中国收复西南沙群岛70周年纪念活动中英文对照发言(8)

南海若干国际法律问题

傅崐成 厦门大学南海研究院院长

(根据录音整理)

　　吴司令，苗政委，女士们，先生们，大家早安！

　　非常荣幸今天有这个机会在这里就国际海洋法，以及最近出台的南海仲裁案的一些相关法律问题向各位做一下简单的报告。

　　我报告的内容基本上分成以下几部分，首先，我要强调的是：这个仲裁案本身仲裁庭自始就不应该受理这个案件，因为他不具备管辖权，这个案件也没有可适当受理的因素，为什么这么说呢？因为联合国海洋法公约规定的非常清楚，在公约的第十二部分第二节里面特别清楚地规定，如果一个诉讼，包括司法和准司法的，也就是法院的或者是仲裁庭的程序，产生管辖权纠纷的话，应该由法庭自己做决定有没有管辖权。这是非常清楚的，看起来好像是有管辖权的，但实际上第三节有一个很详细的规定，提出了排除例外规定，也就是说，按照第二节的288条，其实也是一个一般的法律原则，任何司法准司法的法庭，遇到管辖权存在与否问题的时候，他自己要做一个决定，这是一般的，国内法院一样，都是这么办的。但是下面的第三节的298条，非常清楚地规定，如果一个争端涉及到下面这几个因素：历史性权利，或者是包含安理会有决议处理的军事活动，或者是涉及到领域主权，或者是在海洋上的划界行动，这些因素一旦涉及的时候，当事国有权利事先以书面声明的方式向联合国声明，我排除强制管辖。中国早在2006年就已经书面声明过了，而做出这样声明的国家不只是中国，事实上世界上许多国家，包含我们临近的俄罗斯、韩国、泰国，或者是远一点的加拿大、意大利、英国，都提出了书面声明，排除涉及到高度政治纠纷的案件，强制第三方裁决排除。事实上，今年7月在海牙的一个研讨会上，美国国务院前法律顾问先生私下跟我讲说，不只是这些国家，除了20、30个国家正式的声明之外，美国当年(虽然现在还没有签署联合国海洋法公约)在签署联合国海洋法第三届会议最终法案 的时候也提出了排除主张，也就是说美国还没有加入公约，他已经声明了，将来他是排除这种强制管辖的，从其他的罗马公约，特别是国际形势法院公约的实践来看，美国的这种做法丝毫不令人惊讶，美国一贯不接受外在的管辖权。在这种情况之下，菲律宾提出这个案子，居然有仲裁庭扭曲了法律的说法，说中国在这里主张的事情，菲律宾要求裁判的事项不涉及到海洋划界，不涉及到领域主权，也不涉及到历史性权利，涉及到历史性权利的跟中国主张的不一样，中国主张的历史性权利只是基于渔业航行惯例而形成的一种所谓的对渔业权的一种历史性权力，而渔业权这个东西，自从中国参加联合国海洋法公约之后，联合国海洋法公约规定了EEZ的制度，就把渔业权吸收在专属经济区 EEZ的概念里了。所以中国在南海的历史性权力最后归零。

