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（中英对照）

三、通过谈判方式解决在南海的争端是中菲两国之间的协议，菲律宾无权单方面提起强制仲裁

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、中国在涉及领土主权和海洋权利的问题上，一贯坚持由直接有关国家通过谈判的方式和平解决争端。中菲之间就通过友好磋商和谈判解决两国在南海的争端也早有共识。

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《中华人民共和国和菲律宾共和国关于南海问题和其他领域合作的磋商联合声明》指出，双方“同意遵守”下列原则：“有关争议应通过平等和相互尊重基础上的磋商和平友好地加以解决”（第一点）；“双方承诺循序渐进地进行合作，最终谈判解决双方争议”（第三点）；“争议应由直接有关国家解决，不影响南海的航行自由”（第八点）。

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组会议联合公报》指出，双方承诺“遵守继续通过友好磋商寻求解决分歧方法的谅解”（联合公报第5段）。“双方认为，中菲之间的磋商渠道是畅通的。他们同意通过协商和平解决争议”（联合公报第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《中华人民共和国政府和菲律宾共和国政府关于21世纪双边合作框架的联合声明》第九点规定：“双方致力于维护南海的和平与稳定，同意根据公认的国际法原则，包括1982年《联合国海洋法公约》，通过双边友好协商和谈判促进争议的和平解决。双方重申遵守1995年中菲两国关于南海问题的联合声明”。

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《中国－菲律宾第三次建立信任措施专家组会议联合新闻声明》第四点指出：“双方认识到两国就探讨南海合作方式所建立的双边磋商机制是富有成效的，双方所达成的一系列谅解与共识对维护中菲关系的健康发展和南海地区的和平与稳定发挥了建设性作用。”

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、中菲之间关于以谈判方式解决有关争端的共识在多边合作文件中也得到确认。2002年11月4日，时任中国外交部副部长王毅作为中国政府代表与包括菲律宾在内的东盟各国政府代表共同签署了《南海各方行为宣言》（以下简称《宣言》）。《宣言》第四条明确规定，“有关各方承诺根据公认的国际法原则，包括1982年《联合国海洋法公约》，由直接有关的主权国家通过友好磋商和谈判，以和平方式解决它们的领土和管辖权争议”。

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》签署后，中菲两国领导人又一再确认通过对话解决争端。2004年9月3日，时任菲律宾总统格罗丽亚·马卡帕加尔·阿罗约对中国进行国事访问，双方发表了《中华人民共和国政府和菲律宾共和国政府联合新闻公报》，“双方一致认为尽快积极落实中国与东盟于2002年签署的《南海各方行为宣言》有助于将南海变为合作之海”（联合新闻公报第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，菲律宾总统贝尼尼奥·阿基诺对中国进行国事访问。9月1日，双方发表《中华人民共和国和菲律宾共和国联合声明》，“重申将通过和平对话处理争议”，并“重申尊重和遵守中国与东盟国家于2002年签署的《南海各方行为宣言》”（联合声明第15段）。《联合声明》确认了《宣言》第四条关于谈判解决有关争端的规定。

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、中菲双边文件在提及以谈判方式解决有关争端时反复使用了“同意”一词，确立两国之间相关义务的意图非常明显。《宣言》第四条使用了“承诺”一词，这也是协议中通常用以确定当事方义务的词语。国际法院在2007年波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那诉塞尔维亚和黑山关于适用《防止和惩治灭种罪公约》案的判决中对“承诺”一词有以下明确的解释：“‘承诺’这个词的一般含义是给予一个正式的诺言，以约束自己或使自己受到约束，是给予一个保证或诺言来表示同意、接受某一义务。它在规定缔约国义务的条约中经常出现······它并非只被用来提倡或表示某种目标”（判决第162段）。此外，根据国际法，一项文件无论采用何种名称和形式，只要其为当事方创设了权利和义务，这种权利和义务就具有拘束力（参见1994年卡塔尔－巴林案判决第22段至第26段；2002年喀麦隆－尼日利亚案判决第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、上述中菲两国各项双边文件以及《宣言》的相关规定一脉相承，构成中菲两国之间的协议。两国据此承担了通过谈判方式解决有关争端的义务。

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、中菲双边文件和《宣言》第四条反复重申以谈判方式和平解决南海争端，并且规定必须在直接有关的主权国家之间进行，显然排除了第三方争端解决程序。前述1995年8月10日《中华人民共和国和菲律宾共和国关于南海问题和其他领域合作的磋商联合声明》第三点指出“双方承诺循序渐进地进行合作，最终谈判解决双方争议”，这里的“最终”一词显然在强调“谈判”是双方唯一的争端解决方式，双方没有意向选择第三方争端解决程序。中菲双边文件和《宣言》第四条虽然没有明文使用“排除其他程序”的表述，但正如2000年南方蓝鳍金枪鱼仲裁案裁决所称：“缺少一项明示排除任何程序[的规定]不是决定性的”（裁决第57段）。如前所述，中国在涉及领土主权和海洋权利的问题上，一贯坚持由直接有关国家通过谈判的方式和平解决争端。在上述中菲双边文件和《宣言》的制订过程中，中国的这一立场始终是明确的，菲律宾及其他有关各方对此也十分清楚。

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，对于中菲在南海的争端的所有问题，包括菲律宾提出的仲裁事项，双方同意的争端解决方式只是谈判，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、即使菲律宾提出的仲裁事项涉及《公约》的解释或适用问题，在中菲之间已就通过谈判方式解决有关争端达成协议的情况下，《公约》第十五部分第二节的强制争端解决程序也不适用。

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。”《公约》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。”

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，中菲两国已通过双边、多边协议选择通过谈判方式解决有关争端，没有为谈判设定任何期限，而且排除适用任何其他程序。在此情形下，根据《公约》上述条款的规定，有关争端显然应当通过谈判方式来解决，而不得诉诸仲裁等强制争端解决程序。

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.