| 国际环境法 中国政府 南海 管辖 声明 中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件Position Paper of theGovernment of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction inthe South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines 2014年12月7日7 December 2014 一、引言I. Introduction 1．2013年1月22日，菲律宾共和国外交部照会中华人民共和国驻菲律宾大使馆称，菲律宾依据1982年《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称《公约》）第二百八十七条和附件七的规定，就中菲有关南海“海洋管辖权”的争端递交仲裁通知，提起强制仲裁。2013年2月19日，中国政府退回菲律宾政府的照会及所附仲裁通知。中国政府多次郑重声明，中国不接受、不参与菲律宾提起的仲裁。 1. On 22January 2013, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of thePhilippines presented a note verbale to the Embassy of the People’s Republic ofChina in the Philippines, stating that the Philippines submitted a Notificationand 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, theChinese Government rejected and returned the Philippines’ note verbale togetherwith the attached Notification and Statement of Claim. The Chinese Governmenthas subsequently reiterated that it will neither accept nor participate in thearbitration thus initiated by the Philippines. 2、本立场文件旨在阐明仲裁庭对于菲律宾提起的仲裁没有管辖权，不就菲律宾提请仲裁事项所涉及的实体问题发表意见。本立场文件不意味着中国在任何方面认可菲律宾的观点和主张，无论菲律宾有关观点或主张是否在本立场文件中提及。本立场文件也不意味着中国接受或参与菲律宾提起的仲裁。 2. This Position Paper is intended to demonstrate thatthe arbitral tribunal established at the request of the Philippines forthe present arbitration (“Arbitral Tribunal”) does not have jurisdiction overthis case. It does not express any position on the substantive issues relatedto the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines. Noacceptance by China issignified 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’sacceptance of or participation in this arbitration. 3．本立场文件将说明：菲律宾提请仲裁事项的实质是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题，超出《公约》的调整范围，不涉及《公约》的解释或适用；以谈判方式解决有关争端是中菲两国通过双边文件和《南海各方行为宣言》所达成的协议，菲律宾单方面将中菲有关争端提交强制仲裁违反国际法；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，也构成中菲两国海域划界不可分割的组成部分，而中国已根据《公约》的规定于2006年作出声明，将涉及海域划界等事项的争端排除适用仲裁等强制争端解决程序。因此，仲裁庭对菲律宾提起的仲裁明显没有管辖权。基于上述，并鉴于各国有权自主选择争端解决方式，中国不接受、不参与菲律宾提起的仲裁有充分的国际法依据。 3. This Position Paper will elaborate on the followingpositions: – Theessence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereigntyover 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, throughbilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct ofParties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevantdisputes through negotiations. By unilaterally initiating the presentarbitration, the Philippineshas breached its obligation under international law; – Evenassuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concernedwith the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter wouldconstitute 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 othercompulsory dispute settlement procedures; –Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over thepresent arbitration. Based on the foregoing positions and by virtue of thefreedom of every State to choose the means of dispute settlement, China’srejection of and non-participation in the present arbitration stand on solidground in international law. 二、菲律宾提请仲裁事项的实质是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题，不涉及《公约》的解释或适用II. Theessence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereigntyover several maritime features in the South China Sea,which does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention 4．中国对南海诸岛及其附近海域拥有无可争辩的主权。中国在南海的活动已有2000多年的历史。中国最早发现、命名和开发经营南海诸岛，最早并持续对南海诸岛实施主权管辖。20世纪30年代至40年代，日本在侵华战争期间非法侵占中国南海岛礁。第二次世界大战结束后，中国政府恢复对南海诸岛行使主权，派遣军政官员乘军舰前往南海岛礁举行接收仪式，树碑立标，派兵驻守，进行地理测量，于1947年对南海诸岛进行了重新命名，并于1948年在公开发行的官方地图上标绘南海断续线。中华人民共和国1949年10月1日成立以来，中国政府一直坚持并采取实际行动积极维护南海诸岛的主权。1958年《中华人民共和国政府关于领海的声明》和1992年《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》均明确规定，中华人民共和国的领土包括东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛和南沙群岛。上述行动一再重申了中国在南海的领土主权和相关的海洋权益。 