中國(guó)政府關(guān)于菲律賓所提南海仲裁案管轄權(quán)問(wèn)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: 
| 四、即使菲律賓提出的仲裁事項(xiàng)涉及有關(guān)《公約》解釋或適用的問(wèn)題，也構(gòu)成海域劃界不可分割的組成部分，已被中國(guó)2006年聲明所排除，不得提交仲裁 | IV. Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter would still be an integral part of maritime delimitation and, having been excluded by the 2006 Declaration filed by China, could not be submitted for arbitration |
| 57. 《公約》第十五部分確認(rèn)了締約國(guó)可以書面聲明就特定事項(xiàng)排除適用該部分第二節(jié)規(guī)定的強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序。中國(guó)2006年作出此類聲明，符合《公約》有關(guān)規(guī)定。 | 57. Part XV of the Convention establishes the right for the States Parties to file a written declaration to exclude specified categories of disputes from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures as laid down in section 2 of that Part. In 2006 China filed such a declaration in full compliance with the Convention. |
| 58. 2006年8月25日，中國(guó)根據(jù)《公約》第二百九十八條的規(guī)定向聯(lián)合國(guó)秘書長(zhǎng)提交聲明。該聲明稱：“關(guān)于《公約》第二百九十八條第1款（a）、（b）和（c）項(xiàng)所述的任何爭(zhēng)端，中華人民共和國(guó)政府不接受《公約》第十五部分第二節(jié)規(guī)定的任何程序”。也就是說(shuō)，對(duì)于涉及海域劃界、歷史性海灣或所有權(quán)、軍事和執(zhí)法活動(dòng)以及安理會(huì)執(zhí)行《聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章》所賦予的職務(wù)等爭(zhēng)端，中國(guó)政府不接受《公約》第十五部分第二節(jié)下的任何強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序，包括強(qiáng)制仲裁。中國(guó)堅(jiān)信，直接有關(guān)的主權(quán)國(guó)家進(jìn)行友好磋商和談判，是和平解決中國(guó)與周邊鄰國(guó)間的海洋爭(zhēng)端最有效的方式。 | 58. On 25 August 2006, China deposited, pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention, with Secretary-General of the United Nations a written declaration, stating that,"The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention". In other words, as regards disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities, and disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, the Chinese Government does not accept any of the compulsory dispute settlement procedures laid down in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention, including compulsory arbitration. China firmly believes that the most effective means for settlement of maritime disputes between China and its neighbouring States is that of friendly consultations and negotiations between the sovereign States directly concerned. |
| 59. 中國(guó)與菲律賓是海上鄰國(guó)，兩國(guó)屬于《公約》第七十四條和第八十三條所指的“海岸相向或相鄰的國(guó)家”，兩國(guó)之間存在海域劃界問(wèn)題。由于中菲有關(guān)島礁領(lǐng)土爭(zhēng)端懸而未決，兩國(guó)尚未進(jìn)行海域劃界談判，但已開(kāi)展合作為最終劃界創(chuàng)造條件。 | 59. China and the Philippines are maritime neighbours and "States with opposite or adjacent coasts" in the sense of Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention. There exists an issue of maritime delimitation between the two States. Given that disputes between China and the Philippines relating to territorial sovereignty over relevant maritime features remain unresolved, the two States have yet to start negotiations on maritime delimitation. They have, however, commenced cooperation to pave the way for an eventual delimitation. |
| 60. 2004年9月3日，中菲雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國(guó)政府和菲律賓共和國(guó)政府聯(lián)合新聞公報(bào)》，指出“雙方重申將繼續(xù)致力于維護(hù)南海地區(qū)的和平與穩(wěn)定。在尚未全面并最終解決南海地區(qū)的領(lǐng)土和海洋權(quán)益爭(zhēng)端前，雙方將繼續(xù)探討共同開(kāi)發(fā)等合作”（聯(lián)合新聞公報(bào)第16段）。 | 60. On 3 September 2004, the two sides issued a Joint Press Statement of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, stating that "[t]he two sides reaffirmed their commitment to the peace and stability in the South China Sea and their readiness to continue discussions to study cooperative activities like joint development pending the comprehensive and final settlement of territorial disputes and overlapping maritime claims in the area" (para. 16). |
