國新辦發表中菲南海爭議白皮書 完整版(4)
II. Origin of the Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea
二、中菲南海有關爭議的由來
55. The core of the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea lies in the territorial issues caused by the Philippines’ invasion and illegal occupation of some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao. In addition, with the development of the international law of the sea, a maritime delimitation dispute also arose between the two states regarding certain sea areas of the South China Sea.
55. 中菲南海有關爭議的核心是菲律賓非法侵佔中國南沙羣島部分島礁而產生的領土問題。此外，隨着國際海洋法制度的發展，中菲在南海部分海域還出現了海洋劃界爭議。
i. The Philippines’ invasion and illegal occupation caused disputes with China over some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao
（一）菲律賓非法侵佔行爲製造了中菲南沙島礁爭議
56. The territory of the Philippines is defined by a series of international treaties, including the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain (the Treaty of Paris), the 1900 Treaty between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines (the Treaty of Washington), and the 1930 Convention between His Majesty in Respect of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States regarding the Boundary between the State of North Borneo and the Philippine Archipelago.
56. 菲律賓的領土範圍是由包括1898年《美西和平條約》（《巴黎條約》）、1900年《美西關於菲律賓外圍島嶼割讓的條約》（《華盛頓條約》）、1930年《關於劃定英屬北婆羅洲與美屬菲律賓之間的邊界條約》在內的一系列國際條約確定的。
57. The Philippines’ territory so defined has nothing to do with China’s Nanhai Zhudao.
57. 中國南海諸島在菲律賓領土範圍之外。
58. In the 1950s, the Philippines attempted to take moves on China’s Nansha Qundao but eventually stopped because of China’s firm opposition. In May 1956, Tomás Cloma, a Filipino, organized a private expedition to some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao and unlawfully named them “Freedomland”. Afterwards, Philippine Vice President and Foreign Minister Carlos Garcia expressed support for Cloma’s activities. In response, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a stern statement on 29 May, pointing out that Nansha Qundao “has always been a part of China’s territory. The People’s Republic of China has indisputable sovereignty over these islands [...] and will never tolerate the infringement of its sovereignty by any country with any means and under any excuse.” At the same time, China’s Taiwan authorities sent troops to patrol Nansha Qundao and resumed stationing troops on Taiping Dao. Afterward, the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs said that the government of the Philippines did not know about Cloma’s activities or give him the consent before he took his moves.
58. 20世紀50年代，菲律賓曾企圖染指中國南沙羣島。但在中國堅決反對下，菲律賓收手了。1956年5月，菲律賓人克洛馬組織私人探險隊到南沙羣島活動，擅自將中國南沙羣島部分島礁稱爲“自由地”。隨後，菲律賓副總統兼外長加西亞對克洛馬的活動表示支持。對此，中國外交部發言人於5月29日發表聲明，嚴正指出：南沙羣島“向來是中國領土的一部分。中華人民共和國對這些島嶼具有無可爭辯的合法主權……絕不容許任何國家以任何藉口和採取任何方式加以侵犯”。同時，中國臺灣當局派軍艦赴南沙羣島巡弋，恢復在南沙羣島太平島上駐守。此後，菲律賓外交部表示，克洛馬此舉菲律賓政府事前並不知情，亦未加以同意。
59. Starting in the 1970s, the Philippines invaded and illegally occupied by force some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao and raised illegal territorial claims. The Philippines invaded and illegally occupied Mahuan Dao and Feixin Dao in August and September 1970, Nanyao Dao and Zhongye Dao in April 1971, Xiyue Dao and Beizi Dao in July 1971, Shuanghuang Shazhou in March 1978 and Siling Jiao in July 1980. In June 1978, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos signed Presidential Decree No. 1596, which designated some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao and large areas of their surrounding waters as “Kalayaan Island Group” (“Kalayaan” in Tagalog means “Freedom”), set up “Municipality of Kalayaan” and illegally included them in the Philippine territory.
