中國(guó)政府關(guān)于菲律賓所提南海仲裁案管轄權(quán)問題的立場(chǎng)文件
Chinese government's position paper on matter of jurisdiction in South China Sea arbitration initiated by Philippines
0 
調(diào)整字號(hào)大小: 
| 二、菲律賓提請(qǐng)仲裁事項(xiàng)的實(shí)質(zhì)是南海部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題，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(guó)對(duì)南海諸島及其附近海域擁有無(wú)可爭(zhēng)辯的主權(quán)。中國(guó)在南海的活動(dòng)已有2000多年的歷史。中國(guó)最早發(fā)現(xiàn)、命名和開發(fā)經(jīng)營(yíng)南海諸島，最早并持續(xù)對(duì)南海諸島實(shí)施主權(quán)管轄。20世紀(jì)30年代至40年代，日本在侵華戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間非法侵占中國(guó)南海島礁。第二次世界大戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后，中國(guó)政府恢復(fù)對(duì)南海諸島行使主權(quán)，派遣軍政官員乘軍艦前往南海島礁舉行接收儀式，樹碑立標(biāo)，派兵駐守，進(jìn)行地理測(cè)量，于1947年對(duì)南海諸島進(jìn)行了重新命名，并于1948年在公開發(fā)行的官方地圖上標(biāo)繪南海斷續(xù)線。中華人民共和國(guó)1949年10月1日成立以來(lái)，中國(guó)政府一直堅(jiān)持并采取實(shí)際行動(dòng)積極維護(hù)南海諸島的主權(quán)。1958年《中華人民共和國(guó)政府關(guān)于領(lǐng)海的聲明》和1992年《中華人民共和國(guó)領(lǐng)海及毗連區(qū)法》均明確規(guī)定，中華人民共和國(guó)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(guó)在南海的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)和相關(guān)的海洋權(quán)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(jì)70年代之前，菲律賓的法律對(duì)其領(lǐng)土范圍有明確限定，沒有涉及中國(guó)的南海島礁。1935年《菲律賓共和國(guó)憲法》第一條“國(guó)家領(lǐng)土”明確規(guī)定：“菲律賓的領(lǐng)土包括根據(jù)1898年12月10日美國(guó)同西班牙締結(jié)的《巴黎條約》割讓給美國(guó)的該條約第三條所述范圍內(nèi)的全部領(lǐng)土，連同1900年11月7日美國(guó)同西班牙在華盛頓締結(jié)的條約和1930年1月2日美國(guó)同英國(guó)締結(jié)的條約中包括的所有島嶼，以及由菲律賓群島現(xiàn)政府行使管轄權(quán)的全部領(lǐng)土?！备鶕?jù)上述規(guī)定，菲律賓的領(lǐng)土范圍限于菲律賓群島，不涉及中國(guó)的南海島礁。1961年《關(guān)于確定菲律賓領(lǐng)海基線的法案》（菲律賓共和國(guó)第3046號(hào)法案）重申了菲律賓1935年憲法關(guān)于其領(lǐng)土范圍的規(guī)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(jì)70年代起，菲律賓非法侵占中國(guó)南沙群島的馬歡島、費(fèi)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(guó)南沙群島部分島礁宣布為所謂“卡拉延島群”，對(duì)上述島礁及其周邊大范圍海域提出主權(quán)主張；并對(duì)中國(guó)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(guó)憲章》和國(guó)際法，嚴(yán)重侵犯中國(guó)的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)和海洋權(quán)益，是非法、無(wú)效的。中國(guó)政府對(duì)此一貫堅(jiān)決反對(duì)，一直進(jìn)行嚴(yán)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(xiàng)主要?dú)w納為以下三類： | 8. The Philippines has summarized its claims for arbitration in three categories: |