| 61. 上述聯(lián)合聲明發(fā)表的前兩天，經(jīng)中菲兩國(guó)政府批準(zhǔn)并在兩國(guó)元首的見(jiàn)證下，中國(guó)海洋石油總公司與菲律賓國(guó)家石油公司簽署《南中國(guó)海部分海域聯(lián)合海洋地震工作協(xié)議》。該協(xié)議于2005年3月14日擴(kuò)大為中國(guó)、菲律賓、越南三方之間的協(xié)議。這是有關(guān)國(guó)家加強(qiáng)合作，為談判解決南海爭(zhēng)端創(chuàng)造條件的有益嘗試。該協(xié)議適用范圍就在菲律賓此次提起仲裁所涉海域之內(nèi)。 | 61. Two days before the issuance of the Joint Press Statement, upon approval by both governments and in the presence of the Heads of State of the two countries, China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company signed the "Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in Certain Areas in the South China Sea". On 14 March 2005, the agreement was expanded to a tripartite agreement, with the participation of Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation. This is a good example of the constructive efforts made by the States concerned to enhance cooperation and create conditions for a negotiated settlement of the disputes in the South China Sea. The maritime area covered by that agreement is within that covered in the present arbitration initiated by the Philippines. |
| 62. 2005年4月28日，時(shí)任中國(guó)國(guó)家主席胡錦濤對(duì)菲律賓進(jìn)行國(guó)事訪問(wèn)期間，雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國(guó)和菲律賓共和國(guó)聯(lián)合聲明》，“同意繼續(xù)致力于維護(hù)南海地區(qū)的和平與穩(wěn)定”，“對(duì)中國(guó)海洋石油總公司、越南油氣總公司和菲律賓國(guó)家石油公司簽訂《南中國(guó)海協(xié)議區(qū)三方聯(lián)合海洋地震工作協(xié)議》表示歡迎”（聯(lián)合聲明第16段）。 | 62. On 28 April 2005, during a State visit to the Philippines by the then Chinese President Hu Jintao, China and the Philippines issued a Joint Statement of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines, in which the two sides "agreed to continue efforts to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea and ... welcomed the signing of the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea by China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company" (para. 16). |
| 63. 2007年1月16日，時(shí)任中國(guó)國(guó)務(wù)院總理溫家寶對(duì)菲律賓進(jìn)行正式訪問(wèn)期間，雙方發(fā)表《中華人民共和國(guó)和菲律賓共和國(guó)聯(lián)合聲明》，再次表示，“南海三方聯(lián)合海洋地震工作可以成為本地區(qū)合作的一個(gè)示范。雙方同意，可以探討將下一階段的三方合作提升到更高水平，以加強(qiáng)本地區(qū)建立互信的良好勢(shì)頭”（聯(lián)合聲明第12段）。 | 63. On 16 January 2007, during the official visit to the Philippines by the then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, China and the Philippines issued a Joint Statement of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines, which stated that "the Tripartite Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the South China Sea serves as a model for cooperation in the region. They agreed that possible next steps for cooperation among the three parties should be explored to bring collaboration to a higher level and increase the momentum of trust and confidence in the region" (para. 12). |
| 64. 可見(jiàn)，中菲之間對(duì)于通過(guò)合作促進(jìn)海域劃界問(wèn)題的最終解決已有共識(shí)。鑒于中國(guó)2006年作出的聲明，菲律賓不得單方面將海域劃界問(wèn)題提交仲裁。 | 64. In light of the above, it is plain that China and the Philippines have reached mutual understanding to advance final resolution of the issue of maritime delimitation through cooperation. In any event, given China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines should not and cannot unilaterally initiate compulsory arbitration on the issue of maritime delimitation. |
| 65. 為了掩蓋中菲海域劃界爭(zhēng)端的實(shí)質(zhì)，繞過(guò)中國(guó)2006年聲明，菲律賓將海域劃界爭(zhēng)端拆分，抽取其中幾個(gè)事項(xiàng)作為孤立的問(wèn)題提交仲裁，要求仲裁庭分別進(jìn)行所謂的“法律解釋”。 | 65. To cover up the maritime delimitation nature of the China-Philippines dispute and to sidestep China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines has split up the dispute of maritime delimitation into discrete issues and selected a few of them for arbitration, requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to render the so-called "legal interpretation" on each of them. |