59. 自20世紀70年代起，菲律賓先後以武力侵佔中國南沙羣島部分島礁，並提出非法領土要求。1970年8月和9月，菲律賓非法侵佔馬歡島和費信島；1971年4月，菲律賓非法侵佔南鑰島和中業島；1971年7月，菲律賓非法侵佔西月島和北子島；1978年3月和1980年7月，菲律賓非法侵佔雙黃沙洲和司令礁。1978年6月，菲律賓總統馬科斯簽署第1596號總統令，將中國南沙羣島部分島礁並連同周邊大範圍海域稱爲“卡拉延島羣”（“卡拉延”在他加祿語中意爲“自由”），劃設“卡拉延鎮區”，非法列入菲律賓領土範圍。
60. The Philippines has also enacted a series of national laws to lay its own claims of territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, part of which conflicted with China’s maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.
60. 菲律賓還通過一系列國內立法，提出了自己的領海、專屬經濟區和大陸架等主張。其中部分與中國在南海的海洋權益產生衝突。
61. The Philippines has concocted many excuses to cover up its invasion and illegal occupation of some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao in order to pursue its territorial pretensions. For instance, it claims that: “Kalayaan Island Group” is not part of Nansha Qundao but terra nullius; Nansha Qundao became “trust territory” after the end of the Second World War; the Philippines has occupied Nansha Qundao because of “contiguity or proximity” and out of “national security” considerations; “some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao are located in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines”; the Philippines’ “effective control” over the relevant islands and reefs has become the “status quo” that cannot be changed.
61. 菲律賓爲掩蓋其非法侵佔中國南沙羣島部分島礁的事實，實現其領土擴張的野心，炮製了一系列藉口，包括：“卡拉延島羣”不屬於南沙羣島，是“無主地”；南沙羣島在二戰後是“託管地”；菲律賓佔領南沙羣島是依據“地理鄰近”和出於“國家安全”需要；“南沙羣島部分島礁位於菲律賓專屬經濟區和大陸架上”；菲律賓“有效控制”有關島礁已成爲不能改變的“現狀”等。
ii. The Philippines’ illegal claim has no Historical or legal basis
（二）菲律賓的非法主張毫無歷史和法理依據
62. The Philippines’ territorial claim over part of Nansha Qundao is groundless from the perspectives of either history or international law.
62. 從歷史和國際法看，菲律賓對南沙羣島部分島礁的領土主張毫無根據。
63. First, Nansha Qundao has never been part of the Philippine territory. The territorial scope of the Philippines has already been defined by a series of international treaties. The United States, administrator of the Philippines at the relevant time, was clearly aware of these facts. On 12 August 1933, ex-Senator Isabelo de los Reyes of the United States-governed Philippines wrote a letter to Governor-General Frank Murphy in an attempt to claim that some Nansha islands formed part of the Philippine Archipelago on the ground of geographical proximity. That letter was referred to the Department of War and the Department of State. On 9 October, the United States Secretary of State replied that, “These islands [...] lie at a considerable distance outside the limits of the Philippine Islands which were acquired from Spain in 1898”. In May 1935, the United States Secretary of War George Dern wrote a letter to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, seeking the views of the State Department on the “validity and propriety” of the Philippines’ territorial claims over some islands of Nansha Qundao. A memorandum of the Office of Historical Adviser in the State Department, signed by S.W. Boggs, pointed out that, “There is, of course, no basis for a claim on the part of the United States, as islands constituting part of the Philippine Archipelago”. On 20 August, Secretary Hull officially replied in writing to Secretary Dern, stating that, “the islands of the Philippine group which the United States acquired from Spain by the treaty of 1898, were only those within the limits described in Article III”, and that, referring to the relevant Nansha islands, “It may be observed that [...] no mention has been found of Spain having exercised sovereignty over, or having laid claim to, any of these islands”. All these documents prove that the Philippines’ territory never includes any part of Nanhai Zhudao, a fact that has been recognized by the international community, including the United States.
