（二）菲律宾的非法主张毫无历史和法理依据
文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
ii. The Philippines’ illegal claim has no historical or legal basis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
62、从历史和国际法看，菲律宾对南沙群岛部分岛礁的领土主张毫无根据。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
62. The Philippines’ territorial claim over part of Nansha Qundao is groundless from the perspectives of either history or international law.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
63、第一，南沙群岛从来不是菲律宾领土的组成部分。菲律宾的领土范围已由一系列国际条约所确定。对此，菲律宾当时的统治者美国是非常清楚的。1933年8月12日，美属菲律宾前参议员陆雷彝致信美国驻菲律宾总督墨菲，试图以地理邻近为由主张一些南沙岛屿构成菲律宾群岛一部分。有关信件被转交美国陆军部和国务院处理。1933年10月9日，美国国务卿复信称，“这些岛屿……远在1898年从西班牙获得的菲律宾群岛的界限之外”。1935年5月，美国陆军部长邓恩致函国务卿赫尔，请求国务院就菲律宾对南沙群岛部分岛屿提出领土要求的“合法性和适当性”发表意见。美国国务院历史顾问办公室一份由博格斯等签署的备忘录指出，“显然，美国毫无根据主张有关岛屿构成菲律宾群岛的一部分。”8月20日，美国国务卿赫尔复函美国陆军部长邓恩称，“美国依据1898年条约从西班牙获得的菲律宾群岛的岛屿仅限于第三条规定的界限以内”，同时关于南沙群岛有关岛屿，“需要指出的是，没有任何迹象显示西班牙曾对这些岛屿中的任何一个行使主权或提出主张”。这些文件证明，菲律宾领土从来不包括南海诸岛，这一事实为包括美国在内的国际社会所承认。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
63. First, Nansha Qundao has never been part of the Philippine territory. The territorial scope of the Philippines has already been defined by a series of international treaties. The United States, administrator of the Philippines at the relevant time, was clearly aware of these facts. On 12 August 1933, ex-Senator Isabelo de los Reyes of the United States-governed Philippines wrote a letter to Governor-General Frank Murphy in an attempt to claim that some Nansha islands formed part of the Philippine Archipelago on the ground of geographical proximity. That letter was referred to the Department of War and the Department of State. On 9 October, the United States Secretary of State replied that, “These islands [...] lie at a considerable distance outside the limits of the Philippine Islands which were acquired from Spain in 1898”. In May 1935, the United States Secretary of War George Dern wrote a letter to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, seeking the views of the State Department on the “validity and propriety” of the Philippines’ territorial claims over some islands of Nansha Qundao. A memorandum of the Office of Historical Adviser in the State Department, signed by S.W. Boggs, pointed out that, “There is, of course, no basis for a claim on the part of the United States, as islands constituting part of the Philippine Archipelago”. On 20 August, Secretary Hull officially replied in writing to Secretary Dern, stating that, “the islands of the Philippine group which the United States acquired from Spain by the treaty of 1898, were only those within the limits described in Article III”, and that, referring to the relevant Nansha islands, “It may be observed that [...] no mention has been found of Spain having exercised sovereignty over, or having laid claim to, any of these islands”. All these documents prove that the Philippines’ territory never includes any part of Nanhai Zhudao, a fact that has been recognized by the international community, including the United States.文章源自英文巴士-https://www.en84.com/7929.html
64、第二，“卡拉延岛群”是菲律宾发现的“无主地”，这一说法根本不成立。菲律宾以其国民于1956年所谓“发现”为基础，将中国南沙群岛部分岛礁称为“卡拉延岛群”，企图制造地理名称和概念上的混乱，并割裂南沙群岛。事实上，南沙群岛的地理范围是清楚和明确的，菲律宾所谓“卡拉延岛群”就是中国南沙群岛的一部分。南沙群岛早已成为中国领土不可分割的组成部分，绝非“无主地”。
64. Second, the claim that “Kalayaan Island Group” is “terra nullius” discovered by the Philippines is groundless. The Philippines claims that its nationals “discovered” the islands in 1956, and uses this as an excuse to single out some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao and name them “Kalayaan Island Group”. This is an attempt to create confusion over geographical names and concepts, and dismember China’s Nansha Qundao. As a matter of fact, the geographical scope of Nansha Qundao is clear, and the so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” is part of China’s Nansha Qundao. Nansha Qundao has long been an integral part of China’s territory and is by no means “terra nullius”.
