无障碍链接

中国时间: 13:00 2016年12月03日星期六

国际仲裁庭南中国海案裁决全文

  • 美国之音

国际常设仲裁庭南中国海案裁决全文(英文截图)

国际常设仲裁庭南中国海案裁决全文(英文截图)

(非正式翻译)

南海仲裁案

(菲律宾共和国 v. 中华人民共和国)

海牙,2016年7月12日

仲裁庭发布裁决

今日,根据《联合国海洋法公约》(“《公约》”)附件七组成的仲裁庭就菲律宾共和国对中华人民共和国提起的仲裁案作出了一致裁决。

该仲裁案涉及在南海的历史性权利的作用和海洋权利的渊源、某些岛礁的地位及其能够产生的海洋权利,以及菲律宾声称违反了《公约》的中国某些行为的合法性问题。考虑到《公约》对强制争端解决的限制性规定,仲裁庭强调,它既不对任何涉及陆地领土主权的问题进行裁决,也不划定当事双方之间的任何边界。

中国反复申明“其不接受、不参与由菲律宾单方面提起的仲裁”。然而,《公约》附件七规定,“争端一方缺席或不对案件进行辩护,应不妨碍程序的进行”。附件七同时规定,在争端一方不参与程序的情况下,仲裁庭“必须不但查明对该争端确有管辖权,而且查明所提要求在事实上和法庭上均确有根据”。因此,在整个程序中,仲裁庭采取了一些步骤验证菲律宾诉求的正确性,包括要求菲律宾提交进一步的书面论证,在两次庭审之前及庭审过程中对菲律宾进行询问,指定独立的专家就技术性问题向仲裁庭报告,以及获取关于南海岛礁的历史性证据并提供给当事双方予以评论。

通过2014年12月发布的《立场文件》和其他官方声明,中国明确表示,仲裁庭对本案涉及的事项缺乏管辖权。《公约》第288条规定:“对于法院或法庭是否具有管辖权如果发生争端,这一问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决”。据此,仲裁庭于2015年7月就管辖权和可受理性问题进行了开庭审理,并于2015年10月29日作出了《关于管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》,其中对一些管辖权问题进行裁决并推迟对其他问题进行进一步审议。2015年11月24日至30日,仲裁庭接着对实体问题进行了开庭审理。

今日的裁决审议了《关于管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》未决的管辖权问题和仲裁庭有权管辖的菲律宾诉求的实体性问题。根据《公约》第296条和附件七第11条的规定,该裁决具有终局性和拘束力。

历史性权利和“九段线”:仲裁庭认为,它对当事双方涉及南海的历史性权利和海洋权利渊源的争端具有管辖权。在实体问题上,仲裁庭认为,《公约》对海洋区域的权利作了全面的分配,考虑了对资源的既存权利的保护,但并未将其纳入条约。因此,仲裁庭得出结论,即使中国曾在某种程度上对南海水域的资源享有历史性权利,这些权利也已经在与《公约》关于专属经济区的规定不一致的范围内归于消灭。仲裁庭同时指出,尽管历史上中国以及其他国家的航海者和渔民利用了南海的岛屿,但并无证据显示历史上中国对该水域或其资源拥有排他性的控制权。仲裁庭认为,中国对“九段线”内海洋区域的资源主张历史性权利没有法律依据。

岛礁的地位:仲裁庭接下来审议了海洋区域的权利和岛礁的地位。仲裁庭首先评估了中国主张的某些礁石在高潮时是否高于水面。高潮时高于水面的岛礁能够产生至少12海里的领海,而高潮时没入水中的岛礁则不能。仲裁庭注意到,这些礁石已经被填海和建设活动所严重改变,重申《公约》基于岛礁的自然状态对其进行归类,并依据历史资料对这些岛礁进行评估。然后,仲裁庭考虑了中国主张的任一岛礁能否产生超过12海里的海洋区域。根据《公约》,岛屿能够产生200海里的专属经济区和大陆架,但是“不能维持人类居住或其本身的经济生活的岩礁,不应有专属经济区或大陆架”。仲裁庭认为,这项规定取决于一个岛礁在自然状态下,维持一个稳定的人类社群或者不依赖于外来资源或纯采掘业的经济活动的客观承载力。仲裁庭注意到,现在很多岛礁上驻扎的政府人员依赖于外来的支持,不能反映这些岛礁的承载力。仲裁庭认为历史证据更具有相关性,并注意到历史上小规模的渔民曾经利用南沙群岛,且有若干在其上建立日本渔业和肥料开采企业的尝试。仲裁庭认定,这种短暂的利用并不构成稳定的人类社群的定居,且历史上所有的经济活动都是纯采掘性的。据此,仲裁庭得出结论,认为南沙群岛无一能够产生延伸的海洋区域。仲裁庭还认为南沙群岛不能够作为一个整体共同产生海洋区域。在认定中国主张的岛礁无一能够产生专属经济区之后,仲裁庭认为它可以在不划分边界的情况下裁定某些海洋区域位于菲律宾的专属经济区内,因为这些区域与中国任何可能的权利并不重叠。

中国行为的合法性:仲裁庭接下来审议了中国在南海行为的合法性。在认定特定区域位于菲律宾的专属经济区的基础上,仲裁庭裁定中国的以下行为违法了菲律宾在其专属经济区享有的主权权利:(a)妨碍菲律宾的捕鱼和石油开采;(b)建设人工岛屿;(c)未阻止中国渔民在该区域的捕鱼活动。仲裁庭还认为,菲律宾渔民(如中国渔民一样)在黄岩岛有传统的渔业权利,而中国限制其进入该区域从而妨碍了这些权利的行使。仲裁庭进一步认为,中国执法船对菲律宾船只进行拦截的行为非法地造成了严重的碰撞危险。

对海洋环境的损害:仲裁庭考虑了中国近期在南沙群岛七个岛礁上的大规模填海和人工岛屿建设对海洋环境的影响,查明中国对珊瑚礁环境造成了严重损害,违反了其保全和保护脆弱的生态系统以及衰竭、受威胁或有灭绝危险的物种的生存环境的义务。仲裁庭还查明,中国官方对中国渔民在南海(使用对珊瑚礁环境造成严重损害的方法)大量捕捞有灭绝危险的海龟,珊瑚及大硨磲的行为知情,却未履行其阻止此类活动的义务。

争端的加剧:最后,仲裁庭审议了中国自本仲裁启动之后的行为是否加剧了当事双方之间的争端。仲裁庭裁定,它对菲律宾海军与中国海军和执法船只在仁爱礁的对峙可能造成的后果没有管辖权进行审议,因为此项争端涉及军事活动,因此为强制争端解决所排除。但是,仲裁庭认为,中国近期大规模的填海和建设人工岛屿的活动不符合缔约国在争端解决程序中的义务,因为中国对海洋环境造成了不可恢复的损害,在菲律宾专属经济区内建设大规模的人工岛屿,并破坏了构成双方部分争端的南海岛礁自然状态的证据。

下文为仲裁庭裁决的扩展摘要。

本案仲裁庭于2013 年6 月21 日根据《公约》附件七规定的程序组成,以对菲律宾提交的争

端进行裁决。本案仲裁庭由加纳籍法官Thomas A. Mensah,法国籍法官Jean-Pierre Cot,

波兰籍法官Stanislaw Pawlak,荷兰籍教授Alfred H.A. Soons 和德国籍法官Rüdiger

Wolfrum 组成。Thomas A. Mensah 法官担任首席仲裁员。常设仲裁法院担任本案的书记处。

关于本案的更多信息,包括《关于管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》、《程序规则》和早先新

