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）

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. Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter would still be an integral part of maritime delimitation and, having been excluded by the 2006 Declaration filed by China, could not be submitted for arbitration

57、《公约》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 the States Parties to file a written declaration to exclude specified categories of disputes from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures as laid down in section 2 of that Part. In 2006 China filed such a declaration in full compliance with the Convention.

58、2006年8月25日，中国根据《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 25 August 2006, China deposited, pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention, with Secretary-General of the United Nations a written declaration, stating that, “The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention”. In other words, as regards disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities, and disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, the Chinese Government does not accept any of the compulsory dispute settlement procedures laid down in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention, including compulsory arbitration. China firmly believes that the most effective means for settlement of maritime disputes between China and its neighbouring States is that of friendly consultations and negotiations between the sovereign States directly concerned.

59、中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 neighbours and “States with opposite or adjacent coasts” in the sense of Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention. There exists an issue of maritime delimitation between the two States. Given that disputes between China and the Philippines relating to territorial sovereignty over relevant maritime features remain unresolved, the two States have yet to start negotiations on maritime delimitation. They have, however, commenced cooperation to pave the way for an eventual delimitation.

60、2004年9月3日，中菲双方发表《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 3 September 2004, the two sides issued a Joint Press Statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, stating that “[t]he two sides reaffirmed their commitment to the peace and stability in the South China Sea and their readiness to continue discussions to study cooperative activities like joint development pending the comprehensive and final settlement of territorial disputes and overlapping maritime claims in the area” (para. 16).

61、上述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. Two days before the issuance of the Joint Press Statement, upon approval by both governments and in the presence of the Heads of State of the two countries, China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company signed the “Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in Certain Areas in the South China Sea”. On 14 March 2005, the agreement was expanded to a tripartite agreement, with the participation of Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation. This is a good example of the constructive efforts made by the States concerned to enhance cooperation and create conditions for a negotiated settlement of the disputes in the South China Sea. The maritime area covered by that agreement is within that covered in the present arbitration initiated by the Philippines.

62、2005年4月28日，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 28 April 2005, during a State visit to the Philippines by the then Chinese President Hu Jintao, China and the Philippines issued a Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines, in which the two sides “agreed to continue efforts to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea and ... welcomed the signing of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea by China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company” (para. 16).

63、2007年1月16日，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 16 January 2007, during the official visit to the Philippines by the then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, China and the Philippines issued a Joint Statement of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines, which stated that “the Tripartite Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the South China Sea serves as a model for cooperation in the region. They agreed that possible next steps for cooperation among the three parties should be explored to bring collaboration to a higher level and increase the momentum of trust and confidence in the region” (para. 12).

64、可见，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. In light of the above, it is plain that China and the Philippines have reached mutual understanding to advance final resolution of the issue of maritime delimitation through cooperation. In any event, given China’s 2006 declaration, the Philippines should not and cannot unilaterally initiate compulsory arbitration on the issue of maritime delimitation.

65、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. To cover up the maritime delimitation nature of the China-Philippines dispute and to sidestep China’s 2006 declaration, the Philippines has split up the dispute of maritime delimitation into discrete issues and selected a few of them for arbitration, requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to render the so-called “legal interpretation” on each of them.

66、不难看出，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 is not difficult to see that such legal issues as those presented by the Philippines in the present arbitration, including maritime claims, the legal nature of maritime features, the extent of relevant maritime rights, and law enforcement activities at sea, are all fundamental issues dealt with in past cases of maritime delimitation decided by international judicial or arbitral bodies and in State practice concerning maritime delimitation. In short, those issues are part and parcel of maritime delimitation.

67、海域划界是一项整体、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 maritime delimitation between States with opposite or adjacent coasts “shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution”. Both international jurisprudence and State practice have recognized that all relevant factors must be taken into account to achieve an equitable solution. In this light, the international law applicable to maritime delimitation includes both the Convention and general international law. Under this body of law, maritime delimitation involves a consideration of not only entitlements, effect of maritime features, and principles and methods of delimitation, but also all relevant factors that must be taken into account, in order to attain an equitable solution.