65、第三，南沙群岛也不是所谓的“托管地”。菲律宾称，二战后南沙群岛是“托管地”，主权未定。菲律宾的说法从法律和事实看，都没有根据。二战后的“托管地”，均在有关国际条约或联合国托管理事会相关文件中明确开列，南沙群岛从未出现在上述名单上，根本就不是“托管地”。
65. Third, Nansha Qundao is not “trust territory” either. The Philippines claims that after the Second World War, Nansha Qundao became “trust territory”, the sovereignty over which was undetermined. This claim finds no support in law or reality. The post-War trust territories were all specifically listed in relevant international treaties or the documents of the United Nations Trusteeship Council. Nansha Qundao was never included in them and was thus not trust territory at all.
66、第四，“地理邻近”和“国家安全”都不是领土取得的国际法依据。世界上许多国家的部分领土远离其本土，有的甚至位于他国近岸。美国殖民统治菲律宾期间，就菲律宾群岛附近一座岛屿的主权与荷兰产生争端，美国以“地理邻近”为由提出的领土主张被判定为没有国际法依据。以所谓“国家安全”为由侵占他国领土更是荒谬的。
66. Fourth, neither “contiguity or proximity” nor national security is a basis under international law for acquiring territory. Many countries have territories far away from their metropolitan areas, in some cases even very close to the shores of other countries. When exercising colonial rule over the Philippines, the United States had a dispute with the Netherlands regarding sovereignty over an island which is close to the Philippine Archipelago, and the United States’ claim on the basis of contiguity was ruled as having no foundation in international law. Furthermore, it is just absurd to invade and occupy the territory of other countries on the ground of national security.
67、第五，菲律宾称，中国南沙群岛部分岛礁位于其专属经济区和大陆架范围内，因此有关岛礁属于菲律宾或构成菲律宾大陆架组成部分。这一主张企图以《公约》所赋予的海洋管辖权否定中国领土主权，与“陆地统治海洋”的国际法原则背道而驰，完全不符合《公约》的宗旨和目的。《公约》序言规定：“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……。”因此，沿海国必须在尊重他国领土主权的前提下主张海洋管辖权，不能将自己的海洋管辖权扩展到他国领土上，更不能以此否定他国主权，侵犯他国领土。
67. Fifth, the Philippines claims that some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao are located within its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and therefore should fall under its sovereignty or form part of its continental shelf. This is an attempt to use maritime jurisdiction provided for under UNCLOS to deny China’s territorial sovereignty. This runs directly counter to the “land dominates the sea” principle, and goes against the purpose of UNCLOS, as stated in its preamble, to “establish [...] with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and ocean”. Therefore, a coastal state can only claim maritime jurisdiction under the precondition of respecting the territorial sovereignty of another state. No state can extend its maritime jurisdiction to an area under the sovereignty of another; still less can it use such jurisdiction as an excuse to deny another state’s sovereignty or even to infringe upon its territory.
68、第六，菲律宾所谓的“有效控制”是建立在非法侵占基础上的，是非法无效的。国际社会不承认武力侵占形成的所谓“有效控制”。菲律宾所谓“有效控制”是对中国南沙群岛部分岛礁赤裸裸的武力侵占，违背了《联合国宪章》（以下简称《宪章》）和国际关系基本准则，为国际法所明确禁止。菲律宾建立在非法侵占基础上的所谓“有效控制”，不能改变南沙群岛是中国领土的基本事实。中国坚决反对任何人试图把南沙群岛部分岛礁被侵占的状态视为所谓“既成事实”或“现状”，中国对此绝不承认。
68. Sixth, the Philippines’ so-called “effective control” on the basis of its illegal seizure is null and void. The international community does not recognize “effective control” created through occupation by force. The Philippines’ “effective control” is mere occupation by naked use of force of some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao. Such occupation violates the Charter of the United Nations and the basic norms governing international relations and is unequivocally prohibited by international law. This so-called “effective control” based on illegal seizure cannot change the basic fact that Nansha Qundao is China’s territory. China firmly opposes any attempt to treat the seizure of some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao as a so-called “fait accompli” or “status quo”. China will never recognize such a thing.