闻稿以及庭审记录和照片,请见www.pcacases.com/web/view/7。程序令、菲律宾的诉求、

仲裁庭专家的报告和仲裁庭裁决的非官方中译文将在之后适时发布。

常设仲裁法院背景资料

常设仲裁法院是根据1899 年海牙《和平解决国际争端公约》成立的政府间组织。常设仲裁

法院共有121 个成员国,总部位于荷兰海牙的和平宫。常设仲裁法院为国家、国家实体、政

府间组织、私人主体间的仲裁、调解、事实调查以及其他争端解决程序提供服务。常设仲裁

法院国际局目前为8 个国家间仲裁案件,73 个国际投资仲裁案件,以及34 个涉及国家或其

他公共主体的合同仲裁案件提供书记处服务。常设仲裁法院共管理过12 个主权国家在《联

合国海洋法公约》附件七下提起的仲裁案。

2013 年7 月,南海仲裁案的仲裁庭指定常设仲裁法院作为案件的书记处。仲裁庭的《程序

规则》规定,常设仲裁法院应当“为仲裁程序提供档案管理,并根据仲裁庭指令提供适当的

书记处服务”。这些服务包括协助查找和指定专家;发布关于仲裁案的信息和发布新闻稿;

组织在海牙和平宫进行庭审;管理案件财务,包括管理案件费用保证金,例如支付仲裁员,

专家,技术支持人员和庭审记录员的费用等。书记处也为当事方,仲裁庭和观察员国之间提

供官方交流渠道。

仲裁庭关于管辖权和菲律宾诉求的实体问题的裁决摘要

1. 仲裁案的背景

菲律宾和中国间的南海仲裁案涉及菲律宾对其与中国在南海关系的四个事项进行裁决的请求。第一,菲律宾请求仲裁庭对当事双方在南海的权利和义务渊源,以及《联合国海洋法公约》(“《公约》”)对中国在所谓的“九段线”内主张的历史性权利的效力作出裁决。第二,菲律宾请求仲裁庭裁定某些被菲律宾和中国同时主张的岛礁能否被恰当地定义为《公约》下的岛屿,礁石,低潮高地或者水下地物。这些岛礁在《公约》下的地位决定它们所能产生的海洋区域。第三,菲律宾请求仲裁庭裁定中国在南海的某些活动是否违反了《公约》的规定,包括妨碍菲律宾行使《公约》下的主权权利和自由或者进行损害海洋环境的建设和渔业活动。最后,菲律宾请求仲裁庭裁定中国的某些行为,尤其是自本仲裁启动之后在南沙群岛大规模填海和建设人工岛屿的活动,非法地加剧并扩大了双方之间的争端。

中国政府在此前进行的一系列程序中坚持不接受、不参与仲裁的立场,并在其外交照会、2014年12月7日发布的《中华人民共和国政府关于菲律宾共和国所提南海仲裁案管辖权问题的立场文件》(“中国《立场文件》”)、中国驻荷兰王国大使至仲裁庭成员的信函以及多次的公开声明中重申了这一立场。中国政府同时明确表示,这些声明和文件“决不得被解释为中国以任何形式参与仲裁程序”。

《公约》的以下两个条款规定了争端一方反对法庭的管辖权但是拒绝参与程序的情况:

(a) 《公约》第288条规定:“对于法院或法庭是否具有管辖权如果发生争端,这一问题应由该法院或法庭以裁定解决”。

(b) 《公约》附件七第9条规定:“如争端一方不出庭或对案件不进行辩护,他方可请示仲裁法庭继续进行程序并作出裁决。争端一方缺席或不对案件进行辩护,应不妨碍程序的进行。仲裁法庭在作出裁决前,必须不但查明对该争端确有管辖权,而且查明所提要求在事实上和法庭上均确有根据”。

在整个仲裁程序中,仲裁庭采取了一些步骤以履行查明其是否具有管辖权以及菲律宾的诉求是否“在事实上和法庭上均确有根据”的义务。关于管辖权,仲裁庭决定将中国的非正式函文视为等同于对管辖权的异议,并于2015年7月7日至13日进行了管辖权和可受理性问题的开庭审理。仲裁庭在庭审之前及庭审过程中就管辖权问题向菲律宾提问,其中包括中国非正式函文中没有提出的潜在问题,并于2015年10月29日发布了《关于管辖权和可受理性问题的裁决》(“《管辖权裁决》”),对一些管辖权问题作出了裁决并推迟将其他问题进一步与菲律宾诉求的实体问题一同审议。关于实体问题,为了验证菲律宾的诉求的正确性,仲裁庭要求菲律宾提交进一步书面陈述,于2015年11月24至30日对实体问题进行开庭审理,并在庭审之前和庭审过程中就菲律宾诉求向其提问。仲裁庭还指定独立的专家就技术性问题向仲裁庭报告,从英国水文办公室、法国国家图书馆、法国国家海外档案馆的档案中获取南海的历史记录和水文测量数据,并与其它公共领域的相关资料一起提供给当事双方进行评论。

2. 双方立场

菲律宾在仲裁过程中共提出了15项诉求,请求仲裁庭裁定:

(1) 中国在南海的海洋权利,如菲律宾一样,不能超过《联合国海洋法公约》明文允许的范围;

(2) 中国主张的对“九段线”范围内的南海海域的主权权利和管辖权以及“历史性权利”与《公约》相违背,这些主张在超过《公约》明文允许的中国海洋权利的地理和实体限制的范围内不具有法律效力;

(3) 黄岩岛不能产生专属经济区或者大陆架;

(4) 美济礁、仁爱礁和渚碧礁为低潮高地,不能产生领海、专属经济区或者大陆架,并且为不能够通过先占或其他方式取得的岛礁;

(5) 美济礁和仁爱礁为菲律宾专属经济区和大陆架的一部分;

(6) 南薰礁和西门礁(包括东门礁)为低潮高地,不能产生领海、专属经济区或者大陆架,但是它们的低潮线可以作为分别测量鸿庥岛和景宏岛的领海宽度的基线;

(7) 赤瓜礁、华阳礁和永暑礁不能产生专属经济区或者大陆架;

(8) 中国非法地妨碍了菲律宾享有和行使其对专属经济区和大陆架的生物和非生物资源的主权权利;

(9) 中国非法地未曾阻止其公民和船只开发菲律宾专属经济区内的生物资源;

(10) 通过妨碍其在黄岩岛的传统渔业活动,中国非法地阻止了菲律宾渔民寻求生计;

(11) 中国在黄岩岛、仁爱礁、华阳礁、永暑礁、南薰礁、赤瓜礁、东门礁和渚碧礁违反了《公约》下保护和保全海洋环境的义务;

(12) 中国对美济礁的占领和建造活动:

(a) 违反了《公约》关于人工岛屿,设施和结构的规定;

(b) 违反了中国在《公约》下保护和保全海洋环境的义务;以及

(c) 构成违反《公约》规定的试图据为己有的违法行为;

(13) 中国危险地操作其执法船只给在黄岩岛附近航行的菲律宾船只造成严重碰撞危险的行为违反了其在《公约》下的义务;

(14) 自从2013年1月仲裁开始,中国非法地加剧并扩大了争端,包括:

(a) 妨碍菲律宾在仁爱礁海域及其附近海域的航行权利;

(b) 阻止菲律宾在仁爱礁驻扎人员的轮换和补给;

