10月29日，應菲律賓單方面請求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭作出有管轄權的裁決。次日，中國外交部就此發表聲明，認為裁決是無效的，對中方沒有拘束力。菲律賓和仲裁庭無視本案的實質是領土主權和海洋劃界及其相關問題，惡意規避中國根據《聯合國海洋法公約》作出的關於不接受第三方強制解決程序的排除性聲明，否定中菲雙方通過談判和協商解決爭端的共識，濫用程序，強行推進仲裁，嚴重侵犯中國的合法權利。此前，《中華人民共和國政府關於菲律賓共和國所提南海仲裁案管轄權問題的立場文件》（以下簡稱《立場文件》）已經重申中國不接受、不參與該仲裁的嚴正立場，並從法律上全面、深入地闡述了中國認為仲裁庭沒有管轄權的立場和理據。在此，仍有必要進一步闡述相關問題。

第一，不接受、不參與該仲裁是中國政府根據國際法作出的維護自身正當權益的合理抉擇。中菲南海爭端的根源是菲律賓非法侵佔中國南海的部分島礁，並採取國內立法、執法及國際仲裁等手段，妄圖使其非法行為合法化。

自20世紀70年代以來，菲律賓非法侵佔馬歡島等自古屬於中國的南沙群島部分島礁，並通過國內立法的方式將之納入菲律賓的版圖；對中國中沙群島的黃岩島提出非法領土要求，並動用軍隊對在此合法作業的中國漁民採取侮辱性的暴力“執法”行動。菲律賓此次對華提起國際仲裁是企圖通過法律技術手段來達到其不可告人的政治目的。

第二，不接受、不參與該仲裁符合《聯合國海洋法公約》的有關規定，以及中國於2006年作出的關於不接受第三方強制管轄的排除性聲明，並非藐視國際法和國際法庭。在國際實踐中，不接受、不參與、不承認國際司法和仲裁管轄的案例屢見不鮮。

第三，菲律賓所訴事項的實質是南海部分島礁的領土主權問題，屬於歷史遺留問題。南海爭端有着複雜的歷史文化因素，而不光是有關法律問題的分歧，或者某個法律條文的適用和解釋問題，因而其解決不僅要依據法律，而且要尊重歷史。南海爭端及其解決至少要考慮以下幾個方面的歷史因素。

首先，中國最早發現、命名和開發經營南海諸島，最早並持續對南海諸島實施主權管轄，這已有2000多年的歷史。第二次世界大戰後，中國政府收復了被日本侵佔的南海諸島，恢復對之行使主權，並於1948年公布了基本上沿用至今的南海斷續線。中華人民共和國成立以來，中國政府不斷採取一系列的立法、執法及其他行政措施，行使並維護南海領土主權及相關權益。

其次，世界多數國家和一些國際組織都曾經明確承認中國對南海諸島的主權。南海周邊國家在20世紀70年代之前都承認南海諸島屬於中國。比如，1958年9月4日，中國政府發表《關於領海的聲明》，宣布中華人民共和國的領海寬度為12海里……聲明中規定的原則“同樣適用於台灣及其周圍各島、澎湖列島、東沙群島、西沙群島、南沙群島以及其他屬於中國的島嶼”。9月14日，越南總理范文同向中國總理周恩來簽發外交照會，表示“承認和贊成”中國的上述聲明，並承諾在國家關係中“徹底尊重”中國的領海主權。按照禁止反言的法律原則，有關國家對中國南海主權的承認是有法律約束力的，不得出爾反爾。

第四，該仲裁充滿了太多的美國因素。美國重返亞太，搞戰略再平衡，南海問題就是其主要抓手。美國口口聲聲說在南海爭端中不選邊站隊，實際上不但派軍艦到南沙島礁鄰近水域對中國進行挑釁，而且支持其軍事同盟菲律賓在南海問題上挑戰中國。該仲裁活動主要由美國律師團隊運作，開始時訴訟經費就由美國有關機構資助。2014年12月5日，美國國務院在中國政府發表《立場文件》之前兩天，發表了題為《海洋界限——中國在南中國海的海洋主張》的報告，其核心是詆毀中國的南海九段線。該報告無視基本事實和法理，違背美國在南海問題上不持立場、不選邊站隊的承諾，其對仲裁庭施加影響、支持菲律賓的意圖昭然若揭。

