| 国际环境法 菲律宾 南海 中国 声明 四、即使菲律宾提出的仲裁事项涉及有关《公约》解释或适用的问题，也构成海域划界不可分割的组成部分，已被中国2006年声明所排除，不得提交仲裁IV. Evenassuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concernedwith the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter wouldstill be an integral part of maritime delimitation and, having been excluded bythe 2006 Declaration filed by China, could not be submitted for arbitration 57、《公约》第十五部分确认了缔约国可以书面声明就特定事项排除适用该部分第二节规定的强制争端解决程序。中国2006年作出此类声明，符合《公约》有关规定。 57. Part XV of the Convention establishes the right for theStates Parties to file a written declaration to exclude specified categories ofdisputes from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures as laid down insection 2 of that Part. In 2006 Chinafiled such a declaration in full compliance with the Convention. 58、2006年8月25日，中国根据《公约》第二百九十八条的规定向联合国秘书长提交声明。该声明称：“关于《公约》第二百九十八条第1款（a）、（b）和（c）项所述的任何争端，中华人民共和国政府不接受《公约》第十五部分第二节规定的任何程序”。也就是说，对于涉及海域划界、历史性海湾或所有权、军事和执法活动以及安理会执行《联合国宪章》所赋予的职务等争端，中国政府不接受《公约》第十五部分第二节下的任何强制争端解决程序，包括强制仲裁。中国坚信，直接有关的主权国家进行友好磋商和谈判，是和平解决中国与周边邻国间的海洋争端最有效的方式。 58. On 25August 2006, China deposited, pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention, with Secretary-General of theUnited Nations a written declaration, stating that, “The Government of thePeople’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided forin section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to inparagraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention”. In other words, as regards disputes concerning maritimedelimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities,and disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations isexercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, the Chinese Government doesnot accept any of the compulsory dispute settlement procedures laid down insection 2 of Part XV of the Convention, including compulsory arbitration. Chinafirmly believes that the most effective means for settlement of maritimedisputes between Chinaand its neighbouring States is that of friendly consultations and negotiationsbetween the sovereign States directly concerned. 59、中国与菲律宾是海上邻国，两国属于《公约》第七十四条和第八十三条所指的“海岸相向或相邻的国家”，两国之间存在海域划界问题。由于中菲有关岛礁领土争端悬而未决，两国尚未进行海域划界谈判，但已开展合作为最终划界创造条件。 59. China and the Philippines are maritime neighboursand “States with opposite or adjacent coasts” in the sense ofArticles 74 and83 of the Convention. There exists an issue of maritime delimitation between the twoStates. Given that disputes between Chinaand the Philippinesrelating to territorial sovereignty over relevant maritime features remainunresolved, the two States have yet to start negotiations on maritimedelimitation. They have, however, commenced cooperation to pave the way for aneventual delimitation. 60、2004年9月3日，中菲双方发表《中华人民共和国政府和菲律宾共和国政府联合新闻公报》，指出“双方重申将继续致力于维护南海地区的和平与稳定。在尚未全面并最终解决南海地区的领土和海洋权益争端前，双方将继续探讨共同开发等合作”（联合新闻公报第16段）。 60. On 3September 2004, the two sides issued a Joint Press Statement of theGovernment of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republicof the Philippines, stating that “[t]he two sidesreaffirmed their commitment to the peace and stability in the South China Seaand their readiness to continue discussions to study cooperative activitieslike joint development pending the comprehensive and final settlement ofterritorial disputes and overlapping maritime claims in the area” (para. 16). 61、上述联合声明发表的前两天，经中菲两国政府批准并在两国元首的见证下，中国海洋石油总公司与菲律宾国家石油公司签署《南中国海部分海域联合海洋地震工作协议》。该协议于2005年3月14日扩大为中国、菲律宾、越南三方之间的协议。这是有关国家加强合作，为谈判解决南海争端创造条件的有益尝试。该协议适用范围就在菲律宾此次提起仲裁所涉海域之内。 