(c) 危害菲律宾在仁爱礁驻扎人员的健康和福利;以及

(d) 在美济礁、华阳礁、永暑礁、南薰礁、赤瓜礁、东门礁和渚碧礁从事挖沙填海和人工岛屿的建造和建设活动;以及

(15) 中国应该尊重菲律宾在《公约》下的权利和自由,遵守其在《公约》下的义务,包括保护和保全南海海洋环境的义务;同时,在行使其在南海的权利和自由时,应该对菲律宾在《公约》下的权利和自由予以适当考虑。

关于管辖权,菲律宾请求仲裁庭宣布菲律宾的诉求“完全在其管辖权范围内并且具有完全的可受理性”。

中国不接受不参与仲裁,但已经表明了其认为仲裁庭“对此案不具有管辖权”的立场。在其《立场文件》中,中国阐述了以下立场:

- 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;

尽管中国未对菲律宾主要诉求的实体问题作出同等的声明,但在整个仲裁程序中,仲裁庭力图通过中国同时期公开发表的声明和外交函件确定其立场。

3. 仲裁庭关于管辖权范围的裁决

关于仲裁庭对菲律宾诉求的管辖权的范围,仲裁庭在《管辖权裁决》中阐述了可作为初步事项决定的管辖权问题,并在2016年7月12日的裁决中阐述了与菲律宾诉求中与实体问题相交织的管辖权问题。仲裁庭2016年7月12日的裁决包含并确认了《管辖权裁决》中关于管辖权的裁决。

为保证完整性,此摘要包括仲裁庭在两个裁决中关于管辖权的决定。

a. 初步事项

在《管辖权裁决》中,仲裁庭阐述了一系列关于管辖权的初步事项。仲裁庭注意到菲律宾与中国均为《公约》缔约国,以及《公约》不允许缔约国一般性地将自身排除出《公约》规定的争端解决机制。仲裁庭认为中国的不参与并不剥夺仲裁庭的管辖权,仲裁庭依照《公约》附件七的规定(其中包括在一方缺席的情况下组成仲裁庭的规定)正当组成。最后,仲裁庭认为仅仅单方面提起仲裁这一行为不能构成对《公约》的滥用,因此未同意中国《立场文件》中相关的该项反对意见。

b. 涉及对《公约》解释和适用的争端的存在

在《管辖权裁决》中,仲裁庭审议了当事双方的争端是否涉及对《公约》的解释和适用,因其是诉诸《公约》的争端解决机制的必要条件。

仲裁庭不支持中国《立场文件》中关于当事双方的争端实际上是关于领土主权的争端因而不是涉及《公约》的事项的意见。仲裁庭接受当事双方存在关于南海岛屿主权的争端,但是认为菲律宾提交仲裁的事项并不涉及主权问题。仲裁庭认为,审议菲律宾的诉求并不需要隐含地判定主权问题,并且审议这些问题并不会促进任何一方在南海岛屿主权上的主张。

仲裁庭同样不支持中国《立场文件》中关于当事双方的争端实质上是关于海洋划界的争端,并因此被《公约》第298条和中国在2006年8月25日据此作出的声明排除出争端解决程序的意见。仲裁庭注意到,一项涉及一个国家对于某海洋区域是否可主张权利的争端与对重叠海洋区域进行划界是不同的问题。仲裁庭注意到,权利主张以及许多其他问题在边界划分中常常被审议,但是他们也可能在其他一些情况中出现。仲裁庭认为,这并不意味着一个争端一旦涉及其中一项问题则必然地成为一个关于划界的争端。

最后,仲裁庭认为菲律宾的每一项主张均反映了一个涉及《公约》的争端。据此,仲裁庭强调(a)一个涉及《公约》和其他权利(包括任何中国的“历史性权利”)相互关系的争端为涉及《公约》的争端以及(b)在中国未明确陈述其立场的情况下,可以通过国家行为或者沉默来客观地推断争端的存在。

c. 必要第三方的参加

在《管辖权裁决》中,仲裁庭考虑了如果其他对南海岛屿提出主张的国家不参与本仲裁是否会构成对仲裁庭行使管辖权的障碍。仲裁庭提出其他国家的权利不会成为“裁决的主题事项”, 这也是判定必要第三方的标准。仲裁庭进一步指出,在2014年12月,越南向仲裁庭提交了一份声明,声称其“不怀疑仲裁庭对这些程序的管辖权”。仲裁庭还指出,越南、马来西亚以及印度尼西亚以观察国的身份参加了关于管辖权问题的庭审,而在庭审中没有任何一个国家提出其自身的参与是必要的。

在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭指出其在2016年6月12日收到了来自马来西亚的函文,回顾了马来西亚在南海的主张。仲裁庭比较了马来西亚的权利主张和其针对菲律宾诉求的实体问题裁决,确认了其关于马来西亚不是必要第三方以及马来西亚在南海的权利不妨碍其审议菲律宾的诉求的结论。

d. 管辖权的先决条件

在《管辖权裁决》中,仲裁庭考虑了《公约》第281和282条的适用性问题。根据这两条的规定,如果一个国家已经同意通过其他方法解决争端,则其可能被禁止使用《公约》规定的机制。

仲裁庭未接受中国《立场文件》中关于2002中国-东盟《南海各方共同行为宣言》导致菲律宾不被允许提起仲裁的意见。仲裁庭认为该《宣言》为不具有法律拘束力的政治性协议,该协议并未提供有拘束力的争端解决机制,并未排除其他争端解决方法,因此并不限制仲裁庭在第281和282条下的管辖权。仲裁庭同样审议了《东南亚友好合作条约》、《生物多样性公约》以及菲律宾和中国发表的一系列通过协商解决争端的联合声明,并得出结论,认为这些文件中没有任何一个构成禁止菲律宾将其诉求提起仲裁的协议。

仲裁庭进一步指出,在菲律宾提起仲裁之前,当事方已经根据公约第283条的要求就其争端的解决交换了意见。仲裁庭作出结论,认为菲律宾和中国的外交交流记录已经满足了这一要求,在这些记录中菲律宾表示了对包括其他南海周边国家的多边谈判的明确偏好,而中国坚持其只考虑进行双边谈判。

e. 管辖权的例外和限制

在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭考虑了菲律宾关于中国历史性权利以及“九段线”的诉求是否受到《公约》第298条关于涉及“历史性所有权”的争端作为管辖权的例外的规定的影响。仲裁庭审议了海洋法上“历史性所有权”的涵义,并认为其指示的是对海湾以及其他近岸水域主张的历史性主权。在审议了中国在南海的主张和行为之后,仲裁庭得出了中国主张对“九段线”内资源的历史权利,而非对南海水域的历史性所有权的结论。因此,仲裁庭认为其对审议菲律宾涉及历史性权利的诉求及与中国之间涉及“九段线”的诉求具有管辖权。

在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭还审议了菲律宾的诉求是否受到《公约》第298条关于涉及海洋划界的争端的例外的影响。在《管辖权裁决》中,仲裁庭已经认定了菲律宾的诉求本身并不涉及边界划分,但是也指出了某些菲律宾的诉求取决于部分区域是否为菲律宾专属经济区的组成部分。仲裁庭认为其只能在中国绝无可能存在与菲律宾重叠的专属经济区主

张的情况下才能审议这些问题,并推迟了对这些管辖权问题作出最后结论。在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭审议了关于中国在南海主张的岛礁的证据,并得出这些岛礁均不能产生专属经济区主张的结论。因为中国并无在南沙群岛与菲律宾产生重叠专属经济区主张的可能,仲裁庭认为菲律宾的诉求并不取决于在先的划界。