第五，該仲裁無助於南海問題的解決。說到底，合作共贏、共同發展才是正確的方向。由於南海問題錯綜複雜，以及該仲裁本身存在的種種問題，它不但註定不能解決南海爭端，反而會使問題複雜化。

在國際實踐中，由於國際司法和仲裁裁決不明確甚至不公正而導致爭端加劇，甚至爆發武裝衝突的情況不乏其例。

南海爭端最終解決需要有關各方進一步的努力、耐心和政治智慧。在有關問題得到徹底解決之前，各方應當合作，共同維護南海的和平與穩定，為問題的最終解決創造條件。這一原則在2002年中國與東盟國家簽署的《南海各方行為宣言》、中菲兩國之間的一系列聯合聲明及其他文件中都能得到確認。由汶萊提出、中國支持並積極推動的“雙軌思路”已經成為中國與東盟關於處理、管控南海問題的共識，即有關爭議由直接當事國通過友好協商談判尋求和平解決，而南海地區的和平穩定則由中國與東盟國家共同維護。菲律賓單方面提起仲裁的做法，不符合多數國家達成的共識及南海形勢發展的大趨勢。

中國與南海各聲索國都是發展中國家，社會經濟發展是要務。隨着中國經濟的迅速發展，中國對包括菲律賓在內的東盟國家的投資和經濟援助從2007年起就已經遠遠超過美國。2011年中方設立30億元人民幣的中國-東盟海上合作基金，促進中國與東盟國家的海洋合作，同時還向幾乎所有的東盟國家提供巨額信貸。中國倡導的共建21世紀“海上絲綢之路”、設立“亞投行”等重大國際經濟合作舉措惠及包括菲律賓在內的東盟國家。在這個國際合作與發展的大背景下，通過談判協商，尋求各方都能接受的解決辦法，爭取互利共贏才是當前處理南海問題的明智選擇。

版權：《中國社科報》

On Oct. 29, the Arbitral Tribunal established at the unilateral request of the Philippines rendered award on jurisdiction and admissibility of the South China Sea arbitration. The following day, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement declaring that the award is null and void and has no binding effect on China. Disregarding the fact that the essence of this arbitration case is territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation and related matters, maliciously evading the declaration on optional exceptions made by China under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning non-acceptance of third-party compulsory dispute-settlement procedures, and negating the consensus between China and the Philippines on resolving disputes through negotiations and consultations, the Philippines and the Arbitral Tribunal have abused relevant procedures, obstinately pushed ahead with the arbitration, and severely violated China's legitimate rights.Previously, 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 (hereinafter referred to as the “Position Paper”) had reiterated China's solemn position of non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration and elaborated in a comprehensive and in-depth manner the legal ground on which China believes that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction on the matter. Some of the related issues need to be further explained.

First, non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration is a justifiable choice made by the Chinese government under international law to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests. The root cause of the dispute in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines is the illegal occupation of some of China's South China Sea islands and reefs by the Philippines and its attempt to legalize its illegal acts through means such as domestic legislation, law enforcement and international arbitration.

Since the 1970s, the Philippines has illegally occupied the Zhongye (Thitu) Island, Mahuan Island and other islands and reefs in China's Nansha (Spratly) Islands, and tried to include them in its map through domestic legislation, despite the fact that the above sparely populated islands and reefs have been China's territory since ancient times. The Philippines has made unlawful claims on the Huangyan Island in China's Zhongsha Islands and its military carried out violent “law enforcement” measures to punish Chinese fishermen operating legally in the area. Now, the international arbitration is an attempt by the Philippines to serve its political agenda through legal procedures.

Second, non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration conforms to the relevant provisions of the UNCLOS and the declaration on optional exceptions made by China in 2006. It constitutes no contempt of international law or the international tribunal. In international practice, non-acceptance and recognition of and non-participation in international jurisdiction and arbitration is quite common.

