崔天凯：拒绝南海仲裁案，维护自身利益，捍卫国际正义和国际法基本原则
.jpg)
2016年7月12日，应菲律宾单方面请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭作出的所谓“裁决”。中国政府发表“中国政府关于在南海的领土主权和海洋权益的声明”，外交部发表“中国外交部关于应菲律宾请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭所作裁决的声明”，郑重声明该裁决是无效的，没有拘束力，中国不接受、不承认。上外附中68届校友、中华人民共和国驻美利坚合众国特命全权大使崔天凯当天在位于美国华盛顿的世界著名智库——战略与国际问题研究中心（CSIS, Center for Strategic and International Studies）发表演讲，声明中国拒绝南海仲裁案，既是为维护自身利益，也是为捍卫国际正义和国际法基本原则。微校刊《西索》（SISU）「天下」栏目特刊发崔天凯大使演讲中英双语版。
中国拒绝南海仲裁案是维护自身利益，也是为捍卫国际正义和国际法基本原则
----崔天凯大使在战略与国际问题研究中心的讲话
谢谢哈姆雷博士。
我们今天在这里讨论南海形势。为此，我愿首先提请大家注意中方今天早些时候发布的两份重要声明，一份是“中国政府关于在南海的领土主权和海洋权益的声明”，另一份是“中国外交部关于应菲律宾请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭所作裁决的声明”。我认为这两份声明清晰和权威地阐述了中方的立场。我强烈建议大家认真阅读。在此基础上，我愿在这两份重要声明的框架内发表一些看法与各位探讨。
第一，中国为什么不接受仲裁？
我们认为，提起仲裁背离了仲裁需建立在国家同意基础上的通行实践。中国2006年根据《联合国海洋法公约》第298条作出了排除性声明，将涉及海洋划界等问题排除在此类程序之外。这起仲裁案是在未经中方同意的情况下进行的。仲裁庭也超越了权限。该案虽经精心包装，但毫无疑问其核心问题是领土争议，而领土问题不由《公约》规范。
有人也许会说仲裁庭可以决定自身的管辖权。但仲裁庭并不能任意行事，而应严格按照《公约》的规定作出决定。对仲裁越权无知，是专业水平低下。如果明知故犯，就是道德操守有问题。
此外，提起仲裁案并非出于善意。我们都知道《联合国宪章》呼吁成员国“发展国际间友好关系”，《公约》本身则开宗明义要求坚持“互相谅解和合作的精神”。这起仲裁案的提起并非基于上述善意，将法律当作政治工具的意图昭然若揭。
更令人不安的是，仲裁进程将严重破坏国际社会成员通过谈判协商解决任何可能存在的争议的努力，仲裁庭贬低《南海各方行为宣言》更是令人吃惊。《宣言》是中国和东盟国家近十年共同外交努力的成果，是所有有关各方作出的庄严承诺。仲裁案为国际上滥用仲裁程序打开了大门，必将损害或削弱各国通过谈判协商解决争议的动力，引发冲突甚至对抗，并将最终损害国际法的权威性和有效性。
与这出闹剧同时上演的还有军事胁迫行为，例如不断增加的驱逐舰、航空母舰、战略轰炸机和侦察机等。我认为这是十足的“强权即公理”的表现。在此情况下，中国别无选择，只能予以反对和拒绝。中国坚决拒绝仲裁案，是维护自身利益，我们有权这么做，这也是为坚持国际正义，履行捍卫国际法基本原则的责任。今天针对中国的行为，明天就可能针对国际社会其他成员，中国必须站出来反对并予以制止。
中国维护自身权益及国际正义的意志坚定不移，不会屈从于任何压力，无论这种压力来自军事行动、媒体攻击或某些自封的法律机构。中国当然也不会为了几句好评拿核心利益做交易。事实上，任何一国政府如果不能站出来捍卫本国领土主权，不能捍卫本国的核心利益，还有何形象可言？
第二，人们可能会问，是什么导致了地区局势的紧张？
中国长期以来对南海诸岛拥有主权，直到20世纪70年代以前从未受到质疑，但７０年代后越来越多的中国岛礁被他国非法侵占。即便如此，南海局势依然是可控的。多年来中国和其他地区国家能够管控分歧，并且总体上能够发展友好合作关系。我们甚至成功制定了《南海各方行为宣言》，在共同开发方面也取得了虽不大但很有意义的进展。
但局势在大约五、六年前开始出现紧张，与大家听说的“转向亚洲”大体同时发生。过去几年，争端加剧，关系紧张，互信削弱。这些问题占据了国际和地区议程的太多时间和精力，而这些时间和精力本可用来促进合作。谁由此获益呢？我认为没有任何一方从中获益。中国没有，东盟没有，从长远看甚至美国也没有。如果亚太陷入不稳，如果地区经济增长的势头受挫，如果发生武装冲突，中国、其他地区国家、美国等所有各方的利益都会受损。
那些可能幻想搭“转向”进程便车并从中牟利的人，请他们到伊拉克、利比亚和叙利亚去问问那儿的人结果是什么。愿不能乱许，说不定就会成真。