61. Twodays before the issuance of the Joint Press Statement, upon approval by both governments and in the presence of theHeads of State of the two countries, China National Offshore Oil Corporationand Philippine National Oil Company signed the “Agreement for Joint MarineSeismic Undertaking in Certain Areas in the South China Sea”. On 14 March 2005, the agreement was expanded to a tripartiteagreement, with the participation of Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation. This is agood example of the constructive efforts made by the States concerned toenhance cooperation and create conditions for a negotiated settlement of thedisputes in the South China Sea. The maritimearea covered by that agreement is within that covered in the presentarbitration initiated by the Philippines. 62、2005年4月28日，时任中国国家主席胡锦涛对菲律宾进行国事访问期间，双方发表《中华人民共和国和菲律宾共和国联合声明》，“同意继续致力于维护南海地区的和平与稳定”，“对中国海洋石油总公司、越南油气总公司和菲律宾国家石油公司签订《南中国海协议区三方联合海洋地震工作协议》表示欢迎”（联合声明第16段）。 62. On 28April 2005, during a State visit to the Philippines by the then ChinesePresident Hu Jintao, China and the Philippines issued a Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the Republicof the Philippines, in which the two sides“agreed to continue efforts to maintain peace and stability in the South ChinaSea and ... welcomed the signing of the TripartiteAgreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in theSouth China Sea by China National Offshore OilCorporation, Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation and Philippine National OilCompany” (para. 16). 63、2007年1月16日，时任中国国务院总理温家宝对菲律宾进行正式访问期间，双方发表《中华人民共和国和菲律宾共和国联合声明》，再次表示，“南海三方联合海洋地震工作可以成为本地区合作的一个示范。双方同意，可以探讨将下一阶段的三方合作提升到更高水平，以加强本地区建立互信的良好势头”（联合声明第12段）。 63. On 16January 2007, during the official visit to the Philippines by the then ChinesePremier Wen Jiabao, China and the Philippines issued a Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the Republicof the Philippines, which stated that “theTripartite Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the South China Sea serves as amodel for cooperation in the region. They agreed that possible next steps forcooperation among the three parties should be explored to bring collaborationto a higher level and increase the momentum of trust and confidence in theregion” (para. 12). 64、可见，中菲之间对于通过合作促进海域划界问题的最终解决已有共识。鉴于中国2006年作出的声明，菲律宾不得单方面将海域划界问题提交仲裁。 64. Inlight of the above, it is plain that Chinaand the Philippineshave reached mutual understanding to advance final resolution of the issue ofmaritime delimitation through cooperation. In any event, given China’s 2006 declaration, the Philippinesshould not and cannot unilaterally initiate compulsory arbitration on the issueof maritime delimitation. 65、为了掩盖中菲海域划界争端的实质，绕过中国2006年声明，菲律宾将海域划界争端拆分，抽取其中几个事项作为孤立的问题提交仲裁，要求仲裁庭分别进行所谓的“法律解释”。 65. Tocover up the maritime delimitation nature of the China-Philippines dispute andto sidestep China’s 2006 declaration, the Philippines has split up the disputeof maritime delimitation into discrete issues and selected a few of them forarbitration, requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to render the so-called “legalinterpretation” on each of them. 66、不难看出，菲律宾提出的各项仲裁事项，包括海洋权利主张、岛礁性质和海洋权利范围，以及海上执法活动等等，均是国际司法或仲裁机构在以往海域划界案中所审理的主要问题，也是国家间海域划界实践中需要处理的问题。这些问题属于海域划界不可分割的组成部分。 66. It isnot difficult to see that such legal issues as those presented by thePhilippines in the present arbitration, including maritime claims, the legalnature of maritime features, the extent of relevant maritime rights, and lawenforcement activities at sea, are all fundamental issues dealt with in pastcases of maritime delimitation decided by international judicial or arbitralbodies and in State practice concerning maritime delimitation. In short, thoseissues are part and parcel of maritime delimitation. 