63. 第一，南沙羣島從來不是菲律賓領土的組成部分。菲律賓的領土範圍已由一系列國際條約所確定。對此，菲律賓當時的統治者美國是非常清楚的。1933年8月12日，美屬菲律賓前參議員陸雷彝致信美國駐菲律賓總督墨菲，試圖以地理鄰近爲由主張一些南沙島嶼構成菲律賓羣島一部分。有關信件被轉交美國陸軍部和國務院處理。1933年10月9日，美國國務卿覆信稱，“這些島嶼……遠在1898年從西班牙獲得的菲律賓羣島的界限之外”。1935年5月，美國陸軍部長鄧恩致函國務卿赫爾，請求國務院就菲律賓對南沙羣島部分島嶼提出領土要求的“合法性和適當性”發表意見。美國國務院歷史顧問辦公室一份由博格斯等簽署的備忘錄指出，“顯然，美國毫無根據主張有關島嶼構成菲律賓羣島的一部分。”8月20日，美國國務卿赫爾覆函美國陸軍部長鄧恩稱，“美國依據1898年條約從西班牙獲得的菲律賓羣島的島嶼僅限於第三條規定的界限以內”，同時關於南沙羣島有關島嶼，“需要指出的是，沒有任何跡象顯示西班牙曾對這些島嶼中的任何一個行使主權或提出主張”。這些文件證明，菲律賓領土從來不包括南海諸島，這一事實爲包括美國在內的國際社會所承認。
64. Second, the claim that “Kalayaan Island Group” is “terra nullius” discovered by the Philippines is groundless. The Philippines claims that its nationals “discovered” the islands in 1956, and uses this as an excuse to single out some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao and name them “Kalayaan Island Group”. This is an attempt to create confusion over geographical names and concepts, and dismember China’s Nansha Qundao. As a matter of fact, the geographical scope of Nansha Qundao is clear, and the so-called “Kalayaan Island Group” is part of China’s Nansha Qundao. Nansha Qundao has long been an integral part of China’s territory and is by no means “terra nullius”.
64. 第二，“卡拉延島羣”是菲律賓發現的“無主地”，這一說法根本不成立。菲律賓以其國民於1956年所謂“發現”爲基礎，將中國南沙羣島部分島礁稱爲“卡拉延島羣”，企圖製造地理名稱和概念上的混亂，並割裂南沙羣島。事實上，南沙羣島的地理範圍是清楚和明確的，菲律賓所謂“卡拉延島羣”就是中國南沙羣島的一部分。南沙羣島早已成爲中國領土不可分割的組成部分，絕非“無主地”。
65. Third, Nansha Qundao is not “trust territory” either. The Philippines claims that after the Second World War, Nansha Qundao became “trust territory”, the sovereignty over which was undetermined. This claim finds no support in law or reality. The post-War trust territories were all specifically listed in relevant international treaties or the documents of the United Nations Trusteeship Council. Nansha Qundao was never included in them and was thus not trust territory at all.
65. 第三，南沙羣島也不是所謂的“託管地”。菲律賓稱，二戰後南沙羣島是“託管地”，主權未定。菲律賓的說法從法律和事實看，都沒有根據。二戰後的“託管地”，均在有關國際條約或聯合國託管理事會相關文件中明確開列，南沙羣島從未出現在上述名單上，根本就不是“託管地”。
66. Fourth, neither “contiguity or proximity” nor national security is a basis under international law for acquiring territory. Many countries have territories far away from their metropolitan areas, in some cases even very close to the shores of other countries. When exercising colonial rule over the Philippines, the United States had a dispute with the Netherlands regarding sovereignty over an island which is close to the Philippine Archipelago, and the United States’ claim on the basis of contiguity was ruled as having no foundation in international law. Furthermore, it is just absurd to invade and occupy the territory of other countries on the ground of national security.
66. 第四，“地理鄰近”和“國家安全”都不是領土取得的國際法依據。世界上許多國家的部分領土遠離其本土，有的甚至位於他國近岸。美國殖民統治菲律賓期間，就菲律賓羣島附近一座島嶼的主權與荷蘭產生爭端，美國以“地理鄰近”爲由提出的領土主張被判定爲沒有國際法依據。以所謂“國家安全”爲由侵佔他國領土更是荒謬的。
67. Fifth, the Philippines claims that some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao are located within its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and therefore should fall under its sovereignty or form part of its continental shelf. This is an attempt to use maritime jurisdiction provided for under UNCLOS to deny China’s territorial sovereignty. This runs directly counter to the “land dominates the sea” principle, and goes against the purpose of UNCLOS, as stated in its preamble, to “establish [...] with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and ocean”. Therefore, a coastal state can only claim maritime jurisdiction under the precondition of respecting the territorial sovereignty of another state. No state can extend its maritime jurisdiction to an area under the sovereignty of another; still less can it use such jurisdiction as an excuse to deny another state’s sovereignty or even to infringe upon its territory.
