《中國(guó)堅(jiān)持通過談判解決中國(guó)與菲律賓在南海的有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議》白皮書
White Paper: China Adheres to the Position of Settling Through Negotiation the Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea
0 
調(diào)整字號(hào)大小: 
| （三）菲律賓企圖染指中國(guó)黃巖島 | iii. The Philippines also has territorial pretensions on China's Huangyan Dao |
| 107. 菲律賓還對(duì)中國(guó)黃巖島提出領(lǐng)土要求并企圖非法侵占。 | 107. The Philippines also has territorial pretensions on China's Huangyan Dao and attempted to occupy it illegally. |
| 108. 黃巖島是中國(guó)固有領(lǐng)土，中國(guó)持續(xù)、和平、有效地對(duì)黃巖島行使著主權(quán)和管轄。 | 108. Huangyan Dao is China's inherent territory, over which China has continuously, peacefully and effectively exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction. |
| 109. 1997年之前，菲律賓從未對(duì)黃巖島屬于中國(guó)提出異議，從未對(duì)黃巖島提出領(lǐng)土要求。1990年2月5日，菲律賓駐德國(guó)大使比安弗尼多致函德國(guó)無線電愛好者迪特表示：“根據(jù)菲律賓國(guó)家地圖和資源信息局，斯卡伯勒礁或黃巖島不在菲律賓領(lǐng)土主權(quán)范圍以內(nèi)?！?/td> | 109. Before 1997, the Philippines had never challenged China's sovereignty over Huangyan Dao, nor had it laid any territorial claim to it. On 5 February 1990, Philippine Ambassador to Germany Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr. stated in a letter to German HAM radio amateur Dieter L?ffler that, "According to the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, the Scarborough Reef or Huangyan Dao does not fall within the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines." |
| 110. 菲律賓國(guó)家地圖和資源信息局1994年10月28日簽發(fā)的《菲律賓共和國(guó)領(lǐng)土邊界證明書》表示，“菲律賓共和國(guó)的領(lǐng)土邊界和主權(quán)由1898年12月10日簽署的《巴黎條約》第3條確定”，并確認(rèn)“菲律賓環(huán)境和自然資源部通過國(guó)家地圖和資源信息局發(fā)布的第25號(hào)官方地圖中顯示的領(lǐng)土界限完全正確并體現(xiàn)了真實(shí)狀態(tài)”。如前所述，《巴黎條約》和另外兩個(gè)條約確定了菲律賓的領(lǐng)土界限，中國(guó)黃巖島明顯位于這一界限以外。第25號(hào)官方地圖反映了這一事實(shí)。在1994年11月18日致美國(guó)無線電協(xié)會(huì)的信中，菲律賓無線電愛好者協(xié)會(huì)寫道，“一個(gè)非常重要的事實(shí)是，（菲律賓）有關(guān)政府機(jī)構(gòu)申明，基于1898年12月10日簽署的《巴黎條約》第3條，斯卡伯勒礁就是位于菲律賓領(lǐng)土邊界之外。” | 110. A "Certification of Territorial Boundary of the Republic of the Philippines", issued by the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority on 28 October 1994, stated that "the territorial boundaries and sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines are established in Article III of the Treaty of Paris signed on December 10, 1898", and confirmed that the "Territorial Limits shown in the official Map No. 25 issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources through the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, are fully correct and show the actual status". As described above, the Treaty of Paris and other two treaties define the territorial limits of the Philippines, and China's Huangyan Dao clearly lies outside those limits. Philippine Official Map No. 25 reflects this. In a letter dated 18 November 1994 to the American Radio Relay League, Inc., the Philippine Amateur Radio Association, Inc. wrote that, "one very important fact remains, the national agency concerned had stated that based on Article III of the Treaty of Paris signed on December 10, 1898, Scarborough Reef lies just outside the territorial boundaries of the Philippines". |
| 111. 1997年4月，菲律賓一改其領(lǐng)土范圍不包括黃巖島的立場(chǎng)，對(duì)中國(guó)無線電運(yùn)動(dòng)協(xié)會(huì)組織的國(guó)際聯(lián)合業(yè)余無線電探險(xiǎn)隊(duì)在黃巖島的探險(xiǎn)活動(dòng)進(jìn)行跟蹤、監(jiān)視和干擾，甚至不顧歷史事實(shí)，聲稱黃巖島在菲律賓主張的200海里專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)內(nèi)，因此是菲律賓領(lǐng)土。對(duì)此，中國(guó)曾多次向菲律賓提出交涉，明確指出，黃巖島是中國(guó)固有領(lǐng)土，菲律賓的主張是無理、非法和無效的。 | 111. In April 1997, the Philippines turned its back on its previous position that Huangyan Dao is not part of the Philippine territory. The Philippines tracked, monitored and disrupted an international radio expedition on Huangyan Dao organized by the Chinese Radio Sports Association. In disregard of historical facts, the Philippines laid its territorial claim to Huangyan Dao on the grounds that it is located within the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone claimed by the Philippines. In this regard, China made representations several times to the Philippines, pointing out explicitly that Huangyan Dao is China's inherent territory and that the Philippines' claim is groundless, illegal and void. |
