中國政府關(guān)于菲律賓所提南海仲裁案管轄權(quán)問題的立場(chǎng)文件
Position Paper of the Chinese Government on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Philippines
0 
調(diào)整字號(hào)大小: 
| 三、通過談判方式解決在南海的爭(zhēng)端是中菲兩國之間的協(xié)議，菲律賓無權(quán)單方面提起強(qiáng)制仲裁 | III. There exists an agreement between China and the Philippines to settle their disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations, and the Philippines is debarred from unilaterally initiating compulsory arbitration |
| 30. 中國在涉及領(lǐng)土主權(quán)和海洋權(quán)利的問題上，一貫堅(jiān)持由直接有關(guān)國家通過談判的方式和平解決爭(zhēng)端。中菲之間就通過友好磋商和談判解決兩國在南海的爭(zhēng)端也早有共識(shí)。 | 30. With regard to disputes concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, China has always maintained that they should be peacefully resolved through negotiations between the countries directly concerned. In the present case, there has been a long-standing agreement between China and the Philippines on resolving their disputes in the South China Sea through friendly consultations and negotiations. |
| 31. 1995年8月10日《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國關(guān)于南海問題和其他領(lǐng)域合作的磋商聯(lián)合聲明》指出，雙方“同意遵守”下列原則：“有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議應(yīng)通過平等和相互尊重基礎(chǔ)上的磋商和平友好地加以解決”（第一點(diǎn)）；“雙方承諾循序漸進(jìn)地進(jìn)行合作，最終談判解決雙方爭(zhēng)議”（第三點(diǎn)）；“爭(zhēng)議應(yīng)由直接有關(guān)國家解決，不影響南海的航行自由”（第八點(diǎn)）。 | 31. Under the Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines concerning Consultations on the South China Sea and on Other Areas of Cooperation, issued on 10 August 1995, both sides “agreed to abide by” the principles that "[d]isputes shall be settled in a peaceful and friendly manner through consultations on the basis of equality and mutual respect" (Point 1); that "a gradual and progressive process of cooperation shall be adopted with a view to eventually negotiating a settlement of the bilateral disputes" (Point 3); and that "[d]isputes shall be settled by the countries directly concerned without prejudice to the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea" (Point 8). |
| 32. 1999年3月23日《中菲建立信任措施工作小組會(huì)議聯(lián)合公報(bào)》指出，雙方承諾“遵守繼續(xù)通過友好磋商尋求解決分歧方法的諒解”（聯(lián)合公報(bào)第5段）?！半p方認(rèn)為，中菲之間的磋商渠道是暢通的。他們同意通過協(xié)商和平解決爭(zhēng)議”（聯(lián)合公報(bào)第12段）。 | 32. The Joint Statement of the China-Philippines Experts Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures, issued on 23 March 1999, states that the two sides reiterated their commitment to "[t]he understanding to continue to work for a settlement of their difference through friendly consultations" (para. 5), and that "the two sides believe that the channels of consultations between China and the Philippines are unobstructed. They have agreed that the dispute should be peacefully settled through consultation" (para. 12). |
| 33. 2000年5月16日《中華人民共和國政府和菲律賓共和國政府關(guān)于21世紀(jì)雙邊合作框架的聯(lián)合聲明》第九點(diǎn)規(guī)定：“雙方致力于維護(hù)南海的和平與穩(wěn)定，同意根據(jù)公認(rèn)的國際法原則，包括1982年《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》，通過雙邊友好協(xié)商和談判促進(jìn)爭(zhēng)議的和平解決。雙方重申遵守1995年中菲兩國關(guān)于南海問題的聯(lián)合聲明”。 | 33. The Joint Statement between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines on the Framework of Bilateral Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century, issued on 16 May 2000, states in Point 9 that, "The two sides commit themselves to the maintenance of peace and stability in the South China Sea. They agree to promote a peaceful settlement of disputes through bilateral friendly consultations and negotiations in accordance with universally-recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. They reaffirm their adherence to the 1995 joint statement between the two countries on the South China Sea ...". |