Third, the essence of this arbitration case is the territorial sovereignty of some South China Sea islands, which is an issue left over from history. The dispute is caused by complicated historical and cultural factors. It is not just a dispute over the relevant legal issues, or about application and explanation of a certain legal provision. Therefore, it should be resolved not only in accordance with law, but also through respect for history. The settlement of the South China Sea dispute needs to take into account the following historical factors.

One factor is that China is the first country to discover, name and develop the South China Sea islands, and it is the first country to exercise sovereign jurisdiction over the islands and has done so continuously. This can be traced back to more than 2,000 years ago. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the government has taken a series of legislative, law enforcement and other measures to exercise its sovereignty and defend its rights and interests in the South China Sea.

Another factor is that most countries and international organizations have explicitly recognized China's sovereignty over the South China Sea islands. Countries around the South China Sea all recognized China's sovereignty there before the 1970s. According to the principle of estoppel in international law, the recognition by the relevant countries of China's sovereignty over the South China Sea islands is legally binding and they are not supposed to go back on their word.

Fourth, this arbitration involves considerable US interference. The US takes the South China Sea issue as an excuse to push forward its rebalance-to-Asia strategy. On the one hand, the US claims that it does not take sides in the South China Sea dispute, but on the other, it has not only sent warships to the waters off China's Nansha islands and reefs for provocative purposes, but also supported the Philippines, one of its military allies, in challenging China over the South China Sea issue. The arbitration has been staged mainly by a US legal team, and even the litigation fees were funded by American agencies. On Dec. 5, 2014, two days before the release of China's Position Paper, the US Department of State issued a report entitled “Limits in the Seas — China: Maritime Claims in the South China Sea”. The focus of the report is to decry China's dotted line of the South China Sea. The US report turns a blind eye to basic facts and international jurisprudence. It is a violation of the US commitment of not taking position or taking sides on the South China Sea issue, and is a clear indication of the US intention to impact the arbitration and support the Philippines.

Fifth, the arbitration will not contribute to the settlement of the South China Sea issue. In the final analysis, win-win cooperation and common development is the right way to resolve the issue. Given the complexity of the South China Sea issue and the problems of the arbitration itself, it will not help resolve the South China Sea dispute. On the contrary, it will only further complicate the issue.

There are many examples, such as the temple of Preah Vihear case between Thailand and Cambodia, in which vague or unfair international judicial or arbitration rulings escalated disputes and even triggered armed conflicts.

The settlement of the South China Sea dispute calls for more efforts, patience and political wisdom from all parties concerned. Before the issue is resolved, the parties concerned need to engage in cooperation and work together to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea and create conditions for the ultimate resolution of the issue. This principle has been confirmed in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, a series of joint statements between China and the Philippines and other documents. The dual-track approach put forward by Brunei and supported and promoted by China has become the consensus of China and ASEAN countries on handling and management of the South China Sea issue. The dual-track approach means that the relevant dispute should be resolved peacefully by countries directly concerned through friendly consultations and negotiations, and peace and stability in the South China Sea should be jointly safeguarded by China and ASEAN countries. The action of the Philippines to unilaterally initiate the arbitration violates the consensus reached by the vast majority of countries and goes against the prevailing trend of development in the South China Sea.

China and other claimants are all developing countries with economic and social development as their main task. As its economy grows, China has provided much more investment and economic assistance to the Philippines and other ASEAN countries since 2007. In 2011, China set up a 3 billion yuan China-ASEAN Maritime Cooperation Fund to promote maritime cooperation between China and ASEAN countries. China has also provided hefty credit loans to almost all ASEAN countries. China's initiatives of developing the 21st century maritime Silk Road and establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and other major international economic cooperation measures have brought benefits to ASEAN countries, the Philippines included. Against such a background of international cooperation and development, it is a wise choice to seek a solution of the South China Sea issue acceptable to all parties through negotiations and consultations and strive for mutual benefit and win-win results.

The Chinese version of this article was originally published on： CHINESE SOCIAL SCIENCES TODAY (CSST) 《中國社會科學報》.