中国南海问题 英文
南海问题历史与现状
南海问题的历史与现状南海,也称南中国海,是世界第三大海,所属的东沙、西沙、中沙、南沙等4个群岛,统称为南海诸岛。
南海位于太平洋和印度洋之间,北靠中国华南沿海大陆,东临菲律宾,西濒越南和马来半岛,南连马来西亚和文莱。
南海海域总面积约360万平方公里,域内包括海上通道、岛屿、海峡水域。
南海地区北有台湾海峡,西南有马六甲海峡,连接西北太平洋和印度洋,形成具有重要战略意义的海上要道。
南海蕴藏着丰富的海洋资源,尤其是油气资源储量巨大。
冷战时期,东南亚是美国和苏联争霸的重要目标之一,南海地区一度成为冷战的前沿阵地。
冷战结束后,周边国家不顾南海诸岛自古就是中国领土的历史事实,抢占岛礁,开采油气。
美国、日本、印度等国乘机挑拨离间,使这一地区矛盾冲突加剧。
研究南海周边安全形势,把握斗争策略,既十分重要,也十分迫切。
南海的历史早在西汉时期,中国人就已经开始在南海航行,发现一群珊瑚岛礁,这就是今天的南沙群岛。
三国时期,万震所著的《南洲异物志》和康泰所著的《扶南传》,都有关于南沙群岛地貌特征的记述。
唐代以后,中国人越来越多地到达这一带海域从事捕捞活动,中国历代政府也随之对南沙群岛进行管辖。
明朝建立以后,政府采取一系列恢复和发展生产的措施,推动了明初社会经济的全面繁荣。
到永乐年间,造船业和航海业达到鼎盛时期,为南下西洋提供了物质条件。
1405年,郑和舟师扬帆远航,揭开了七下西洋的序幕。
至宣德八年(1433年)闰十二月初九,郑和共7次率部远航,历时28年。
中国战船在“鲸波接天,浩浩无涯”的南沙群岛海域“云帆高张,昼夜星驰”,“涉沧溟十万余里”,“若履通衢”。
郑和下西洋取得的成就是多方面的,其中最主要的是在航海方面。
在南沙群岛,郑和对地理环境进行核治、定位和命名,使中国政府对南沙群岛的主权得到实质性的佐证,巩固了对南沙群岛拥有的主权。
今天南沙群岛中的郑和群岛,就是为纪念郑和的航海业绩而命名的。
当时,南沙群岛周边国家没有远航能力,不可熊发现南沙群岛的诸多岛礁,更谈不上拥有主权。
中国南海问题 英文ppt课件
The 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (often referred to as 2002 DOC)
1. Parties reaffirmed their respect to the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the SCS, as provided for by universally recognized principles of international law and the UNCLOS.
issue 6. Other recent SCS-related developments 7. Conclusions and forecast
2
“. . . A region of lasting peace, security and stability, sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and social progress.” Preamble, ASEAN Charter
2. Reliance on peaceful settlement of international disputes. 3. Enhanced consultations on matters seriously affecting the
interests of the ASEAN. 4. Upholding the UN charter and international law.
2. Urged all parties to exercise restraint with the view to creating a positive climate for the eventual resolution of all disputes.
中国南沙实际占领岛礁及实际控制岛礁讲课稿
中国南沙实际占领岛礁及实际控制岛礁中国在南海控制岛礁比你想象的多!中国占领9个名称 ---- 英文(或拼音)名称 -------------- 掌控手段太平岛 ----- Itu Aba Island ------------- 台湾省海巡署驻防中洲礁 ----- Ban Than Reef ------------ 太平岛守备队监控渚碧礁 ----- Subi Reef ------------------ 南沙守备部队驻防南薰礁 ----- Gaven Northern Reef ----- 南沙守备部队驻防赤瓜礁 ----- Johnson Reef -------------- 南沙守备部队驻防东门礁 ----- Hughes Reef --------------- 南沙守备部队驻防永暑礁 ----- Fierry Cross Reef ---------- 南沙守备部队驻防华阳礁 ----- Cuarteron Reef ------------ 南沙守备部队驻防美济礁 ----- Mischief Reef -------------- 南海渔政部门驻防 (该礁有南北两个驻军点)(1995年,中国借口建设渔船避风设施为理由,占领美济礁,并修建多个永固型工事,并控制周围十二岛礁,以及其他未占领岛礁,但我海监船经常巡礁,被中国实际控制19个:仙娥礁 ----- Alicia Annie Reef ----------- 推测由南海舰队巡防监控信义礁 ----- First Thomas Shoal -------- 推测由美济礁守备队监控仁爱礁 ------ Second Thomas Shoal -----推测由南海渔政与南海舰队协同巡防监控三角礁 ----- Livock Reef ----------------- 推测由南海渔政与南海舰队协同巡防监控五方礁 ----- Jackson Atoll---------------- 推测由南海舰队巡防监控(菲军通过登陆舰搁浅的诡计侵占了好几年,近年应已撤兵)鲎藤礁 ------ Iroquois Reef -------------- 推测由南海舰队巡防监控(掌控程度应不次于菲律宾)仙宾礁 ------ Sabina Shoal --------------- 推测由南海舰队巡防监控(掌控程度应不次于菲律宾)牛轭礁 ----- Whitson Reef --------------- 推测由南海渔政与南海舰队协同巡防监控安乐礁 ----- Hallet Reef ----------------- 东门礁守备队监控西门礁 ----- Kennan Reef --------------- 东门礁守备队监控西南礁 ----- Gaven Southern Reef ----- 推测由南薰礁守备队监控 (该礁可能就是大家较熟知的小南熏礁)安达礁 ----- Eldad Reef ------------------ 推测由南海渔政与南海舰队协同监控 (越方暗示中国有驻军)铁线礁 ----- Tiexian Jiao ---------------- 推测由南海渔政与南海舰队协同巡防监控半月礁 ----- Half Moon Shoal ------------ 推测由南海舰队巡防监控曾母暗沙 -- James Shoal ----------------- 南海舰队定期巡视监控(设有主权碑。
