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）

16、首先，只有先确定岛礁的主权，才能确定基于岛礁的海洋权利主张是否符合《公约》。

16. In the first place, without determining the sovereignty over a maritime feature, it is impossible to decide whether maritime claims based on that feature are consistent with the Convention.

17、《公约》规定的有关专属经济区和大陆架的海洋权利均赋予对相关陆地领土享有主权的国家。脱离了国家主权，岛礁本身不拥有任何海洋权利。只有对相关岛礁拥有主权的国家，才可以依据《公约》基于相关岛礁提出海洋权利主张。在确定了领土归属的前提下，如果其他国家对该国的海洋权利主张是否符合《公约》的规定提出质疑或者提出了重叠的海洋权利主张，才会产生关于《公约》解释或适用的争端。如果岛礁的主权归属未定，一国基于岛礁的海洋权利主张是否符合《公约》规定就不能构成一个可以提交仲裁的具体而真实的争端。

17. The holder of the entitlements to an exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”) and a continental shelf under the Convention is the coastal State with sovereignty over relevant land territory. When not subject to State sovereignty, a maritime feature per se possesses no maritime rights or entitlements whatsoever. In other words, only the State having sovereignty over a maritime feature is entitled under the Convention to claim any maritime rights based on that feature. Only after a State’s sovereignty over a maritime feature has been determined and the State has made maritime claims in respect thereof, could there arise a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, if another State questions the compatibility of those claims with the Convention or makes overlapping claims. If the sovereignty over a maritime feature is undecided, there cannot be a concrete and real dispute for arbitration as to whether or not the maritime claims of a State based on such a feature are compatible with the Convention.

18、就本案而言，菲律宾不承认中国对相关岛礁拥有主权，意在从根本上否定中国依据相关岛礁主张任何海洋权利的资格。在这种情形下，菲律宾要求仲裁庭先行判断中国的海洋权利主张是否符合《公约》的规定，是本末倒置。任何国际司法或仲裁机构在审理有关岛礁争端的案件中，从未在不确定有关岛礁主权归属的情况下适用《公约》的规定先行判定这些岛礁的海洋权利。

18. In the present case, the Philippines denies China’s sovereignty over the maritime features in question, with a view to completely disqualifying China from making any maritime claims in respect of those features. In light of this, the Philippines is putting the cart before the horse by requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to determine, even before the matter of sovereignty is dealt with, the issue of compatibility of China’s maritime claims with the Convention. In relevant cases, no international judicial or arbitral body has ever applied the Convention to determine the maritime rights derived from a maritime feature before sovereignty over that feature is decided.

19、其次，在南沙群岛中，菲律宾仅仅挑出少数几个岛礁，要求仲裁庭就其海洋权利作出裁定，实质上是否定中国对南沙群岛的领土主权。

19. Secondly, in respect of the Nansha Islands, the Philippines selects only a few features and requests the Arbitral Tribunal to decide on their maritime entitlements. This is in essence an attempt at denying China’s sovereignty over the Nansha Islands as a whole.

20、南沙群岛包括众多岛礁。中国历来对整个南沙群岛、而非仅对其中少数几个岛礁享有主权。1935年中国政府水陆地图审查委员会出版《中国南海各岛屿图》，1948年中国政府公布《南海诸岛位置图》，均将现在所称的南沙群岛以及东沙群岛、西沙群岛和中沙群岛划入中国版图。1958年《中华人民共和国政府关于领海的声明》指出，中华人民共和国的领土包括南沙群岛。1983年中国地名委员会公布南海诸岛部分标准地名，其中包括南沙群岛的岛礁。1992年《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》也明确规定，中华人民共和国的陆地领土包括南沙群岛。