67、海域划界是一项整体、系统工程。《公约》第七十四条和第八十三条规定，海岸相向或相邻国家间的海域划界问题，“应在《国际法院规约》第三十八条所指国际法的基础上以协议划定，以便得到公平解决”。国际司法判例和国家实践均确认，为使海域划界取得公平的结果，必须考虑所有相关因素。基于上述，适用于海域划界的国际法，既包括《公约》，也包括一般国际法。海域划界既涉及权利基础、岛礁效力等问题，也涉及划界原则和方法，以及为实现公平解决所必须考虑的所有相关因素。 67.Maritime delimitation is an integral, systematic process. Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention stipulate that maritimedelimitation between States with opposite or adjacent coasts “shall be effectedby 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 internationaljurisprudence and State practice have recognized that all relevant factors mustbe taken into account to achieve an equitable solution. In this light, theinternational law applicable to maritime delimitation includes both the Convention and general international law.Under this body of law, maritime delimitation involves a consideration of notonly entitlements, effect of maritime features, and principles and methods ofdelimitation, but also all relevant factors that must be taken into account, inorder to attain an equitable solution. 68、菲律宾提出的仲裁事项构成中菲海域划界不可分割的组成部分，只能在中菲海域划界的框架下，与有关当事方基于《公约》、一般国际法和长期历史实践所享有的相关权利和利益结合起来，予以综合考虑。菲律宾将中菲海域划界问题拆分并将其中的部分问题提交仲裁，势必破坏海域划界问题的整体性和不可分割性，违背海域划界应以《国际法院规约》第三十八条所指国际法为基础以及必须“考虑所有相关因素”的原则，将直接影响今后中菲海域划界问题的公平解决。 68. Theissues presented by the Philippines for arbitration constitute an integral partof maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines, and, as such, canonly be considered under the overarching framework of maritime delimitationbetween China and the Philippines, and in conjunction with all the relevantrights and interests the parties concerned enjoy in accordance with the Convention, general international law,and historical or long-standing practice in the region for overallconsideration. The Philippines’ approach of splitting its maritime delimitationdispute with China and selecting some of the issues for arbitration, ifpermitted, will inevitably destroy the integrity and indivisibility of maritimedelimitation and contravene the principle that maritime delimitation must bebased on international law as referred to in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and that “all relevant factorsmust be taken into account”. This will adversely affect the future equitablesolution of the dispute of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. 69、菲律宾表面上不要求进行划界，但却请求仲裁庭裁定部分岛礁是菲律宾专属经济区和大陆架的一部分，裁定中国非法干涉菲律宾对其专属经济区和大陆架享有和行使主权权利，等等。上述仲裁请求显然是要求仲裁庭确认相关海域属于菲律宾的专属经济区和大陆架，菲律宾在该海域有权行使主权权利和管辖权，这实际上是在变相地要求仲裁庭进行海域划界。菲律宾提出的各项仲裁事项，实际上已涵盖了海域划界的主要步骤和主要问题，如果仲裁庭实质审议菲律宾的各项具体主张，就等于是间接地进行了海域划界。 69.Ostensibly, the Philippines is not seeking from the Arbitral Tribunal a rulingregarding maritime delimitation, but instead a decision, inter alia, thatcertain maritime features are part of the Philippines’ EEZ and continentalshelf, and that China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exerciseby the Philippines of sovereign rights in its EEZ and continental shelf. Butthat obviously is an attempt to seek a recognition by the Arbitral Tribunalthat the relevant maritime areas are part of the Philippines’ EEZ andcontinental shelf, in respect of which the Philippines is entitled to exercisesovereign rights and jurisdiction. This is actually a request for maritimedelimitation by the Arbitral Tribunal in disguise. The Philippines’claims have in effect covered the main aspects and steps in maritimedelimitation. Should the Arbitral Tribunal address substantively the Philippines’claims, it would amount to a de facto maritime delimitation. 