南海问题英文作文
南海问题英文作文The South China Sea issue has been a hot topic in recent years. It involves territorial disputes, resource exploitation, and maritime security concerns. Many countries have conflicting claims over the area, leading to tensions and potential conflicts.Some countries, like China, claim historical rights over the South China Sea based on ancient maps and records. They argue that the area has been part of their territory for centuries and that they have the right to control and exploit its resources.On the other hand, other countries, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, reject China's claims and assert their own rights over the South China Sea. They argue that international law should govern the area and that all countries should have equal access to its resources.The United States has also been involved in the SouthChina Sea issue, conducting freedom of navigation operations to challenge China's claims and support its allies in the region. This has further escalated tensions and raised concerns about a potential military confrontation.Despite efforts to resolve the South China Sea issue through diplomacy and negotiations, progress has been slow and tensions remain high. The situation is complicated by the strategic interests of major powers and the competing claims of multiple countries.In conclusion, the South China Sea issue is a complex and volatile problem that has the potential to escalate into a major conflict. It requires careful diplomacy, respect for international law, and a willingness to compromise in order to reach a peaceful resolution.。
南海争端的原因分析
【摘要】中国对南沙群岛有着无可辩驳的主权。
二战结束后长时间内是不存在南海问题的。
从70年代开始,越南、菲律宾、马来西亚等国在南沙群岛附近海域进行大规模的资源开发并且提出主权要求。
2009年2月17日菲律宾通过《领海基线法案》,越南召开南海问题国际会议,使得南海问题再次升温。
南沙群岛的主权为何会成为各个国家所争夺的目标。
本文将从两个方面进行论述。
【关键字】南海问题;原因南沙群岛及其附近海域自古以来就是中国的领土。
第二次世界大战期间,日本发动侵华战争。
占领了南沙群岛。
在《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》以及其他国际文件明确规定把被Et本窃取的中国领土归还中国.这自然也就包含了南沙群岛。
日本政府于1952年正式表示“放弃对台湾、澎湖列岛以及南沙群岛、西沙群岛之一切权利、权利名义与要求”,从而将南沙群岛正式交还给中国。
事实上,在此后的一系列国际会议上。
美国也一直承认中国对南沙群岛的主权。
二战后。
很长一段时间内,并不存在所谓的南海问题。
南海周边的地区也没有任何国家对中国在南沙群岛及其附近海域行使主权提出过异议。
从70年代开始,越南、菲律宾、马来西哑等国以军事手段占领南沙群岛部分岛礁,在南沙群岛附近海域进行大规模的资源开发活动并提出主权要求,尤其是在最近几年越发的严重。
菲律宾国会在2009年2月17日通过《领海基线法案》。
将中国的黄岩岛和南沙群岛部分岛礁划为菲律宾领土。
越南召开以南沙群岛的主权归属为核心的南海问题国际会议,用柔性手段抢夺南海问题的主动权。
马来西亚、文莱等国家也纷纷对南海的领土主权提出要求。
我国周边邻国都想把南海划分为自己国家的领土范围是因为21世纪是海洋的世纪。
随着各国的海洋意识不断加强,海洋已成为各国争夺利益的新“战场”。
第一,海洋拥有大量的资源、能源。