| 34. 2001年4月4日《中國－菲律賓第三次建立信任措施專家組會(huì)議聯(lián)合新聞聲明》第四點(diǎn)指出：“雙方認(rèn)識(shí)到兩國就探討南海合作方式所建立的雙邊磋商機(jī)制是富有成效的，雙方所達(dá)成的一系列諒解與共識(shí)對(duì)維護(hù)中菲關(guān)系的健康發(fā)展和南海地區(qū)的和平與穩(wěn)定發(fā)揮了建設(shè)性作用?！?/span> | 34. The Joint Press Statement of the Third China-Philippines Experts' Group Meeting on Confidence-Building Measures, dated 4 April 2001, states in Point 4 that, "The two sides noted that the bilateral consultation mechanism to explore ways of cooperation in the South China Sea has been effective. The series of understanding and consensus reached by the two sides have played a constructive role in the maintenance of the sound development of China-Philippines relations and peace and stability of the South China Sea area." |
| 35. 中菲之間關(guān)于以談判方式解決有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端的共識(shí)在多邊合作文件中也得到確認(rèn)。2002年11月4日，時(shí)任中國外交部副部長王毅作為中國政府代表與包括菲律賓在內(nèi)的東盟各國政府代表共同簽署了《南海各方行為宣言》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱《宣言》）?！缎浴返谒臈l明確規(guī)定，“有關(guān)各方承諾根據(jù)公認(rèn)的國際法原則，包括1982年《聯(lián)合國海洋法公約》，由直接有關(guān)的主權(quán)國家通過友好磋商和談判，以和平方式解決它們的領(lǐng)土和管轄權(quán)爭(zhēng)議”。 | 35. The mutual understanding between China and the Philippines to settle relevant disputes through negotiations has been reaffirmed in a multilateral instrument. On 4 November 2002, Mr. Wang Yi, the then Vice Foreign Minister and representative of the Chinese Government, together with the representatives of the governments of the member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ("ASEAN"), including the Philippines, jointly signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea ("DOC"). Paragraph 4 of the DOC explicitly states that, "The Parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means ... through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea." |
| 36. 《宣言》簽署后，中菲兩國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人又一再確認(rèn)通過對(duì)話解決爭(zhēng)端。2004年9月3日，時(shí)任菲律賓總統(tǒng)格羅麗亞·馬卡帕加爾·阿羅約對(duì)中國進(jìn)行國事訪問，雙方發(fā)表了《中華人民共和國政府和菲律賓共和國政府聯(lián)合新聞公報(bào)》，“雙方一致認(rèn)為盡快積極落實(shí)中國與東盟于2002年簽署的《南海各方行為宣言》有助于將南海變?yōu)楹献髦！保?lián)合新聞公報(bào)第16段）。 | 36. Following the signing of the DOC, the leaders of China and the Philippines have repeatedly reiterated their commitment to the settlement of disputes by way of dialogue. Thus, a Joint Press Statement between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines was issued on 3 September 2004 during the State visit to China by the then Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, which states in paragraph 16 that, "They agreed that the early and vigorous implementation of the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea will pave the way for the transformation of the South China Sea into an area of cooperation." |
| 37. 2011年8月30日至9月3日，菲律賓總統(tǒng)貝尼尼奧·阿基諾對(duì)中國進(jìn)行國事訪問。9月1日，雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國聯(lián)合聲明》，“重申將通過和平對(duì)話處理爭(zhēng)議”，并“重申尊重和遵守中國與東盟國家于2002年簽署的《南海各方行為宣言》”（聯(lián)合聲明第15段）?！堵?lián)合聲明》確認(rèn)了《宣言》第四條關(guān)于談判解決有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端的規(guī)定。 | 37. Between 30 August and 3 September 2011, President Benigno S. Aquino III of the Philippines paid a State visit to China. On 1 September 2011, the two sides issued a Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines, which, in paragraph 15, "reiterated their commitment to addressing the disputes through peaceful dialogue" and "reaffirmed their commitments to respect and abide by the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed by China and the ASEAN member countries in 2002". The Joint Statement, consequently, reaffirmed Paragraph 4 of the DOC relating to settlement of relevant disputes by negotiations. |
| 38. 中菲雙邊文件在提及以談判方式解決有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端時(shí)反復(fù)使用了“同意”一詞，確立兩國之間相關(guān)義務(wù)的意圖非常明顯。《宣言》第四條使用了“承諾”一詞，這也是協(xié)議中通常用以確定當(dāng)事方義務(wù)的詞語。國際法院在2007年波斯尼亞和黑塞哥維那訴塞爾維亞和黑山關(guān)于適用《防止和懲治滅種罪公約》案的判決中對(duì)“承諾”一詞有以下明確的解釋：“‘承諾’這個(gè)詞的一般含義是給予一個(gè)正式的諾言，以約束自己或使自己受到約束，是給予一個(gè)保證或諾言來表示同意、接受某一義務(wù)。它在規(guī)定締約國義務(wù)的條約中經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)……它并非只被用來提倡或表示某種目標(biāo)”（判決第162段）。此外，根據(jù)國際法，一項(xiàng)文件無論采用何種名稱和形式，只要其為當(dāng)事方創(chuàng)設(shè)了權(quán)利和義務(wù)，這種權(quán)利和義務(wù)就具有拘束力（參見1994年卡塔爾－巴林案判決第22段至第26段；2002年喀麥?。崛绽麃啺概袥Q第258段、第262段和第263段）。 | 38. The bilateral instruments between China and the Philippines repeatedly employ the term "agree" when referring to settlement of their disputes through negotiations. This evinces a clear intention to establish an obligation between the two countries in this regard. Paragraph 4 of the DOC employs the term "undertake", which is also frequently used in international agreements to commit the parties to their obligations. As the ICJ observed in its Judgment in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, "[t]he ordinary meaning of the word 'undertake' is to give a formal promise, to bind or engage oneself, to give a pledge or promise, to agree, to accept an obligation. It is a word regularly used in treaties setting out the obligations of the Contracting Parties .... It is not merely hortatory or purposive" (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 111, para. 162). Furthermore, under international law, regardless of the designation or form the above-mentioned instruments employ, as long as they intend to create rights and obligations for the parties, these rights and obligations are binding between the parties (Cf. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 1 July 1994, I.C.J. Reports 1994, pp. 120-121, paras. 22-26; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equitorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, I.C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 427, 429, paras. 258, 262-263). |
| 39. 上述中菲兩國各項(xiàng)雙邊文件以及《宣言》的相關(guān)規(guī)定一脈相承，構(gòu)成中菲兩國之間的協(xié)議。兩國據(jù)此承擔(dān)了通過談判方式解決有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端的義務(wù)。 | 39. The relevant provisions in the aforementioned bilateral instruments and the DOC are mutually reinforcing and form an agreement between China and the Philippines. On that basis, they have undertaken a mutual obligation to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations. |
| 40. 中菲雙邊文件和《宣言》第四條反復(fù)重申以談判方式和平解決南海爭(zhēng)端，并且規(guī)定必須在直接有關(guān)的主權(quán)國家之間進(jìn)行，顯然排除了第三方爭(zhēng)端解決程序。前述1995年8月10日《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國關(guān)于南海問題和其他領(lǐng)域合作的磋商聯(lián)合聲明》第三點(diǎn)指出“雙方承諾循序漸進(jìn)地進(jìn)行合作，最終談判解決雙方爭(zhēng)議”，這里的“最終”一詞顯然在強(qiáng)調(diào)“談判”是雙方唯一的爭(zhēng)端解決方式，雙方?jīng)]有意向選擇第三方爭(zhēng)端解決程序。中菲雙邊文件和《宣言》第四條雖然沒有明文使用“排除其他程序”的表述，但正如2000年南方藍(lán)鰭金槍魚仲裁案裁決所稱：“缺少一項(xiàng)明示排除任何程序[的規(guī)定]不是決定性的”（裁決第57段）。如前所述，中國在涉及領(lǐng)土主權(quán)和海洋權(quán)利的問題上，一貫堅(jiān)持由直接有關(guān)國家通過談判的方式和平解決爭(zhēng)端。在上述中菲雙邊文件和《宣言》的制訂過程中，中國的這一立場(chǎng)始終是明確的，菲律賓及其他有關(guān)各方對(duì)此也十分清楚。 | 40. By repeatedly reaffirming negotiations as the means for settling relevant disputes, and by emphasizing that negotiations be conducted by sovereign States directly concerned, the above-quoted provisions of the bilateral instruments and Paragraph 4 of the DOC obviously have produced the effect of excluding any means of third-party settlement. In particular, the above-mentioned Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines concerning Consultations on the South China Sea and on Other Areas of Cooperation of 10 August 1995 stipulates in Point 3 that "a gradual and progressive process of cooperation shall be adopted with a view to eventually negotiating a settlement of the bilateral disputes". The term "eventually" in this context clearly serves to emphasize that "negotiations" is the only means the parties have chosen for dispute settlement, to the exclusion of any other means including third-party settlement procedures. Although the above-mentioned bilateral instruments and Paragraph 4 of the DOC do not use such an express phrase as "exclude other procedures of dispute settlement", as the arbitral tribunal in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Case stated in its Award, "the absence of an express exclusion of any procedure ... is not decisive" (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2000, p.97, para. 57). As discussed earlier, in respect of disputes relating to territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, China always insists on peaceful settlement of disputes by means of negotiations between the countries directly concerned. China's position on negotiations was made clear and well known to the Philippines and other relevant parties during the drafting and adoption of the aforementioned bilateral instruments and the DOC. |