70、缔约国根据《公约》第二百九十八条作出的排除性声明理应受到尊重，菲律宾试图绕过中国排除性声明提起强制仲裁的做法是滥用《公约》规定的争端解决程序。 70. Theexclusionary declarations filed by the States Parties to the Convention under Article 298 of the Conventionmust be respected. Byinitiating the present compulsory arbitration as an attempt to circumvent China’s 2006 declaration, the Philippines isabusing the dispute settlement procedures under the Convention. 71、中国2006年排除性声明一经作出即应自动适用，其效力是，根据《公约》第二百九十九条的规定，未经中方同意，其他国家不得针对中国就相关争端单方面提交强制争端解决程序。同时，中国也放弃了就同类争端针对其他国家单方面提起强制争端解决程序的权利，体现了权利与义务的对等。 71. China’s 2006declaration, once filed, automatically comes into effect. Its effect, asprescribed under Article 299of the Convention, is that, without the consent of China,no State Party can unilaterally invoke any of the compulsory proceduresspecified in section 2 of Part XV against Chinain respect of the disputes covered by that declaration. In return, Chinasimultaneously gives up the right to unilaterally initiate compulsoryprocedures against other States Parties in respect of the same disputes. Therights and obligations are reciprocal in this regard. 72、菲律宾辩称，中国作为《公约》的缔约国，按照《公约》第二百八十七条的规定，未在该条所列的四种强制争端解决程序中作出选择，应被视为已接受强制仲裁程序。这种观点是有意误导。中国2006年声明的目的和效果就是对于特定事项完全排除适用强制争端解决程序。无论中国对《公约》第二百八十七条所列的四种强制争端解决程序是否作出选择，只要是属于中国2006年声明所涵盖的争端，中国就已经明确排除了适用《公约》第十五部分第二节下的任何强制争端解决程序包括强制仲裁的可能性。 72. The Philippines claims that, having chosen none ofthe four compulsory dispute settlement procedures listed underArticle 287 of the Convention, Chinaas a State Party shall therefore be deemed to have accepted compulsoryarbitration. This is a deliberately misleading argument. The purpose and theeffect of China’s2006 declaration is such that the disputes listed therein are fully excludedfrom the compulsory settlement procedures under the Convention. Whether or not China has selected any of the four compulsoryprocedures under Article 287, as long as a dispute falls within the scope of China’s 2006 declaration, China hasalready explicitly excluded it from the applicability of any compulsoryprocedures under section 2 of Part XV of the Convention, including compulsory arbitration. 73、尽管菲律宾认为其所提仲裁事项不属于中方2006年声明所涵盖的争端，但在中国对此持不同看法的情况下，菲律宾应先行与中国解决该问题，然后才能决定能否提交仲裁。如果按照菲律宾的逻辑，任何国家只要单方面声称有关争端不是另一国排除性声明所排除的争端，即可单方面启动强制仲裁程序，那么《公约》第二百九十九条的规定就变得毫无意义。 73.Although the Philippines professes that the subject-matter of the arbitrationdoes not involve any dispute covered by China’s 2006 declaration, since Chinaholds a different view in this regard, the Philippines should first take upthis issue with China, before a decision can be taken on whether or not it canbe submitted for arbitration. Should the Philippines’ logic in its present formbe followed, any State Party may unilaterally initiate compulsory arbitrationagainst another State Party in respect of a dispute covered by the latter’sdeclaration in force simply by asserting that the dispute is not excluded fromarbitration by that declaration. This would render the provisions of Article 299 meaningless. 74、自《公约》生效以来，本案是第一例在一国已作出排除性声明的情况下，另一国针对该声明所涵盖的争端单方面启动强制仲裁程序的案件。如果菲律宾这种“设计”的争端被认为可以满足强制仲裁管辖权的条件，那么可以设想，第二百九十八条所列的任何争端均可以按照菲律宾的方法与《公约》某些条款的解释或适用问题联系起来，都可以提起第十五部分第二节的强制争端解决程序。若可以如此适用《公约》，那么，《公约》第二百九十八条还有何价值？目前35个国家所作出的排除性声明还有何意义？中国认为，菲律宾单方面提起仲裁，是在滥用《公约》规定的强制争端解决程序，对《公约》争端解决机制的严肃性构成严重的挑战。 