4. China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands(the Dongsha Islands,the Xisha Islands,the Zhongsha Islandsand the Nansha Islands) and the adjacent waters.Chinese activities in the South China Sea dateback to over 2,000 years ago. Chinawas the first country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources ofthe South China Sea Islands and the first tocontinuously exercise sovereign powers over them. From the 1930s to 1940s, Japan illegally seized some parts of the South China Sea Islandsduring its war of aggression against China. At the end of the SecondWorld War, the Chinese Government resumed exercise of sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. Military personnel andgovernment officials were sent via naval vessels to hold resumption ofauthority ceremonies. Commemorative stone markers were erected, garrisonsstationed, and geographical surveys conducted. In 1947, China renamed the maritime features of the South China Sea Islandsand, in 1948, published an official map which displayed a dotted line in the South China Sea. Since the founding of the People’sRepublic of China on 1 October1949, the Chinese Government has been consistently and actively maintaining itssovereignty over the South China Sea Islands.Both the Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China onthe Territorial Sea of 1958 and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea andthe Contiguous Zone of 1992 expressly provide that theterritory of the People’s Republic of China includes, among others, the DongshaIslands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands. Allthose acts affirm China’sterritorial sovereignty and relevant maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. 5．20世纪70年代之前，菲律宾的法律对其领土范围有明确限定，没有涉及中国的南海岛礁。1935年《菲律宾共和国宪法》第一条“国家领土”明确规定：“菲律宾的领土包括根据1898年12月10日美国同西班牙缔结的《巴黎条约》割让给美国的该条约第三条所述范围内的全部领土，连同1900年11月7日美国同西班牙在华盛顿缔结的条约和1930年1月2日美国同英国缔结的条约中包括的所有岛屿，以及由菲律宾群岛现政府行使管辖权的全部领土。”根据上述规定，菲律宾的领土范围限于菲律宾群岛，不涉及中国的南海岛礁。1961年《关于确定菲律宾领海基线的法案》（菲律宾共和国第3046号法案）重申了菲律宾1935年宪法关于其领土范围的规定。 5. Priorto 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 theRepublic of the Philippines, entitled “The NationalTerritory”, provided that “The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded tothe United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day ofDecember, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together withall the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between theUnited States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, andthe treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the secondday of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which thepresent Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.” Underthis provision, the territory of the Philippineswas 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 Definethe Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines”, which was promulgatedin 1961, reaffirmed the territorial scope of the country as laid down in the1935Constitution. 6．自20世纪70年代起，菲律宾非法侵占中国南沙群岛的马欢岛、费信岛、中业岛、南钥岛、北子岛、西月岛、双黄沙洲和司令礁等岛礁；非法将中国南沙群岛部分岛礁宣布为所谓“卡拉延岛群”，对上述岛礁及其周边大范围海域提出主权主张；并对中国中沙群岛的黄岩岛提出非法领土要求。菲律宾还在有关岛礁及其附近海域非法从事资源开发等活动。 6. Sincethe 1970s, the Philippines has illegally occupied a number of maritime featuresof 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” toencompass some of the maritime features of China’sNansha Islands and claimed sovereignty overthem, together with adjacent but vast maritime areas. Subsequently, it laidunlawful claim to sovereignty over Huangyan Dao of China’sZhongsha Islands. In addition, the Philippines hasalso illegally explored and exploited the resources on those maritime featuresand in the adjacent maritime areas. 7．菲律宾上述行为违反《联合国宪章》和国际法，严重侵犯中国的领土主权和海洋权益，是非法、无效的。中国政府对此一贯坚决反对，一直进行严正交涉和抗议。 