| 41. 因此，對(duì)于中菲在南海的爭(zhēng)端的所有問題，包括菲律賓提出的仲裁事項(xiàng)，雙方同意的爭(zhēng)端解決方式只是談判，排除了其他任何方式。 | 41. Consequently, with regard to all the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, including the Philippines' claims in this arbitration, the only means of settlement as agreed by the two sides is negotiations, to the exclusion of any other means. |
| 42. 即使菲律賓提出的仲裁事項(xiàng)涉及《公約》的解釋或適用問題，在中菲之間已就通過談判方式解決有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端達(dá)成協(xié)議的情況下，《公約》第十五部分第二節(jié)的強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序也不適用。 | 42. Even supposing that the Philippines' claims were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, the compulsory procedures laid down in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention still could not be applied, given the agreement between China and the Philippines on settling their relevant disputes through negotiations. |
| 43. 《公約》第二百八十條規(guī)定：“本公約的任何規(guī)定均不損害任何締約國于任何時(shí)候協(xié)議用自行選擇的任何和平方法解決它們之間有關(guān)本公約的解釋或適用的爭(zhēng)端的權(quán)利?！薄豆s》第二百八十一條第一款規(guī)定：“作為有關(guān)本公約的解釋或適用的爭(zhēng)端各方的締約各國，如已協(xié)議用自行選擇的和平方法來謀求解決爭(zhēng)端，則只有在訴諸這種方法而仍未得到解決以及爭(zhēng)端各方間的協(xié)議并不排除任何其他程序的情形下，才適用本部分所規(guī)定的程序?！?/span> | 43. Article 280 of the Convention states that, "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 (1) provides that, "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." |
| 44. 如前分析，中菲兩國已通過雙邊、多邊協(xié)議選擇通過談判方式解決有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端，沒有為談判設(shè)定任何期限，而且排除適用任何其他程序。在此情形下，根據(jù)《公約》上述條款的規(guī)定，有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端顯然應(yīng)當(dāng)通過談判方式來解決，而不得訴諸仲裁等強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序。 | 44. As analysed above, through bilateral and multilateral instruments, China and the Philippines have agreed to settle their relevant disputes by negotiations, without setting any time limit for the negotiations, and have excluded any other means of settlement. In these circumstances, it is evident that, under the above-quoted provisions of the Convention, the relevant disputes between the two States shall be resolved through negotiations and there shall be no recourse to arbitration or other compulsory procedures. |
| 45. 菲律賓聲稱，1995年之后中菲兩國就菲律賓仲裁請(qǐng)求中提及的事項(xiàng)多次交換意見，但未能解決爭(zhēng)端；菲律賓有正當(dāng)理由認(rèn)為繼續(xù)談判已無意義，因而有權(quán)提起仲裁。事實(shí)上，迄今為止，中菲兩國從未就菲律賓所提仲裁事項(xiàng)進(jìn)行過談判。 | 45. The Philippines claims that, the two countries have been involved in exchanges of views since 1995 with regard to the subject-matter of the Philippines' claims for arbitration, without however reaching settlement, and that in its view, the Philippines is justified in believing that it is meaningless to continue the negotiations, and therefore the Philippines has the right to initiate arbitration. But the truth is that the two countries have never engaged in negotiations with regard to the subject-matter of the arbitration. |
| 46. 根據(jù)國際法，一般性的、不以爭(zhēng)端解決為目的的交換意見不構(gòu)成談判。2011年國際法院在格魯吉亞－俄羅斯聯(lián)邦案的判決中表示，“談判不僅是雙方法律意見或利益的直接對(duì)抗，或一系列的指責(zé)和反駁，或?qū)α⒅鲝埖慕粨Q”，“談判……至少要求爭(zhēng)端一方有與對(duì)方討論以期解決爭(zhēng)端的真誠的努力”（判決第157段），且“談判的實(shí)質(zhì)問題必須與爭(zhēng)端的實(shí)質(zhì)問題相關(guān)，后者還必須與相關(guān)條約下的義務(wù)相關(guān)”（判決第161段）。 | 46. Under international law, general exchanges of views, without having the purpose of settling a given dispute, do not constitute negotiations. In Georgia v. Russian Federation, the ICJ held that, "Negotiations entail more than the plain opposition of legal views or interests between two parties, or the existence of a series of accusations and rebuttals, or even the exchange of claims and directly opposed counter-claims. As such, the concept of 'negotiations' … requires - at the very least - a genuine attempt by one of the disputing parties to engage in discussions with the other disputing party, with a view to resolving the dispute" (Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 1 April 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 132, para. 157). In addition, the ICJ considered that "the subject-matter of the negotiations must relate to the subject-matter of the dispute which, in turn, must concern the substantive obligations contained in the treaty in question" (Ibid., p. 133, para. 161). |