工业革命后,随着经济的发展,陆地上的资源和能源也出现了紧缺的现象,尤其是天然气、石油等不可再生资源出现了严重的短缺。
而海洋还是没有被挖掘的净土。
四六级中英段落翻译预测题
大学英语段落翻译【汉译英1】近代以来,亚洲经历了曲折和艰难的发展历程。
亚洲人们为改变自己的命运,始终以不屈的意志和艰辛的奋斗开辟前进道路。
今天,人们所看到的亚洲发展成就,是勤劳智慧的亚洲人民不屈不挠、锲而不舍奋斗的结果。
亚洲人民深知,世界上没有放之四海而皆准的发展模式,也没有一成不变的发展道路,亚洲人民勇于变革创新,不断开拓进取,探索和开辟适应时代潮流,符合自身实际的发展道路,为经济社会发展打开了广阔前景。
【参考译文】In modern times, Asia experienced twists and turns in its development history. In order to change their destiny, the people of Asia have been forging ahead in an indomitable spirit and with hard struggle. Asia's development achievements today are the result of the persistent efforts of the industrious and talented Asian people.The people of Asia are fully aware (or know very well) that there is no ready model or unchanging path of development that is universally applicable. They never shy away from reform and innovation. Instead, they are committed to exploring and finding development paths that are in line with the trend of the times and their own situations, and have opened up bright prospects for economic and social development.【汉译英2】朝气蓬勃,充满活力,丰富多彩的上海是现代中国的缩影。
中国在南海实际控制岛礁
中国在南海实际控制岛礁论坛出处:西陆东方军事作者:银海狂鲨时间:2012-03-14 16:20:43南沙共有230多个岛屿,沙洲和礁滩,其中有11个岛屿,5个沙洲,20个礁是露出水面的。
面积最大的太平岛约0.443平方公里,面积大于0.1平方公里的还有:中业岛,西月岛,南威岛,北子岛,南子岛和敦谦沙洲。
最南端的曾母暗沙距赤道200海里,距祖国大陆约1000海里。
美丽的南沙岛屿资料图片马来西亚8个:岛名北纬东经时间说明弹丸岛07度24‘00" 113度48‘00" 1977建有机场光星仔礁07度37‘00" 113度56‘00" 1977南海礁07度58‘30" 113度56‘00" 1979榆亚暗沙8度07 114度30 1999年6月簸箕礁8度06 114度08 1999年6月北康暗沙5度23 112度30 不详南康暗沙5度00 112度40 不详中康暗沙4度20 112度41 不详名义上马来西亚占领八个岛礁,其实马来西亚常阻止中国海监船穿越榆亚暗沙、簸箕礁南巡,榆亚暗沙、簸箕礁以南许多岛礁和暗沙,如二角礁、浪口礁、线头礁、息波礁、南通礁、皇路礁等虽未驻军,但实际控制它们,在该海域,马来西亚已经开始采油。
越南30个:岛名北纬东经时间说明鸿麻岛10度11‘114度21‘1973 越南驻军占领,面积0。
08平方公里,岛上有淡水,为南海第九大岛南威岛08度39‘00" 114度05‘40" 1973 越南驻军占领,面积0。
15平方公里,岛上有淡水,为南海第四大岛南子岛11度25‘30" 114度19‘02" 1973 越南驻军占领,面积0。
13平方公里,岛上无淡水,为南海第六大岛敦谦沙洲10度22‘55" 114度28‘00" 1973 越南驻军占领景宏岛09度54‘00" 114度20‘00" 1973 越南驻军占领,面积0。
翻译评分标准和技巧
译文
澳门,南海之滨一颗闪耀的明珠,以她的风采、沧 桑和辉煌,更以1999年12月20日这个不同寻常的日 子,吸引着全世界的目光。
South China Sea 表示中国南海,不是“南中国 海”。East China Sea表示东海。
A shining pearl on the coast of South China, Macao attracts the world’s attention for her charm, history of great events and glory, especially for the unusual date of December 20, 1999.
1. 分句法
汉译英时,需要分译的句子多数是长句,或
者是结构复杂的复句。这种句子如果译成一个长 句,就会使译文冗长、累赘、意思表达不清楚, 也不符合英文习惯。如果采用分译,则会使译文 简洁、易懂、层次分明。如以下五个例子:
例1. 少年是一去不复返的,等到精力衰竭时,要做学 问也来不及了。(按内容层次分译) Youth will soon be gone, never to return. And it will be too late for you to go into scholarship when in your declining years.
例4. 我们的政策是实行“一个国家,两种制度”, 具体说,就是在中华人民共和国内,有着十多亿 人口的大陆实行社会主义制度,香港、台湾地区 实行资本主义制度。(原文出现总说或分述时要分 译)
译文: We are pursuing a policy of “one country with two systems.” More specifically, this means that within the People’s Republic of China, the mainland with its more than one billion people will maintain the socialist system, while Hong Kong and Taiwan continue under the capitalist system.