| 66. 不難看出，菲律賓提出的各項(xiàng)仲裁事項(xiàng)，包括海洋權(quán)利主張、島礁性質(zhì)和海洋權(quán)利范圍，以及海上執(zhí)法活動(dòng)等等，均是國(guó)際司法或仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在以往海域劃界案中所審理的主要問(wèn)題，也是國(guó)家間海域劃界實(shí)踐中需要處理的問(wèn)題。這些問(wèn)題屬于海域劃界不可分割的組成部分。 | 66. It is not difficult to see that such legal issues as those presented by the Philippines in the present arbitration, including maritime claims, the legal nature of maritime features, the extent of relevant maritime rights, and law enforcement activities at sea, are all fundamental issues dealt with in past cases of maritime delimitation decided by international judicial or arbitral bodies and in State practice concerning maritime delimitation. In short, those issues are part and parcel of maritime delimitation. |
| 67. 海域劃界是一項(xiàng)整體、系統(tǒng)工程?！豆s》第七十四條和第八十三條規(guī)定，海岸相向或相鄰國(guó)家間的海域劃界問(wèn)題，“應(yīng)在《國(guó)際法院規(guī)約》第三十八條所指國(guó)際法的基礎(chǔ)上以協(xié)議劃定，以便得到公平解決”。國(guó)際司法判例和國(guó)家實(shí)踐均確認(rèn)，為使海域劃界取得公平的結(jié)果，必須考慮所有相關(guān)因素。基于上述，適用于海域劃界的國(guó)際法，既包括《公約》，也包括一般國(guó)際法。海域劃界既涉及權(quán)利基礎(chǔ)、島礁效力等問(wèn)題，也涉及劃界原則和方法，以及為實(shí)現(xiàn)公平解決所必須考慮的所有相關(guān)因素。 | 67. Maritime delimitation is an integral, systematic process. Articles 74 and 83 of the Convention stipulate that maritime delimitation between States with opposite or adjacent coasts "shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution". Both international jurisprudence and State practice have recognized that all relevant factors must be taken into account to achieve an equitable solution. In this light, the international law applicable to maritime delimitation includes both the Convention and general international law. Under this body of law, maritime delimitation involves a consideration of not only entitlements, effect of maritime features, and principles and methods of delimitation, but also all relevant factors that must be taken into account, in order to attain an equitable solution. |
| 68. 菲律賓提出的仲裁事項(xiàng)構(gòu)成中菲海域劃界不可分割的組成部分，只能在中菲海域劃界的框架下，與有關(guān)當(dāng)事方基于《公約》、一般國(guó)際法和長(zhǎng)期歷史實(shí)踐所享有的相關(guān)權(quán)利和利益結(jié)合起來(lái)，予以綜合考慮。菲律賓將中菲海域劃界問(wèn)題拆分并將其中的部分問(wèn)題提交仲裁，勢(shì)必破壞海域劃界問(wèn)題的整體性和不可分割性，違背海域劃界應(yīng)以《國(guó)際法院規(guī)約》第三十八條所指國(guó)際法為基礎(chǔ)以及必須“考慮所有相關(guān)因素”的原則，將直接影響今后中菲海域劃界問(wèn)題的公平解決。 | 68. The issues presented by the Philippines for arbitration constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines, and, as such, can only be considered under the overarching framework of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines, and in conjunction with all the relevant rights and interests the parties concerned enjoy in accordance with the Convention, general international law, and historical or long-standing practice in the region for overall consideration. The Philippines’ approach of splitting its maritime delimitation dispute with China and selecting some of the issues for arbitration, if permitted, will inevitably destroy the integrity and indivisibility of maritime delimitation and contravene the principle that maritime delimitation must be based on international law as referred to in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and that "all relevant factors must be taken into account". This will adversely affect the future equitable solution of the dispute of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. |