74. Sincethe entry into force of the Convention, the present arbitration is the first case in which a State Partyhas unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitration in respect of a disputecovered by a declaration of another State Party underArticle 298. Ifthis twisted approach of the Philippines could be accepted as fulfilling theconditions for invoking compulsory arbitration, it could be well imagined thatany 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 orapplication of certain provisions of the Convention. Should the above approach be deemed acceptable, the questionwould then arise as to whether the provisions of Article 298 could still retainany value, and whether there is any practical meaning left of the declarationsso far filed by 35 States Parties under Article298. In light of the foregoing reasons, Chinacan only conclude that, the unilateral initiation by the Philippines ofthe present arbitration constitutes an abuse of the compulsory proceduresprovided in the Convention and a grave challenge to the solemnity of the dispute settlementmechanism under the Convention. 75、综上所述，即使菲律宾提请仲裁的事项涉及有关《公约》的解释或适用的问题，也是海域划界争端不可分割的组成部分，已被中国2006年声明所排除，菲律宾不得就此提起强制仲裁程序。 75. To sumup, even assuming that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concernedwith the interpretation or application of the Convention, it would still be an integralpart of the dispute of maritime delimitation between the two States. Havingbeen excluded by China’s2006 declaration, it could not be submitted to compulsory arbitration under theConvention. 五、中国自主选择争端解决方式的权利应得到充分尊重，中国不接受、不参与菲律宾提起的仲裁具有充分的国际法依据V. China’s rightto freely choose the means of dispute settlement must be fully respected, andits rejection of and non-participation in the present arbitration is solidlygrounded in international law 76、根据国际法，各国享有自主选择争端解决方式的权利。任何国际司法或仲裁机构针对国家间争端行使管辖权必须以当事国的同意为基础，即“国家同意原则”。基于这一原则，出席第三次联合国海洋法会议的各国代表经过长期艰苦的谈判，作为一揽子协议，达成了《公约》第十五部分有关争端解决机制的规定。 76. Underinternational law, every State is free to choose the means of disputesettlement. The jurisdiction of any international judicial or arbitral bodyover an inter-State dispute depends on the prior consent of the parties to thedispute. This is known as the principle of consent in international law. It wason the basis of this principle that the States participating in the ThirdUnited Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea reached, after extended and arduous negotiations, a compromise on Part XV relating to dispute settlementas a package deal. 77、《公约》第十五部分规定的强制争端解决程序只适用于有关《公约》解释或适用的争端；缔约国有权自行选择第十五部分规定以外的其他争端解决方式；《公约》第二百九十七条和第二百九十八条还针对特定种类的争端规定了适用强制争端解决程序的限制和例外。 77. Thecompulsory dispute settlement procedures provided in Part XV of the Convention apply only to disputesconcerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. States Parties are entitledto 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 tothe applicability of the compulsory procedures with regard to specifiedcategories of disputes. 78、《公约》第十五部分这种平衡的规定，也是许多国家决定是否成为《公约》缔约国时的重要考虑因素。在1974年第三次联合国海洋法会议第二期会议上，萨尔瓦多大使雷纳多·佳林多·波尔在介绍关于《公约》争端解决的第一份草案时强调，有必要将直接涉及国家领土完整的问题作为强制管辖的例外。否则，许多国家可能不会批准甚至不会签署《公约》（参见沙巴泰·罗森和路易斯·索恩1989年所编《1982年<联合国海洋法公约>评注》第5卷第88页第297、1段）。因此，在解释和适用《公约》第十五部分的规定时，必须维护该部分的平衡和完整。 78. Thebalance embodied in the provisions of Part XV has been a critical factor for the decision of many States tobecome parties to the Convention. At the second session of the Third United Nations Conference onthe Law of the Sea, Ambassador Reynaldo Galindo Pohl of El Salvador, co-chair of theinformal group on the settlement of disputes, on introducing the first generaldraft on dispute settlement, emphasized the need for exceptions from compulsoryjurisdiction with respect to questions directly related to the territorialintegrity of States. Otherwise, as has been noted, “a number of States mighthave 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 theprovisions of Part XV must be interpreted and applied in such a manner so as to preservethe balance in and the integrity of Part XV. 79、中国重视《公约》强制争端解决程序在维护国际海洋法律秩序方面的积极作用。