| 112. 2009年2月17日，菲律賓國(guó)會(huì)通過9522號(hào)共和國(guó)法案，非法將中國(guó)黃巖島和南沙群島部分島礁劃為菲律賓領(lǐng)土。就此，中國(guó)即向菲律賓進(jìn)行交涉并發(fā)表聲明，重申中國(guó)對(duì)黃巖島和南沙群島及其附近海域的主權(quán)，任何其他國(guó)家對(duì)黃巖島和南沙群島的島嶼提出領(lǐng)土主權(quán)要求，都是非法的、無效的。 | 112. On 17 February 2009, the Philippine Congress passed Republic Act No. 9522. That act illegally includes into the Philippines' territory China's Huangyan Dao and some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao. China immediately made representations to the Philippines and issued a statement, reiterating China's sovereignty over Huangyan Dao, Nansha Qundao and the adjacent waters, and declaring in explicit terms that any territorial claim over them made by any other country is illegal and void. |
| 113. 2012年4月10日，菲律賓出動(dòng)“德爾·皮拉爾”號(hào)軍艦，闖入中國(guó)黃巖島附近海域，對(duì)在該海域作業(yè)的中國(guó)漁民、漁船實(shí)施非法抓扣并施以嚴(yán)重非人道待遇，蓄意挑起黃巖島事件。中國(guó)即在北京和馬尼拉多次對(duì)菲律賓提出嚴(yán)正交涉，對(duì)菲律賓侵犯中國(guó)領(lǐng)土主權(quán)和傷害中國(guó)漁民的行徑表示強(qiáng)烈抗議，要求菲律賓立即撤出一切船只和人員。與此同時(shí)，中國(guó)政府迅速派出海監(jiān)和漁政執(zhí)法船只前往黃巖島，維護(hù)主權(quán)并對(duì)中國(guó)漁民進(jìn)行救助。2012年6月，經(jīng)中國(guó)多次嚴(yán)正交涉，菲律賓從黃巖島撤出相關(guān)船只和人員。 | 113. On 10 April 2012, the Philippines' naval vessel BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15) intruded into the adjacent waters of China's Huangyan Dao, illegally seized Chinese fishermen and fishing boats operating there and treated the fishermen in a grossly inhumane manner, thus deliberately causing the Huangyan Dao Incident. In response to the Philippines' provocation, China immediately made multiple strong representations to Philippine officials in Beijing and Manila to protest the Philippines' violation of China's territorial sovereignty and harsh treatment of Chinese fishermen, and demanded that the Philippines immediately withdraw all its vessels and personnel. The Chinese government also promptly dispatched China Maritime Surveillance and China Fisheries Law Enforcement vessels to Huangyan Dao to protect China's sovereignty and rescue the Chinese fishermen. In June 2012, after firm representations repeatedly made by China, the Philippines withdrew relevant vessels and personnel from Huangyan Dao. |
| 114. 菲律賓對(duì)中國(guó)黃巖島提出的非法領(lǐng)土要求沒有任何國(guó)際法依據(jù)。所謂黃巖島在菲律賓200海里專屬經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)內(nèi)因而是菲律賓領(lǐng)土的主張，顯然是對(duì)國(guó)際法蓄意和荒唐的歪曲。菲律賓派軍艦武裝闖入黃巖島附近海域，嚴(yán)重侵犯中國(guó)領(lǐng)土主權(quán)，嚴(yán)重違背《憲章》和國(guó)際法基本原則。菲律賓鼓動(dòng)并慫恿菲方船只和人員大規(guī)模侵入中國(guó)黃巖島海域，嚴(yán)重侵犯中國(guó)在黃巖島海域的主權(quán)和主權(quán)權(quán)利。菲律賓非法抓扣在黃巖島海域正常作業(yè)的中國(guó)漁民并施以嚴(yán)重的非人道待遇，嚴(yán)重侵犯中國(guó)漁民的人格尊嚴(yán)，踐踏人權(quán)。 | 114. The Philippines' claim of sovereignty over China's Huangyan Dao is completely baseless under international law. The illegal claim that "Huangyan Dao is within the Phlippines' 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone so it is Philippine territory" is a preposterous and deliberate distortion of international law. By sending its naval vessel to intrude into Huangyan Dao's adjacent waters, the Philippines grossly violated China's territorial sovereignty, the Charter of the United Nations and fundamental principles of international law. By instigating mass intrusion of its vessels and personnel into waters of Huangyan Dao, the Philippines blatantly violated China's sovereignty and sovereign rights therein. The Philippines' illegal seizure of Chinese fishermen engaged in normal operations in waters of Huangyan Dao and the subsequent inhumane treatment of them are gross violations of their dignity and human rights. |