　　这个逻辑是非常可笑的，我认为，这个逻辑就好像说，我先定义天上所有飞的东西都称为蚊子，那我拿杀虫剂把蚊子杀灭了，所以天上就没有任何飞的东西了。这个逻辑的第一错误就在于对历史事实的不尊重，整个仲裁程序里面也没有看到他们聘用足够的中文人才，好好地去研究中国的历史证据，所提出的少量的中国历史材料，很明显是扭曲的，比如说，引用菲律宾的主张，说中国在2009年，向联合国提出两个照会，才第一次明白地主张了他在南海断续线的历史性权力，这是滑天下之大稽，因为中国有关于南海的历史性权力和我们对岛礁主权的主张，不要说是1946年，早在之前的一、二千年之前已将逐步实现了，这条U形线虽然是在1947年才正式对外公布，但是，在20世纪之初，在上海民间出版的地图里面已经划了这条U形线，那个划的比较粗略，比较北一点，没有划到北纬5度左右的地方，因此，我们可以很明白的说，管辖权应该被排除，因为这个案子涉及到中国的历史性权力，是非常明确的。其次，菲律宾提出对岛礁法律地位的判断，每一个都涉及到中国在这个领域的主权，每一个都涉及到未来中国和菲律宾之间的海洋划界，当你判断某一个岛礁没有200海里专属经济区的时候，你等于已经宣布在这个岛礁和其他邻国的大陆之间没有重叠的200海里专属经济区了，划界已经变成不可能。即便是领海，如果你对这个岛礁的定义像仲裁庭所说的，很恣意妄为地判断为低潮高地，那么很可能连12海里领海都无法主张了，我说很可能，是因为还有法律方面的另外规定，但原则上就没有了，当没有12海里领海的时候，你不是把我们的划界问题已经给裁判了吗？所以实际上，今天菲律宾和仲裁庭演了一出戏，这出戏就是假装没有看到中国任何历史证据，我不了解这些事情，我不了解刚才李国强教授所说的远追汉唐以来的中国在南海的实践，中国只是从2009年开始主张在南海的权力，划的一条断续线，我假设你什么权力都没有，然后说分析的结果是什么权力都没有，这种做法是违背法制的；第三，仲裁庭犯了一个重大的错误，和海军朋友关系密切，就是对南沙所有岛礁简单判定不是岛，全是礁，那么岛和礁之间的差别在什么地方，首先当我们说岛的时候，按照联合国海洋法公约121条第一款规定，广义的岛是非常容易被判断的，任何一块自然形成的陆地，被水包围，高潮出现，就叫island,那就是广义上的岛，但是有些岛，如果条件特别差，就像公约中规定的“不能支持人类居住或本身经济活动的”，这样的广义的岛另外给它一个名字叫rock(礁)，它就不能主张200海里专属经济区和大陆架。

　　现在按照仲裁庭的说法，南沙群岛所有岛礁统统都是rocks(礁)，统统没有200海里专属经济区，其结果是我们在南海的权力受到了重大剥夺，这种权力的剥夺，是基于一个无管辖权的法庭，实际上就是在这个地方我们面对的这样一个局面，是一个完全被扭曲的违法的局面，更重要的是中国和世界上许多国家一样，已经说明了我排除了强制管辖，你还非管辖不可，这是不可以被容忍的。重点是第二，如果是rock(礁)，尚且还好， 还有12海里领海啊，纵然没有200海里专属经济区，测量那里的大陆架，但至少还有12海里领海，那么外国船只要经过这里，要行驶无害通过权，必须持续不断为通过而通过的穿越，外国军舰必须事先得到我们的许可，当然后面的规定，世界各国有不同的做法，但都合法。现在仲裁庭犯下的一个最大的罪恶就是在他的附带意见里面，超越了菲律宾的请求，他在裁决之外的结论中提出来，中国在南沙群岛所进行的人工岛建设工程如何如何，实际上等于仲裁庭送给菲律宾或是其他利益集团一个大礼包，这个大礼包就是，中国在永暑、渚碧这些岛礁上所建设的工程都是人工岛，这是非常恶毒的，因为人工岛就连12海里领海都没有了，只剩下直径一千米的安全区，半径就只有500米，因此外国军舰可以在501公尺的地方抛锚停船，而被认为是合法的，这对于我们领海已经构成了严重威胁和侵害，对于我们国防的法律安全、自卫权力构成了严重地威胁。在这种情况之下，我认为我们不必客气，我们应该发动一个国际上的法律舆论战争，也就是说，面对今天被扭曲的，高度欧洲中心主义的5个人组成的临时性质的仲裁庭，想要扭曲改变经过9年时间100多个国家再加上100多个国际组织所共同协商、妥协完成的联合国海洋法公约的定义，这个行为必须被打断，被切断，否则，今天看起来受害的是中国，明天就会是菲律宾，后天就是越南，大后天就是其他国家，这个世界就没有了国际法制。国际社会与国内社会最大的不同，从法制观念来看的话，国内法叫宪法，而国际上则没有，国际社会建立的法制要靠主权平等。仲裁本身原本是合议的、临时组织的法庭来裁决纠纷的，扭曲了仲裁的性质，片面地支付费用，临时组成，完成裁决，然后用这样的裁决去打败9年所形成的联合国海洋法公约，这本身是对国际社会人类法制的重大危害。我的结论就是我们每个人要努力发声，当我们每个人把自己声音发出去的时候，世界上13亿人说是错的，那就错了。重点是每个人要在国际社会上发声，要让我们的声音被听到，然后我们才能让这个国际社会真正进入一个正确地轨道，去继续发展我们的法制，谢谢各位！