7. The Philippines’ activities mentioned above haveviolated the Charter of the United Nations and international law, and seriously encroached upon China’sterritorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. They are null andvoid in law. The Chinese Government has always been firmly opposed to theseactions of the Philippines,and consistently and continuously made solemn representations and protests tothe Philippines. 8、菲律宾将其所提仲裁事项主要归纳为以下三类： 8. The Philippines hassummarized its claims for arbitration in three categories: 第一，中国在《公约》规定的权利范围之外，对“九段线”（即中国的南海断续线）内的水域、海床和底土所主张的“历史性权利”与《公约》不符； First, China’s assertion of the “historic rights” tothe 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，中国依据南海若干岩礁、低潮高地和水下地物提出的200海里甚至更多权利主张与《公约》不符； Second, China’s claim to entitlements of 200 nauticalmiles and more, based on certain rocks, low-tide elevations and submergedfeatures in the South China Sea, isinconsistent with the Convention. 第三，中国在南海所主张和行使的权利非法干涉菲律宾基于《公约》所享有和行使的主权权利、管辖权以及航行权利和自由。 Third,China’s assertion and exercise of rights in the South China Sea have unlawfullyinterfered with the sovereign rights, jurisdiction and rights and freedom ofnavigation that the Philippines enjoys and exercises under the Convention. 9．菲律宾提请仲裁的上述事项的实质是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题，超出《公约》的调整范围，不涉及《公约》的解释或适用。仲裁庭对菲律宾提出的这些仲裁事项均无管辖权。 9. Thesubject-matter of the Philippines’ claims is in essence one of territorialsovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which isbeyond the scope of the Convention and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention. Consequently, the ArbitralTribunal has no jurisdiction over the claims of the Philippines for arbitration. 10．关于菲律宾提出的第一类仲裁事项，很显然，菲律宾主张的核心是中国在南海的海洋权利主张超出《公约》允许的范围。然而，无论遵循何种法律逻辑，只有首先确定中国在南海的领土主权，才能判断中国在南海的海洋权利主张是否超出《公约》允许的范围。 10. Withregard to the first category of claims presented by the Philippines for arbitration, it is obvious thatthe core of those claims is that China’smaritime claims in the South China Sea haveexceeded the extent allowed under theConvention. However, whatever logicis to be followed, only after the extent of China’sterritorial sovereignty in the South China Sea is determined can a decision bemade on whether China’smaritime claims in the South China Sea haveexceeded the extent allowed under the Convention. 11．国家的领土主权是其海洋权利的基础，这是国际法的一般原则。国际法院指出，“海洋权利源自沿海国对陆地的主权，这可概括为‘陆地统治海洋’原则”（2001年卡塔尔－巴林案判决第185段，亦参见1969年北海大陆架案判决第96段和1978年爱琴海大陆架案判决第86段），“因此陆地领土状况必须作为确定沿海国海洋权利的出发点”（2001年卡塔尔－巴林案判决第185段、2007年尼加拉瓜－洪都拉斯案判决第113段）。国际法院还强调，“国家对大陆架和专属经济区的权利基于陆地统治海洋的原则”，“陆地是一个国家对其领土向海延伸部分行使权利的法律渊源”（2012年尼加拉瓜－哥伦比亚案判决第140段）。 11. It isa general principle of international law that sovereignty over land territoryis the basis for the determination of maritime rights. As the InternationalCourt of Justice (“ICJ”) stated, “maritime rights derive from the coastalState’s sovereignty over the land, a principle which can be summarized as ‘theland dominates the sea’” (Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questionsbetween 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 SeaContinental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 19December 1978, I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 36, para. 86). And, “[i]t is thus theterrestrial territorial situation that must be taken as starting point for thedetermination of the maritime rights of a coastal State” (Qatar v. Bahrain,I.C.J. Reports 2001, para. 185; Territorial and Maritime Dispute betweenNicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgmentof 8 October 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 696, para. 113). Recently the ICJagain emphasized that “[t]he title of a State to the continental shelf and tothe exclusive economic zone is based on the principle that the land dominatesthe sea”, and that “the land is the legal source of the power which a State mayexercise over territorial extensions to seaward” (Territorial and MaritimeDispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, I.C.J. Reports2012, p. 51, para. 140). 12、《公约》序言开宗明义地指出，“认识到有需要通过本公约，在妥为顾及所有国家主权的情形下，为海洋建立一种法律秩序”。