中国政府关于菲律宾所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件
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

调整字号大小:

（2014年12月7日）	Dec 7,2014
一、引言	I. Introduction
1. 2013年1月22日，菲律宾共和国外交部照会中华人民共和国驻菲律宾大使馆称，菲律宾依据1982年《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称《公约》）第二百八十七条和附件七的规定，就中菲有关南海“海洋管辖权”的争端递交仲裁通知，提起强制仲裁。2013年2月19日，中国政府退回菲律宾政府的照会及所附仲裁通知。中国政府多次郑重声明，中国不接受、不参与菲律宾提起的仲裁。	1. On 22 January 2013, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines presented a note verbale to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Philippines, stating that the Philippines submitted a Notification and Statement of Claim in order to initiate compulsory arbitration proceedings under Article 287 and Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("Convention") with respect to the dispute with China over "maritime jurisdiction" in the South China Sea. On 19 February 2013, the Chinese Government rejected and returned the Philippines' note verbale together with the attached Notification and Statement of Claim. The Chinese Government has subsequently reiterated that it will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration thus initiated by the Philippines.
2. 本立场文件旨在阐明仲裁庭对于菲律宾提起的仲裁没有管辖权，不就菲律宾提请仲裁事项所涉及的实体问题发表意见。本立场文件不意味着中国在任何方面认可菲律宾的观点和主张，无论菲律宾有关观点或主张是否在本立场文件中提及。本立场文件也不意味着中国接受或参与菲律宾提起的仲裁。	2. This Position Paper is intended to demonstrate that the arbitral tribunal established at the request of the Philippines for the present arbitration ("Arbitral Tribunal") does not have jurisdiction over this case. It does not express any position on the substantive issues related to the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines. No acceptance by China is signified in this Position Paper of the views or claims advanced by the Philippines, whether or not they are referred to herein. Nor shall this Position Paper be regarded as China's acceptance of or participation in this arbitration.
3. 本立场文件将说明：菲律宾提请仲裁事项的实质是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题，超出《公约》的调整范围，不涉及《公约》的解释或适用；以谈判方式解决有关争端是中菲两国通过双边文件和《南海各方行为宣言》所达成的协议，菲律宾单方面将中菲有关争端提交强制仲裁违反国际法；即使菲律宾提出的仲裁事项涉及有关《公约》解释或适用的问题，也构成中菲两国海域划界不可分割的组成部分，而中国已根据《公约》的规定于2006年作出声明，将涉及海域划界等事项的争端排除适用仲裁等强制争端解决程序。因此，仲裁庭对菲律宾提起的仲裁明显没有管辖权。基于上述，并鉴于各国有权自主选择争端解决方式，中国不接受、不参与菲律宾提起的仲裁有充分的国际法依据。	3. This Position Paper will elaborate on the following positions: ● The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the Convention and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention; ● China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevant disputes through negotiations. By unilaterally initiating the present arbitration, the Philippines has breached its obligation under international law; ● Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject-matter of the arbitration were concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, that subject-matter would constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation between the two countries, thus falling within the scope of the declaration filed by China in 2006 in accordance with the Convention, which excludes, inter alia, disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures; ● Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over the present arbitration. Based on the foregoing positions and by virtue of the freedom of every State to choose the means of dispute settlement, China's rejection of and non-participation in the present arbitration stand on solid ground in international law.
二、菲律宾提请仲裁事项的实质是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题，不涉及《公约》的解释或适用	II. The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention
4. 中国对南海诸岛及其附近海域拥有无可争辩的主权。中国在南海的活动已有2000多年的历史。中国最早发现、命名和开发经营南海诸岛，最早并持续对南海诸岛实施主权管辖。20世纪30年代至40年代，日本在侵华战争期间非法侵占中国南海岛礁。第二次世界大战结束后，中国政府恢复对南海诸岛行使主权，派遣军政官员乘军舰前往南海岛礁举行接收仪式，树碑立标，派兵驻守，进行地理测量，于1947年对南海诸岛进行了重新命名，并于1948年在公开发行的官方地图上标绘南海断续线。中华人民共和国1949年10月1日成立以来，中国政府一直坚持并采取实际行动积极维护南海诸岛的主权。1958年《中华人民共和国政府关于领海的声明》和1992年《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》均明确规定，中华人民共和国的领土包括东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛和南沙群岛。上述行动一再重申了中国在南海的领土主权和相关的海洋权益。	4. China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands (the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands) and the adjacent waters. Chinese activities in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago. China was the first country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources of the South China Sea Islands and the first to continuously exercise sovereign powers over them. From the 1930s to 1940s, Japan illegally seized some parts of the South China Sea Islands during its war of aggression against China. At the end of the Second World War, the Chinese Government resumed exercise of sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. Military personnel and government officials were sent via naval vessels to hold resumption of authority ceremonies. Commemorative stone markers were erected, garrisons stationed, and geographical surveys conducted. In 1947, China renamed the maritime features of the South China Sea Islands and, in 1948, published an official map which displayed a dotted line in the South China Sea. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China on 1 October 1949, the Chinese Government has been consistently and actively maintaining its sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. Both the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea of 1958 and the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1992 expressly provide that the territory of the People's Republic of China includes, among others, the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands. All those acts affirm China's territorial sovereignty and relevant maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.