在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭还审议了菲律宾的诉求是否受到《公约》第298条关于涉及在专属经济区的法律执行活动的争端的例外的影响。仲裁庭指出第298条的例外只有在菲律宾的诉求涉及中国的专属经济区内的法律执行活动的情况下方可适用。因为菲律宾的诉求只与菲律宾自身的专属经济区或者领海内的事件有关,仲裁庭的结论指出第298条不妨碍其行使管辖权。

最后,在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭审议了菲律宾的诉求是否受到《公约》第298条关于涉及军事活动的争端的例外的影响。仲裁庭认为菲律宾海军和中国海军以及执法船在仁爱礁的对峙构成军事活动,并得出其对菲律宾第14(a)-(c)项的诉求不具有管辖权的结论。仲裁庭还审议了中国在七个南沙群岛的岛礁上进行填海和人工岛屿建设的活动是否构成军事活动的问题,但注意到中国坚持强调其行为的非军事性以及最高层表示中国将不会军事化其在南沙的存在。仲裁庭决定,在中国自身反复强调相反的立场的情况下,其将不把这些活动视为军事性质。因此,仲裁庭得出结论,即第298条不妨碍其行使管辖权。

4. 仲裁庭对菲律宾诉求的实体问题的裁决

a. “九段线”以及中国对南海海域的历史性权利

在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭审议了中国“九段线”的影响以及中国是否在依照《公约》规定享有的海洋区域限制之外对南海资源享有历史性权利。

仲裁庭审议了《公约》的历史及其关于海洋区域的规定,认定《公约》意在全面分配缔约国对海洋区域的权利。仲裁庭注意到在创设专属经济区的谈判对资源(特别是渔业资源)的既存权利问题进行了详细的讨论,一些国家希望在新区域内保留历史性渔业权利。然而这一立场最后被拒绝,而《公约》的最终版本只为其他国家在专属经济区内保留了有限的获取渔业资源的权利(在沿海国没有能力捕捞全部可捕量的情况下),并且没有保留任何对石油或者矿业资源的权利。仲裁庭认为中国对资源的历史性权利主张与《公约》对权利和海洋区域具体化的划分不相适应,并得出结论,即使中国在南海水域范围内对资源享有历史性权利,这些权利也在与《公约》的海洋区域系统不相符合的范围内,已经随着《公约》的生效而归于消灭。

为了确定中国是否在《公约》生效之前对南海的资源享有历史性权利,仲裁庭也审议了历史记录。尽管仲裁庭强调其无权决定岛屿的主权问题,仲裁庭指出,有证据表明中国和其他国家的航海者和渔民在历史上利用过南海的岛屿。然而,仲裁庭认为在《公约》之前,在领海之外的南海海域在法律上是公海的一部分,任何国家的船只均可自由航行和捕鱼。因此,仲裁庭得出结论,中国历史上在南海海域的航行和捕鱼反映的是对公海自由而非历史性权利的行使,并且没有证据表明中国历史上对南海海域行使排他性的控制或者阻止了其他国家对资源的开发。

因此,仲裁庭得出结论,在菲律宾与中国之间,中国并无在《公约》规定的权利范围之外,主张对“九段线”之内海域的资源享有历史性权利的法律基础。

b. 南海岛礁的地位

在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭审议了南海岛礁的地位以及中国根据《公约》可以潜在地主张的海洋区域。

仲裁庭首先进行了对部分中国主张的珊瑚礁在高潮时是否高于水面的技术性评估。根据《公约》第13条和121条,高潮时高于水面的岛礁至少可以产生一个12海里的领海,而高潮时没入水中的岛礁不能产生任何海洋权利。仲裁庭注意到南海的许多礁石被最近的填海和建设活动严重改变,并指出《公约》以自然状态为基础对岛礁进行分类。仲裁庭指定了一位水文地理专家协助评估菲律宾的技术性证据,并在评估岛礁的过程中大量依赖了档案资料和历史水文地理调查。仲裁庭同意菲律宾关于在自然状态下黄岩岛、赤瓜礁、华阳礁和永暑礁为高潮时高于水面的岛礁以及渚碧礁、东门礁、美济礁以及仁爱礁为高潮时没入水中的岛礁的观点。然而,仲裁庭不同意菲律宾对南薰礁(北)和西门礁地位的界定,并判定他们均为高潮时高于水面的岛礁。

仲裁庭之后审议了中国所主张的任一岛礁是否可以产生超过12海里的海洋区域的问题。根据《公约》第121条,岛屿可以产生一个200海里的专属经济区和大陆架的权利,但是“不能维持人类居住或其本身的经济生活的岩礁,不应有专属经济区或大陆架”。仲裁庭注意到,这项规定与创设专属经济区之后沿海国管辖权的扩张密切相关,其意图在于防止微不足道的岛礁产生大面积的海洋权利而侵犯有人定居的领土的权利或者侵犯公海以及作为人类的共同继承财产保留的海床的区域。仲裁庭对第121条进行解释并得出结论,认为对一个岛礁的权利主张取决于(a)该岛礁的客观承载力;(b)在自然状态下,是否能够维持(c)一个稳定的人类社群或者(d)不依赖外来资源或纯采掘业的经济活动。

仲裁庭注意到南沙群岛的许多岛礁目前正被不同的沿海国控制,且这些沿海国在其上建立了设施并驻扎了人员。仲裁庭认为这些现代化存在依赖于外来资源和支持,并注意到,通过包括填海和建设基础设施如海水淡化工厂等方式,许多岛礁被加以改变以便加强其可居住性。仲裁庭认为,目前官方人员在许多岛礁上的驻扎并不能证明它们在自然状态下维持稳定的人类社群的能力,并且认为关于人来居住或者经济生活的历史证据与这些岛礁的客观承载力更为相关。在审查了历史记录之后,仲裁庭指出南沙群岛在历史上被小规模的中国和其他国家的渔民所利用,并且在1920和30年代也有在其上建立日本渔业和肥料开采企业的尝试。仲裁庭认定渔民对这些岛礁的短暂的利用不能构成稳定的人类社群的定居,以及历史上所有的经济活动都是纯采掘性的。因此,仲裁庭得出结论,认为南沙群岛的所有高潮时高于水面的岛礁(例如包括太平岛、中业岛、西月岛、南威岛、北子岛、南子岛)在法律上均为无法产生专属经济区或者大陆架的“岩礁”。

仲裁庭还认为,《公约》并未规定如南沙群岛的一系列岛屿可以作为一个整体共同产生海洋区域。

c. 中国在南海的活动

在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭审议了中国在南海一系列活动在《公约》下的合法性。

在认定美济礁、仁爱礁以及礼乐滩在高潮时没入水中,构成菲律宾专属经济区和大陆架的一部分且不与中国任何可能的权利主张相重叠之后,仲裁庭得出结论,认为《公约》在菲律宾专属经济区海域内对主权权利的分配是明确的。作为事实问题,仲裁庭查明中国(a)干扰了菲律宾在礼乐滩的石油开采,(b)试图阻止菲律宾渔船在其专属经济区内捕鱼,(c)保护并不阻止中国渔民在美济礁和仁爱礁附近的菲律宾专属经济区捕鱼,以及(d)未经菲律宾许可在美济礁建设设施和人工岛屿。仲裁庭因此得出结论认为中国侵犯了菲律宾对其专属

经济区和大陆架的主权权利。

仲裁庭接下来审查了在黄岩岛的传统渔业活动,并发现菲律宾的渔民,以及中国和其他国家的渔民,长期以来保持在黄岩岛及其周围区域捕鱼的传统。因为黄岩岛在高潮时高于水面,它可以产生对领海的主张,其周边海域不构成专属经济区的一部分,传统渔业权利也并未被《公约》所消灭。虽然仲裁庭强调其不会决定黄岩岛的主权归属,但是仲裁庭认为中国在2012年5月之后限制菲律宾渔民接近黄岩岛的行为违反了尊重他们传统渔业权利的义务。然而,仲裁庭也指出,如果菲律宾阻止中国渔民在黄岩岛捕鱼,其将针对中国渔民的传统渔业权利得出同样的结论。