中国南海问题论文题目选题参考
中国南海问题论文题目一、最新中国南海问题论文选题参考1、中国南海争端及其对亚洲的影响2、中国南海问题中的美国因素3、20世纪初中国南海问题述略4、影响中国南海争端的国家因素分析5、认知理论视角下的中国南海问题研究6、中国南海问题解决策略研究7、中国南海争端中的信任问题8、中国南海问题面临的挑战及解决途径9、浅谈中国南海问题10、“中国南海问题”专题11、马来西亚与中国南海问题12、Process Matters: Conflict Resolution Insights for the South China Sea Dispute 过程很重要:对化解南中国南海争端的见解13、美国在中国南海问题上扮演的角色14、中国国家安全中的南海问题初探15、南海主权争端的战略态势及中国的应对方略16、中国南海诸岛主权的形成及南海问题的由来17、中国南海海洋政治战略研究——论南海争端中的中国作为18、菲律宾提起南海争端强制仲裁程序与中国的应对19、从睦邻政策看中国在南海问题上的立场和主张20、南海问题与中国的对策二、中国南海问题论文题目大全1、两面下注与行为调整——中国-东盟在南海问题上的互动模式研究2、“中国—东盟命运共同体”构想下南海问题的前景展望3、从南海问题说到中国外交调整4、东盟如何在南海问题上“反领导”了中国?——一种弱者的实践策略分析5、南海问题与中国经济安全6、论南海问题“东盟化”的发展——东盟政策演变与中国应对7、南海问题对中国国家安全的影响8、南海问题与中国国家安全利益9、南海问题的复杂性与中国的应对原则和策略10、中国经济安全中的南海问题11、南海争端中的美国因素及其对中国维护南海权益的影响12、“南海问题”与中国因应之策13、南海问题上的利益冲突与中国的战略选择14、南海争端对中国和平发展影响探析15、南海问题对中国“三邻”周边外交政策的挑战及对策思考16、美国南海问题政策演变的海权分析及中国的应对之策17、关于美国在南海问题新变化及中国对策的探讨18、东盟英文报章在地缘政治报道中的中国形象建构——以《海峡时报》和《雅加达邮报》报道南海争端为例19、南海问题与中国能源安全20、南海地缘形势与中国政府对南海权益的维护——以20世纪六七十年代南海争端为考察中心三、热门中国南海问题专业论文题目推荐1、南海问题对中国国家安全影响探析2、“南海问题”的实质和中国的政策3、中国南海维权的国际舆论环境演变——基于1982年以来国际媒体对南海问题报道的分析4、南海问题中的中国倡议5、南海安全问题与中国海洋战略研究6、认知、预期、互动与南海争端的解决进程——基于中国自我克制视角下的分析7、南海问题及中国海洋战略研究8、中国在南海问题上需要新思维9、南海问题与中国的应对策略10、印度介入南海问题——中国视角下的地区安全思考11、论中国在南海问题上的国家利益12、矛盾与选择:中国崛起背景下的南海问题13、南海争端中各国权利主张的法理分析及中国的对策14、中国在南海争端中的有所为与有所不为之分析15、南海争端:搁置争议的关键在于共同开发——专访中国南海研究院院长吴士存16、“搁置争议,共同开发”——中国面对南海问题的最佳抉择17、“中国海洋资源环境与南海问题”学术研讨会暨“中国第四纪科学研究会海岸海洋专业委员会”、“中国地理学会海洋地理专业委员会”2006学术年会...18、南海问题与中国21世纪海上丝绸之路建设19、中国南海石油开发问题研究20、南海问题与中国南部地缘安全四、关于中国南海问题毕业论文题目1、中国南海问题2、日本在中国南海问题上扮演的角色3、中国南海问题:利益困境及维权路径探析4、美国对中国南海问题的介入及对策研究5、菲律宾诉中国南海争端案的主体适格性问题6、论菲律宾诉中国南海争端仲裁案中的管辖权问题7、菲律宾诉中国南海争端仲裁法庭的组成程序思考8、“区域文明”语境中西方殖义及其双重危害——以中国南海问题研究为中心9、中国南海U形线与菲律宾诉中国南海争端案管辖权的关系10、中国南海问题的地理缘由11、中国南海争端的政治学分析12、“中国南海问题”的话语分析13、越南与中国南海争端的政治根源14、重振中国南海问题话语系统15、中国南海问题的对外报道策略及建议16、中国南海问题中的印度参与17、中国南海问题的法律对策18、菲律宾诉中国南海争端案的不可受理性及案件对第三方的影响19、菲律宾在提起诉中国南海争端案之前应履行的法定义务20、菲律宾诉中国南海争端案管辖权问题的思考五、比较好写的中国南海问题论文题目1、南海争端与中国南海政策初探2、权力扩散视角下的中越南海争端与中国的战略选择3、南海争端对中国国家安全利益的影响4、中国在南海问题上有理有据5、论基于南海争端的中国能源战略走向及相关投资策略6、中国处理南海问题的新思路述评7、近年来越南激化与中国在南海争端的表现、原因与中国的对策8、南海争端影响下的中国能源战略走向及其相关投资策略探析9、东盟在南海问题上的政策演变及中国的应对策略10、东盟的南海问题政策与中国对策11、国际法视野下中国应对南海争端法律问题研究12、从中越南海问题看中国的周边政策13、中国崛起视角下的南海问题分析14、中国与菲律宾南海争端仲裁案程序问题研究15、南海问题对中国-东盟自贸区升级的影响16、求解南海争端——专访中国社科院学部委员张蕴岭研究员17、中国海洋发展研究会南海分会成立大会暨第三届《南海问题与区域发展》论坛在广州召开18、美高层叫嚣惩罚中国:用武力手段处理南海问题19、试析中国在南海问题上面临的挑战20、南海争端:美国介入和中国面对--论海权在当代的重要性。
关于中国崛起的英文演讲带翻译范文(精选多篇)
关于中国崛起的英文演讲带翻译范文(精选多篇)1. Speech on the Rise of ChinaAs the world's most populous nation, China has been on a remarkable journey of transformation and modernization over the past few decades. Through economic liberalization, technological innovation, and a concerted effort to improve infrastructure and build up its industries, China has become a major economic and political force on the global stage. While challenges remain, China's rise is undoubtedly a significant development in the 21st century that will shape the future of the world.Over the past few decades, China has experienced astonishing levels of economic growth, averaging an annual GDP growth rate of roughly 9% over the past several decades. Today, China's economy is the second largest in the world, and its middle class has grown to over 400 million people. This rapid growth has led to significant improvements in living standards across the country, but it has also created numerous challenges as China seeks to maintain its growth trajectory while balancing environmental sustainability and social