| 第一，中國(guó)在《公約》規(guī)定的權(quán)利范圍之外，對(duì)“九段線”（即中國(guó)的南海斷續(xù)線）內(nèi)的水域、海床和底土所主張的“歷史性權(quán)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(guó)依據(jù)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(quán)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(guó)在南海所主張和行使的權(quán)利非法干涉菲律賓基于《公約》所享有和行使的主權(quán)權(quán)利、管轄權(quán)以及航行權(quán)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(qǐng)仲裁的上述事項(xiàng)的實(shí)質(zhì)是南海部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題，超出《公約》的調(diào)整范圍，不涉及《公約》的解釋或適用。仲裁庭對(duì)菲律賓提出的這些仲裁事項(xiàng)均無(wú)管轄權(quán)。 | 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仲裁事項(xiàng)，很顯然，菲律賓主張的核心是中國(guó)在南海的海洋權(quán)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(guó)在南海的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)，才能判斷中國(guó)在南海的海洋權(quán)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(guó)家的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)是其海洋權(quán)利的基礎(chǔ)，這是國(guó)際法的一般原則。國(guó)際法院指出，“海洋權(quán)利源自沿海國(guó)對(duì)陸地的主權(quán)，這可概括為‘陸地統(tǒng)治海洋’原則”（2001年卡塔爾－巴林案判決第185段，亦參見1969年北海大陸架案判決第96段和1978年愛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(guó)海洋權(quán)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(guó)際法院還強(qiáng)調(diào)，“國(guó)家對(duì)大陸架和專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)的權(quán)利基于陸地統(tǒng)治海洋的原則”，“陸地是一個(gè)國(guó)家對(duì)其領(lǐng)土向海延伸部分行使權(quán)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》序言開宗明義地指出，“認(rèn)識(shí)到有需要通過本公約，在妥為顧及所有國(guó)家主權(quán)的情形下，為海洋建立一種法律秩序”。顯然，“妥為顧及所有國(guó)家主權(quán)”是適用《公約》確定締約國(guó)海洋權(quán)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(guó)對(duì)南海島礁的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)，仲裁庭就無(wú)法確定中國(guó)依據(jù)《公約》在南?？梢灾鲝埖暮Ｑ髾?quán)利范圍，更無(wú)從判斷中國(guó)在南海的海洋權(quán)利主張是否超出《公約》允許的范圍。然而，領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題不屬于《公約》調(diào)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(jù)《公約》第二百八十七條和附件七組成的仲裁庭對(duì)于領(lǐng)土爭(zhēng)端沒有管轄權(quán)。菲律賓為了繞過這一法律障礙，制造提起仲裁的依據(jù)，蓄意對(duì)自己提請(qǐng)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(duì)兩國(guó)均主張的島礁擁有主權(quán)，只要求仲裁庭對(duì)中國(guó)在南海所主張的海洋權(quán)利是否符合《公約》的規(guī)定進(jìn)行判定，使仲裁事項(xiàng)看起來(lái)好像只是關(guān)于《公約》的解釋或適用問題，不涉及領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題。然而，菲律賓的包裝無(wú)法掩飾其提請(qǐng)仲裁事項(xiàng)的實(shí)質(zhì)就是南海部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題。 | 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仲裁事項(xiàng)，中國(guó)認(rèn)為，南海部分島礁的性質(zhì)和海洋權(quán)利問題與主權(quán)問題不可分割。 | 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(quán)，才能確定基于島礁的海洋權(quán)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(guī)定的有關(guān)專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)和大陸架的海洋權(quán)利均賦予對(duì)相關(guān)陸地領(lǐng)土享有主權(quán)的國(guó)家。脫離了國(guó)家主權(quán)，島礁本身不擁有任何海洋權(quán)利。只有對(duì)相關(guān)島礁擁有主權(quán)的國(guó)家，才可以依據(jù)《公約》基于相關(guān)島礁提出海洋權(quán)利主張。