有人可能会将问题归咎于中国近期的岛礁建设活动。但事实上中国是最后一个开始南海岛礁建设的国家，而且只在我们实际控制且已有人驻守的岛礁上进行建设。我们没有试图将他国非法侵占的岛礁夺回来。建设速度快慢不能改变活动的性质。在完成目前的岛礁设施建设后，中国将能够提供更多国际公益，例如民事服务。当然，底线是我们必须拥有足够的自卫能力。
许多事情都是打着“航行自由”的旗号干的。但商船在南海的航行自由从来没有问题。美国的“航行自由行动”原本就是意在针对《公约》有关规定的反制行动。事实上，许多缔约国都认为应区分商用和民用船只的航行自由以及军用舰只的“航行自由”。
中国坚定支持南海航行自由，因为南海航道是中国和许多地区国家的经济生命线。我们将尽一切努力确保该海域的商业流通不受阻碍，并制止任何扰乱地区局势的企图。我们感到担心的是“自我实现的预言”：美方在南海集结大量军舰、军机、先进武器，将真正危及各国商用和民用船只的航行自由。如此大规模集中火力，这种行为在世界上任何地方都是紧张的根源。
第三，现在应当如何处理争议？
我认为，争议当事方谈判协商仍是唯一可行和有效之道。外交努力不应、也不会被一张废纸和几艘航母阻挡。中国将继续致力于同其他争议方进行谈判协商，这个立场没有也不会改变。事实上，中国在这方面成绩斐然：我们已经与14个陆上邻国中的12个划定了陆地边界，也与越南完成了北部湾的海洋划界。我们有信心，中国和其他当事方在不受外来干扰的情况下完全可以通过谈判协商逐步解决争议。中国与邻国解决边界问题的成绩举世无双，我认为人们找不出另外一个能在短短几十年内解决与邻国长期存在的边界问题的例子。
谈判协商的大门是始终敞开的。我们对与邻国的关系，特别是与东盟国家的关系充满信心。领土和海洋争议只是中国与部分东盟国家关系中的一部分，而不是中国与东盟整体关系的全部。我们与东盟国家已经做了千百年的邻居，实际上已成为命运共同体。地区的稳定、和平和繁荣与我们均休戚相关。我们将极大受益于更紧密的合作和更良好的互信。我们没有哪一个能够“转向”到世界任何其他地区去。
第四，中美应当怎么做？
首先，南海争议不应是中美两国之间的问题。中美之间不存在领土争议。南海问题更不应被视为中美之间的“战略竞争”。领土争议不应被放大或夸大。我们绝不能让这个问题定义如此重要的中美关系。
其次，冷战思维解决不了当今世界的问题。当今世界比以往任何时候都需要各国，特别是大国之间建立伙伴关系，构建以合作共赢为核心的新型国际关系。中国致力于与美国建设不冲突、不对抗、相互尊重、合作共赢的新型大国关系。我们希望中美在亚太的互动是积极和建设性的。美方如何看待当今世界，如何看待中国的发展，如何看待中美关系？我们拭目以待。
我知道美国今年正面临重要的选择，但美国还有其他极为重要的选择要作。美国是否会作出正确的选择？我们能否推进合作共赢的伙伴关系？希望美国能作出正确选择，并且以明确的方式作出这样的选择。
Remarks of Ambassador Cui Tiankai at Center for Strategic and International Studies
Thank you, Doctor Hamre,
We are here today to discuss the situation of the South China Sea. For that matter, let me first of all refer all of you to two important statements issued by the Chinese side earlier today. One is the Statement of the Government of China on China''s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. The other is a statement issued by China''s Foreign Ministry on the award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration established at the request of the Republic of the Philippines. I think these two statements have outlined China''s position with great clarity and authority. I strongly recommend all of you have a careful reading of these two documents.