equity.Moreover, China's rise has created geopolitical tensions with other major powers, particularly the United States. The two countries have been engaged in a tense bilateral relationship that has been marked by trade tensions, strategic competition, and geopolitical posturing. As China becomes increasingly assertive on the world stage, it is likely that these tensions will continue to shape the dynamics of global politics.China's rise also has implications for the international system more broadly. As a major power, China is becoming increasingly influential in shaping global governance, from climate change tothe regulation of emerging technologies. The rise of China, along with other emerging powers, is challenging the dominance of the traditional actors in the international system, and there is an urgent need to rethink how global governance can be reformed to accommodate the new realities of the 21st century.In conclusion, China's rise is one of the defining developments of the 21st century. While it brings with it numerous opportunities, it also poses significant challenges for China and the rest of the world. It is up to global leaders to manage these challenges effectively and to ensure that the rise of China is ultimately a force for good in the world.中文翻译:作为世界上人口最多的国家,中国在过去几十年中经历了一次引人注目的转型和现代化之旅。
南海问题的历史与现状
南海,也称南中国海,是世界第三大海,所属的东沙、西沙、中沙、南沙等4个群岛,统称为南海诸岛。
南海位于太平洋和印度洋之间,北靠中国华南沿海大陆,东临菲律宾,西濒越南和马来半岛,南连马来西亚和文莱。
南海海域总面积约360万平方公里,域内包括海上通道、岛屿、海峡水域。
南海地区北有台湾海峡,西南有马六甲海峡,连接西北太平洋和印度洋,形成具有重要战略意义的海上要道。
南海蕴藏着丰富的海洋资源,尤其是油气资源储量巨大。
冷战时期,东南亚是美国和苏联争霸的重要目标之一,南海地区一度成为冷战的前沿阵地。
冷战结束后,周边国家不顾南海诸岛自古就是中国领土的历史事实,抢占岛礁,开采油气。
美国、日本、印度等国乘机挑拨离间,使这一地区矛盾冲突加剧。
研究南海周边安全形势,把握斗争策略,既十分重要,也十分迫切。
南海的历史早在西汉时期,中国人就已经开始在南海航行,发现一群珊瑚岛礁,这就是今天的南沙群岛。
三国时期,万震所著的《南洲异物志》和康泰所著的《扶南传》,都有关于南沙群岛地貌特征的记述。
唐代以后,中国人越来越多地到达这一带海域从事捕捞活动,中国历代政府也随之对南沙群岛进行管辖。
明朝建立以后,政府采取一系列恢复和发展生产的措施,推动了明初社会经济的全面繁荣。
到永乐年间,造船业和航海业达到鼎盛时期,为南下西洋提供了物质条件。
1405年,郑和舟师扬帆远航,揭开了七下西洋的序幕。
至宣德八年(1433年)闰十二月初九,郑和共7次率部远航,历时28年。
中国战船在“鲸波接天,浩浩无涯”的南沙群岛海域“云帆高张,昼夜星驰”,“涉沧溟十万余里”,“若履通衢”。
郑和下西洋取得的成就是多方面的,其中最主要的是在航海方面。
在南沙群岛,郑和对地理环境进行核治、定位和命名,使中国政府对南沙群岛的主权得到实质性的佐证,巩固了对南沙群岛拥有的主权。
今天南沙群岛中的郑和群岛,就是为纪念郑和的航海业绩而命名的。
当时,南沙群岛周边国家没有远航能力,不可熊发现南沙群岛的诸多岛礁,更谈不上拥有主权。
南海问题 英文作文
南海问题英文作文The South China Sea issue has been a topic of international concern in recent years. It involvesterritorial disputes between China and several Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. The situation is complex and has the potential to escalate tensions in the region.China claims most of the South China Sea as its own territory, citing historical evidence and its nine-dashline map. However, other countries in the region also claim parts of the sea based on their own historical and legal rights. This has led to overlapping claims and disputes over islands, reefs, and maritime boundaries.The South China Sea is not only important for its rich fishing grounds and potential oil and gas reserves, but also for its strategic location. It is a major shipping route, with more than one-third of global trade passing through its waters. The control and access to the SouthChina Sea have significant implications for regional security and economic stability.The South China Sea issue has become a source of tension and conflict between China and its neighboring countries. There have been incidents of military confrontation, such as the clashes between Chinese and Vietnamese vessels near the disputed Paracel Islands. These incidents have raised concerns about the possibility of a military conflict in the region.Efforts have been made to address the South China Sea issue through diplomatic means. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been playing a key role in facilitating dialogue and negotiations between the parties involved. However, progress has been slow, and there is still a lack of consensus on how to resolve the disputes.The South China Sea issue is not just a regional concern, but also a global one. The United States has been closely monitoring the situation and has expressed itssupport for a peaceful resolution based on international law. Other countries, such as Japan and Australia, have also voiced their concerns and called for a peaceful and rules-based order in the South China Sea.In conclusion, the South China Sea issue is a complex and sensitive matter that requires careful diplomacy and negotiation. The disputes over territory and maritime boundaries in the region have the potential to escalate tensions and disrupt regional stability. It is importantfor all parties involved to engage in peaceful dialogue and find a mutually acceptable solution to ensure peace and prosperity in the South China Sea.。
俄罗斯学者为何将中国视为敌人
俄罗斯学者为何将中国视为敌人?【邱震海军事观察】2016-01-19各位听众朋友,大家早上好!欢迎大家收听今天1月18号星期一的《邱震海军事观察》我们这个栏目是由蜻蜓FM与我本人的微信公号联合推出,同时也得到讯飞听见的技术支持。
今天我们来谈谈俄罗斯和中国的关系,同时看看美国人现在怎么评估中国在南海的策略,以及2016年南海局势走向。
最近大家可能看到两个新闻,第一个是美国一位智囊学者在美国的一个刊物上撰写一篇文章,说中国目前正在两条腿走路,正在用两手策略。
第一是加快在南海的扩岛建礁,加快他的军事拓展、军事存在;另外在试图用经济和贸易的力量依然抓住东南亚各国,我想这个本身没有什么特别多的吸引力,这个只是作为一个消息,跟大家做一个分享。
但是另外一个消息倒是令我们引起一定的关注,就是俄罗斯的媒体最近发表一篇文章,说俄罗斯有一位学者说,中国未来是俄罗斯潜在的敌人。
这话一说然后让人觉得大惊失色。
虽然其实坦率的讲,你去问中国的老百姓,对俄罗斯朋友是不是放心,很多人对俄罗斯可能是不是那么放心。
因为200年前或者150年之前,19世纪的时候,坦率的讲中华民族吃过两个邻居的大亏:一个是日本,另外一个就是俄罗斯。
虽然说美国跟中国恩怨情仇不断,但美国做一个太平洋东岸的国家,它离中国太远了,而且在20世纪其实美国在很多问题上,尤其在反法西斯、在共同抗日的问题上给中国有很多的帮助,所以中国对美国其实没有实际的切肤之痛。
相反中国人对美国的印象感觉或者切身的感受相当程度还是不错,但是日本和俄罗斯这两国家就不一样,日本和俄罗斯都是曾经让中华民族吃过大亏的国家,当然尤其是日本,第二个是俄罗斯,所以很多老一代的中国朋友,其实对俄罗斯的观感或者感觉不是那么良好的,这当然是过去的事情。
再加上上个世纪中苏冷战、中苏交恶这段时间也让人感到俄罗斯或者他的前苏联有很多不可预期的,无法让人觉得unpredictable不可预期的因素在里面。
但是所幸的是过去25年,由于中国和俄罗斯共同的战略处境而导致共同的战略需求,那么具体来说就是冷战刚结束的时候,双方要各自摆脱各自的外交孤立,同时走在一起。
中国南海问题 16页
中国南海问题分析目录一、南海的历史1.地理位置简介2.中国与南海二、南海争端的原因视频:南海争端如何形成(12’8”)南海纷争何时起(2’2’)1.经济利益2.航运资源3.治权无法落实4.国际法三、南海的现状1.南海诸岛受控现状2.资源被盗现状视频:马鼎盛:越南勾结大国光复南沙靠人和.flv(1’49”)3.军事现状四、解决南海问题的复杂性1.东盟2.大国的干涉视频:南海问题:大国博弈小国作棋_clip0.avi(4'4")3.国际法因素五、中国夺回南海的必要性1.维护主权2.战略的需要视频:C形包围圈(5'44")3.资源的需要六、解决南海问题的思路1法律方法2.战争方法视频:南海争端:中国该不该亮剑].f4v.f4v(13’40”)3.政治方法为什么要“共同开发”政策遇到的瓶颈具体内容介绍:一、南海的历史1.地理位置简介:南海是亚洲三大边缘海之一。
北接中国广东、广西,属中国海南省管辖。
南缘曾母暗沙为中国领海的最南端。
东面和南面分别隔菲律宾群岛和大巽他群岛与太平洋、印度洋为邻,西临中南半岛和马来半岛,为面积3,500,000平方公里(1,351,350平方哩)的深海盆。
平均深度1212米,最深处达5559米。
南海是中国海域中面积最大的一个海,渤海、黄海、东海加在一起还不如南海大。
南海面积近360万平方公里。
世界上面积超过300万平方公里的海只有3个,南海排在南太平洋的珊瑚海和印度洋的阿拉伯海之后,是世界第三大海。
南海诸岛是南海中中国许多岛屿、沙洲、礁、暗沙和浅滩的总称。
它们分布的范围很广。
南北绵延1800公里,东西分布约900多公里。
共有岛、礁、沙、滩200多个。
诸岛北起海岸附近的北卫滩,西起万安滩,南至曾母暗沙,东止黄岩岛、自北至南,大致可以分为东沙、西沙、中沙和南沙四大群岛。
南海诸岛行政上一向隶属广东省管辖。
1984年5月31日第六届全国人民代表大会第二次会议审议国务院议案,决定设立海南行政区,将西沙群岛、南沙群岛、中沙群岛改由海南行政区管辖。
英文Poster-南海问题
Week4 Week5
Integrate data and make and modify PPT
Trial lecture, rehearsal, improvement and modification
Methods
We plan to collect relevant materials in various ways, including not only academic literature, but also speeches of foreign departments of relevant countries, government announcements, relevant United Nations documents and so on. On this basis, we conduct full integration and analysis, and conduct group discussion to form a complete point of view.