显然，“妥为顾及所有国家主权”是适用《公约》确定缔约国海洋权利的前提。 12. Thepreamble of the Convention proclaims “the desirability of establishing through thisConvention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal orderfor the seas and oceans”. It is apparent that “due regard for the sovereigntyof all States” is the prerequisite for the application of the Convention to determine maritime rights ofthe States Parties. 13．就本案而言，如果不确定中国对南海岛礁的领土主权，仲裁庭就无法确定中国依据《公约》在南海可以主张的海洋权利范围，更无从判断中国在南海的海洋权利主张是否超出《公约》允许的范围。然而，领土主权问题不属于《公约》调整的范畴。 13. As faras the present arbitration is concerned, without first having determinedChina’s territorial sovereignty over the maritime features in the South ChinaSea, the Arbitral Tribunal will not be in a position to determine the extent towhich China may claim maritime rights in the South China Sea pursuant to the Convention, not to mention whetherChina’s claims exceed the extent allowed under the Convention. But the issue of territorialsovereignty falls beyond the purview of the Convention. 14．菲律宾也十分清楚，根据《公约》第二百八十七条和附件七组成的仲裁庭对于领土争端没有管辖权。菲律宾为了绕过这一法律障碍，制造提起仲裁的依据，蓄意对自己提请仲裁的实质诉求进行精心的包装。菲律宾一再表示自己不寻求仲裁庭判定哪一方对两国均主张的岛礁拥有主权，只要求仲裁庭对中国在南海所主张的海洋权利是否符合《公约》的规定进行判定，使仲裁事项看起来好像只是关于《公约》的解释或适用问题，不涉及领土主权问题。然而，菲律宾的包装无法掩饰其提请仲裁事项的实质就是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题。 14. The Philippines iswell aware that a tribunal established under Article 287 and Annex VII of the Convention has no jurisdiction overterritorial sovereignty disputes. In an attempt to circumvent thisjurisdictional hurdle and fabricate a basis for institution of arbitralproceedings, the Philippineshas cunningly packaged its case in the present form. It has repeatedlyprofessed that it does not seek from the Arbitral Tribunal a determination ofterritorial sovereignty over certain maritime features claimed by both countries,but rather a ruling on the compatibility of China’s maritime claims with theprovisions of the Convention, so that its claims for arbitration would appear to be concernedwith the interpretation or application of the Convention, not with the sovereignty overthose maritime features. This contrived packaging, however, fails to concealthe very essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration, namely, theterritorial sovereignty over certain maritime features in the South China Sea. 15．关于菲律宾提出的第二类仲裁事项，中国认为，南海部分岛礁的性质和海洋权利问题与主权问题不可分割。 15. Withregard to the second category of claims by the Philippines,China believes that thenature and maritime entitlements of certain maritime features in the South China Sea cannot be considered in isolation fromthe issue of sovereignty. 16．首先，只有先确定岛礁的主权，才能确定基于岛礁的海洋权利主张是否符合《公约》。 16. In thefirst place, without determining the sovereignty over a maritime feature, it isimpossible to decide whether maritime claims based on that feature areconsistent with the Convention. 17．《公约》规定的有关专属经济区和大陆架的海洋权利均赋予对相关陆地领土享有主权的国家。脱离了国家主权，岛礁本身不拥有任何海洋权利。只有对相关岛礁拥有主权的国家，才可以依据《公约》基于相关岛礁提出海洋权利主张。在确定了领土归属的前提下，如果其他国家对该国的海洋权利主张是否符合《公约》的规定提出质疑或者提出了重叠的海洋权利主张，才会产生关于《公约》解释或适用的争端。如果岛礁的主权归属未定，一国基于岛礁的海洋权利主张是否符合《公约》规定就不能构成一个可以提交仲裁的具体而真实的争端。 17. Theholder of the entitlements to an exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”) and acontinental shelf under theConvention is the coastal State with sovereignty over relevant landterritory. When not subject to State sovereignty, a maritime feature per sepossesses no maritime rights or entitlements whatsoever. In other words, onlythe State having sovereignty over a maritime feature is entitled under the Convention to claim any maritime rightsbased on that feature. Only after a State’s sovereignty over a maritime featurehas 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 questionsthe compatibility of those claims with the Convention or makes overlapping claims. Ifthe sovereignty over a maritime feature is undecided, there cannot be aconcrete and real dispute for arbitration as to whether or not the maritimeclaims of a State based on such a feature are compatible with the Convention. 