中国作为《公约》缔约国，接受了《公约》第十五部分第二节有关强制争端解决程序的规定。但是，中国接受该规定的适用范围不包括领土主权争端，不包括中国与其他缔约国同意以自行选择的方式加以解决的争端，也不包括《公约》第二百九十七条和中国2006年根据《公约》第二百九十八条所作声明排除的所有争端。对于菲律宾所提仲裁事项，中国从未接受《公约》第十五部分第二节规定的任何强制争端解决程序。 79. China highlyvalues the positive role played by the compulsory dispute settlement proceduresof the Convention in upholding the internationallegal order for the oceans. As a State Party to the Convention, China has accepted the provisionsof section 2 of Part XV on compulsory dispute settlement procedures. But that acceptancedoes not mean that those procedures apply to disputes of territorialsovereignty, or disputes which Chinahas agreed with other States Parties to settle by means of their own choice, ordisputes already excluded by Article 297 and China’s2006 declaration filed under Article 298. With regard to the Philippines’claims for arbitration, Chinahas never accepted any of the compulsory procedures of section 2 of Part XV. 80、根据国家主权原则，争端当事国可自行选择争端解决方式，《公约》对此予以确认。《公约》第二百八十条规定：“本公约的任何规定均不损害任何缔约国于任何时候协议用自行选择的任何和平方法解决它们之间有关本公约的解释或适用的争端的权利。” 80. Byvirtue of the principle of sovereignty, parties to a dispute may choose themeans of settlement of their own accord. This has been affirmed by the Convention. Article 280 provides that, “Nothing in thisPart impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle adispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of thisConvention by any peaceful means of their own choice.” 81、当事国自行选择的争端解决方式优先于《公约》第十五部分第二节规定的强制争端解决程序。《公约》第十五部分第一节的第二百八十一条第一款规定：“作为有关本公约的解释或适用的争端各方的缔约各国，如已协议用自行选择的和平方法来谋求解决争端，则只有在诉诸这种方法而仍未得到解决以及争端各方间的协议并不排除任何其他程序的情形下，才适用本部分所规定的程序。”《公约》第二百八十六条也规定：“在第三节限制下，有关本公约的解释或适用的任何争端，如已诉诸第一节而仍未得到解决，经争端任何一方请求，应提交根据本节具有管辖权的法院或法庭。”可见，只要当事方已经自行选择争端解决方式并且排除其他任何程序，《公约》规定的强制争端解决程序就完全不适用。 81. Themeans thus chosen by the States Parties to the Convention takes priority over thecompulsory procedures set forth in section 2 of Part XV. Article 281(1) of section 1 of Part XV provides that, “If the States Partieswhich are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application ofthis Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful meansof their own choice, the procedures provided for in this Part apply only whereno settlement has been reached by recourse to such means and the agreementbetween the parties does not exclude any further procedure.”Article 286 states that, “Subject to section 3, any dispute concerning theinterpretation or application of this Conventionshall, where no settlement has been reached by recourse to section1, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court ortribunal having jurisdiction under this section.” Accordingly, where parties toa dispute have already chosen a means of settlement and excluded otherprocedures, the compulsory procedures of the Convention shall not apply to the disputein question. 82、 缔约国自行选择争端解决方式的优先性和重要性在2000年南方蓝鳍金枪鱼仲裁案裁决中得到了进一步肯定。仲裁庭指出，“《公约》远未建立一个真正全面的、有拘束力的强制管辖制度”（裁决第62段），“《公约》第二百八十一条第一款允许缔约国将第十五部分第二节强制程序的适用限定在所有当事方均同意提交的案件”（裁决第62段）。如果第十五部分第一节的规定不能得到有效遵守，就会实质上剥夺缔约国基于国家主权自行选择争端解决方式的权利，从而违反国家同意原则，破坏《公约》第十五部分的平衡和完整。 82. Thepriority and significance of the means of dispute settlement chosen by StatesParties to the Convention have been further affirmed in the arbitral award in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case. The tribunal recognized thatthe Convention“falls significantly short ofestablishing a truly comprehensive regime of compulsory jurisdiction entailingbinding decisions”, and that “States Parties ... are permitted by Article 281(1) to confine the applicability ofcompulsory procedures of section 2 of Part XV to cases where all parties to the dispute have agreed uponsubmission of their dispute to such compulsory procedures” (Australia and NewZealand 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 freelychoose means of peaceful settlement based on State sovereignty. That wouldentail a breach of the principle of consent and upset the balance in andintegrity of Part XV. 83、相关司法或仲裁机构在行使确定自身管辖权方面的权力时，也必须充分尊重缔约国自行选择争端解决方式的权利。