68、菲律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. The issues presented by the Philippines for arbitration constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines, and, as such, can only be considered under the overarching framework of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines, and in conjunction with all the relevant rights and interests the parties concerned enjoy in accordance with the Convention, general international law, and historical or long-standing practice in the region for overall consideration. The Philippines’ approach of splitting its maritime delimitation dispute with China and selecting some of the issues for arbitration, if permitted, will inevitably destroy the integrity and indivisibility of maritime delimitation and contravene the principle that maritime delimitation must be based on international law as referred to in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and that “all relevant factors must be taken into account”. This will adversely affect the future equitable solution of the dispute of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines.

69、菲律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 ruling regarding maritime delimitation, but instead a decision, inter alia, that certain maritime features are part of the Philippines’ EEZ and continental shelf, and that China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise by the Philippines of sovereign rights in its EEZ and continental shelf. But that obviously is an attempt to seek a recognition by the Arbitral Tribunal that the relevant maritime areas are part of the Philippines’ EEZ and continental shelf, in respect of which the Philippines is entitled to exercise sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This is actually a request for maritime delimitation by the Arbitral Tribunal in disguise. The Philippines’ claims have in effect covered the main aspects and steps in maritime delimitation. Should the Arbitral Tribunal address substantively the Philippines’ claims, it would amount to a de facto maritime delimitation.

70、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. The exclusionary declarations filed by the States Parties to the Convention under Article 298 of the Convention must be respected. By initiating the present compulsory arbitration as an attempt to circumvent China’s 2006 declaration, the Philippines is abusing the dispute settlement procedures under the Convention.

71、中国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 2006 declaration, once filed, automatically comes into effect. Its effect, as prescribed under Article 299 of the Convention, is that, without the consent of China, no State Party can unilaterally invoke any of the compulsory procedures specified in section 2 of Part XV against China in respect of the disputes covered by that declaration. In return, China simultaneously gives up the right to unilaterally initiate compulsory procedures against other States Parties in respect of the same disputes. The rights and obligations are reciprocal in this regard.

72、菲律宾辩称，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 of the four compulsory dispute settlement procedures listed under Article 287 of the Convention, China as a State Party shall therefore be deemed to have accepted compulsory arbitration. This is a deliberately misleading argument. The purpose and the effect of China’s 2006 declaration is such that the disputes listed therein are fully excluded from the compulsory settlement procedures under the Convention. Whether or not China has selected any of the four compulsory procedures under Article 287, as long as a dispute falls within the scope of China’s 2006 declaration, China has already explicitly excluded it from the applicability of any compulsory procedures under section 2 of Part XV of the Convention, including compulsory arbitration.

73、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 arbitration does not involve any dispute covered by China’s 2006 declaration, since China holds a different view in this regard, the Philippines should first take up this issue with China, before a decision can be taken on whether or not it can be submitted for arbitration. Should the Philippines’ logic in its present form be followed, any State Party may unilaterally initiate compulsory arbitration against another State Party in respect of a dispute covered by the latter’s declaration in force simply by asserting that the dispute is not excluded from arbitration by that declaration. This would render the provisions of Article 299 meaningless.

74、自《公约》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. Since the entry into force of the Convention, the present arbitration is the first case in which a State Party has unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitration in respect of a dispute covered by a declaration of another State Party under Article 298. If this twisted approach of the Philippines could be accepted as fulfilling the conditions for invoking compulsory arbitration, it could be well imagined that any of the disputes listed in Article 298 may be submitted to the compulsory procedures under section 2 of Part XV simply by connecting them, using the Philippines’ approach, with the question of interpretation or application of certain provisions of the Convention. Should the above approach be deemed acceptable, the question would then arise as to whether the provisions of Article 298 could still retain any value, and whether there is any practical meaning left of the declarations so far filed by 35 States Parties under Article 298. In light of the foregoing reasons, China can only conclude that, the unilateral initiation by the Philippines of the present arbitration constitutes an abuse of the compulsory procedures provided in the Convention and a grave challenge to the solemnity of the dispute settlement mechanism under the Convention.

75、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 sum up, even assuming that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, it would still be an integral part of the dispute of maritime delimitation between the two States. Having been excluded by China’s 2006 declaration, it could not be submitted to compulsory arbitration under the Convention.