| 69. 菲律賓表面上不要求進(jìn)行劃界，但卻請(qǐng)求仲裁庭裁定部分島礁是菲律賓專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)和大陸架的一部分，裁定中國(guó)非法干涉菲律賓對(duì)其專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)和大陸架享有和行使主權(quán)權(quán)利，等等。上述仲裁請(qǐng)求顯然是要求仲裁庭確認(rèn)相關(guān)海域?qū)儆诜坡少e的專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)和大陸架，菲律賓在該海域有權(quán)行使主權(quán)權(quán)利和管轄權(quán)，這實(shí)際上是在變相地要求仲裁庭進(jìn)行海域劃界。菲律賓提出的各項(xiàng)仲裁事項(xiàng)，實(shí)際上已涵蓋了海域劃界的主要步驟和主要問(wèn)題，如果仲裁庭實(shí)質(zhì)審議菲律賓的各項(xiàng)具體主張，就等于是間接地進(jìn)行了海域劃界。 | 69. Ostensibly, the Philippines is not seeking from the Arbitral Tribunal a ruling regarding maritime delimitation, but instead a decision, inter alia, that certain maritime features are part of the Philippines' EEZ and continental shelf, and that China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise by the Philippines of sovereign rights in its EEZ and continental shelf. But that obviously is an attempt to seek a recognition by the Arbitral Tribunal that the relevant maritime areas are part of the Philippines' EEZ and continental shelf, in respect of which the Philippines is entitled to exercise sovereign rights and jurisdiction. This is actually a request for maritime delimitation by the Arbitral Tribunal in disguise. The Philippines' claims have in effect covered the main aspects and steps in maritime delimitation. Should the Arbitral Tribunal address substantively the Philippines' claims, it would amount to a de facto maritime delimitation. |
| 70. 締約國(guó)根據(jù)《公約》第二百九十八條作出的排除性聲明理應(yīng)受到尊重，菲律賓試圖繞過(guò)中國(guó)排除性聲明提起強(qiáng)制仲裁的做法是濫用《公約》規(guī)定的爭(zhēng)端解決程序。 | 70. The exclusionary declarations filed by the States Parties to the Convention under Article 298 of the Convention must be respected. By initiating the present compulsory arbitration as an attempt to circumvent China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines is abusing the dispute settlement procedures under the Convention. |
| 71. 中國(guó)2006年排除性聲明一經(jīng)作出即應(yīng)自動(dòng)適用，其效力是，根據(jù)《公約》第二百九十九條的規(guī)定，未經(jīng)中方同意，其他國(guó)家不得針對(duì)中國(guó)就相關(guān)爭(zhēng)端單方面提交強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序。同時(shí)，中國(guó)也放棄了就同類爭(zhēng)端針對(duì)其他國(guó)家單方面提起強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序的權(quán)利，體現(xiàn)了權(quán)利與義務(wù)的對(duì)等。 | 71. China's 2006 declaration, once filed, automatically comes into effect. Its effect, as prescribed under Article 299 of the Convention, is that, without the consent of China, no State Party can unilaterally invoke any of the compulsory procedures specified in section 2 of Part XV against China in respect of the disputes covered by that declaration. In return, China simultaneously gives up the right to unilaterally initiate compulsory procedures against other States Parties in respect of the same disputes. The rights and obligations are reciprocal in this regard. |
| 72. 菲律賓辯稱，中國(guó)作為《公約》的締約國(guó)，按照《公約》第二百八十七條的規(guī)定，未在該條所列的四種強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序中作出選擇，應(yīng)被視為已接受強(qiáng)制仲裁程序。這種觀點(diǎn)是有意誤導(dǎo)。中國(guó)2006年聲明的目的和效果就是對(duì)于特定事項(xiàng)完全排除適用強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序。無(wú)論中國(guó)對(duì)《公約》第二百八十七條所列的四種強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序是否作出選擇，只要是屬于中國(guó)2006年聲明所涵蓋的爭(zhēng)端，中國(guó)就已經(jīng)明確排除了適用《公約》第十五部分第二節(jié)下的任何強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序包括強(qiáng)制仲裁的可能性。 | 72. The Philippines claims that, having chosen none of the four compulsory dispute settlement procedures listed under Article 287 of the Convention, China as a State Party shall therefore be deemed to have accepted compulsory arbitration. This is a deliberately misleading argument. The purpose and the effect of China's 2006 declaration is such that the disputes listed therein are fully excluded from the compulsory settlement procedures under the Convention. Whether or not China has selected any of the four compulsory procedures under Article 287, as long as a dispute falls within the scope of China's 2006 declaration, China has already explicitly excluded it from the applicability of any compulsory procedures under section 2 of Part XV of the Convention, including compulsory arbitration. |