| 47. 南海問題涉及多個(gè)國家，其解決絕非易事。有關(guān)各方至今仍在為最終談判解決南海問題創(chuàng)造條件。在此背景下，中菲之間就有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端交換意見，主要是應(yīng)對(duì)在爭(zhēng)議地區(qū)出現(xiàn)的突發(fā)事件，圍繞防止沖突、減少摩擦、穩(wěn)定局勢(shì)、促進(jìn)合作的措施而進(jìn)行的。即使按照菲律賓列舉的證據(jù)，這些交換意見也遠(yuǎn)未構(gòu)成談判。 | 47. The South China Sea issue involves a number of countries, and it is no easy task to solve it. Up to the present, the countries concerned are still working together to create conditions conducive to its final settlement by negotiations. Against this background, the exchanges of views between China and the Philippines in relation to their disputes have so far pertained to responding to incidents at sea in the disputed areas and promoting measures to prevent conflicts, reduce frictions, maintain stability in the region, and promote measures of cooperation. They are far from constituting negotiations even on the evidence presented by the Philippines. |
| 48. 近年來，中國多次向菲律賓提出建立“中菲海上問題定期磋商機(jī)制”的建議，但一直未獲菲律賓答復(fù)。2011年9月1日，雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國聯(lián)合聲明》，雙方再次承諾通過談判解決南海爭(zhēng)端。然而未待談判正式開始，菲律賓卻于2012年4月10日動(dòng)用軍艦進(jìn)入中國黃巖島海域抓扣中國的漁船和漁民。對(duì)于菲律賓的挑釁性行動(dòng)，中國被迫采取了維護(hù)主權(quán)的反制措施。此后，中國再次向菲律賓建議重啟中菲建立信任措施磋商機(jī)制，仍未得到菲律賓回應(yīng)。2012年4月26日，菲律賓外交部照會(huì)中國駐菲律賓大使館，提出要將黃巖島問題提交第三方司法機(jī)構(gòu)，沒有表達(dá)任何談判的意愿。2013年1月22日，菲律賓即單方面提起了強(qiáng)制仲裁程序。 | 48. In recent years, China has on a number of occasions proposed to the Philippines the establishment of a China-Philippines regular consultation mechanism on maritime issues. To date, there has never been any response from the Philippines. On 1 September 2011, the two countries issued a Joint Statement between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Philippines, reiterating the commitment to settling their disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations. But, before negotiations could formally begin, the Philippines sent on 10 April 2012 a naval vessel to the waters of China's Huangyan Dao to seize Chinese fishing boats together with the Chinese fishermen on board. In the face of such provocations, China was forced to take response measures to safeguard its sovereignty. Thereafter, China once again proposed to the Philippine Government that the two sides restart the China-Philippines consultation mechanism for confidence-building measures. That proposal again fell on deaf ears. On 26 April 2012, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs delivered a note verbale to the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines, proposing that the issue of Huangyan Dao be referred to a third-party adjudication body for resolution and indicating no willingness to negotiate. On 22 January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated the present compulsory arbitration proceedings. |
| 49. 中菲此前圍繞南海問題所進(jìn)行的交換意見，也并非針對(duì)菲律賓所提的仲裁事項(xiàng)。例如，菲律賓援引1997年5月22日中國外交部關(guān)于黃巖島問題的聲明，以證明中菲之間就黃巖島的海洋權(quán)利問題存在爭(zhēng)端并已交換意見；但菲律賓故意沒有援引的是，中國外交部在聲明中明確指出：“黃巖島的問題是領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題，專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)的開發(fā)和利用是海洋管轄權(quán)問題，兩者的性質(zhì)和所適用的法律規(guī)則都截然不同，不能混為一談。菲方試圖以海洋管轄權(quán)侵犯中國領(lǐng)土主權(quán)的企圖是完全站不住腳的?！边@一聲明的含義是，菲律賓不得借口黃巖島位于其主張的專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)范圍內(nèi)，否定中國對(duì)該島的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)?？梢?，上述交換意見的核心是主權(quán)問題。 | 49. The previous exchanges of views regarding the South China Sea issue between the two countries did not concern the subject-matter of the Philippines' claims for arbitration. For instance, the Philippines cited a statement released by the Chinese Foreign Ministry on 22 May 1997 regarding Huangyan Dao, in order to show that there exists between the two countries a dispute concerning the maritime rights of Huangyan Dao and that the two countries had exchanged views with regard to that dispute. However, the Philippines deliberately omitted a passage from that statement, which reads: "The issue of Huangyandao is an issue of territorial sovereignty; the development and exploitation of the EEZ is a question of maritime jurisdiction, the nature of the two issues are different and hence the laws and regulations governing them are also different, and they should not be discussed together. The attempt of the Philippine side to use maritime jurisdictional rights to violate the territorial sovereignty of China is untenable." This passage makes clear the thrust of the statement: the Philippines shall not negate China's sovereignty over Huangyan Dao on the pretext that it is situated within the EEZ of the Philippines. This shows that the exchange of views in question was centred on the issue of sovereignty. |
| 50. 還需注意的是，菲律賓試圖說明中菲兩國自1995年起交換意見的事項(xiàng)是關(guān)于《公約》解釋或適用的問題，但這是不符合事實(shí)的。歷史上，菲律賓于1961年6月17日頒布第3046號(hào)共和國法案，將位于菲律賓群島最外緣各島以外、由1898年美西《巴黎條約》等國際條約所確定的菲律賓邊界線以內(nèi)的廣闊水域納入菲律賓領(lǐng)海，領(lǐng)海的寬度大大超過12海里。菲律賓于1978年6月11日頒布第1596號(hào)總統(tǒng)令，對(duì)所謂“卡拉延島群”（即中國南沙群島部分島礁）及其周邊大范圍的海域、海床、底土、大陸邊及其上空主張主權(quán)。菲律賓自己也承認(rèn)，直到2009年3月10日通過的第9522號(hào)共和國法令，菲律賓才開始使其國內(nèi)法與《公約》相協(xié)調(diào)，以期完全放棄與《公約》不符的海洋權(quán)利主張。該法令首次規(guī)定，“卡拉延島群”（即中國南沙群島部分島礁）和“斯卡伯勒礁”（即中國黃巖島）的海洋區(qū)域?qū)⑴c《公約》第一百二十一條（即“島嶼制度”）保持一致。既然菲律賓自己都認(rèn)為，其直到2009年才開始放棄以往與《公約》不符的海洋權(quán)利主張，那么何談中菲兩國自1995年起已就與本仲裁案有關(guān)的《公約》解釋或適用的問題交換意見。 | 50. It should be further noted that, the Philippines has attempted to show that the subject-matter of the exchanges of views between China and the Philippines since 1995 concerns the interpretation or application of the Convention, but nothing could be farther from the truth than this. Historically, the Philippines, by Republic Act No. 3046 of 17 June 1961, proclaimed as part of its territorial sea the vast areas of sea between the most outlying islands in the Philippine archipelago and the treaty limits established in the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain in 1898, among other international treaties, thus claiming a belt of territorial sea far beyond 12 nautical miles. By Presidential Decree No. 1596 promulgated on 11 June 1978, the Philippines made its claim for sovereignty over the so-called "Kalayaan Island Group" (i.e., some maritime features of China's Nansha Islands), together with the adjacent but vast areas of waters, sea-bed, subsoil, continental margin, and superjacent airspace. As conceded by the Philippines itself, only with the adoption on 10 March 2009 of Republic Act No. 9522 did it begin the ongoing process to harmonize its domestic law with the Convention, with a view to eventually relinquishing all its maritime claims incompatible with the Convention. That Act provided, for the first time, that the maritime areas of 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) "shall be determined" so as to be "consistent with Article 121" of the Convention (i.e., the regime of islands). Therefore, given that the Philippines itself considers that only in 2009 did it start to abandon its former maritime claims in conflict with the Convention, how could it have started in 1995 to exchange views with China on matters concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention that are related to the present arbitration? |