Backgrounds
In our previous research, we found that the existing research on the South China Sea issue basically belongs to one family. We consider the issue from our own position and do not fully analyze the incident and its parties. We strive to collect more sufficient data, conduct more complete analysis and get more objective conclusions. In particular, the 2016 Philippine south China Sea arbitration case and the Declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea will be our focus.[8]
南海问题的历史与现状
早在西汉时期,中国人就已经开始在南海航行,发现一群珊瑚岛礁,这就是今天的南沙群岛。三国时期,万震所著的《南洲异物志》和康泰所著的《扶南传》,都有关于南沙群岛地貌特征的记述。唐代以后,中国人越来越多地到达这一带海域从事捕捞活动,中国历代政府也随之对南沙群岛进行管辖。
明朝建立以后,政府采取一系列恢复和发展生产的措施,推动了明初社会经济的全面繁荣。到永乐年间,造船业和航海业达到鼎盛时期,为南下西洋提供了物质条件。1405年,郑和舟师扬帆远航,揭开了七下西洋的序幕。至宣德八年(1433年)闰十二月初九,郑和共7次率部远航,历时28年。中国战船在“鲸波接天,浩浩无涯”的南沙群岛海域“云帆高张,昼夜星驰”,“涉沧溟十万余里”,“若履通衢”。郑和下西洋取得的成就是多方面的,其中最主要的是在航海方面。在南沙群岛,郑和对地理环境进行核治、定位和命名,使中国政府对南沙群岛的主权得到实质性的佐证,巩固了对南沙群岛拥有的主权。今天南沙群岛中的郑和群岛,就是为纪念郑和的航海业绩而命名的。当时,南沙群岛周边国家没有远航能力,不可熊发现南沙群岛的诸多岛礁,更谈不上拥有主权。
新中国成立后,中央政府郑重宣布拥有南海诸岛主权。1951年8月15日,中国政务院总理兼外交部长周恩来在《关于美、英对日和约草案及旧金山会议的声明》中指出:“西沙群岛和南威岛正如整个南沙群岛及中沙群岛、东沙群岛一样,向为中国领土。”1992年2月25日,中国政府公布《领海及毗连区法》,重申中华人民共和国的陆地领土包括东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛、南沙群岛以及其他一切属于中华人民共和国的岛屿。1998年6月26日,中国政府公布的《专属经济区和大陆架法》第十四条指出:“本法的规定不影响中华人民共和国享有的历史性权利。”按照国际通行的岛屿制度方案,中国南海断续线内的海域面积约为187万平方公里,此外还可划面积约123万平方公里的管辖海域。
南海仲裁案裁决全文
菲律宾闹剧:南海仲裁案裁决全文(英文版)发表于2016年7月13日作者danke在上周7月5日的文章里,我们就分享了有关菲律宾南海闹剧的一些新闻热词,包括所谓仲裁庭的名称和仲裁相关的一些词汇,感兴趣的可以移步至:南海仲裁案英语热词| The South China Sea arbitration今天是7月12日,是菲律宾南海闹剧案,也就是南海仲裁案的裁决的日子,一下子朋友圈都火爆了关于中国一个点都不能少的图片,足以显现我们高昂的士气、不屈的意志和捍卫主权的誓死精神。
有关最终裁决的中文翻译版已经第一时间发布在了:菲律宾闹剧:南海仲裁案裁决全文(中文版)。
也有很多朋友表示对英文原版的裁决文感兴趣,一是想从原文角度了解下本次裁决的全部内容,二是想参考了解下相关裁决的英文表示方式,第三自然是更重要的是看看闹剧最终出的是一个什么样漏洞百出的裁决文件,我们好好地给他找找茬。
由于原文有501页,我就不在正文复制粘贴了,实在是放不下。
另外一方面,真是觉得帝国主义忘我之心不死啊,你们几个小子闹着玩,还费那么大劲搞个500来页的判决材料来,吓唬谁啊?此处是下载链接: /s/1gfi9Z7l 密码: 794i补充:为了方便大家阅读,我从整个裁决文件里面,把裁决的正文找出来了,贴在下面。
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 2016The Tribunal Renders Its AwardA 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 pa rty 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 a lso 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, andby 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 eve nt 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 iss ues 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, althoughChinese 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 severalJapanese 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’ sove reign 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 exp anded 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 theConvention 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 AlfredH.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 /web/view/7, including the Award onJurisdiction 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 ArbitrationThe Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization established by the1899 Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The PCA has 121 MemberStates. 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 arbitr al 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; JudgeThomas A. Mensah (Presiding Arbitrator); Judge Jean-Pierre Cot; Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum; PCA SeniorLegal Counsel Garth Schofield; former Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, Mr. Albert F. DelRosario; 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’ CLAIMS1. Background to the ArbitrationThe South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China concerned an application bythe 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 Chin a 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 m atter 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 Ph ilippines’ 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 24to 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’ PositionsThe Philippines made 15 Submissions in these proceedings, requesting the Tribunal to find that: (1) Ch ina’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 marit ime 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 Convent ion; 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’ r ights 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 contem poraneous public statements and diplomatic correspondence.3. The Tribunal’s Decisions on the Scope of its JurisdictionThe 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 apreliminary 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 MattersIn 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 ConventionIn 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-PartiesIn 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 theTribunal’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. Th e 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 JurisdictionIn 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 the refore 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 JurisdictionIn 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 d isputes 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 C hina’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 conclud ed 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。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
