中國政府關于菲律賓所提南海仲裁案管轄權問題的立場文件
Position Paper of the Chinese Government on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Philippines

: 0 Comment(s)打印 E-mail China.org.cn　 2016-05-20

調整字號大小:

四、即使菲律賓提出的仲裁事項涉及有關《公約》解釋或適用的問題，也構成海域劃界不可分割的組成部分，已被中國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》第十五部分確認了締約國可以書面聲明就特定事項排除適用該部分第二節規定的強制爭端解決程序。中國2006年作出此類聲明，符合《公約》有關規定。	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，中國根據《公約》第二百九十八條的規定向聯合國秘書長提交聲明。該聲明稱：“關于《公約》第二百九十八條第1款（a）、（b）和（c）項所述的任何爭端，中華人民共和國政府不接受《公約》第十五部分第二節規定的任何程序”。也就是說，對于涉及海域劃界、歷史性海灣或所有權、軍事和執法活動以及安理會執行《聯合國憲章》所賦予的職務等爭端，中國政府不接受《公約》第十五部分第二節下的任何強制爭端解決程序，包括強制仲裁。中國堅信，直接有關的主權國家進行友好磋商和談判，是和平解決中國與周邊鄰國間的海洋爭端最有效的方式。	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. 中國與菲律賓是海上鄰國，兩國屬于《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家”，兩國之間存在海域劃界問題。由于中菲有關島礁領土爭端懸而未決，兩國尚未進行海域劃界談判，但已開展合作為最終劃界創造條件。	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，中菲雙方發表《中華人民共和國政府和菲律賓共和國政府聯合新聞公報》，指出“雙方重申將繼續致力于維護南海地區的和平與穩定。在尚未全面并最終解決南海地區的領土和海洋權益爭端前，雙方將繼續探討共同開發等合作”（聯合新聞公報第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. 上述聯合聲明發表的前兩天，經中菲兩國政府批準并在兩國元首的見證下，中國海洋石油總公司與菲律賓國家石油公司簽署《南中國海部分海域聯合海洋地震工作協議》。該協議于2005年3月14日擴大為中國、菲律賓、越南三方之間的協議。這是有關國家加強合作，為談判解決南海爭端創造條件的有益嘗試。該協議適用范圍就在菲律賓此次提起仲裁所涉海域之內。	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，時任中國國家主席胡錦濤對菲律賓進行國事訪問期間，雙方發表《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國聯合聲明》，“同意繼續致力于維護南海地區的和平與穩定”，“對中國海洋石油總公司、越南油氣總公司和菲律賓國家石油公司簽訂《南中國海協議區三方聯合海洋地震工作協議》表示歡迎”（聯合聲明第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，時任中國國務院總理溫家寶對菲律賓進行正式訪問期間，雙方發表《中華人民共和國和菲律賓共和國聯合聲明》，再次表示，“南海三方聯合海洋地震工作可以成為本地區合作的一個示范。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，以加強本地區建立互信的良好勢頭”（聯合聲明第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，中菲之間對于通過合作促進海域劃界問題的最終解決已有共識。鑒于中國2006年作出的聲明，菲律賓不得單方面將海域劃界問題提交仲裁。	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端的實質，繞過中國2006年聲明，菲律賓將海域劃界爭端拆分，抽取其中幾個事項作為孤立的問題提交仲裁，要求仲裁庭分別進行所謂的“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，菲律賓提出的各項仲裁事項，包括海洋權利主張、島礁性質和海洋權利范圍，以及海上執法活動等等，均是國際司法或仲裁機構在以往海域劃界案中所審理的主要問題，也是國家間海域劃界實踐中需要處理的問題。這些問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. 