67. 第五，菲律賓稱，中國南沙羣島部分島礁位於其專屬經濟區和大陸架範圍內，因此有關島礁屬於菲律賓或構成菲律賓大陸架組成部分。這一主張企圖以《公約》所賦予的海洋管轄權否定中國領土主權，與“陸地統治海洋”的國際法原則背道而馳，完全不符合《公約》的宗旨和目的。《公約》序言規定：“在妥爲顧及所有國家主權的情形下，爲海洋建立一種法律秩序……。”因此，沿海國必須在尊重他國領土主權的前提下主張海洋管轄權，不能將自己的海洋管轄權擴展到他國領土上，更不能以此否定他國主權，侵犯他國領土。
68. Sixth, the Philippines’ so-called “effective control” on the basis of its illegal seizure is null and void. The international community does not recognize “effective control” created through occupation by force. The Philippines’ “effective control” is mere occupation by naked use of force of some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao. Such occupation violates the Charter of the United Nations and the basic norms governing international relations and is unequivocally prohibited by international law. This so-called “effective control” based on illegal seizure cannot change the basic fact that Nansha Qundao is China’s territory. China firmly opposes any attempt to treat the seizure of some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Qundao as a so-called “fait accompli” or “status quo”. China will never recognize such a thing.
68. 第六，菲律賓所謂的“有效控制”是建立在非法侵佔基礎上的，是非法無效的。國際社會不承認武力侵佔形成的所謂“有效控制”。菲律賓所謂“有效控制”是對中國南沙羣島部分島礁赤裸裸的武力侵佔，違背了《聯合國憲章》（以下簡稱《憲章》）和國際關係基本準則，爲國際法所明確禁止。菲律賓建立在非法侵佔基礎上的所謂“有效控制”，不能改變南沙羣島是中國領土的基本事實。中國堅決反對任何人試圖把南沙羣島部分島礁被侵佔的狀態視爲所謂“既成事實”或“現狀”，中國對此絕不承認。
iii. The development of the international law of the sea gave rise to the dispute between China and the Philippines over maritime delimitation
（三）國際海洋法制度的發展導致中菲出現海洋劃界爭議
69. With the formulation and entering into effect of UNCLOS, the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea have gradually intensified.
69. 隨着《公約》的制訂和生效，中國和菲律賓之間的南海有關爭議逐步激化。
70. Based on the practice of the Chinese people and the Chinese government in the long course of history and the position consistently upheld by successive Chinese governments, and pursuant to China’s national law and under international law, including the 1958 Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on China’s Territorial Sea, the 1992 Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the 1996 Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on the Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1998 Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf, and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China has, based on Nanhai Zhudao, internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. In addition, China has historic rights in the South China Sea.
70. 基於中國人民和中國政府的長期歷史實踐及歷屆中國政府的一貫立場，根據國內法以及國際法，包括1958年《中華人民共和國政府關於領海的聲明》、1992年《中華人民共和國領海及毗連區法》、1996年《中華人民共和國全國人民代表大會常務委員會關於批准<聯合國海洋法公約>的決定》、1998年《中華人民共和國專屬經濟區和大陸架法》和1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》，中國南海諸島擁有內水、領海、毗連區、專屬經濟區和大陸架。此外，中國在南海擁有歷史性權利。
71. The Philippines proclaimed its internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf according to, among others, the Philippines’ Republic Act No. 387 of 1949, Republic Act No. 3046 of 1961, Republic Act No. 5446 and Presidential Proclamation No. 370 of 1968, Presidential Decree No. 1599 of 1978, and Republic Act No. 9522 of 2009.
71. 根據菲律賓1949年第387號共和國法案、1961年第3046號共和國法案、1968年第5446號共和國法案、1968年第370號總統公告、1978年第1599號總統令、2009年第9522號共和國法案等法律，菲律賓公佈了內水、羣島水域、領海，專屬經濟區和大陸架。
72. In the South China Sea, China and the Philippines are states possessing land territory with opposite coasts, the distance between which is less than 400 nautical miles. The maritime areas claimed by the two states overlap, giving rise to a dispute over maritime delimitation.
72. 在南海，中國的陸地領土海岸和菲律賓的陸地領土海岸相向，相距不足400海里。兩國主張的海洋權益區域重疊，由此產生海洋劃界爭議。
