（四）菲律宾单方面提起仲裁是恶意行为
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
iv. The Philippines’ unilateral initiation of arbitration is an act of bad faith文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
115、2013年1月22日，菲律宾共和国时任政府违背中菲之间达成并多次确认的通过谈判解决南海有关争议的共识，违反其在《宣言》中作出的庄严承诺，在明知领土争议不属于《公约》调整范围，海洋划界争议已被中国2006年有关声明排除的情况下，蓄意将有关争议包装成单纯的《公约》解释或适用问题，滥用《公约》争端解决机制，单方面提起南海仲裁案。菲律宾此举不是为了解决与中国的争议，而是企图借此否定中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益。菲律宾的行为是恶意的。文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
115. On 22 January 2013, the then government of the Republic of the Philippines unilaterally initiated the South China Sea arbitration. In doing so, the Philippines has turned its back on the consensus reached and repeatedly reaffirmed by China and the Philippines to settle through negotiation the relevant disputes in the South China Sea and violated its own solemn commitment in the DOC. Deliberately packaging the relevant disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS while knowing full well that territorial disputes are not subject to UNCLOS and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China’s 2006 declaration, the Philippines has wantonly abused the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures. This initiation of arbitration aims not to settle its disputes with China, but to deny China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. This course of conduct is taken out of bad faith.文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
116、第一，菲律宾单方面提起仲裁，违反中菲通过双边谈判解决争议的协议。中菲在有关双边文件中已就通过谈判解决南海有关争议达成协议并多次予以确认。中国和菲律宾在《宣言》中就通过谈判解决南海有关争议作出郑重承诺，并一再在双边文件中予以确认。上述中菲两国各项双边文件以及《宣言》的相关规定相辅相成，构成中菲两国之间的协议。两国据此选择了以谈判方式解决有关争端，并排除了包括仲裁在内的第三方方式。“约定必须遵守”。这项国际法基础规范必须得到执行。菲律宾违背自己的庄严承诺，是严重的背信弃义行为，不为菲律宾创设任何权利，也不为中国创设任何义务。文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
116. First, by unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines has violated its standing agreement with China to settle the relevant disputes through bilateral negotiation. In relevant bilateral documents, China and the Philippines have agreed to settle through negotiation their disputes in the South China Sea and reaffirmed this agreement many times. China and the Philippines made solemn commitment in the DOC to settle through negotiation relevant disputes in the South China Sea, which has been repeatedly affirmed in bilateral documents. The above bilateral documents between China and the Philippines and relevant provisions in the DOC are mutually reinforcing and constitute an agreement in this regard between the two states. By this agreement, they have chosen to settle the relevant disputes through negotiation and to exclude any third party procedure, including arbitration. Pacta sunt servanda. This fundamental norm of international law must be observed. The Philippines’ breach of its own solemn commitment is a deliberate act of bad faith. Such an act does not generate any right for the Philippines, nor does it impose any obligation on China.文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
117、第二，菲律宾单方面提起仲裁，侵犯中国作为《公约》缔约国自主选择争端解决方式的权利。《公约》第十五部分第280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”；第281条规定，“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”。由于中菲之间已就通过谈判解决争议作出明确选择，《公约》规定的第三方强制争端解决程序不适用。
117. Second, by unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines has violated China’s right to choose means of dispute settlement of its own will as a state party to UNCLOS. Article 280 of Part XV of UNCLOS stipulates: “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 of UNCLOS provides: “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”. Given that China and the Philippines have made an unequivocal choice to settle through negotiation the relevant disputes, the compulsory third-party dispute settlement procedures under UNCLOS do not apply.
118、第三，菲律宾单方面提起仲裁，滥用《公约》争端解决程序。菲律宾提起仲裁事项的实质是南沙群岛部分岛礁的领土主权问题，有关事项也构成中菲海洋划界不可分割的组成部分。陆地领土问题不属于《公约》的调整范围。2006年，中国根据《公约》第298条作出排除性声明，将涉及海洋划界、历史性海湾或所有权、军事和执法行动等方面的争端排除在《公约》争端解决程序之外。包括中国在内的约30个国家作出的排除性声明，构成《公约》争端解决机制的组成部分。菲律宾通过包装诉求，恶意规避中方有关排除性声明和陆地领土争议不属《公约》调整事项的限制，单方面提起仲裁，构成对《公约》争端解决程序的滥用。
118. Third, by unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines has abused the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures. The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is an issue of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao, and the resolution of the relevant matters also constitutes an integral part of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. Land territorial issues are not regulated by UNCLOS. In 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China made an optional exceptions declaration excluding from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of UNCLOS disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. Such declarations made by about 30 states, including China, form an integral part of the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism. By camouflaging its submissions, the Philippines deliberately circumvented the optional exceptions declaration made by China and the limitation that land territorial disputes are not subject to UNCLOS, and unilaterally initiated the arbitration. This course of conduct constitutes an abuse of the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures.