| 73. 盡管菲律賓認(rèn)為其所提仲裁事項(xiàng)不屬于中方2006年聲明所涵蓋的爭(zhēng)端，但在中國(guó)對(duì)此持不同看法的情況下，菲律賓應(yīng)先行與中國(guó)解決該問(wèn)題，然后才能決定能否提交仲裁。如果按照菲律賓的邏輯，任何國(guó)家只要單方面聲稱有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端不是另一國(guó)排除性聲明所排除的爭(zhēng)端，即可單方面啟動(dòng)強(qiáng)制仲裁程序，那么《公約》第二百九十九條的規(guī)定就變得毫無(wú)意義。 | 73. Although the Philippines professes that the subject-matter of the arbitration does not involve any dispute covered by China's 2006 declaration, since China holds a different view in this regard, the Philippines should first take up this issue with China, before a decision can be taken on whether or not it can be submitted for arbitration. Should the Philippines' logic in its present form be followed, any State Party may unilaterally initiate compulsory arbitration against another State Party in respect of a dispute covered by the latter's declaration in force simply by asserting that the dispute is not excluded from arbitration by that declaration. This would render the provisions of Article 299 meaningless. |
| 74. 自《公約》生效以來(lái)，本案是第一例在一國(guó)已作出排除性聲明的情況下，另一國(guó)針對(duì)該聲明所涵蓋的爭(zhēng)端單方面啟動(dòng)強(qiáng)制仲裁程序的案件。如果菲律賓這種“設(shè)計(jì)”的爭(zhēng)端被認(rèn)為可以滿足強(qiáng)制仲裁管轄權(quán)的條件，那么可以設(shè)想，第二百九十八條所列的任何爭(zhēng)端均可以按照菲律賓的方法與《公約》某些條款的解釋或適用問(wèn)題聯(lián)系起來(lái)，都可以提起第十五部分第二節(jié)的強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序。若可以如此適用《公約》，那么，《公約》第二百九十八條還有何價(jià)值？目前35個(gè)國(guó)家所作出的排除性聲明還有何意義？中國(guó)認(rèn)為，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁，是在濫用《公約》規(guī)定的強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序，對(duì)《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的嚴(yán)肅性構(gòu)成嚴(yán)重的挑戰(zhàn)。 | 74. Since the entry into force of the Convention, the present arbitration is the first case in which a State Party has unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitration in respect of a dispute covered by a declaration of another State Party under Article 298. If this twisted approach of the Philippines could be accepted as fulfilling the conditions for invoking compulsory arbitration, it could be well imagined that any of the disputes listed in Article 298 may be submitted to the compulsory procedures under section 2 of Part XV simply by connecting them, using the Philippines' approach, with the question of interpretation or application of certain provisions of the Convention. Should the above approach be deemed acceptable, the question would then arise as to whether the provisions of Article 298 could still retain any value, and whether there is any practical meaning left of the declarations so far filed by 35 States Parties under Article 298. In light of the foregoing reasons, China can only conclude that, the unilateral initiation by the Philippines of the present arbitration constitutes an abuse of the compulsory procedures provided in the Convention and a grave challenge to the solemnity of the dispute settlement mechanism under the Convention. |
| 75. 綜上所述，即使菲律賓提請(qǐng)仲裁的事項(xiàng)涉及有關(guān)《公約》的解釋或適用的問(wèn)題，也是海域劃界爭(zhēng)端不可分割的組成部分，已被中國(guó)2006年聲明所排除，菲律賓不得就此提起強(qiáng)制仲裁程序。 | 75. To sum up, even assuming that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, it would still be an integral part of the dispute of maritime delimitation between the two States. Having been excluded by China's 2006 declaration, it could not be submitted to compulsory arbitration under the Convention. |
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)
No comments.
