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）

中文版：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.doc 

英文版：Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matte.doc 

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 the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the 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 22 January 2013, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines presented a note verbale to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Philippines, stating that the Philippines submitted a Notification and 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, the Chinese Government rejected and returned the Philippines’ note verbale together with the attached Notification and Statement of Claim. The Chinese Government has subsequently reiterated that it will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration 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 that the arbitral tribunal established at the request of the Philippines for the present arbitration (“Arbitral Tribunal”) does not have jurisdiction over this case. It does not express any position on the substantive issues related to the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines. No acceptance by China is signified 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’s acceptance 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 following positions:

 

– The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over 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, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations. By unilaterally initiating the present arbitration, the Philippines has breached its obligation under international law;

 

– Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter would constitute 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 other compulsory dispute settlement procedures;

 

– Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over the present arbitration. Based on the foregoing positions and by virtue of the freedom of every State to choose the means of dispute settlement, China’s rejection of and non-participation in the present arbitration stand on solid ground 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. The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over 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 Islands and the Nansha Islands) and the adjacent waters. Chinese activities in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago. China was the first country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources of the South China Sea Islands and the first to continuously exercise sovereign powers over them. From the 1930s to 1940s, Japan illegally seized some parts of the South China Sea Islands during its war of aggression against China. At the end of the Second World War, the Chinese Government resumed exercise of sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. Military personnel and government officials were sent via naval vessels to hold resumption of authority ceremonies. Commemorative stone markers were erected, garrisons stationed, and geographical surveys conducted. In 1947, China renamed the maritime features of the South China Sea Islands and, in 1948, published an official map which displayed a dotted line in the South China Sea. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China on 1 October 1949, the Chinese Government has been consistently and actively maintaining its sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. Both the Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea of 1958 and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1992 expressly provide that the territory of the People’s Republic of China includes, among others, the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands. All those acts affirm China’s territorial 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. Prior to 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 the Republic of the Philippines, entitled “The National Territory”, provided that “The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.” Under this provision, the territory of the Philippines was 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 Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines”, which was promulgated in 1961, reaffirmed the territorial scope of the country as laid down in the 1935 Constitution.

 

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. Since the 1970s, the Philippines has illegally occupied a number of maritime features of 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” to encompass some of the maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands and claimed sovereignty over them, together with adjacent but vast maritime areas. Subsequently, it laid unlawful claim to sovereignty over Huangyan Dao of China’s Zhongsha Islands. In addition, the Philippines has also illegally explored and exploited the resources on those maritime features and 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 have violated the Charter of the United Nations and international law, and seriously encroached upon China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. They are null and void in law. The Chinese Government has always been firmly opposed to these actions of the Philippines, and consistently and continuously made solemn representations and protests to the 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 has summarized 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” to the 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 nautical miles and more, based on certain rocks, low-tide elevations and submerged features in the South China Sea, is inconsistent 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 unlawfully interfered with the sovereign rights, jurisdiction and rights and freedom of navigation 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. The subject-matter of the Philippines’ claims is in essence one of territorial sovereignty over 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. Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal 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. With regard to the first category of claims presented by the Philippines for arbitration, it is obvious that the core of those claims is that China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea have exceeded the extent allowed under the Convention. However, whatever logic is to be followed, only after the extent of China’s territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea is determined can a decision be made on whether China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea have exceeded 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 is a general principle of international law that sovereignty over land territory is the basis for the determination of maritime rights. As the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) stated, “maritime rights derive from the coastal State’s sovereignty over the land, a principle which can be summarized as ‘the land dominates the sea’” (Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between 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 Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 19 December 1978, I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 36, para. 86). And, “[i]t is thus the terrestrial territorial situation that must be taken as starting point for the determination of the maritime rights of a coastal State” (Qatar v. Bahrain, I.C.J. Reports 2001, para. 185; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 696, para. 113). Recently the ICJ again emphasized that “[t]he title of a State to the continental shelf and to the exclusive economic zone is based on the principle that the land dominates the sea”, and that “the land is the legal source of the power which a State may exercise over territorial extensions to seaward” (Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012, 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. The preamble of the Convention proclaims “the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans”. It is apparent that “due regard for the sovereignty of all States” is the prerequisite for the application of the Convention to determine maritime rights of the 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 far as the present arbitration is concerned, without first having determined China’s territorial sovereignty over the maritime features in the South China Sea, the Arbitral Tribunal will not be in a position to determine the extent to which China may claim maritime rights in the South China Sea pursuant to the Convention, not to mention whether China’s claims exceed the extent allowed under the Convention. But the issue of territorial sovereignty 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 is well aware that a tribunal established under Article 287 and Annex VII of the Convention has no jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty disputes. In an attempt to circumvent this jurisdictional hurdle and fabricate a basis for institution of arbitral proceedings, the Philippines has cunningly packaged its case in the present form. It has repeatedly professed that it does not seek from the Arbitral Tribunal a determination of territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features claimed by both countries, but rather a ruling on the compatibility of China’s maritime claims with the provisions of the Convention, so that its claims for arbitration would appear to be concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, not with the sovereignty over those maritime features. This contrived packaging, however, fails to conceal the very essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration, namely, the territorial 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. With regard to the second category of claims by the Philippines, China believes that the nature and maritime entitlements of certain maritime features in the South China Sea cannot be considered in isolation from the issue of sovereignty.