| 51. 菲律賓聲稱，由于中國自己已嚴(yán)重違反了《宣言》的規(guī)定，所以無權(quán)援引《宣言》第四條來排除仲裁庭對(duì)本案的管轄權(quán)。上述說法嚴(yán)重違背事實(shí)。菲律賓指責(zé)中國采取包括威脅使用武力的行動(dòng)驅(qū)離在黃巖島海域長期、持續(xù)作業(yè)的菲律賓漁民，以及中國阻止菲律賓對(duì)在仁愛礁坐灘的軍艦和人員進(jìn)行補(bǔ)給，試圖說明中國違反了《宣言》的規(guī)定。但事實(shí)是，在黃巖島問題上，菲律賓首先采取威脅使用武力的手段，于2012年4月10日非法派出軍艦在黃巖島海域強(qiáng)行扣留、逮捕中國漁船和漁民。在仁愛礁問題上，菲律賓一艘軍艦于1999年5月以所謂“技術(shù)故障”為借口，在中國南沙群島的仁愛礁非法坐灘。中國多次向菲律賓提出交涉，要求菲律賓立即拖走該艦。菲律賓也曾多次向中國明確承諾拖走因“技術(shù)故障”坐灘的軍艦。然而15年來，菲律賓不僅違背此前承諾，拒不拖走有關(guān)軍艦，反而試圖在該礁上修建固定設(shè)施。2014年3月14日，菲律賓還公開宣稱其在1999年是將該軍艦作為永久設(shè)施部署在仁愛礁。針對(duì)菲律賓的上述挑釁行為，中國被迫采取了必要的措施。因此，菲律賓對(duì)中國的指責(zé)是毫無道理的。 | 51. The Philippines claims that China cannot invoke Paragraph 4 of the DOC to exclude the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, given its own grave breach of the terms of the DOC. This is groundless. In support of its allegations against China, the Philippines claims that China has taken measures including the threat of force to drive away Philippine fishermen from the waters of Huangyan Dao in spite of their long-standing and continuous fishing activities in those waters, and that China has blocked the Philippines from resupplying a naval ship which ran and has stayed aground at Ren’ai Jiao and certain navy personnel on board. But the fact is that, regarding the situation at Huangyan Dao, it was the Philippines that first resorted to the threat of force by dispatching on 10 April 2012 a naval vessel to detain and arrest Chinese fishing boats and fishermen in the waters of Huangyan Dao. Regarding the situation at Ren’ai Jiao, which is a constituent part of China's Nansha Islands, the Philippines illegally ran a naval ship aground in May 1999 at that feature on the pretext of "technical difficulties". China has made repeated representations to the Philippines, demanding that the latter immediately tow away the vessel. The Philippines, for its part, had on numerous occasions made explicit undertaking to China to tow away the vessel grounded due to "technical difficulties". However, for over 15 years, instead of fulfilling that undertaking, the Philippines has attempted to construct permanent installations on Ren'ai Jiao. On 14 March 2014, the Philippines even openly declared that the vessel was deployed as a permanent installation on Ren'ai Jiao in 1999. China has been forced to take necessary measures in response to such provocative conduct. In light of these facts, the Philippines' accusations against China are baseless. |
| 52. 菲律賓一方面為支持其提起的仲裁而否認(rèn)《宣言》第四條的效力，另一方面，卻又在2014年8月1日外交部聲明中提出解決南海問題的倡議，要求各方遵守《宣言》第五條的規(guī)定，并且“全面、有效執(zhí)行《宣言》”。菲律賓對(duì)《宣言》所采取的這種自相矛盾、出爾反爾的做法，明顯違反國際法上的誠信原則。 | 52. While it denies the effect of Paragraph 4 of the DOC for the purpose of supporting its institution of the present arbitration, the Philippines recently called on the parties to the DOC to comply with Paragraph 5 of the DOC and to provide "the full and effective implementation of the DOC", in a proposal made in its Department of Foreign Affairs statement dated 1 August 2014. This selective and self-contradictory tactic clearly violates the principle of good faith in international law. |
| 53. 誠信原則要求各國對(duì)相互達(dá)成的協(xié)議作出誠實(shí)的解釋，不得為了獲取不正當(dāng)?shù)睦妫鴮?duì)協(xié)議作出違反原意的曲解。誠信原則至關(guān)重要，它體現(xiàn)在《聯(lián)合國憲章》第二條第二款中，涉及國際法的各個(gè)方面（參見羅伯特·詹寧斯和亞瑟·瓦茨1992年所編《奧本海國際法》第9版第一卷第38頁）。國際法院在1974年澳大利亞－法國核試驗(yàn)案的判決中指出，“指導(dǎo)制訂和履行國際義務(wù)的基本原則之一就是誠信原則，無論這種義務(wù)是基于什么淵源，信任與信心是國際合作的根本”（判決第46段）。 | 53. The principle of good faith requires all States to honestly interpret agreements they enter into with others, not to misinterpret them in disregard of their authentic meaning in order to obtain an unfair advantage. This principle is of overriding importance and is incorporated in Article 2(2) of the Charter of the United Nations. It touches every aspect of international law (Cf. Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law, 9th ed., 1992, vol. 1, p. 38). In the Nuclear Tests Case, the ICJ held that, "One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations, whatever their source, is the principle of good faith. Trust and confidence are inherent in international co-operation" (Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 268, para. 46). |