《公约》第二百八十八条第四款规定：“对于法院或法庭是否具有管辖权如果发生争端，这一问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决。”中国尊重相关司法或仲裁机构根据《公约》所享有的上述权力，但同时强调，相关司法或仲裁机构在行使其权力时不应损害缔约国自行选择争端解决方式的权利，不应损害国际司法或仲裁必须遵循的国家同意原则。中国认为，这是仲裁庭在适用第二百八十八条第四款的规定确定自身管辖权时所必须受到的限制。总而言之，“争端当事方是争端解决程序完全的主人”（沙巴泰·罗森和路易斯·索恩1989年所编《1982年<联合国海洋法公约>评注》第5卷第20页第280、1段）。 83. Inexercise of its power to decide on its jurisdiction, any judicial or arbitralbody should respect the right of the States Parties to the Convention to freely choose the means ofsettlement. Article 288(4) of the Convention provides that “[i]n the event of a dispute as to whether a courtor tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of thatcourt or tribunal”. Chinarespects that competence of judicial or arbitral bodies under the Convention. Equally important, China wouldlike to emphasize, the exercise of judicial or arbitral power shall notderogate from the right of the States Parties to choose the means of settlementof their own accord, or from the principle of consent which must be followed ininternational adjudication and arbitration. China holds that this is theconstraint that the Arbitral Tribunal must abide by when considering whether ornot to apply Article 288(4) in determining its jurisdiction in the present arbitration. Afterall, “the parties to the dispute are complete masters of the procedure to beused 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、中国尊重所有缔约国依据《公约》的规定适用强制争端解决程序的权利。同时，需要强调的是，《公约》第三百条规定：“缔约国应诚意履行根据本公约承担的义务，并应以不致构成滥用权利的方式，行使本公约所承认的权利、管辖权和自由。”菲律宾明知其所提出的仲裁事项本质上是岛礁领土主权问题，明知中国从未同意就有关争端接受强制争端解决程序，明知中菲之间存在关于通过谈判方式解决有关争端的协议，还要单方面提起强制仲裁，违反了《公约》的相关规定，无助于争端的和平解决。 84. China respectsthe right of all States Parties to invoke the compulsory procedures inaccordance with theConvention. At the same time, it would call attentionto Article 300 of the Convention, which provides that, “StatesParties 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 notconstitute an abuse of right.” While being fully aware that its claimsessentially deal with territorial sovereignty, that China has never acceptedany compulsory procedures in respect of those claims, and that there has beenan agreement existing between the two States to settle their relevant disputesby negotiations, the Philippines has nevertheless initiated, by unilateralaction, the present arbitration. This surely contravenes the relevantprovisions of the Convention, and does no service to the peaceful settlement of the disputes. 85、鉴于上述，并基于仲裁庭对本案显然不具有管辖权，中国政府决定不接受、不参与仲裁程序，以捍卫中国自主选择争端解决方式的主权权利，确保中国依据《公约》于2006年作出的排除性声明起到应有的效力，维护《公约》第十五部分的完整性以及国际海洋法律制度的权威性和严肃性。中国的这一立场不会改变。 85. Inview of what is stated above and in light of the manifest lack of jurisdictionon the part of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Chinese Government has decided not toaccept or participate in the present arbitration, in order to preserve China’ssovereign right to choose the means of peaceful settlement of its own free willand the effectiveness of its 2006 declaration, and to maintain the integrity of Part XV of the Convention as well as the authority andsolemnity of the international legal regime for the oceans. This position of China will notchange. |