5. 20世纪70年代之前，菲律宾的法律对其领土范围有明确限定，没有涉及中国的南海岛礁。1935年《菲律宾共和国宪法》第一条“国家领土”明确规定：“菲律宾的领土包括根据1898年12月10日美国同西班牙缔结的《巴黎条约》割让给美国的该条约第三条所述范围内的全部领土，连同1900年11月7日美国同西班牙在华盛顿缔结的条约和1930年1月2日美国同英国缔结的条约中包括的所有岛屿，以及由菲律宾群岛现政府行使管辖权的全部领土。”根据上述规定，菲律宾的领土范围限于菲律宾群岛，不涉及中国的南海岛礁。1961年《关于确定菲律宾领海基线的法案》（菲律宾共和国第3046号法案）重申了菲律宾1935年宪法关于其领土范围的规定。	5. Prior to the 1970s, Philippine law had set clear limits for the territory of the Philippines, which did not involve any of China's maritime features in the South China Sea. Article 1 of the 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, entitled "The National Territory", provided that "The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction." Under this provision, the territory of the Philippines was confined to the Philippine Islands, having nothing to do with any of China’s maritime features in the South China Sea. Philippine Republic Act No. 3046, entitled "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines", which was promulgated in 1961, reaffirmed the territorial scope of the country as laid down in the 1935 Constitution.
6. 自20世纪70年代起，菲律宾非法侵占中国南沙群岛的马欢岛、费信岛、中业岛、南钥岛、北子岛、西月岛、双黄沙洲和司令礁等岛礁；非法将中国南沙群岛部分岛礁宣布为所谓“卡拉延岛群”，对上述岛礁及其周边大范围海域提出主权主张；并对中国中沙群岛的黄岩岛提出非法领土要求。菲律宾还在有关岛礁及其附近海域非法从事资源开发等活动。	6. Since the 1970s, the Philippines has illegally occupied a number of maritime features of China's Nansha Islands, including Mahuan Dao, Feixin Dao, Zhongye Dao, Nanyao Dao, Beizi Dao, Xiyue Dao, Shuanghuang Shazhou and Siling Jiao. Furthermore, it unlawfully designated a so-called "Kalayaan Island Group" to encompass some of the maritime features of China's Nansha Islands and claimed sovereignty over them, together with adjacent but vast maritime areas. Subsequently, it laid unlawful claim to sovereignty over Huangyan Dao of China's Zhongsha Islands. In addition, the Philippines has also illegally explored and exploited the resources on those maritime features and in the adjacent maritime areas.
7. 菲律宾上述行为违反《联合国宪章》和国际法，严重侵犯中国的领土主权和海洋权益，是非法、无效的。中国政府对此一贯坚决反对，一直进行严正交涉和抗议。	7. The Philippines' activities mentioned above have violated the Charter of the United Nations and international law, and seriously encroached upon China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. They are null and void in law. The Chinese Government has always been firmly opposed to these actions of the Philippines, and consistently and continuously made solemn representations and protests to the Philippines.
8. 菲律宾将其所提仲裁事项主要归纳为以下三类：	8. The Philippines has summarized its claims for arbitration in three categories:
第一，中国在《公约》规定的权利范围之外，对“九段线”（即中国的南海断续线）内的水域、海床和底土所主张的“历史性权利”与《公约》不符；	First, China's assertion of the "historic rights" to the waters, sea-bed and subsoil within the "nine-dash line" (i.e., China's dotted line in the South China Sea) beyond the limits of its entitlements under the Convention is inconsistent with the Convention.
第二，中国依据南海若干岩礁、低潮高地和水下地物提出的200海里甚至更多权利主张与《公约》不符；	Second, China's claim to entitlements of 200 nautical miles and more, based on certain rocks, low-tide elevations and submerged features in the South China Sea, is inconsistent with the Convention.
第三，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。	Third, China's assertion and exercise of rights in the South China Sea have unlawfully interfered with the sovereign rights, jurisdiction and rights and freedom of navigation that the Philippines enjoys and exercises under the Convention.
9. 菲律宾提请仲裁的上述事项的实质是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题，超出《公约》的调整范围，不涉及《公约》的解释或适用。仲裁庭对菲律宾提出的这些仲裁事项均无管辖权。	9. The subject-matter of the Philippines' claims is in essence one of territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the Convention and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention. Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the claims of the Philippines for arbitration.