| 54. 中國愿借此機(jī)會(huì)強(qiáng)調(diào)，《宣言》是中國與東盟國家經(jīng)過多年耐心的談判，在相互尊重、互諒互讓的基礎(chǔ)上達(dá)成的重要文件。在《宣言》中，有關(guān)各方承諾由直接有關(guān)的主權(quán)國家通過友好磋商和談判解決它們的領(lǐng)土和管轄權(quán)爭(zhēng)議；各方重申以《聯(lián)合國憲章》宗旨和原則、1982年《公約》、《東南亞友好合作條約》、和平共處五項(xiàng)原則以及其它公認(rèn)的國際法原則作為處理國家間關(guān)系的基本準(zhǔn)則；各方承諾根據(jù)上述原則，在平等和相互尊重的基礎(chǔ)上，探討建立信任的途徑；各方重申尊重并承諾包括1982年《公約》在內(nèi)的公認(rèn)的國際法原則所規(guī)定的在南海的航行及飛越自由；各方承諾保持自我克制，不采取使?fàn)幾h復(fù)雜化、擴(kuò)大化和影響和平與穩(wěn)定的行動(dòng)，包括不在現(xiàn)無人居住的島、礁、灘、沙或其他自然構(gòu)造上采取居住的行動(dòng)，并以建設(shè)性的方式處理它們的分歧。此外，《宣言》還詳細(xì)列出有關(guān)各方在和平解決它們的領(lǐng)土和管轄權(quán)爭(zhēng)議之前，建立相互信任的途徑和開展合作的領(lǐng)域。作為落實(shí)《宣言》的后續(xù)行動(dòng)，各方承諾將磋商制定“南海行為準(zhǔn)則”。 | 54. On this occasion, China wishes to emphasize that the DOC is an important instrument, adopted by China and the ASEAN member States following many years of arduous negotiations on the basis of mutual respect, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation. Under the DOC, the parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign States directly concerned. In addition, the parties reaffirm their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1982 Convention, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and other universally recognized principles of international law which shall serve as the basic norms governing state-to-state relations. The Parties commit themselves to exploring ways for building trust and confidence in accordance with the above-mentioned principles and on the basis of equality and mutual respect; reaffirm their respect for and commitment to the freedom of navigation in, and overflight above, the South China Sea as provided for by universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 Convention; and undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features, and to handle their differences in a constructive manner. The DOC also lists a number of ways to build trust and areas of cooperation for the Parties concerned to seek and explore pending the peaceful settlement of territorial and jurisdictional disputes. As a follow-up to the DOC, the parties have undertaken to negotiate a "Code of Conduct in the South China Sea". |
| 55. 《宣言》對(duì)穩(wěn)定南海局勢(shì)、促進(jìn)中國與東盟國家的海上合作和增信釋疑起到了積極作用?！缎浴访宽?xiàng)條款均構(gòu)成該文件不可分割的組成部分。否定《宣言》的作用，將導(dǎo)致中國和東盟國家南海合作關(guān)系的嚴(yán)重倒退。 | 55. The DOC has played a positive role in maintaining stability in the South China Sea, and in enhancing maritime cooperation, building trust and reducing misgivings between China and the ASEAN member States. Every provision of the DOC constitutes an integral part of the document. To deny the significance of the DOC will lead to a serious retrogression from the current relationship of cooperation between China and the ASEAN member States in the South China Sea. |
| 56. 菲律賓作為東盟成員，參與了《宣言》的整個(gè)磋商過程，應(yīng)當(dāng)十分清楚《宣言》對(duì)通過談判和平解決南海問題的重要性。目前，中國和包括菲律賓在內(nèi)的東盟國家已建立工作機(jī)制積極落實(shí)《宣言》，并就“南海行為準(zhǔn)則”展開磋商，維護(hù)南海局勢(shì)的穩(wěn)定，為南海問題的最終和平解決創(chuàng)造條件。菲律賓現(xiàn)在提起強(qiáng)制仲裁程序，與中國和東盟國家的共同愿望和努力背道而馳，其目的并非像菲律賓所標(biāo)榜的那樣尋求和平解決南海問題，而是試圖通過仲裁向中國施加政治壓力，以通過對(duì)《公約》的所謂“解釋或適用”來達(dá)到否定中國在南海的合法權(quán)利，并按其單方面主張和意愿解決南海問題的目的。對(duì)此，中國當(dāng)然不能接受。 | 56. As a member of the ASEAN and having been involved throughout the consultations on the DOC, the Philippines should have fully appreciated the significance of the DOC for the peaceful settlement of the disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations. At present, in order to maintain stability in the region and create conditions for peaceful settlement of the South China Sea issue, China and the ASEAN member States have established working mechanisms to effectively implement the DOC, and have been engaged in consultations regarding the "Code of Conduct in the South China Sea". By initiating compulsory arbitration at this juncture, the Philippines is running counter to the common wish and joint efforts of China and the ASEAN member States. Its underlying goal is not, as the Philippines has proclaimed, to seek peaceful resolution of the South China Sea issue, but rather, by resorting to arbitration, to put political pressure on China, so as to deny China's lawful rights in the South China Sea through the so-called "interpretation or application" of the Convention, and to pursue a resolution of the South China Sea issue on its own terms. This is certainly unacceptable to China. |
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)
No comments.