在確定了領(lǐng)土歸屬的前提下，如果其他國(guó)家對(duì)該國(guó)的海洋權(quán)利主張是否符合《公約》的規(guī)定提出質(zhì)疑或者提出了重疊的海洋權(quán)利主張，才會(huì)產(chǎn)生關(guān)于《公約》解釋或適用的爭(zhēng)端。如果島礁的主權(quán)歸屬未定，一國(guó)基于島礁的海洋權(quán)利主張是否符合《公約》規(guī)定就不能構(gòu)成一個(gè)可以提交仲裁的具體而真實(shí)的爭(zhēng)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(rèn)中國(guó)對(duì)相關(guān)島礁擁有主權(quán)，意在從根本上否定中國(guó)依據(jù)相關(guān)島礁主張任何海洋權(quán)利的資格。在這種情形下，菲律賓要求仲裁庭先行判斷中國(guó)的海洋權(quán)利主張是否符合《公約》的規(guī)定，是本末倒置。任何國(guó)際司法或仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在審理有關(guān)島礁爭(zhēng)端的案件中，從未在不確定有關(guān)島礁主權(quán)歸屬的情況下適用《公約》的規(guī)定先行判定這些島礁的海洋權(quán)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(shù)幾個(gè)島礁，要求仲裁庭就其海洋權(quán)利作出裁定，實(shí)質(zhì)上是否定中國(guó)對(duì)南沙群島的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)。 | 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(guó)歷來(lái)對(duì)整個(gè)南沙群島、而非僅對(duì)其中少數(shù)幾個(gè)島礁享有主權(quán)。1935年中國(guó)政府水陸地圖審查委員會(huì)出版《中國(guó)南海各島嶼圖》，1948年中國(guó)政府公布《南海諸島位置圖》，均將現(xiàn)在所稱的南沙群島以及東沙群島、西沙群島和中沙群島劃入中國(guó)版圖。1958年《中華人民共和國(guó)政府關(guān)于領(lǐng)海的聲明》指出，中華人民共和國(guó)的領(lǐng)土包括南沙群島。1983年中國(guó)地名委員會(huì)公布南海諸島部分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)地名，其中包括南沙群島的島礁。1992年《中華人民共和國(guó)領(lǐng)海及毗連區(qū)法》也明確規(guī)定，中華人民共和國(guó)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(guó)常駐聯(lián)合國(guó)代表團(tuán)就有關(guān)南海問題致聯(lián)合國(guó)秘書長(zhǎng)的第CML/8/2011號(hào)照會(huì)中亦指出：“按照《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》、1992年《中華人民共和國(guó)領(lǐng)海及毗連區(qū)法》和1998年《中華人民共和國(guó)專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)和大陸架法》的有關(guān)規(guī)定，中國(guó)的南沙群島擁有領(lǐng)海、專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)和大陸架”。顯然，按照《公約》確定中國(guó)南沙群島的海洋權(quán)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(duì)南沙群島作出“切割”，只要求對(duì)其聲稱的“中國(guó)占領(lǐng)或控制的”島礁的海洋權(quán)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(guó)對(duì)整個(gè)南沙群島的主權(quán)，否認(rèn)菲律賓非法侵占或主張中國(guó)南沙群島部分島礁的事實(shí)，從而篡改中菲南沙群島主權(quán)爭(zhēng)端的性質(zhì)和范圍。菲律賓還刻意將中國(guó)臺(tái)灣駐守的南沙群島最大島嶼——太平島排除在“中國(guó)占領(lǐng)或控制”的島礁之外，嚴(yán)重違反了一個(gè)中國(guó)的原則，侵犯了中國(guó)的主權(quán)和領(lǐng)土完整。顯而易見，此類仲裁事項(xiàng)的實(shí)質(zhì)是中菲有關(guān)領(lǐng)土主權(quán)的爭(zhēng)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(jù)為領(lǐng)土本身明顯是一個(gè)領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題。 | 23. Finally, whether or not low-tide elevations can be appropriated is plainly a question of territorial sovereignty. |