仲裁庭也审议了中国的活动对海洋环境的影响。在此过程中,仲裁庭指定了三位独立的珊瑚礁生物学专家来协助其评估现有的科学证据以及菲律宾的专家报告。仲裁庭认为中国近期在南沙群岛七个岛礁大规模的填海和人工岛屿建设活动导致了对珊瑚礁环境的严重破坏,违反了中国在《公约》第192和194条下关于脆弱的生态系统以及衰竭、受威胁或有灭绝危险的物种的生存环境的保护和保全海洋环境的义务。仲裁庭同时认为中国渔民在南海以对珊瑚礁环境产生严重破坏的方法大量捕捞有灭绝危险的海龟、珊瑚以及大硨磲。仲裁庭查明中国官方对这些活动知情,但却未能尽到《公约》下的勤勉义务予以阻止。

最后,仲裁庭审议了中国执法船于2012年4月和5月在黄岩岛附近两次试图阻止菲律宾船只接近或者进入黄岩岛的行为的合法性。在此过程中,仲裁庭指定了一位航行安全方面的独立专家协助其审查菲律宾船只上的官员提供的书面报告以及菲律宾提供的航行安全方面的专家报告。仲裁庭认为中国执法船多次高速接近菲律宾船只并试图近距离从前方通过,制造了严重的碰撞危险以及对菲律宾船只和人员的危险。仲裁庭结论认为中国违反了其在《1972年国际海上避碰规则公约》下以及《公约》第94条下关于海上安全的义务。

d. 加剧当事方争端

在2016年7月12日的裁决中,仲裁庭审议了在仲裁开始之后,中国近期在南沙群岛七个岛礁上大规模的填海和人工岛屿建设活动是否加剧了当事方争端。仲裁庭重申在争端解决过程中,该争端的当事方有义务防止该争端的加剧和扩大。仲裁庭指出中国(a)在位于菲律宾专属经济区内的低潮高地美济礁建设了大规模的人工岛屿;(b)对珊瑚礁生态系统造成了永久的,不可恢复的破坏以及(c)永久性地消灭了关于相关岛礁自然状态的证据。仲裁庭得出结论,认为中国违反了在争端解决过程中争端当事方防止争端的加剧和扩大的义务。

e. 争端双方将来的行为

最后,仲裁庭审议了菲律宾关于作出中国未来应当尊重菲律宾的权利和自由并遵守其《公约》下的义务的声明的请求。对此,仲裁庭指出菲律宾和中国双方均反复强调接受根据《公约》以及一般诚意义务定义和规制其行为。仲裁庭认为本仲裁涉及争端的根源并不在于中国或者菲律宾意图侵犯对方的合法权利,而在于双方对各自基于《公约》在南海的权利有根本性的理解分歧。仲裁庭指出,恶意之不可推定为国际法的基本原则,并指出附件七第11条规定“争端各方均应遵守裁决”。仲裁庭因此认为无进一步声明之必要。

国际常设仲裁庭南中国海案裁决英文全文:

THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION (THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)

The Hague, 12 July 2016

The Tribunal Renders Its Award

A unanimous Award has been issued today by the Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention”) in the arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People’s Republic of China.

This arbitration concerned the role of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the status of certain maritime features and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions by China that were alleged by the Philippines to violate the Convention. In light of limitations on compulsory dispute settlement under the Convention, the Tribunal has emphasized that it does not rule on any question of sovereignty over land territory and does not delimit any boundary between the Parties.

China has repeatedly stated that “it will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines.” Annex VII, however, provides that the “[a]bsence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings.” Annex VII also provides that, in the event that a party does not participate in the proceedings, a tribunal “must satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.” Accordingly, throughout these proceedings, the Tribunal has taken steps to test the accuracy of the Philippines’ claims, including by requesting further written submissions from the Philippines, by questioning the Philippines both prior to and during two hearings, by appointing independent experts to report to the Tribunal on technical matters, and by obtaining historical evidence concerning features in the South China Sea and providing it to the Parties for comment.

China has also made clear—through the publication of a Position Paper in December 2014 and in other official statements—that, in its view, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in this matter. Article 288 of the Convention provides that: “In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.” Accordingly, the Tribunal convened a hearing on jurisdiction and admissibility in July 2015 and rendered an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 29 October 2015, deciding some issues of jurisdiction and deferring others for further consideration. The Tribunal then convened a hearing on the merits from 24 to 30 November 2015.

The Award of today’s date addresses the issues of jurisdiction not decided in the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility and the merits of the Philippines’ claims over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The Award is final and binding, as set out in Article 296 of the Convention and Article 11 of Annex VII.

Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’: The Tribunal found that it has jurisdiction to consider the Parties’ dispute concerning historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea. On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention comprehensively allocates rights to maritime areas and that protections for pre-existing rights to resources were considered, but not adopted in the Convention. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention. The Tribunal also noted that, although

Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources. The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.

Status of Features: The Tribunal next considered entitlements to maritime areas and the status of features. The Tribunal first undertook an evaluation of whether certain reefs claimed by China are above water at high tide. Features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, whereas features that are submerged at high tide do not. The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features. The Tribunal then considered whether any of the features claimed by China could generate maritime zones beyond 12 nautical miles. Under the Convention, islands generate an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and a continental shelf, but “[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” The Tribunal concluded that this provision depends upon the objective capacity of a feature, in its natural condition, to sustain either a stable community of people or economic activity that is not dependent on outside resources or purely extractive in nature. The Tribunal noted that the current presence of official personnel on many of the features is dependent on outside support and not reflective of the capacity of the features. The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen and that several Japanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted. The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not constitute inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones. The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit. Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.

Lawfulness of Chinese Actions: The Tribunal next considered the lawfulness of Chinese actions in the South China Sea. Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone. The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access. The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.

Harm to Marine Environment: The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species. The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities.

Aggravation of Dispute: Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China’s actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties. The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement. The Tribunal found, however, that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties’ dispute.

An expanded summary of the Tribunal’s decisions is set out below.

The Tribunal was constituted on 21 June 2013 pursuant to the procedure set out in Annex VII of the

Convention to decide the dispute presented by the Philippines. The Tribunal is composed of Judge Thomas A.

Mensah of Ghana, Judge Jean-Pierre Cot of France, Judge Stanislaw Pawlak of Poland, Professor Alfred

H.A. Soons of the Netherlands, and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum of Germany. Judge Thomas A. Mensah serves as President of the Tribunal. The Permanent Court of Arbitration acts as the Registry in the proceedings.

Further information about the case may be found at www.pcacases.com/web/view/7, including the Award on

Jurisdiction and Admissibility, the Rules of Procedure, earlier Press Releases, hearing transcripts, and photographs. Procedural Orders, submissions by the Philippines, and reports by the Tribunal’s experts will be made available in due course, as will unofficial Chinese translations of the Tribunal’s Awards.