20. The Nansha Islands comprises many maritime features. China has always enjoyed sovereignty over the Nansha Islands in its entirety, not just over some features thereof. In 1935, the Commission of the Chinese Government for the Review of Maps of Land and Waters published the Map of Islands in the South China Sea. In 1948, the Chinese Government published the Map of the Location of the South China Sea Islands. Both maps placed under China’s sovereignty what are now known as the Nansha Islands as well as the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands and the Zhongsha Islands. The Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea of 1958 declared that the territory of the People’s Republic of China includes, inter alia, the Nansha Islands. In 1983, the National Toponymy Commission of China published standard names for some of the South China Sea Islands, including those of the Nansha Islands. The Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1992 again expressly provides that the Nansha Islands constitutes a part of the land territory of the People’s Republic of China.

21、2011年4月14日，中国常驻联合国代表团就有关南海问题致联合国秘书长的第CML/8/2011号照会中亦指出：“按照《联合国海洋法公约》、1992年《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》和1998年《中华人民共和国专属经济区和大陆架法》的有关规定，中国的南沙群岛拥有领海、专属经济区和大陆架”。显然，按照《公约》确定中国南沙群岛的海洋权利，必须考虑该群岛中的所有岛礁。

21. In Note Verbale No. CML/8/2011 of 14 April 2011 addressed to Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Permanent Mission of China to the United Nations stated that “under the relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (1992) and the Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the People’s Republic of China (1998), China’s Nansha Islands is fully entitled to Territorial Sea, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf.” It is plain that, in order to determine China’s maritime entitlements based on the Nansha Islands under the Convention, all maritime features comprising the Nansha Islands must be taken into account.

22、菲律宾在仲裁诉求中对南沙群岛作出“切割”，只要求对其声称的“中国占领或控制的”岛礁的海洋权利进行判定，刻意不提南沙群岛中的其他岛礁，包括至今仍为菲律宾非法侵占或主张的岛礁，旨在否定中国对整个南沙群岛的主权，否认菲律宾非法侵占或主张中国南沙群岛部分岛礁的事实，从而篡改中菲南沙群岛主权争端的性质和范围。菲律宾还刻意将中国台湾驻守的南沙群岛最大岛屿——太平岛排除在“中国占领或控制”的岛礁之外，严重违反了一个中国的原则，侵犯了中国的主权和领土完整。显而易见，此类仲裁事项的实质是中菲有关领土主权的争端。

22. The Philippines, by requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to determine the maritime entitlements of only what it describes as the maritime features “occupied or controlled by China”, has in effect dissected the Nansha Islands. It deliberately makes no mention of the rest of the Nansha Islands, including those illegally seized or claimed by the Philippines. Its real intention is to gainsay China’s sovereignty over the whole of the Nansha Islands, deny the fact of its illegal seizure of or claim on several maritime features of the Nansha Islands, and distort the nature and scope of the China-Philippines disputes in the South China Sea. In addition, the Philippines has deliberately excluded from the category of the maritime features “occupied or controlled by China” the largest island in the Nansha Islands, Taiping Dao, which is currently controlled by the Taiwan authorities of China. This is a grave violation of the One-China Principle and an infringement of China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This further shows that the second category of claims brought by the Philippines essentially pertains to the territorial sovereignty dispute between the two countries.