| 24. 菲律賓認(rèn)為其仲裁訴求所涉及的幾個(gè)島礁是低潮高地，不能被據(jù)為領(lǐng)土。對(duì)于上述島礁是否屬于低潮高地，本立場(chǎng)文件不作評(píng)論。應(yīng)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(jì)70年代以來(lái)卻一直對(duì)這些島礁非法主張領(lǐng)土主權(quán)。菲律賓1978年6月11日頒布第1596號(hào)總統(tǒng)令，對(duì)包括上述島礁在內(nèi)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(quán)，并將該區(qū)域設(shè)立為巴拉望省的一個(gè)市，命名為“卡拉延”。雖然2009年3月10日菲律賓通過了第9522號(hào)共和國(guó)法案，規(guī)定“卡拉延島群”（即中國(guó)南沙群島部分島礁）和“斯卡伯勒礁”（即中國(guó)黃巖島）的海洋區(qū)域?qū)⑴c《公約》第一百二十一條（即“島嶼制度”）保持一致，但該規(guī)定僅是對(duì)上述區(qū)域內(nèi)海洋地物的海洋權(quán)利主張進(jìn)行了調(diào)整，并沒有涉及菲律賓對(duì)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(guó)代表團(tuán)在2011年4月5日致聯(lián)合國(guó)秘書長(zhǎng)的第000228號(hào)照會(huì)中還明確表示：“卡拉延島群構(gòu)成菲律賓不可分割的一部分。菲律賓共和國(guó)對(duì)卡拉延島群的地理構(gòu)造擁有主權(quán)和管轄權(quán)”。菲律賓至今仍堅(jiān)持其對(duì)南沙群島中40個(gè)島礁的主張，其中就包括菲律賓所稱的低潮高地?？梢姡坡少e提出低潮高地不可被據(jù)為領(lǐng)土，不過是想否定中國(guó)對(duì)這些島礁的主權(quán)，從而可以將這些島礁置于菲律賓的主權(quán)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(jù)為領(lǐng)土本身是一個(gè)領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題，不是有關(guān)《公約》的解釋或適用問題?！豆s》沒有關(guān)于低潮高地能否被據(jù)為領(lǐng)土的規(guī)定。國(guó)際法院在2001年卡塔爾－巴林案的判決中明確表示：“條約國(guó)際法對(duì)于低潮高地能否被視為領(lǐng)土的問題保持沉默。法院也不知道存在統(tǒng)一和廣泛的國(guó)家實(shí)踐，從而可能產(chǎn)生一項(xiàng)明確允許或排除將低潮高地?fù)?jù)為領(lǐng)土的習(xí)慣法規(guī)則”（判決第205段）。這里的條約國(guó)際法當(dāng)然包括1994年即已生效的《公約》。國(guó)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(jù)為領(lǐng)土”（判決第26段），但未指出此論斷的法律依據(jù)，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(duì)特定的海洋區(qū)域內(nèi)低潮高地的主權(quán)或主權(quán)主張。無(wú)論如何，國(guó)際法院在該案中作出上述判定時(shí)沒有適用《公約》。低潮高地能否被據(jù)為領(lǐng)土不是有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的問題。 | 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仲裁事項(xiàng)，中國(guó)認(rèn)為，中國(guó)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(guó)對(duì)有關(guān)島礁享有的主權(quán)以及基于島礁主權(quán)所享有的海洋權(quán)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，中國(guó)在南海所主張和行使的權(quán)利非法干涉菲律賓基于《公約》所享有和行使的主權(quán)權(quán)利、管轄權(quán)以及航行權(quán)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(zhēng)議的，中國(guó)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(duì)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(quán)，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(guó)一貫尊重各國(guó)依據(jù)國(guó)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(quán)歸屬的情況下，先適用《公約》的規(guī)定確定中國(guó)在南海的海洋權(quán)利，并提出一系列仲裁請(qǐng)求，違背了解決國(guó)際海洋爭(zhēng)端所依據(jù)的一般國(guó)際法原則和國(guó)際司法實(shí)踐。仲裁庭對(duì)菲律賓提出的任何仲裁請(qǐng)求作出判定，都將不可避免地直接或間接對(duì)本案涉及的相關(guān)島礁以及其他南海島礁的主權(quán)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(guó)認(rèn)為，仲裁庭對(duì)本案明顯沒有管轄權(quán)。 | 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. |
| 跳轉(zhuǎn)至目錄 >> | Back to Contents >> |
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)
No comments.