Background to the Permanent Court of Arbitration

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization established by the

1899 Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The PCA has 121 Member

States. Headquartered at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands, the PCA facilitates arbitration, conciliation, fact-finding, and other dispute resolution proceedings among various combinations of States,

State entities, intergovernmental organizations, and private parties. The PCA’s International Bureau is currently administering 8 interstate disputes, 73 investor-State arbitrations, and 34 cases arising under contracts involving a State or other public entity. The PCA has administered 12 cases initiated by States under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In July 2013, the Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration appointed the PCA to serve as Registry for the proceedings. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that the PCA shall “maintain an archive of the arbitral proceedings and provide appropriate registry services as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal.” Such services include assisting with the identification and appointment of experts; publishing information about the arbitration and issuing press releases; organizing the hearings at the Peace Palace in The Hague; and the financial management of the case, which involves holding a deposit for expenses in the arbitration, such as to pay arbitrator fees, experts, technical support, court reporters etc. The Registry also serves as the channel of communications amongst the Parties and the Tribunal and observer States.

Photograph: Hearing in session, July 2015, Peace Palace, The Hague. Clockwise from top left: Registrar and PCA Senior Legal Counsel Judith Levine; Judge Stanislaw Pawlak; Professor Alfred H. A. Soons; Judge

Thomas A. Mensah (Presiding Arbitrator); Judge Jean-Pierre Cot; Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum; PCA Senior

Legal Counsel Garth Schofield; former Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, Mr. Albert F. Del

Rosario; former Solicitor General Mr. Florin T. Hilbay, Counsel for the Philippines; Mr. Paul S. Reichler;

Professor Philippe Sands; Professor Bernard H. Oxman; Professor Alan E. Boyle; Mr. Lawrence H. Martin.

SUMMARY OF THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISIONS ON ITS JURISDICTION AND ON THE MERITS OF THE PHILIPPINES’ CLAIMS

1. Background to the Arbitration

The South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China concerned an application by the Philippines for rulings in respect of four matters concerning the relationship between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea. First, the Philippines sought a ruling on the source of the Parties’ rights and obligations in the South China Sea and the effect of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“Convention”) on China’s claims to historic rights within its so-called ‘nine-dash line’. Second, the Philippines sought a ruling on whether certain maritime features claimed by both China and the Philippines are properly characterized as islands, rocks, low-tide elevations or submerged banks under the Convention. The status of these features under the Convention determines the maritime zones they are capable of generating. Third, the Philippines sought rulings on whether certain Chinese actions in the South China Sea have violated the Convention, by interfering with the exercise of the Philippines’ sovereign rights and freedoms under the Convention or through construction and fishing activities that have harmed the marine environment. Finally, the Philippines sought a ruling that certain actions taken by China, in particular its large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands since this arbitration was commenced, have unlawfully aggravated and extended the Parties’ dispute.

The Chinese Government has adhered to the position of neither accepting nor participating in these arbitral proceedings. It has reiterated this position in diplomatic notes, in the “Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines” dated 7 December 2014 (“China’s Position Paper”), in letters to members of the Tribunal from the Chinese Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and in many public statements. The Chinese Government has also made clear that these statements and documents “shall by no means be interpreted as China’s participation in the arbitral proceeding in any form.”

Two provisions of the Convention address the situation of a party that objects to the jurisdiction of a tribunal and declines to participate in the proceedings:

(a) Article 288 of the Convention provides that: “In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.”

(b) Article 9 of Annex VII to the Convention provides that:

If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its case, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to make its award. Absence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. Before making its award, the arbitral tribunal must satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.

Throughout these proceedings, the Tribunal has taken a number of steps to fulfil its duty to satisfy itself as to whether it has jurisdiction and whether the Philippines’ claims are “well founded in fact and law”. With respect to jurisdiction, the Tribunal decided to treat China’s informal communications as equivalent to an objection to jurisdiction, convened a Hearing on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 7 to 13 July 2015, questioned the Philippines both before and during the hearing on matters of jurisdiction, including potential issues not raised in China’s informal communications, and issued an Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 29 October 2015 (the “Award on Jurisdiction”), deciding some issues of jurisdiction and deferring others for further consideration in conjunction with the merits of the Philippines’ claims. With respect to the merits, the Tribunal sought to test the accuracy of the Philippines’ claims by requesting further written submissions from the Philippines, by convening a hearing on the merits from 24 to 30 November 2015, by questioning the Philippines both before and during the hearing with respect to its claims, by appointing independent experts to report to the Tribunal on technical matters, and by obtaining historical records and hydrographic survey data for the South China Sea from the archives of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, the National Library of France, and the French National Overseas Archives and providing it to the Parties for comment, along with other relevant materials in the public domain.

2. The Parties’ Positions

The Philippines made 15 Submissions in these proceedings, requesting the Tribunal to find that:

(1) China’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, like those of the Philippines, may not extend beyond those expressly permitted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;

(2) China’s claims to sovereign rights jurisdiction, and to “historic rights”, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the so-called “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements expressly permitted by UNCLOS;

(3) Scarborough Shoal generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;

(4) Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, and are not features that are capable of appropriation by occupation or otherwise;

(5) Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines;

(6) Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, but their low-water line may be used to determine the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Namyit and Sin Cowe, respectively, is measured;

(7) Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;

(8) China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf;

(9) China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines;

(10) China has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal;

(11) China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef;

(12) China’s occupation of and construction activities on Mischief Reef

(a) violate the provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and structures;

(b) violate China’s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment under the Convention; and

(c) constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in violation of the Convention;

(13) China has breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner, causing serious risk of collision to Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal;

(14) Since the commencement of this arbitration in January 2013, China has unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute by, among other things:

(a) interfering with the Philippines’ rights of navigation in the waters at, and adjacent to, Second Thomas Shoal;

(b) preventing the rotation and resupply of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal;

(c) endangering the health and well-being of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal; and

(d) conducting dredging, artificial island-building and construction activities at Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef; and

(15) China shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines under the Convention, shall comply with its duties under the Convention, including those relevant to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the South China Sea, and shall exercise its rights and freedoms in the South China Sea with due regard to those of the Philippines under the Convention.

With respect to jurisdiction, the Philippines has asked the Tribunal to declare that the Philippines’ claims “are entirely within its jurisdiction and are fully admissible.”

China does not accept and is not participating in this arbitration but stated its position that the Tribunal “does not have jurisdiction over this case.” In its Position Paper, China advanced the following arguments:

- 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;

Although China has not made equivalent public statements with respect to the merits of the majority of the Philippines’ claims, the Tribunal has sought throughout the proceedings to ascertain China’s position on the basis of its contemporaneous public statements and diplomatic correspondence.

3. The Tribunal’s Decisions on the Scope of its Jurisdiction

The Tribunal has addressed the scope of its jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ claims both in its Award on Jurisdiction, to the extent that issues of jurisdiction could be decided as a preliminary matter, and in its Award of 12 July 2016, to the extent that issues of jurisdiction were intertwined with the merits of the Philippines’ claims. The Tribunal’s Award of 12 July 2016 also incorporates and reaffirms the decisions on jurisdiction taken in the Award on Jurisdiction.

For completeness, the Tribunal’s decisions on jurisdiction in both awards are summarized here together.

a. Preliminary Matters

In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered a number of preliminary matters with respect to its jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that both the Philippines and China are parties to the Convention and that the Convention does not permit a State to except itself generally from the mechanism for the resolution of disputes set out in the Convention. The Tribunal held that China’s non-participation does not deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction and that the Tribunal had been properly constituted pursuant to the provisions of Annex VII to the Convention, which include a procedure to form a tribunal even in the absence of one party. Finally, the Tribunal rejected an argument set out in China’s Position Paper and held that the mere act of unilaterally initiating an arbitration cannot constitute an abuse of the Convention.

b. Existence of a Dispute Concerning Interpretation and Application of the Convention

In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered whether the Parties’ disputes concerned the interpretation or application of the Convention, which is a requirement for resort to the dispute settlement mechanisms of the Convention.

