for arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal shall fully respect the right of the States Parties to the Convention to choose the means of dispute settlement of their own accord, and exercise its competence to decide on its jurisdiction within the confines of the Convention. The initiation of the present arbitration by the Philippines is an abuse of the compulsory dispute settlement procedures under the Convention. There is a solid basis in international law for China's rejection of and non-participation in the present arbitration. |
| 87. 中國一貫奉行睦鄰友好政策，主張在和平共處五項原則基礎上，通過(guò)平等協(xié)商，公平合理地解決領(lǐng)土爭端和海域劃界問(wèn)題。中國認為，談判始終是國際法認可的和平解決國際爭端最直接、最有效和最普遍的方式。 | 87. China consistently adheres to the policy of friendly relations with its neighbouring States, and strives for fair and equitable solution in respect of disputes of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation by way of negotiations on the basis of equality and the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence. China holds that negotiations is always the most direct, effective, and universally used means for peaceful settlement of international disputes. |
| 88. 經(jīng)過(guò)長(cháng)期的外交努力和談判，中國與14個(gè)陸地鄰國中的12個(gè)國家妥善解決了邊界問(wèn)題，劃定和勘定的邊界線(xiàn)長(cháng)度達兩萬(wàn)公里，占中國陸地邊界總長(cháng)度的90%。在海上，2000年12月25日中國與越南通過(guò)談判簽訂了《中華人民共和國和越南社會(huì )主義共和國關(guān)于兩國在北部灣領(lǐng)海、專(zhuān)屬經(jīng)濟區和大陸架的劃界協(xié)定》，劃定了兩國在北部灣的海上邊界。中國還于1997年11月11日與日本簽署了《中華人民共和國和日本國漁業(yè)協(xié)定》，2000年8月3日與韓國簽署了《中華人民共和國政府和大韓民國政府漁業(yè)協(xié)定》，2005年12月24日與朝鮮簽署了《中華人民共和國政府和朝鮮民主主義人民共和國政府關(guān)于海上共同開(kāi)發(fā)石油的協(xié)定》，作為海域劃界前的臨時(shí)性安排。 | 88. After years of diplomatic efforts and negotiations, China has successfully resolved land boundary disputes with twelve out of its fourteen neighbours, delimiting and demarcating some 20,000 kilometres in length of land boundary in the process, which accounts for over 90% of the total length of China's land boundary. On 25 December 2000, China and Vietnam concluded, following negotiations, the Agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam on the Delimitation of the Territorial Seas, the Exclusive Economic Zones and Continental Shelves in Beibu Bay, establishing a maritime boundary between the two States in Beibu Bay. On 11 November 1997, the Agreement on Fisheries between the People's Republic of China and Japan was signed. On 3 August 2000, the Agreement on Fisheries between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Korea was signed. On 24 December 2005, the Agreement between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for Joint Development of Oil Resources at Sea was signed. All these are provisional arrangements pending the maritime delimitation between China and those States. |
| 89. 事實(shí)證明，只要相關(guān)國家秉持善意，在平等互利基礎上進(jìn)行友好協(xié)商談判，就可以妥善地解決領(lǐng)土爭端和海域劃界問(wèn)題。對于中國與菲律賓之間的有關(guān)爭端，中國也堅持同樣的原則和立場(chǎng)。 | 89. The facts show that, as long as States concerned negotiate in good faith and on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, territorial and maritime delimitation disputes can be resolved properly between them. This principle and position of China equally apply to its disputes with the Philippines in the South China Sea. |
| 90. 中國不認為在當事方同意的基礎上將爭端提交仲裁是不友好的行為。但是，在涉及領(lǐng)土主權和海洋權利的問(wèn)題上，明知他國已明確表示不接受仲裁，明知雙方已承諾通過(guò)雙邊直接談判解決爭端，還要強行將爭端訴諸仲裁，就不能被認為是友善的行為，更不能被認為是堅持法治的精神，因為這與國際法的基本原則背道而馳，違反國際關(guān)系基本準則。這種做法不僅不可能使兩國爭端得到妥善解決，反而會(huì )進(jìn)一步損害兩國之間的互信，使兩國之間的問(wèn)題進(jìn)一步復雜化。 | 90. China does not consider submission by agreement of a dispute to arbitration as an unfriendly act. In respect of disputes of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, unilateral resort to compulsory arbitration against another State, however, cannot be taken as a friendly act, when the initiating State is fully aware of the opposition of the other State to the action and the existing agreement between them on dispute settlement through negotiations. Furthermore, such action cannot be regarded as in conformity with the rule of law, as it runs counter to the basic rules and principles of international law. It will not in any way facilitate a proper settlement of the dispute between the two countries. Instead it will undermine mutual trust and further complicate the bilateral relations. |
| 91. 近年來(lái)，菲律賓在黃巖島和仁愛(ài)礁等問(wèn)題上不斷采取新的挑釁行動(dòng)，不僅嚴重損害了中菲之間的政治互信，也破壞了中國與東盟國家共同落實(shí)《宣言》、磋商制訂“南海行為準則”的良好氛圍。事實(shí)上，過(guò)去幾年來(lái)，在東南亞地區，不是菲律賓所描繪的“中國變得更強勢”，而是菲律賓自己變得更具挑釁性。 | 91. In recent years, the Philippines has repeatedly taken new provocative actions in respect of Huangyan Dao and Ren'ai Jiao. Such actions have gravely hindered mutual political trust between China and the Philippines, and undermined the amicable atmosphere for China and ASEAN member States to implement the DOC and consult on the proposed Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. In fact, in the region of Southeast Asia, it is not China that has become "increasingly assertive"; it is the Philippines that has become increasingly provocative. |
| 92. 南海問(wèn)題涉及多個(gè)國家，加上各種復雜的歷史背景和敏感的政治因素，需要各方的耐心和政治智慧才能實(shí)現最終解決。中國堅持認為，有關(guān)各方應當在尊重歷史事實(shí)和國際法的基礎上，通過(guò)協(xié)商和談判尋求妥善的解決辦法。在有關(guān)問(wèn)題得到徹底解決之前，各方應當開(kāi)展對話(huà)，尋求合作，維護南海的和平與穩定，不斷增信釋疑，為問(wèn)題的最終解決創(chuàng )造條件。 | 92. The issue of the South China Sea involves a number of States, and is compounded by complex historical background and sensitive political factors. Its final resolution demands patience and political wisdom from all parties concerned. China always maintains that the parties concerned shall seek proper ways and means of settlement through consultations and negotiations on the basis of respect for historical facts and international law. Pending final settlement, all parties concerned should engage in dialogue and cooperation to preserve peace and stability in the South China Sea, enhance mutual trust, clear up doubts, and create conditions for the eventual resolution of the issue. |
| 93. 菲律賓單方面提起仲裁的做法，不會(huì )改變中國對南海諸島及其附近海域擁有主權的歷史和事實(shí)，不會(huì )動(dòng)搖中國維護主權和海洋權益的決心和意志，不會(huì )影響中國通過(guò)直接談判解決有關(guān)爭議以及與本地區國家共同維護南海和平穩定的政策和立場(chǎng)。 | 93. The unilateral initiation of the present arbitration by the Philippines will not change the history and fact of China's sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and the adjacent waters; nor will it shake China's resolve and determination to safeguard its sovereignty and maritime rights and interests; nor will it affect the policy and position of China to resolve the relevant disputes by direct negotiations and work together with other States in the region to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea. |