9
The 2002 ASEAN-China DOC (cont’d)
Pending a comprehensive and durable settlement of the disputes, the parties concerned may explore or undertake cooperative activities such as: (a) marine environmental protection; (b) marine scientific research; (c) safety of navigation and communication at sea; (d) search and rescue operation; and (e) combating transnational crime, including but not limited to trafficking in illicit drugs, piracy and armed robbery at sea, and illegal traffic in arms. 4. Parties shall continue their consultations and dialogues concerning relevant issues for the purpose of promoting good neighborliness and transparency, establishing harmony, mutual understanding and cooperation and facilitating peaceful resolution of disputes among them.
7
The 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (often referred to as 2002 DOC) 1. Parties reaffirmed their respect to the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the SCS, as provided for by universally recognized principles of international law and the UNCLOS. 2. Parties resolved to address their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UNCLOS. 3. Parties undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes including refraining from action of inhabiting on the uninhabited islands, reefs, etc and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.
3
Principles relevant to the SCS Issue
1. Renunciation of aggression or the threat or use of force or other acts in any manner inconsistent with international law. 2. Reliance on peaceful settlement of international disputes. 3. Enhanced consultations on matters seriously affecting the interests of the ASEAN. 4. Upholding the UN charter and international law.
2
“. . . A region of lasting peace, security and stability, sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and social progress.” Preamble, ASEAN Charter . . . A concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity; and bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies. ASEAN Vision 2020
5
Why a flashቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱoint?
4. Four of the six claimant countries (Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam) are ASEAN member countries; one affected non-claimant country is also an ASEAN member - Indonesia. The Philippines has brought to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) its complaints against the aggressive behavior of China 5. The dominating claimant country is China - - a potential global power and an acknowledged regional power with a modernizing military force; perceived to be resorting to all means to defend its publicly stated position that “its sovereignty in the Spratly is non-negotiable.”
4
Why a flashpoint?
◦ 1. Strategic value of the SCS: vital sealane and trade route; with abundant marine resources, oil and natural gas. ◦ 2. US pronouncement that “it will maintain its presence in the South China sea” and that the peaceful resolution of the SCS issue is in its national interests. US position on the SCS is regarded by China as an act of provocation. ◦ 3. Difficulty in resolving the conflicting positions of the claimant countries in resolving the SCS issue: bilateral negotiation as favored by China versus multilateral negotiation as favored by claimants belonging to the ASEAN. The US is supporting the position taken by the ASEAN.
6
The 1992 ASEAN Declaration on the SCS
1. Emphasized the necessity to resolve all sovereignty and jurisdictional issues by peaceful means, without resort to force. 2. Urged all parties to exercise restraint with the view to creating a positive climate for the eventual resolution of all disputes. 3. Asked all parties to explore the possibility of cooperation in the SCS relating to the safety of maritime navigation and communication, protection against pollution of maritime environment, coordination of search and rescue operations, efforts towards combating piracy and armed robbery as well as collaboration in the campaign against illicit trafficking in drugs. 4. Urged all parties to apply the principles contained in the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia as the basis for establishing a code of international conduct over the SCS.