海域劃界是一項整體、系統工程。《公約》第七十四條和第八十三條規定，海岸相向或相鄰國家間的海域劃界問題，“應在《國際法院規約》第三十八條所指國際法的基礎上以協議劃定，以便得到公平解決”。國際司法判例和國家實踐均確認，為使海域劃界取得公平的結果，必須考慮所有相關因素。基于上述，適用于海域劃界的國際法，既包括《公約》，也包括一般國際法。海域劃界既涉及權利基礎、島礁效力等問題，也涉及劃界原則和方法，以及為實現公平解決所必須考慮的所有相關因素。	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構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，與有關當事方基于《公約》、一般國際法和長期歷史實踐所享有的相關權利和利益結合起來，予以綜合考慮。菲律賓將中菲海域劃界問題拆分并將其中的部分問題提交仲裁，勢必破壞海域劃界問題的整體性和不可分割性，違背海域劃界應以《國際法院規約》第三十八條所指國際法為基礎以及必須“考慮所有相關因素”的原則，將直接影響今后中菲海域劃界問題的公平解決。	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行劃界，但卻請求仲裁庭裁定部分島礁是菲律賓專屬經濟區和大陸架的一部分，裁定中國非法干涉菲律賓對其專屬經濟區和大陸架享有和行使主權權利，等等。上述仲裁請求顯然是要求仲裁庭確認相關海域屬于菲律賓的專屬經濟區和大陸架，菲律賓在該海域有權行使主權權利和管轄權，這實際上是在變相地要求仲裁庭進行海域劃界。菲律賓提出的各項仲裁事項，實際上已涵蓋了海域劃界的主要步驟和主要問題，如果仲裁庭實質審議菲律賓的各項具體主張，就等于是間接地進行了海域劃界。	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. 締約國根據《公約》第二百九十八條作出的排除性聲明理應受到尊重，菲律賓試圖繞過中國排除性聲明提起強制仲裁的做法是濫用《公約》規定的爭端解決程序。	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2006年排除性聲明一經作出即應自動適用，其效力是，根據《公約》第二百九十九條的規定，未經中方同意，其他國家不得針對中國就相關爭端單方面提交強制爭端解決程序。同時，中國也放棄了就同類爭端針對其他國家單方面提起強制爭端解決程序的權利，體現了權利與義務的對等。	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，中國作為《公約》的締約國，按照《公約》第二百八十七條的規定，未在該條所列的四種強制爭端解決程序中作出選擇，應被視為已接受強制仲裁程序。這種觀點是有意誤導。中國2006年聲明的目的和效果就是對于特定事項完全排除適用強制爭端解決程序。無論中國對《公約》第二百八十七條所列的四種強制爭端解決程序是否作出選擇，只要是屬于中國2006年聲明所涵蓋的爭端，中國就已經明確排除了適用《公約》第十五部分第二節下的任何強制爭端解決程序包括強制仲裁的可能性。	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. 盡管菲律賓認為其所提仲裁事項不屬于中方2006年聲明所涵蓋的爭端，但在中國對此持不同看法的情況下，菲律賓應先行與中國解決該問題，然后才能決定能否提交仲裁。如果按照菲律賓的邏輯，任何國家只要單方面聲稱有關爭端不是另一國排除性聲明所排除的爭端，即可單方面啟動強制仲裁程序，那么《公約》第二百九十九條的規定就變得毫無意義。	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，本案是第一例在一國已作出排除性聲明的情況下，另一國針對該聲明所涵蓋的爭端單方面啟動強制仲裁程序的案件。如果菲律賓這種“設計”的爭端被認為可以滿足強制仲裁管轄權的條件，那么可以設想，第二百九十八條所列的任何爭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題聯系起來，都可以提起第十五部分第二節的強制爭端解決程序。若可以如此適用《公約》，那么，《公約》第二百九十八條還有何價值？目前35個國家所作出的排除性聲明還有何意義？中國認為，菲律賓單方面提起仲裁，是在濫用《公約》規定的強制爭端解決程序，對《公約》爭端解決機制的嚴肅性構成嚴重的挑戰。	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，即使菲律賓提請仲裁的事項涉及有關《公約》的解釋或適用的問題，也是海域劃界爭端不可分割的組成部分，已被中國2006年聲明所排除，菲律賓不得就此提起強制仲裁程序。	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.