The Tribunal rejected the argument set out in China’s Position Paper that the Parties’ dispute is actually about territorial sovereignty and therefore not a matter concerning the Convention. The Tribunal accepted that there is a dispute between the Parties concerning sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea, but held that the matters submitted to arbitration by the Philippines do not concern sovereignty. The Tribunal considered that it would not need to implicitly decide sovereignty to address the Philippines’ Submissions and that doing so would not advance the sovereignty claims of either Party to islands in the South China Sea.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument set out in China’s Position Paper that the Parties’ dispute is actually about maritime boundary delimitation and therefore excluded from dispute settlement by Article 298 of the Convention and a declaration that China made on 25 August 2006 pursuant to that Article. The Tribunal noted that a dispute concerning whether a State has an entitlement to a maritime zone is a distinct matter from the delimitation of maritime zones in an area in which they overlap. The Tribunal noted that entitlements, together with a wide variety of other issues, are commonly considered in a boundary delimitation, but can also arise in other contexts. The Tribunal held that it does not follow that a dispute over each of these issues is necessarily a dispute over boundary delimitation.

Finally, the Tribunal held that each of the Philippines’ Submissions reflected a dispute concerning the Convention. In doing so, the Tribunal emphasized (a) that a dispute concerning the interaction between the Convention and other rights (including any Chinese “historic rights”) is a dispute concerning the Convention and (b) that where China has not clearly stated its position, the existence of a dispute may be inferred from the conduct of a State or from silence and is a matter to be determined objectively.

c. Involvement of Indispensable Third-Parties

In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered whether the absence from this arbitration of other States that have made claims to the islands of the South China Sea would be a bar to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the rights of other States would not form “the very subject-matter of the decision,” the standard for a third-party to be indispensable. The Tribunal further noted that in December 2014, Viet Nam had submitted a statement to the Tribunal, in which Viet Nam asserted that it has “no doubt that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in these proceedings.” The Tribunal also noted that Viet Nam, Malaysia, and Indonesia had attended the hearing on jurisdiction as observers, without any State raising the argument that its participation was indispensable.

In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal noted that it had received a communication from Malaysia on 23 June 2016, recalling Malaysia’s claims in the South China Sea. The Tribunal compared its decisions on the merits of the Philippines’ Submissions with the rights claimed by Malaysia and reaffirmed its decision that Malaysia is not an indispensable party and that Malaysia’s interests in the South China Sea do not prevent the Tribunal from addressing the Philippines’ Submissions.

d. Preconditions to Jurisdiction

In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal considered the applicability of Articles 281 and 282 of the Convention, which may prevent a State from making use of the mechanisms under the Convention if they have already agreed to another means of dispute resolution.

The Tribunal rejected the argument set out in China’s Position Paper that the 2002 China–ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea prevented the Philippines from initiating arbitration. The Tribunal held that the Declaration is a political agreement and not legally binding, does not provide a mechanism for binding settlement, does not exclude other means of dispute settlement, and therefore does not restrict the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Articles 281 or 282. The Tribunal also considered the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and a series of joint statements issued by the Philippines and China referring to the resolution of disputes through negotiations and concluded that none of these instruments constitute an agreement that would prevent the Philippines from bringing its claims to arbitration.

The Tribunal further held that the Parties had exchanged views regarding the settlement of their disputes, as required by Article 283 of the Convention, before the Philippines initiated the arbitration. The Tribunal concluded that this requirement was met in the record of diplomatic communications between the Philippines and China, in which the Philippines expressed a clear preference for multilateral negotiations involving the other States surrounding the South China Sea, while China insisted that only bilateral talks could be considered.

e. Exceptions and Limitations to Jurisdiction

In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered whether the Philippines’ Submissions concerning Chinese historic rights and the ‘nine-dash line’ were affected by the exception from jurisdiction for disputes concerning “historic title” in Article 298 of the Convention. The Tribunal reviewed the meaning of “historic title” in the law of the sea and held that this refers to claims of historic sovereignty over bays and other near-shore waters. Reviewing China’s claims and conduct in the South China Sea, the Tribunal concluded that China claims historic rights to resources within the ‘nine-dash line’, but does not claim historic title over the waters of the South China Sea. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ claims concerning historic rights and, as between the Philippines and China, the ‘nine-dash line’.

In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal also considered whether the Philippines’ Submissions were affected by the exception from jurisdiction in Article 298 for disputes concerning sea boundary delimitation. The Tribunal had already found in its Award on Jurisdiction that the Philippines’ Submissions do not concern boundary delimitation as such, but noted that several of the Philippines’ Submissions were dependent on certain areas forming part of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal held that it could only address such submissions if there was no possibility that China could have an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone overlapping that of the Philippines and deferred a final decision on its jurisdiction. In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal reviewed evidence about the reefs and islands claimed by China in the South China Sea and concluded that none is capable of generating an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone. Because China has no possible entitlement to an exclusive economic zone overlapping that of the Philippines in the Spratly Islands, the Tribunal held that the Philippines’ submissions were not dependent on a prior delimitation of a boundary.

In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal also considered whether the Philippines’ Submissions were affected by the exception from jurisdiction in Article 298 for disputes concerning law enforcement activities in the exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal recalled that the exception in Article 298 would apply only if the Philippines’ Submissions related to law enforcement activities in China’s exclusive economic zone. Because, however, the Philippines’ Submissions related to events in the Philippines’ own exclusive economic zone or in the territorial sea, the Tribunal concluded that Article 298 did not pose an obstacle to its jurisdiction.

Lastly, in its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered whether the Philippines’ submissions were affected by the exception from jurisdiction in Article 298 for disputes concerning military activities. The Tribunal considered that the stand-off between Philippine marines on Second Thomas Shoal and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels constituted military activities and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the Philippines’ Submission No. 14(a)-(c). The Tribunal also considered whether China’s land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands constituted military activities, but noted that China had repeatedly emphasized the non-military nature of its actions and had stated at the highest level that it would not militarize its presence in the Spratlys. The Tribunal decided that it would not deem activities to be military in nature when China itself had repeatedly affirmed the opposite. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that Article 298 did not pose an obstacle to its jurisdiction.

4. The Tribunal’s Decisions on the Merits of the Philippines’ Claims

a. The ‘Nine-Dash Line’ and China’s Claim to Historic Rights in the Maritime Areas of the South China Sea

In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered the implications of China’s ‘nine-dash line’ and whether China has historic rights to resources in the South China Sea beyond the limits of the maritime zones that it is entitled to pursuant to the Convention.

The Tribunal examined the history of the Convention and its provisions concerning maritime zones and concluded that the Convention was intended to comprehensively allocate the rights of States to maritime areas. The Tribunal noted that the question of pre-existing rights to resources (in particular fishing resources) was carefully considered during the negotiations on the creation of the exclusive economic zone and that a number of States wished to preserve historic fishing rights in the new zone. This position was rejected, however, and the final text of the Convention gives other States only a limited right of access to fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (in the event the coastal State cannot harvest the full allowable catch) and no rights to petroleum or mineral resources. The Tribunal found that China’s claim to historic rights to resources was incompatible with the detailed allocation of rights and maritime zones in the Convention and concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished by the entry into force of the Convention to the extent they were incompatible with the Convention’s system of maritime zones.