23、最后，低潮高地能否被据为领土本身明显是一个领土主权问题。

23. Finally, whether or not low-tide elevations can be appropriated is plainly a question of territorial sovereignty.

24、菲律宾认为其仲裁诉求所涉及的几个岛礁是低潮高地，不能被据为领土。对于上述岛礁是否属于低潮高地，本立场文件不作评论。应该指出的是，无论这些岛礁具有何种性质，菲律宾自己从上世纪70年代以来却一直对这些岛礁非法主张领土主权。菲律宾1978年6月11日颁布第1596号总统令，对包括上述岛礁在内的南沙群岛部分岛礁及其周边大范围的海域、海床、底土、大陆边及其上空主张主权，并将该区域设立为巴拉望省的一个市，命名为“卡拉延”。虽然2009年3月10日菲律宾通过了第9522号共和国法案，规定“卡拉延岛群”（即中国南沙群岛部分岛礁）和“斯卡伯勒礁”（即中国黄岩岛）的海洋区域将与《公约》第一百二十一条（即“岛屿制度”）保持一致，但该规定仅是对上述区域内海洋地物的海洋权利主张进行了调整，并没有涉及菲律宾对这些海洋地物，包括低潮高地的领土主张。菲律宾常驻联合国代表团在2011年4月5日致联合国秘书长的第000228号照会中还明确表示：“卡拉延岛群构成菲律宾不可分割的一部分。菲律宾共和国对卡拉延岛群的地理构造拥有主权和管辖权”。菲律宾至今仍坚持其对南沙群岛中40个岛礁的主张，其中就包括菲律宾所称的低潮高地。可见，菲律宾提出低潮高地不可被据为领土，不过是想否定中国对这些岛礁的主权，从而可以将这些岛礁置于菲律宾的主权之下。

24. The Philippines asserts that some of the maritime features, about which it has submitted claims for arbitration, are low-tide elevations, thus being incapable of appropriation as territory. As to whether those features are indeed low-tide elevations, this Position Paper will not comment. It should, however, be pointed out that, whatever nature those features possess, the Philippines itself has persisted in claiming sovereignty over them since the 1970s. By Presidential Decree No. 1596, promulgated on 11 June 1978, the Philippines made known its unlawful claim to sovereignty over some maritime features in the Nansha Islands including the aforementioned features, together with the adjacent but vast areas of waters, sea-bed, subsoil, continental margin and superjacent airspace, and constituted the vast area as a new municipality of the province of Palawan, entitled “Kalayaan”. Notwithstanding that Philippine Republic Act No. 9522 of 10 March 2009 stipulates that the maritime zones for the so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” (i.e., some maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands) and “Scarborough Shoal” (i.e., China’s Huangyan Dao) be determined in a way consistent with Article 121 of the Convention (i.e., the regime of islands), this provision was designed to adjust the Philippines’ maritime claims based on those features within the aforementioned area. The Act did not vary the territorial claim of the Philippines to the relevant maritime features, including those it alleged in this arbitration as low-tide elevations. In Note Verbale No. 000228, addressed to Secretary-General of the United Nations on 5 April 2011, the Philippine Permanent Mission to the United Nations stated that, “the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) constitutes an integral part of the Philippines. The Republic of the Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction over the geological features in the KIG.” The Philippines has maintained, to date, its claim to sovereignty over 40 maritime features in the Nansha Islands, among which are the very features it now labels as low-tide elevations. It is thus obvious that the only motive behind the Philippines’ assertion that low-tide elevations cannot be appropriated is to deny China’s sovereignty over these features so as to place them under Philippine sovereignty.

25、低潮高地能否被据为领土本身是一个领土主权问题，不是有关《公约》的解释或适用问题。《公约》没有关于低潮高地能否被据为领土的规定。国际法院在2001年卡塔尔－巴林案的判决中明确表示：“条约国际法对于低潮高地能否被视为领土的问题保持沉默。法院也不知道存在统一和广泛的国家实践，从而可能产生一项明确允许或排除将低潮高地据为领土的习惯法规则”（判决第205段）。这里的条约国际法当然包括1994年即已生效的《公约》。国际法院在2012年尼加拉瓜－哥伦比亚案的判决中虽然表示“低潮高地不能被据为领土”（判决第26段），但未指出此论断的法律依据，未涉及低潮高地作为群岛组成部分时的法律地位，也未涉及在历史上形成的对特定的海洋区域内低潮高地的主权或主权主张。无论如何，国际法院在该案中作出上述判定时没有适用《公约》。低潮高地能否被据为领土不是有关《公约》解释或适用的问题。