| （四）菲律賓單方面提起仲裁是惡意行為 | iv. The Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration is an act of bad faith |
| 115. 2013年1月22日，菲律賓共和國(guó)時(shí)任政府違背中菲之間達(dá)成并多次確認(rèn)的通過談判解決南海有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議的共識(shí)，違反其在《宣言》中作出的莊嚴(yán)承諾，在明知領(lǐng)土爭(zhēng)議不屬于《公約》調(diào)整范圍，海洋劃界爭(zhēng)議已被中國(guó)2006年有關(guān)聲明排除的情況下，蓄意將有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議包裝成單純的《公約》解釋或適用問題，濫用《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制，單方面提起南海仲裁案。菲律賓此舉不是為了解決與中國(guó)的爭(zhēng)議，而是企圖借此否定中國(guó)在南海的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)和海洋權(quán)益。菲律賓的行為是惡意的。 | 115. On 22 January 2013, the then government of the Republic of the Philippines unilaterally initiated the South China Sea arbitration. In doing so, the Philippines has turned its back on the consensus reached and repeatedly reaffirmed by China and the Philippines to settle through negotiation the relevant disputes in the South China Sea and violated its own solemn commitment in the DOC. Deliberately packaging the relevant disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS while knowing full well that territorial disputes are not subject to UNCLOS and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines has wantonly abused the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures. This initiation of arbitration aims not to settle its disputes with China, but to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. This course of conduct is taken out of bad faith. |
| 116. 第一，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁，違反中菲通過雙邊談判解決爭(zhēng)議的協(xié)議。中菲在有關(guān)雙邊文件中已就通過談判解決南海有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議達(dá)成協(xié)議并多次予以確認(rèn)。中國(guó)和菲律賓在《宣言》中就通過談判解決南海有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議作出鄭重承諾，并一再在雙邊文件中予以確認(rèn)。上述中菲兩國(guó)各項(xiàng)雙邊文件以及《宣言》的相關(guān)規(guī)定相輔相成，構(gòu)成中菲兩國(guó)之間的協(xié)議。兩國(guó)據(jù)此選擇了以談判方式解決有關(guān)爭(zhēng)端，并排除了包括仲裁在內(nèi)的第三方方式。“約定必須遵守”。這項(xiàng)國(guó)際法基礎(chǔ)規(guī)范必須得到執(zhí)行。菲律賓違背自己的莊嚴(yán)承諾，是嚴(yán)重的背信棄義行為，不為菲律賓創(chuàng)設(shè)任何權(quán)利，也不為中國(guó)創(chuàng)設(shè)任何義務(wù)。 | 116. First, by unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines has violated its standing agreement with China to settle the relevant disputes through bilateral negotiation. In relevant bilateral documents, China and the Philippines have agreed to settle through negotiation their disputes in the South China Sea and reaffirmed this agreement many times. China and the Philippines made solemn commitment in the DOC to settle through negotiation relevant disputes in the South China Sea, which has been repeatedly affirmed in bilateral documents. The above bilateral documents between China and the Philippines and relevant provisions in the DOC are mutually reinforcing and constitute an agreement in this regard between the two states. By this agreement, they have chosen to settle the relevant disputes through negotiation and to exclude any third party procedure, including arbitration. Pacta sunt servanda. This fundamental norm of international law must be observed. The Philippines' breach of its own solemn commitment is a deliberate act of bad faith. Such an act does not generate any right for the Philippines, nor does it impose any obligation on China. |