The Tribunal also examined the historical record to determine whether China actually had historic rights to resources in the South China Sea prior to the entry into force of the Convention. The Tribunal noted that there is evidence that Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, although the Tribunal emphasized that it was not empowered to decide the question of sovereignty over the islands. However, the Tribunal considered that prior to the Convention, the waters of the South China Sea beyond the territorial sea were legally part of the high seas, in which vessels from any State could freely navigate and fish. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that historical navigation and fishing by China in the waters of the South China Sea represented the exercise of high seas freedoms, rather than a historic right, and that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters of the South China Sea or prevented other States from exploiting their resources.

Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, as between the Philippines and China, there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources, in excess of the rights provided for by the Convention, within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.

b. The Status of Features in the South China Sea

In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered the status of features in the South China Sea and the entitlements to maritime areas that China could potentially claim pursuant to the Convention.

The Tribunal first undertook a technical evaluation as to whether certain coral reefs claimed by China are or are not above water at high tide. Under Articles 13 and 121 of the Convention, features that are above water at high tide generate an entitlement to at least a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, whereas features that are submerged at high tide generate no entitlement to maritime zones. The Tribunal noted that many of the reefs in the South China Sea have been heavily modified by recent land reclamation and construction and recalled that the Convention classifies features on the basis of their natural condition. The Tribunal appointed an expert hydrographer to assist it in evaluating the Philippines’ technical evidence and relied heavily on archival materials and historical hydrographic surveys in evaluating the features. The Tribunal agreed with the Philippines that Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are high-tide features and that Subi Reef, Hughes Reef, Mischief Reef, and Second Thomas Shoal were submerged at high tide in their natural condition. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Philippines regarding the status of Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef and concluded that both are high tide features.

The Tribunal then considered whether any of the features claimed by China could generate an entitlement to maritime zones beyond 12 nautical miles. Under Article 121 of the Convention, islands generate an entitlement to an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and to a continental shelf, but “[r]ocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” The Tribunal noted that this provision was closely linked to the expansion of coastal State jurisdiction with the creation of the exclusive economic zone and was intended to prevent insignificant features from generating large entitlements to maritime zones that would infringe on the entitlements of inhabited territory or on the high seas and the area of the seabed reserved for the common heritage of mankind. The Tribunal interpreted Article 121 and concluded that the entitlements of a feature depend on (a) the objective capacity of a feature, (b) in its natural condition, to sustain either (c) a stable community of people or (d) economic activity that is neither dependent on outside resources nor purely extractive in nature.

The Tribunal noted that many of the features in the Spratly Islands are currently controlled by one or another of the littoral States, which have constructed installations and maintain personnel there. The Tribunal considered these modern presences to be dependent on outside resources and support and noted that many of the features have been modified to improve their habitability, including through land reclamation and the construction of infrastructure such as desalination plants. The Tribunal concluded that the current presence of official personnel on many of the features does not establish their capacity, in their natural condition, to sustain a stable community of people and considered that historical evidence of habitation or economic life was more relevant to the objective capacity of the features. Examining the historical record, the Tribunal noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen from China, as well as other States, and that several Japanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted in the 1920s and 1930s. The Tribunal concluded that temporary use of the features by fishermen did not amount to inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive in nature. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that all of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands (including, for example, Itu Aba, Thitu, West York Island, Spratly Island, North-East Cay, South-West Cay) are legally “rocks” that do not generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

The Tribunal also held that the Convention does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly Islands to generate maritime zones collectively as a unit.

c. Chinese Activities in the South China Sea

In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered the lawfulness under the Convention of various Chinese actions in the South China Sea.

Having found that Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal and Reed Bank are submerged at high tide, form part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines, and are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China, the Tribunal concluded that the Convention is clear in allocating sovereign rights to the Philippines with respect to sea areas in its exclusive economic zone. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that China had (a) interfered with Philippine petroleum exploration at Reed Bank, (b) purported to prohibit fishing by Philippine vessels within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, (c) protected and failed to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone at Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, and (d) constructed installations and artificial islands at Mischief Reef without the authorization of the Philippines. The Tribunal therefore concluded that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights with respect to its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

The Tribunal next examined traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal and concluded that fishermen from the Philippines, as well as fishermen from China and other countries, had long fished at the Shoal and had traditional fishing rights in the area. Because Scarborough Shoal is above water at high tide, it generates an entitlement to a territorial sea, its surrounding waters do not form part of the exclusive economic zone, and traditional fishing rights were not extinguished by the Convention. Although the Tribunal emphasized that it was not deciding sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal, it found that China had violated its duty to respect to the traditional fishing rights of Philippine fishermen by halting access to the Shoal after May 2012. The Tribunal noted, however, that it would reach the same conclusion with respect to the traditional fishing rights of Chinese fishermen if the Philippines were to prevent fishing by Chinese nationals at Scarborough Shoal.

The Tribunal also considered the effect of China’s actions on the marine environment. In doing so, the Tribunal was assisted by three independent experts on coral reef biology who were appointed to assist it in evaluating the available scientific evidence and the Philippines’ expert reports. The Tribunal found that China’s recent large scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands has caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and that China has violated its obligation under Articles 192 and 194 of the Convention to preserve and protect the marine environment with respect to fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species. The Tribunal also found that Chinese fishermen have engaged in the harvesting of endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea, using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment. The Tribunal found that Chinese authorities were aware of these activities and failed to fulfill their due diligence obligations under the Convention to stop them.

Finally, the Tribunal considered the lawfulness of the conduct of Chinese law enforcement vessels at Scarborough Shoal on two occasions in April and May 2012 when Chinese vessels had sought to physically obstruct Philippine vessels from approaching or gaining entrance to the Shoal. In doing so, the Tribunal was assisted by an independent expert on navigational safety who was appointed to assist it in reviewing the written reports provided by the officers of the Philippine vessels and the expert evidence on navigational safety provided by the Philippines. The Tribunal found that Chinese law enforcement vessels had repeatedly approached the Philippine vessels at high speed and sought to cross ahead of them at close distances, creating serious risk of collision and danger to Philippine ships and personnel. The Tribunal concluded that China had breached its obligations under the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, and Article 94 the Convention concerning maritime safety.

d. Aggravation of the Dispute between the Parties

In its Award of 12 July 2016, the Tribunal considered whether China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties. The Tribunal recalled that there exists a duty on parties engaged in a dispute settlement procedure to refrain from aggravating or extending the dispute or disputes at issue during the pendency of the settlement process. The Tribunal noted that China has (a) built a large artificial island on Mischief Reef, a low-tide elevation located in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines; (b) caused permanent, irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem and (c) permanently destroyed evidence of the natural condition of the features in question. The Tribunal concluded that China had violated its obligations to refrain from aggravating or extending the Parties’ disputes during the pendency of the settlement process.

e. Future Conduct of the Parties

Finally, the Tribunal considered the Philippines’ request for a declaration that, going forward, China shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines and comply with its duties under the Convention. In this respect, the Tribunal noted that both the Philippines and China have repeatedly accepted that the Convention and general obligations of good faith define and regulate their conduct. The Tribunal considered that the root of the disputes at issue in this arbitration lies not in any intention on the part of China or the Philippines to infringe on the legal rights of the other, but rather in fundamentally different understandings of their respective rights under the Convention in the waters of the South China Sea. The Tribunal recalled that it is a fundamental principle of international law that bad faith is not presumed and noted that Article 11 of Annex VII provides that the “award . . . shall be complied with by the parties to the dispute.” The Tribunal therefore considered that no further declaration was necessary.​

相关链接:

海牙法庭裁决中文版

海牙法庭裁决英文版

显示评论

XS
SM
MD
LG