10. 关于菲律宾提出的第一类仲裁事项，很显然，菲律宾主张的核心是中国在南海的海洋权利主张超出《公约》允许的范围。然而，无论遵循何种法律逻辑，只有首先确定中国在南海的领土主权，才能判断中国在南海的海洋权利主张是否超出《公约》允许的范围。	10. With regard to the first category of claims presented by the Philippines for arbitration, it is obvious that the core of those claims is that China's maritime claims in the South China Sea have exceeded the extent allowed under the Convention. However, whatever logic is to be followed, only after the extent of China's territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea is determined can a decision be made on whether China's maritime claims in the South China Sea have exceeded the extent allowed under the Convention.
11. 国家的领土主权是其海洋权利的基础，这是国际法的一般原则。国际法院指出，“海洋权利源自沿海国对陆地的主权，这可概括为‘陆地统治海洋’原则”（2001年卡塔尔－巴林案判决第185段，亦参见1969年北海大陆架案判决第96段和1978年爱琴海大陆架案判决第86段），“因此陆地领土状况必须作为确定沿海国海洋权利的出发点”（2001年卡塔尔－巴林案判决第185段、2007年尼加拉瓜－洪都拉斯案判决第113段）。国际法院还强调，“国家对大陆架和专属经济区的权利基于陆地统治海洋的原则”，“陆地是一个国家对其领土向海延伸部分行使权利的法律渊源”（2012年尼加拉瓜－哥伦比亚案判决第140段）。	11. It is a general principle of international law that sovereignty over land territory is the basis for the determination of maritime rights. As the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") stated, "maritime rights derive from the coastal State's sovereignty over the land, a principle which can be summarized as 'the land dominates the sea'" (Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment of 16 March 2001, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 97, para. 185; cf. also North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 51, para. 96; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 19 December 1978, I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 36, para. 86). And, "[i]t is thus the terrestrial territorial situation that must be taken as starting point for the determination of the maritime rights of a coastal State" (Qatar v. Bahrain, I.C.J. Reports 2001, para. 185; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 696, para. 113). Recently the ICJ again emphasized that "[t]he title of a State to the continental shelf and to the exclusive economic zone is based on the principle that the land dominates the sea", and that "the land is the legal source of the power which a State may exercise over territorial extensions to seaward" (Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 51, para. 140).
12. 《公约》序言开宗明义地指出，“认识到有需要通过本公约，在妥为顾及所有国家主权的情形下，为海洋建立一种法律秩序”。显然，“妥为顾及所有国家主权”是适用《公约》确定缔约国海洋权利的前提。	12. The preamble of the Convention proclaims "the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans". It is apparent that "due regard for the sovereignty of all States" is the prerequisite for the application of the Convention to determine maritime rights of the States Parties.
13. 就本案而言，如果不确定中国对南海岛礁的领土主权，仲裁庭就无法确定中国依据《公约》在南海可以主张的海洋权利范围，更无从判断中国在南海的海洋权利主张是否超出《公约》允许的范围。然而，领土主权问题不属于《公约》调整的范畴。	13. As far as the present arbitration is concerned, without first having determined China's territorial sovereignty over the maritime features in the South China Sea, the Arbitral Tribunal will not be in a position to determine the extent to which China may claim maritime rights in the South China Sea pursuant to the Convention, not to mention whether China's claims exceed the extent allowed under the Convention. But the issue of territorial sovereignty falls beyond the purview of the Convention.
14. 菲律宾也十分清楚，根据《公约》第二百八十七条和附件七组成的仲裁庭对于领土争端没有管辖权。菲律宾为了绕过这一法律障碍，制造提起仲裁的依据，蓄意对自己提请仲裁的实质诉求进行精心的包装。菲律宾一再表示自己不寻求仲裁庭判定哪一方对两国均主张的岛礁拥有主权，只要求仲裁庭对中国在南海所主张的海洋权利是否符合《公约》的规定进行判定，使仲裁事项看起来好像只是关于《公约》的解释或适用问题，不涉及领土主权问题。然而，菲律宾的包装无法掩饰其提请仲裁事项的实质就是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题。	14. The Philippines is well aware that a tribunal established under Article 287 and Annex VII of the Convention has no jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty disputes. In an attempt to circumvent this jurisdictional hurdle and fabricate a basis for institution of arbitral proceedings, the Philippines has cunningly packaged its case in the present form. It has repeatedly professed that it does not seek from the Arbitral Tribunal a determination of territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features claimed by both countries, but rather a ruling on the compatibility of China's maritime claims with the provisions of the Convention, so that its claims for arbitration would appear to be concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, not with the sovereignty over those maritime features. This contrived packaging, however, fails to conceal the very essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration, namely, the territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features in the South China Sea.
15. 关于菲律宾提出的第二类仲裁事项，中国认为，南海部分岛礁的性质和海洋权利问题与主权问题不可分割。	15. With regard to the second category of claims by the Philippines, China believes that the nature and maritime entitlements of certain maritime features in the South China Sea cannot be considered in isolation from the issue of sovereignty.
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.