18．就本案而言，菲律宾不承认中国对相关岛礁拥有主权，意在从根本上否定中国依据相关岛礁主张任何海洋权利的资格。在这种情形下，菲律宾要求仲裁庭先行判断中国的海洋权利主张是否符合《公约》的规定，是本末倒置。任何国际司法或仲裁机构在审理有关岛礁争端的案件中，从未在不确定有关岛礁主权归属的情况下适用《公约》的规定先行判定这些岛礁的海洋权利。 18. In thepresent case, the Philippinesdenies China’s sovereigntyover the maritime features in question, with a view to completely disqualifyingChinafrom 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 ArbitralTribunal to determine, even before the matter of sovereignty is dealt with, theissue of compatibility of China’s maritime claims with the Convention. In relevant cases, no internationaljudicial or arbitral body has ever applied the Convention to determine themaritime rights derived from a maritime feature before sovereignty over thatfeature is decided. 19．其次，在南沙群岛中，菲律宾仅仅挑出少数几个岛礁，要求仲裁庭就其海洋权利作出裁定，实质上是否定中国对南沙群岛的领土主权。 19.Secondly, in respect of the Nansha Islands, the Philippines selects only a fewfeatures and requests the Arbitral Tribunal to decide on their maritimeentitlements. This is in essence an attempt at denying China’s sovereignty over the Nansha Islandsas a whole. 20．南沙群岛包括众多岛礁。中国历来对整个南沙群岛、而非仅对其中少数几个岛礁享有主权。1935年中国政府水陆地图审查委员会出版《中国南海各岛屿图》，1948年中国政府公布《南海诸岛位置图》，均将现在所称的南沙群岛以及东沙群岛、西沙群岛和中沙群岛划入中国版图。1958年《中华人民共和国政府关于领海的声明》指出，中华人民共和国的领土包括南沙群岛。1983年中国地名委员会公布南海诸岛部分标准地名，其中包括南沙群岛的岛礁。1992年《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》也明确规定，中华人民共和国的陆地领土包括南沙群岛。 20. TheNansha Islands comprises many maritimefeatures. China has alwaysenjoyed sovereignty over the Nansha Islands in its entirety,not just over some features thereof. In 1935, the Commission of the ChineseGovernment 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’ssovereignty what are now known as the NanshaIslands as well as the Dongsha Islands,the Xisha Islandsand the Zhongsha Islands. The Declaration of theGovernment of the People’s Republic of Chinaon the Territorial Sea of 1958 declared that the territory of thePeople’s Republic of Chinaincludes, inter alia, the Nansha Islands. In 1983, theNational 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 andthe Contiguous Zone of 1992 again expresslyprovides that the Nansha Islands constitutes a part of the land territory ofthe People’s Republic of China. 21．2011年4月14日，中国常驻联合国代表团就有关南海问题致联合国秘书长的第CML/8/2011号照会中亦指出：“按照《联合国海洋法公约》、1992年《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》和1998年《中华人民共和国专属经济区和大陆架法》的有关规定，中国的南沙群岛拥有领海、专属经济区和大陆架”。显然，按照《公约》确定中国南沙群岛的海洋权利，必须考虑该群岛中的所有岛礁。 21. InNote Verbale No. CML/8/2011 of 14 April 2011 addressed to Secretary-General ofthe United Nations, the Permanent Mission of China to the United Nations statedthat “under the relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as wellas the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea andthe Contiguous Zone (1992) and the Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelfof the People’s Republic of China (1998), China’s Nansha Islands isfully entitled to Territorial Sea, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) andContinental Shelf.” It is plain that, in order to determine China’s maritime entitlements based on the Nansha Islandsunder the Convention, all maritime featurescomprising the Nansha Islands must be takeninto account. 22．菲律宾在仲裁诉求中对南沙群岛作出“切割”，只要求对其声称的“中国占领或控制的”岛礁的海洋权利进行判定，刻意不提南沙群岛中的其他岛礁，包括至今仍为菲律宾非法侵占或主张的岛礁，旨在否定中国对整个南沙群岛的主权，否认菲律宾非法侵占或主张中国南沙群岛部分岛礁的事实，从而篡改中菲南沙群岛主权争端的性质和范围。菲律宾还刻意将中国台湾驻守的南沙群岛最大岛屿——太平岛排除在“中国占领或控制”的岛礁之外，严重违反了一个中国的原则，侵犯了中国的主权和领土完整。显而易见，此类仲裁事项的实质是中菲有关领土主权的争端。 