10月29日，应菲律宾单方面请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭作出有管辖权的裁决。次日，中国外交部就此发表声明，认为裁决是无效的，对中方没有拘束力。菲律宾和仲裁庭无视本案的实质是领土主权和海洋划界及其相关问题，恶意规避中国根据《联合国海洋法公约》作出的关于不接受第三方强制解决程序的排除性声明，否定中菲双方通过谈判和协商解决争端的共识，滥用程序，强行推进仲裁，严重侵犯中国的合法权利。此前，《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》（以下简称《立场文件》）已经重申中国不接受、不参与该仲裁的严正立场，并从法律上全面、深入地阐述了中国认为仲裁庭没有管辖权的立场和理据。在此，仍有必要进一步阐述相关问题。

第一，不接受、不参与该仲裁是中国政府根据国际法作出的维护自身正当权益的合理抉择。中菲南海争端的根源是菲律宾非法侵占中国南海的部分岛礁，并采取国内立法、执法及国际仲裁等手段，妄图使其非法行为合法化。

自20世纪70年代以来，菲律宾非法侵占马欢岛等自古属于中国的南沙群岛部分岛礁，并通过国内立法的方式将之纳入菲律宾的版图；对中国中沙群岛的黄岩岛提出非法领土要求，并动用军队对在此合法作业的中国渔民采取侮辱性的暴力“执法”行动。菲律宾此次对华提起国际仲裁是企图通过法律技术手段来达到其不可告人的政治目的。

第二，不接受、不参与该仲裁符合《联合国海洋法公约》的有关规定，以及中国于2006年作出的关于不接受第三方强制管辖的排除性声明，并非藐视国际法和国际法庭。在国际实践中，不接受、不参与、不承认国际司法和仲裁管辖的案例屡见不鲜。

第三，菲律宾所诉事项的实质是南海部分岛礁的领土主权问题，属于历史遗留问题。南海争端有着复杂的历史文化因素，而不光是有关法律问题的分歧，或者某个法律条文的适用和解释问题，因而其解决不仅要依据法律，而且要尊重历史。南海争端及其解决至少要考虑以下几个方面的历史因素。

首先，中国最早发现、命名和开发经营南海诸岛，最早并持续对南海诸岛实施主权管辖，这已有2000多年的历史。第二次世界大战后，中国政府收复了被日本侵占的南海诸岛，恢复对之行使主权，并于1948年公布了基本上沿用至今的南海断续线。中华人民共和国成立以来，中国政府不断采取一系列的立法、执法及其他行政措施，行使并维护南海领土主权及相关权益。

其次，世界多数国家和一些国际组织都曾经明确承认中国对南海诸岛的主权。南海周边国家在20世纪70年代之前都承认南海诸岛属于中国。比如，1958年9月4日，中国政府发表《关于领海的声明》，宣布中华人民共和国的领海宽度为12海里……声明中规定的原则“同样适用于台湾及其周围各岛、澎湖列岛、东沙群岛、西沙群岛、南沙群岛以及其他属于中国的岛屿”。9月14日，越南总理范文同向中国总理周恩来签发外交照会，表示“承认和赞成”中国的上述声明，并承诺在国家关系中“彻底尊重”中国的领海主权。按照禁止反言的法律原则，有关国家对中国南海主权的承认是有法律约束力的，不得出尔反尔。

第四，该仲裁充满了太多的美国因素。美国重返亚太，搞战略再平衡，南海问题就是其主要抓手。美国口口声声说在南海争端中不选边站队，实际上不但派军舰到南沙岛礁邻近水域对中国进行挑衅，而且支持其军事同盟菲律宾在南海问题上挑战中国。该仲裁活动主要由美国律师团队运作，开始时诉讼经费就由美国有关机构资助。2014年12月5日，美国国务院在中国政府发表《立场文件》之前两天，发表了题为《海洋界限——中国在南中国海的海洋主张》的报告，其核心是诋毁中国的南海九段线。该报告无视基本事实和法理，违背美国在南海问题上不持立场、不选边站队的承诺，其对仲裁庭施加影响、支持菲律宾的意图昭然若揭。

第五，该仲裁无助于南海问题的解决。说到底，合作共赢、共同发展才是正确的方向。由于南海问题错综复杂，以及该仲裁本身存在的种种问题，它不但注定不能解决南海争端，反而会使问题复杂化。

在国际实践中，由于国际司法和仲裁裁决不明确甚至不公正而导致争端加剧，甚至爆发武装冲突的情况不乏其例。

南海争端最终解决需要有关各方进一步的努力、耐心和政治智慧。在有关问题得到彻底解决之前，各方应当合作，共同维护南海的和平与稳定，为问题的最终解决创造条件。这一原则在2002年中国与东盟国家签署的《南海各方行为宣言》、中菲两国之间的一系列联合声明及其他文件中都能得到确认。由文莱提出、中国支持并积极推动的“双轨思路”已经成为中国与东盟关于处理、管控南海问题的共识，即有关争议由直接当事国通过友好协商谈判寻求和平解决，而南海地区的和平稳定则由中国与东盟国家共同维护。菲律宾单方面提起仲裁的做法，不符合多数国家达成的共识及南海形势发展的大趋势。

中国与南海各声索国都是发展中国家，社会经济发展是要务。随着中国经济的迅速发展，中国对包括菲律宾在内的东盟国家的投资和经济援助从2007年起就已经远远超过美国。2011年中方设立30亿元人民币的中国-东盟海上合作基金，促进中国与东盟国家的海洋合作，同时还向几乎所有的东盟国家提供巨额信贷。中国倡导的共建21世纪“海上丝绸之路”、设立“亚投行”等重大国际经济合作举措惠及包括菲律宾在内的东盟国家。在这个国际合作与发展的大背景下，通过谈判协商，寻求各方都能接受的解决办法，争取互利共赢才是当前处理南海问题的明智选择。

版权：《中国社科报》

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) 《中国社会科学报》.