　　Issues of International Law in South China Sea

　　Fu Kuncheng,

　　Director of Xiamen’s South China Sea Institute

　　Admiral Wu, Admiral Miao,

　　Ladies and gentlemen,

　　Good morning! It's my honor to be here today and have this opportunity to make a brief report t about International law of the sea and some legal issues related to the recently-issued award by the South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal。

　　My report can be roughly divided into the following parts. First, I want to emphasize that the Tribunal should not have accepted this Arbitration from the very beginning. Because it does not have the right of jurisdiction, and there is no appropriate reasons for the Arbitration to take over this case. The UNCLOS(United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) makes it very clear in Section 2, Part XII that in the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has the right of jurisdiction, the matter should be settled by that court or tribunal. It is very clear then, that although it seems to have jurisdiction, there is a very detailed article in Section 3, which makes exceptions to application of Section 2. That is to say, that Article 288 in Section 2 is a general principle of law, that any court or tribunal has to make the decision on jurisdiction when the question of whether it has jurisdiction or not comes about. This is as common as what the domestic court does. However, the following Article 298 in Section 3 clearly provides that disputes concerning historic rights, or disputes concerning military activities which the UN Security Council has made decisions to deal with, or disputes concerning territorial sovereignty or maritime delimitation, the country concerned has the right to make a statement in written form and submit to the UN, to exclude from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal. As early as in 2006, China has made such statement, so have many other countries besides China, such as China’s neighboring countries Russia, Korea, Thailand, or countries a little bit faraway from China, such as Canada, Italy, and UK. These countries have made their own statements in written form to exclude jurisdiction on arbitration concerning highly political dispute. In fact, on a seminar held in Hague in July, an ex-legal advisor of White House, told me in private that besides all these 20 to 30 countries that have made formal statement, the U.S. that has not signed the UNCLOS until now, also put forward the exclusion of jurisdiction at the Final Act of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. That is, the U.S. has not joined in the UNCLOS while it has made statement that it excludes such compulsory jurisdiction. The U.S. does not accept external jurisdiction. The way of the U.S. doing so is not surprising at all if we review what he did as to other convention like Rome Convention, especially practices of international court. Under such circumstances, the Philippines initiated the arbitration, and the Tribunal distorted the Law, for it argued that Chinese claim and the Philippines’s arbitral items are not concerned with maritime delimitation, or sovereignty rights, or historic rights. It argues that matters concerned about historic rights are not the same as what Chinese claims, and the historic rights claimed by China are the right of fishing, which is based on constant practice of navigation of fishery, and that since China joined in the UNCLOS, fishing rights has been absorbed into the concept of Exclusive Economic Zone according to provisions in the UNCLOS. It is concluded that China’s historic rights in the South China Sea return zero。

　　This logic is ridiculous, I think, it seems that I first define whatever flies in the sky as mosquitoes. Then I kill all mosquitoes with insecticide, and say there is no flying thing at all in the sky. The first mistake in the logic is that it did not respect historical facts, nor could we see enough Chinese language experts hired in the whole arbitration procedure. They did not study Chinese historical evidence well. The small amount of Chinese historical material presented is obviously distorted. For example, the arbitration quoted Philippines’ claim that it is not until the Chinese government submitted two notices to the United Nations in 2009 that for the first time, the Chinese government made his historic rights in the dotted line in the South China Sea understood to the world. This is the most absurd thing in the world, because two thousand years ago Chinese gradually realized their claims of the historic rights in the South China Sea and the islands sovereignty, let alone that in 1946. It was until 1947 that the U-shaped line was officially announced, but actually at the beginning of twentieth Century, the U-shaped line was drawn in the map of Non-government publication in Shanghai, although the line was relatively crude, more to the north, did not cover 5 degrees north latitude. Therefore, we can say very clearly that the jurisdiction should be excluded, it is very clear that this case involves Chinese historic rights。