22. The Philippines, by requesting the Arbitral Tribunalto determine the maritime entitlements of only what it describes as themaritime features “occupied or controlled by China”,has in effect dissected the Nansha Islands. It deliberatelymakes no mention of the rest of the NanshaIslands, including those illegallyseized or claimed by the Philippines.Its real intention is to gainsay China’ssovereignty over the whole of the NanshaIslands, deny the fact of its illegalseizure of or claim on several maritime features of the NanshaIslands, and distort the nature andscope of the China-Philippines disputes in the South China Sea. In addition, the Philippineshas deliberately excluded from the category of the maritime features “occupiedor controlled by China” thelargest island in the Nansha Islands, Taiping Dao, which is currently controlledby the Taiwan authorities ofChina.This is a grave violation of the One-China Principle and an infringement of China’s sovereignty and territorialintegrity. This further shows that the second category of claims brought by thePhilippinesessentially pertains to the territorial sovereignty dispute between the twocountries. 23．最后，低潮高地能否被据为领土本身明显是一个领土主权问题。 23.Finally, whether or not low-tide elevations can be appropriated is plainly aquestion of territorial sovereignty. 24．菲律宾认为其仲裁诉求所涉及的几个岛礁是低潮高地，不能被据为领土。对于上述岛礁是否属于低潮高地，本立场文件不作评论。应该指出的是，无论这些岛礁具有何种性质，菲律宾自己从上世纪70年代以来却一直对这些岛礁非法主张领土主权。菲律宾1978年6月11日颁布第1596号总统令，对包括上述岛礁在内的南沙群岛部分岛礁及其周边大范围的海域、海床、底土、大陆边及其上空主张主权，并将该区域设立为巴拉望省的一个市，命名为“卡拉延”。虽然2009年3月10日菲律宾通过了第9522号共和国法案，规定“卡拉延岛群”（即中国南沙群岛部分岛礁）和“斯卡伯勒礁”（即中国黄岩岛）的海洋区域将与《公约》第一百二十一条（即“岛屿制度”）保持一致，但该规定仅是对上述区域内海洋地物的海洋权利主张进行了调整，并没有涉及菲律宾对这些海洋地物，包括低潮高地的领土主张。菲律宾常驻联合国代表团在2011年4月5日致联合国秘书长的第000228号照会中还明确表示：“卡拉延岛群构成菲律宾不可分割的一部分。菲律宾共和国对卡拉延岛群的地理构造拥有主权和管辖权”。菲律宾至今仍坚持其对南沙群岛中40个岛礁的主张，其中就包括菲律宾所称的低潮高地。可见，菲律宾提出低潮高地不可被据为领土，不过是想否定中国对这些岛礁的主权，从而可以将这些岛礁置于菲律宾的主权之下。 24. The Philippinesasserts that some of the maritime features, about which it has submitted claimsfor arbitration, are low-tide elevations, thus being incapable of appropriationas 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 Philippinesitself has persisted in claiming sovereignty over them since the 1970s. ByPresidential Decree No. 1596, promulgated on 11 June 1978, the Philippines madeknown its unlawful claim to sovereignty over some maritime features in theNansha Islands including the aforementioned features, together with theadjacent but vast areas of waters, sea-bed, subsoil, continental margin andsuperjacent airspace, and constituted the vast area as a new municipality ofthe province of Palawan, entitled “Kalayaan”. Notwithstanding that Philippine Republic Act No. 9522 of 10 March 2009 stipulates that the maritime zones for theso-called “Kalayaan Island Group” (i.e., some maritime features of China’sNansha Islands) and “Scarborough Shoal” (i.e., China’s Huangyan Dao) bedetermined in a way consistent with Article 121 of the Convention (i.e., the regime of islands), this provision was designed toadjust the Philippines’ maritime claims based on those features within theaforementioned area. The Act did not vary the territorial claim of the Philippines tothe relevant maritime features, including those it alleged in this arbitrationas low-tide elevations. In Note Verbale No. 000228, addressed toSecretary-General of the United Nations on 5 April 2011, the PhilippinePermanent Mission to the United Nations stated that, “the Kalayaan Island Group(KIG) constitutes an integral part of the Philippines. The Republic of the Philippines hassovereignty and jurisdiction over the geological features in the KIG.” The Philippines has maintained, to date, its claimto sovereignty over 40 maritime features in the Nansha Islands,among which are the very features it now labels as low-tide elevations. It isthus obvious that the only motive behind the Philippines’assertion that low-tide elevations cannot be appropriated is to deny China’ssovereignty over these features so as to place them under Philippinesovereignty. 25．低潮高地能否被据为领土本身是一个领土主权问题，不是有关《公约》的解释或适用问题。《公约》没有关于低潮高地能否被据为领土的规定。国际法院在2001年卡塔尔－巴林案的判决中明确表示：“条约国际法对于低潮高地能否被视为领土的问题保持沉默。法院也不知道存在统一和广泛的国家实践，从而可能产生一项明确允许或排除将低潮高地据为领土的习惯法规则”（判决第205段）。这里的条约国际法当然包括1994年即已生效的《公约》。国际法院在2012年尼加拉瓜－哥伦比亚案的判决中虽然表示“低潮高地不能被据为领土”（判决第26段），但未指出此论断的法律依据，未涉及低潮高地作为群岛组成部分时的法律地位，也未涉及在历史上形成的对特定的海洋区域内低潮高地的主权或主权主张。无论如何，国际法院在该案中作出上述判定时没有适用《公约》。低潮高地能否被据为领土不是有关《公约》解释或适用的问题。 