| 117. 第二，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁，侵犯中國(guó)作為《公約》締約國(guó)自主選擇爭(zhēng)端解決方式的權(quán)利?！豆s》第十五部分第280條規(guī)定，“本公約的任何規(guī)定均不損害任何締約國(guó)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”；第281條規(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(guó)，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”。由于中菲之間已就通過談判解決爭(zhēng)議作出明確選擇，《公約》規(guī)定的第三方強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序不適用。 | 117. Second, by unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines has violated China's right to choose means of dispute settlement of its own will as a state party to UNCLOS. Article 280 of Part XV of UNCLOS stipulates: "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 of UNCLOS provides: "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". Given that China and the Philippines have made an unequivocal choice to settle through negotiation the relevant disputes, the compulsory third-party dispute settlement procedures under UNCLOS do not apply. |
| 118. 第三，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁，濫用《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決程序。菲律賓提起仲裁事項(xiàng)的實(shí)質(zhì)是南沙群島部分島礁的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問題，有關(guān)事項(xiàng)也構(gòu)成中菲海洋劃界不可分割的組成部分。陸地領(lǐng)土問題不屬于《公約》的調(diào)整范圍。2006年，中國(guó)根據(jù)《公約》第298條作出排除性聲明，將涉及海洋劃界、歷史性海灣或所有權(quán)、軍事和執(zhí)法行動(dòng)等方面的爭(zhēng)端排除在《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決程序之外。包括中國(guó)在內(nèi)的約30個(gè)國(guó)家作出的排除性聲明，構(gòu)成《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的組成部分。菲律賓通過包裝訴求，惡意規(guī)避中方有關(guān)排除性聲明和陸地領(lǐng)土爭(zhēng)議不屬《公約》調(diào)整事項(xiàng)的限制，單方面提起仲裁，構(gòu)成對(duì)《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決程序的濫用。 | 118. Third, by unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines has abused the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures. The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is an issue of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao, and the resolution of the relevant matters also constitutes an integral part of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. Land territorial issues are not regulated by UNCLOS. In 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China made an optional exceptions declaration excluding from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of UNCLOS disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. Such declarations made by about 30 states, including China, form an integral part of the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism. By camouflaging its submissions, the Philippines deliberately circumvented the optional exceptions declaration made by China and the limitation that land territorial disputes are not subject to UNCLOS, and unilaterally initiated the arbitration. This course of conduct constitutes an abuse of the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures. |
| 119. 第四，菲律賓為推動(dòng)仲裁捏造事實(shí)，曲解法律，編造了一系列謊言： | 119. Fourth, in order to push forward the arbitral proceedings, the Philippines has distorted facts, misinterpreted laws and concocted a pack of lies: |
| ——菲律賓明知其仲裁訴求涉及中國(guó)在南海的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)，領(lǐng)土問題不屬于《公約》調(diào)整的事項(xiàng)，卻故意將其曲解和包裝成《公約》解釋或適用問題； | -- The Philippines, fully aware that its submissions concern China's territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea, and that territorial issue is not subject to UNCLOS, deliberately mischaracterizes and packages the relevant issue as those concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS; |