　　Second, each claim put forward by Philippines on the legal status of the islands relates to the Chinese sovereignty in this area, involving future maritime delimitation between Philippines and Chinese. When you make judgment that there should not be 200 nautical miles of Exclusive Economic Zone for an island, it means there is no 200 nautical miles of Exclusive Economic Zone overlap between this island and the land next to it, and it is impossible to make any delimitation. Even territorial waters, if your definition of this island is, as the arbitration tribunal said and unconscionably judged, low tide elevation, then even 12 nautical miles of territorial waters can probably not be claimed. The reason why I said “probably” is that there may be legal aspect of the provisions, but in principle there is not any legal aspect of the provisions. When you say there is no 12 nautical miles of territorial waters, didn’t you make a judgment of delimitation issue? So in fact, today the Philippines and the arbitration tribunal performed a play together, and in the play the Philippines say that I do not see any Chinese historical evidence, I do not understand these things, I do not know what Professor Li Guoqiang has just said of Chinese practices in the South China Sea since the Han and Tang Dynasties, it is just from 2009 that Chinese began to claim its rights in the South China Sea and drew a dotted line. I presume that you have no rights, and then say the results of the analysis are that you have no rights at all. Such practice is contrary to the principle of international law。

　　Third, the arbitration tribunal made a great mistake of simply determining that all islands in Nansha are reefs instead of islands, which has great impact on Navy’s operation. So what is the difference between the island and the reef? Firstly, when we say an island in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 121 of the UNCLOS, it is very easy to judge an island in a broad sense, any naturally formed piece of land surrounded by water and emerged at high tide is called an island. That is the island of the broad sense. But some islands, if in very bad conditions, as prescribed in the Convention that “cannot support human habitation or economic activities”， should then be given a name of rock in a broad sense, so it is unavailable to claim 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf for this kind of rock.According to the arbitral tribunal, all the islands and reefs are rocks without EEZs, and so our rights in the South China Sea are greatly deprived by a tribunal without jurisdiction. In fact, this is the distorted and unlawful situation we are facing. More importantly, China, as the same as many other countries in the world, has claimed that it excludes obligatory jurisdiction, but the tribunal still intend to have jurisdiction over the South China Sea. This is cannot be tolerated.Secondly, also the key point, if the islands and reefs in the South China Sea are rocks, they still have territorial waters, even though they do not have EEZs, and so foreign ships should continually pass by the islands in the South China Sea for their right of innocent passage and must be permitted by China in advance, in the latter of which countries around the world have different practices. Now the biggest crime the tribunal has committed is that the dicta issued by the tribunal exceeds the requests of the Philippines and states that China is constructing the man-made islands, which equals a bonus for the Philippines or other interest groups from the tribunal, i.e. the islands such as Yongshu, Zhubi etc. where China is making construction projects are man-made islands. It is malicious because the man-made islands even have no territorial waters and only have safety zones with a radius of 500 meters. So, foreign ships can cast anchors within the distance of 501 meters and it is considered lawful. This poses serious threats to our territorial waters, defense security and self-defense power。

　　Under such circumstance, I think we should not be courteous and should wage a legal and propaganda war, which is also the theme of my speech today. Faced with this distorted euro-centrist tribunal, which tries to distort and alter the definitions of the UNCLOS negotiated and compromised by more than 100 countries plus more than 100 NGOs after 9 years, its actions must be stopped, otherwise today China is the victim, while the Philippines. Vietnam and other countries will be the next tomorrow, and the international laws will be ruined。

　　From the perspective of legal system, the biggest difference between the international society and the domestic one is the constitution, which is the ceiling for the domestic law, while there is no such thing in the international laws. The legal system set up in the international society is based on equality of sovereignty. The arbitration should be collegial and temporarily organized to settle disputes, while the Philippines unilaterally pay the costs and tries to use the adjudication to defeat the UNLOS, which is distorting the nature of arbitration and is a serious hazard to the human legal system of the international society。

　　My conclusion is that every one of us should make his or her voice heard. When we do so and the 1.3 billion people of the world people say it is wrong, then it is actually wrong. The most important thing is that every one should make his or her voice heard in the international society. Only then can the international society enter into a right track and the legal system continue to develop. Thank you all!