119、第四，菲律宾为推动仲裁捏造事实，曲解法律，编造了一系列谎言：
119. Fourth, in order to push forward the arbitral proceedings, the Philippines has distorted facts, misinterpreted laws and concocted a pack of lies:
——菲律宾明知其仲裁诉求涉及中国在南海的领土主权，领土问题不属于《公约》调整的事项，却故意将其曲解和包装成《公约》解释或适用问题；
– The Philippines, fully aware that its submissions concern China’s territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea, and that territorial issue is not subject to UNCLOS, deliberately mischaracterizes and packages the relevant issue as those concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS;
——菲律宾明知其仲裁诉求涉及海洋划界问题，且中国已根据《公约》第298条作出声明，将包括海洋划界在内的争端排除出《公约》规定的第三方争端解决程序，却故意将海洋划界过程中需要考虑的各项因素抽离出来，孤立看待，企图规避中国有关排除性声明；
– The Philippines, fully aware that its submissions concern maritime delimitation, and that China has made an declaration, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, excluding disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation from the UNCLOS third-party dispute settlement procedures, intentionally detaches the diverse factors that shall be taken into consideration in the process of a maritime delimitation and treat them in an isolated way, in order to circumvent China’s optional exceptions declaration;
——菲律宾无视中菲从未就其仲裁事项进行任何谈判的事实，故意将其与中国就一般性海洋事务与合作进行的一些磋商曲解为就仲裁事项进行的谈判，并以此为借口声称已穷尽双边谈判手段；
– The Philippines deliberately misrepresents certain consultations with China on maritime affairs and cooperation, all of a general nature, as negotiations over the subject-matters of the arbitration, and further claims that bilateral negotiations therefore have been exhausted, despite the fact that the two states have never engaged in any negotiation on those subject-matters;
——菲律宾声称其不寻求判定任何领土归属，或划定任何海洋边界，然而在仲裁进程中，特别是庭审中，却屡屡否定中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益；
– The Philippines claims that it does not seek a determination of any territorial issue or a delimitation of any maritime boundary, and yet many times in the course of the arbitral proceedings, especially during the oral hearings, it denies China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea;
——菲律宾无视中国在南海问题上的一贯立场和实践，子虚乌有地声称中国对整个南海主张排他性的海洋权益；
– The Philippines turns a blind eye to China’s consistent position and practice on the South China Sea issue, and makes a completely false assertion that China lays an exclusive claim of maritime rights and interests to the entire South China Sea;
——菲律宾刻意夸大西方殖民者历史上在南海的作用，否定中国长期开发、经营和管辖南海相关水域的史实及相应的法律效力；
– The Philippines exaggerates Western colonialists’ role in the South China Sea in history and denies the historical facts and corresponding legal effect of China’s longstanding exploration, exploitation and administration in history of relevant waters of the South China Sea;
——菲律宾牵强附会，拼凑关联性和证明力不强的证据，强撑其诉讼请求；
– The Philippines puts together some remotely relevant and woefully weak pieces of evidence and makes far-fetched inferences to support its submissions;
——菲律宾随意解释国际法规则，大量援引极具争议的司法案例和不具权威性的个人意见支撑其诉求。
– The Philippines, in order to make out its claims, arbitrarily interprets rules of international law, and resorts to highly controversial legal cases and unauthoritative personal opinions in large quantity.
120、简言之，菲律宾单方面提起仲裁违反包括《公约》争端解决机制在内的国际法。应菲律宾单方面请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭自始无管辖权，所作出的裁决是无效的，没有拘束力。中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益在任何情况下不受仲裁裁决的影响。中国不接受、不承认该裁决，反对且不接受任何以仲裁裁决为基础的主张和行动。
120. In short, the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of arbitration contravenes international law including the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism. The Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the Philippines’ unilateral request has, ab initio, no jurisdiction, and awards rendered by it are null and void and have no binding force. China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards. China does not accept or recognize those awards. China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on those awards.