25. Whether low-tide elevations can be appropriated as territory is in itself a question of territorial sovereignty, not a matter concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. The Convention is silent on this issue of appropriation. In its 2001 Judgment in Qatar v. Bahrain, the ICJ explicitly stated that, “International treaty law is silent on the question whether low-tide elevations can be considered to be ‘territory’. Nor is the Court aware of a uniform and widespread State practice which might have given rise to a customary rule which unequivocally permits or excludes appropriation of low-tide elevations” (Qatar v. Bahrain, I.C.J. Reports 2001, pp. 101-102, para. 205). “International treaty law” plainly includes the Convention, which entered into force in 1994. In its 2012 Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia, while the ICJ stated that “low-tide elevations cannot be appropriated” (Nicaragua v. Colombia, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 641, para. 26), it did not point to any legal basis for this conclusory statement. Nor did it touch upon the legal status of low-tide elevations as components of an archipelago, or sovereignty or claims of sovereignty that may have long existed over such features in a particular maritime area. On all accounts, the ICJ did not apply the Convention in that case. Whether or not low-tide elevations can be appropriated is not a question concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.

26、关于菲律宾提出的第三类仲裁事项，中国认为，中国在南沙群岛和黄岩岛附近海域采取行动的合法性是基于中国对有关岛礁享有的主权以及基于岛礁主权所享有的海洋权利。

26. As to the third category of the Philippines’ claims, China maintains that the legality of China’s actions in the waters of the Nansha Islands and Huangyan Dao rests on both its sovereignty over relevant maritime features and the maritime rights derived therefrom.

27、菲律宾声称，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。菲律宾这一主张的前提是，菲律宾的海域管辖范围是明确而无争议的，中国的活动进入了菲律宾的管辖海域。然而事实并非如此。中菲尚未进行海域划界。对菲律宾这一主张进行裁定之前，首先要确定相关岛礁的领土主权，并完成相关海域划界。

27. The Philippines alleges that China’s claim to and exercise of maritime rights in the South China Sea have unlawfully interfered with the sovereign rights, jurisdiction and rights and freedom of navigation, which the Philippines is entitled to enjoy and exercise under the Convention. The premise for this claim must be that the spatial extent of the Philippines’ maritime jurisdiction is defined and undisputed, and that China’s actions have encroached upon such defined areas. The fact is, however, to the contrary. China and the Philippines have not delimited the maritime space between them. Until and unless the sovereignty over the relevant maritime features is ascertained and maritime delimitation completed, this category of claims of the Philippines cannot be decided upon.

28、需要特别指出的是，中国一贯尊重各国依据国际法在南海享有的航行自由和飞越自由。

28. It should be particularly emphasized that China always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all States in the South China Sea in accordance with international law.

29、综上所述，菲律宾要求在不确定相关岛礁主权归属的情况下，先适用《公约》的规定确定中国在南海的海洋权利，并提出一系列仲裁请求，违背了解决国际海洋争端所依据的一般国际法原则和国际司法实践。仲裁庭对菲律宾提出的任何仲裁请求作出判定，都将不可避免地直接或间接对本案涉及的相关岛礁以及其他南海岛礁的主权归属进行判定，都将不可避免地产生实际上海域划界的效果。因此，中国认为，仲裁庭对本案明显没有管辖权。

29. To sum up, by requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to apply the Convention to determine the extent of China’s maritime rights in the South China Sea, without first having ascertained sovereignty over the relevant maritime features, and by formulating a series of claims for arbitration to that effect, the Philippines contravenes the general principles of international law and international jurisprudence on the settlement of international maritime disputes. To decide upon any of the Philippines’ claims, the Arbitral Tribunal would inevitably have to determine, directly or indirectly, the sovereignty over both the maritime features in question and other maritime features in the South China Sea. Besides, such a decision would unavoidably produce, in practical terms, the effect of a maritime delimitation, which will be further discussed below in Part IV of this Position Paper. Therefore, China maintains that the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over the present case.