| ——菲律賓明知其仲裁訴求涉及海洋劃界問題，且中國(guó)已根據(jù)《公約》第298條作出聲明，將包括海洋劃界在內(nèi)的爭(zhēng)端排除出《公約》規(guī)定的第三方爭(zhēng)端解決程序，卻故意將海洋劃界過程中需要考慮的各項(xiàng)因素抽離出來，孤立看待，企圖規(guī)避中國(guó)有關(guān)排除性聲明； | -- The Philippines, fully aware that its submissions concern maritime delimitation, and that China has made an declaration, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, excluding disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation from the UNCLOS third-party dispute settlement procedures, intentionally detaches the diverse factors that shall be taken into consideration in the process of a maritime delimitation and treat them in an isolated way, in order to circumvent China's optional exceptions declaration; |
| ——菲律賓無視中菲從未就其仲裁事項(xiàng)進(jìn)行任何談判的事實(shí)，故意將其與中國(guó)就一般性海洋事務(wù)與合作進(jìn)行的一些磋商曲解為就仲裁事項(xiàng)進(jìn)行的談判，并以此為借口聲稱已窮盡雙邊談判手段； | -- The Philippines deliberately misrepresents certain consultations with China on maritime affairs and cooperation, all of a general nature, as negotiations over the subject-matters of the arbitration, and further claims that bilateral negotiations therefore have been exhausted, despite the fact that the two states have never engaged in any negotiation on those subject-matters; |
| ——菲律賓聲稱其不尋求判定任何領(lǐng)土歸屬，或劃定任何海洋邊界，然而在仲裁進(jìn)程中，特別是庭審中，卻屢屢否定中國(guó)在南海的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)和海洋權(quán)益； | -- The Philippines claims that it does not seek a determination of any territorial issue or a delimitation of any maritime boundary, and yet many times in the course of the arbitral proceedings, especially during the oral hearings, it denies China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea; |
| ——菲律賓無視中國(guó)在南海問題上的一貫立場(chǎng)和實(shí)踐，子虛烏有地聲稱中國(guó)對(duì)整個(gè)南海主張排他性的海洋權(quán)益； | -- The Philippines turns a blind eye to China's consistent position and practice on the South China Sea issue, and makes a completely false assertion that China lays an exclusive claim of maritime rights and interests to the entire South China Sea; |
| ——菲律賓刻意夸大西方殖民者歷史上在南海的作用，否定中國(guó)長(zhǎng)期開發(fā)、經(jīng)營(yíng)和管轄南海相關(guān)水域的史實(shí)及相應(yīng)的法律效力； | -- The Philippines exaggerates Western colonialists' role in the South China Sea in history and denies the historical facts and corresponding legal effect of China's longstanding exploration, exploitation and administration in history of relevant waters of the South China Sea; |
| ——菲律賓牽強(qiáng)附會(huì)，拼湊關(guān)聯(lián)性和證明力不強(qiáng)的證據(jù)，強(qiáng)撐其訴訟請(qǐng)求； | -- The Philippines puts together some remotely relevant and woefully weak pieces of evidence and makes far-fetched inferences to support its submissions; |
| ——菲律賓隨意解釋國(guó)際法規(guī)則，大量援引極具爭(zhēng)議的司法案例和不具權(quán)威性的個(gè)人意見支撐其訴求。 | -- The Philippines, in order to make out its claims, arbitrarily interprets rules of international law, and resorts to highly controversial legal cases and unauthoritative personal opinions in large quantity. |
| 120. 簡(jiǎn)言之，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁違反包括《公約》爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制在內(nèi)的國(guó)際法。應(yīng)菲律賓單方面請(qǐng)求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭自始無管轄權(quán)，所作出的裁決是無效的，沒有拘束力。中國(guó)在南海的領(lǐng)土主權(quán)和海洋權(quán)益在任何情況下不受仲裁裁決的影響。中國(guó)不接受、不承認(rèn)該裁決，反對(duì)且不接受任何以仲裁裁決為基礎(chǔ)的主張和行動(dòng)。 | 120. In short, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration contravenes international law including the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism. The Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the Philippines' unilateral request has, ab initio, no jurisdiction, and awards rendered by it are null and void and have no binding force. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards. China does not accept or recognize those awards. China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on those awards. |
| 跳轉(zhuǎn)至目錄 >> | Back to Contents >> |
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)
No comments.