25.Whether low-tide elevations can be appropriated as territory is in itself aquestion of territorial sovereignty, not a matter concerning the interpretationor application of the Convention. The Convention is silent on this issue of appropriation. In its 2001 Judgment in Qatar v. Bahrain, the ICJ explicitly statedthat, “International treaty law is silent on the question whether low-tideelevations can be considered to be ‘territory’. Nor is the Court aware of auniform and widespread State practice which might have given rise to acustomary rule which unequivocally permits or excludes appropriation oflow-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 Nicaraguav. 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 notpoint to any legal basis for this conclusory statement. Nor did it touch uponthe legal status of low-tide elevations as components of an archipelago, orsovereignty or claims of sovereignty that may have long existed over suchfeatures in a particular maritime area. On all accounts, the ICJ did not applythe Convention in that case. Whether or not low-tide elevations can beappropriated is not a question concerning the interpretation or application ofthe Convention. 26、关于菲律宾提出的第三类仲裁事项，中国认为，中国在南沙群岛和黄岩岛附近海域采取行动的合法性是基于中国对有关岛礁享有的主权以及基于岛礁主权所享有的海洋权利。 26. As tothe third category of the Philippines’claims, China maintains thatthe legality of China’sactions in the waters of the Nansha Islands and Huangyan Daorests on both its sovereignty over relevant maritime features and the maritimerights derived therefrom. 27．菲律宾声称，中国在南海所主张和行使的权利非法干涉菲律宾基于《公约》所享有和行使的主权权利、管辖权以及航行权利和自由。菲律宾这一主张的前提是，菲律宾的海域管辖范围是明确而无争议的，中国的活动进入了菲律宾的管辖海域。然而事实并非如此。中菲尚未进行海域划界。对菲律宾这一主张进行裁定之前，首先要确定相关岛礁的领土主权，并完成相关海域划界。 27. ThePhilippines alleges that China’s claim to and exercise of maritime rights inthe South China Sea have unlawfully interfered with the sovereign rights,jurisdiction and rights and freedom of navigation, which the Philippines isentitled to enjoy and exercise under the Convention. The premise for this claimmust be that the spatial extent of the Philippines’maritime jurisdiction is defined and undisputed, and that China’s actionshave encroached upon such defined areas. The fact is, however, to the contrary.China and the Philippineshave not delimited the maritime space between them. Until and unless thesovereignty over the relevant maritime features is ascertained and maritimedelimitation completed, this category of claims of the Philippinescannot be decided upon. 28．需要特别指出的是，中国一贯尊重各国依据国际法在南海享有的航行自由和飞越自由。 28. Itshould be particularly emphasized that Chinaalways respects the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all Statesin the South China Sea in accordance withinternational law. 29、综上所述，菲律宾要求在不确定相关岛礁主权归属的情况下，先适用《公约》的规定确定中国在南海的海洋权利，并提出一系列仲裁请求，违背了解决国际海洋争端所依据的一般国际法原则和国际司法实践。仲裁庭对菲律宾提出的任何仲裁请求作出判定，都将不可避免地直接或间接对本案涉及的相关岛礁以及其他南海岛礁的主权归属进行判定，都将不可避免地产生实际上海域划界的效果。因此，中国认为，仲裁庭对本案明显没有管辖权。 29. To sumup, by requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to apply the Convention to determine the extent ofChina’s maritime rights in the South China Sea, without first havingascertained sovereignty over the relevant maritime features, and by formulatinga series of claims for arbitration to that effect, the Philippines contravenesthe general principles of international law and international jurisprudence onthe settlement of international maritime disputes. To decide upon any of the Philippines’ claims, the Arbitral Tribunal wouldinevitably have to determine, directly or indirectly, the sovereignty over boththe maritime features in question and other maritime features in the South China Sea. Besides, such a decision wouldunavoidably produce, in practical terms, the effect of a maritime delimitation,which will be further discussed below inPart IV of this Position Paper. Therefore, Chinamaintains that the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over thepresent case. |