On that basis, within the framework of these two important documents, let me offer a few comments, and maybe we could discuss these points of views.
First, why does China reject the arbitration?
We believe the submission and initiation of this arbitration violates the general practice that arbitration should be premised on state''s consent. China made an optional exceptions declaration back in 2006 in accordance with Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which excludes issues like maritime delimitation from such processes. This case is done without the consent of China. Also, it exceeds its own jurisdiction. The case was carefully masked. But it is beyond any doubt that the core issues are territorial disputes, and territorial issues are not subject to the UNCLOS.
People may say the tribunal may decide on its own jurisdiction. But it does not have a free hand. It has to make the decision in strict accordance with the provisions of the UNCLOS. Failure to recognize that is a matter of professional incompetence. Deliberate disregard is a matter of questionable integrity.
Also this case was initiated not out of good will or good faith. We all know that the UN Charter calls for development of friendly relations among its members, and the UNCLOS itself starts with a call for the spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation. But this arbitration case was initiated not in such good faith or good will. It was a clear attempt to use the legal instrument for political purposes.
What is more disturbing is that the proceedings will probably do a great deal of damage to the efforts by members of the international community to engage in negotiations and consultation for settlement of any possible disputes. What is astonishing is that this tribunal even belittles the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). The DOC is an instrument that is the result of a decade-long joint diplomatic efforts by China and ASEAN countries, and it embodies the solemn commitments of all parties concerned. This arbitration case will probably open the door of abusing arbitration procedures. It will certainly undermine or weaken motivation of countries to engage in negotiations and consultations for solving their disputes. It will certainly intensify conflicts and confrontation. In the end, it will undermine the authority and effectiveness of international law.
Such absurd proceedings were taking place in combination with military coercion - with mounting activities by destroyers, aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, reconnaissance planes and many others. I believe this is an outright manifestation of "might is right". Under these circumstances, China has no alternative but to oppose it and reject it. We are doing this to safeguard our own interests, as we have the right to do so. But more importantly, we are doing this to defend international justice and the true spirit of international law, as we have the responsibility to do so. What is happening to China today could probably happen tomorrow to any other member of the international community, and China has to stand up to it and stop it.
China has the firm will to safeguard its own interests and rights, and international justice. We will not yield to any pressure, be it in the form of military actions, media criticism or some self-claimed legal bodies. And we will certainly not make deals on our core interest just for a few words of praise. Indeed, in any country, if a government fails to stand up and defend its own sovereignty and territory, if it fails to defend the core interest of its own people, there is no image to speak of.
Second, what has intensified tensions in the region?
China has longstanding sovereignty over the islands and reefs in the South China Sea. This sovereignty had not been challenged until the 1970s when more and more Chinese islands and reefs were illegally occupied by others. But even so, the situation was under control. China and other countries in the region were able to manage the differences for so many years, and we were able to develop an overall friendly and cooperative relationship with each other. We even succeeded in formulating the DOC, and there have been small but significant progress towards joint development of resources.
But tensions started to rise about five or six years ago, about the same time when we began to hear about "pivoting to Asia". In the last few years, disputes intensified, relations strained and confidence weakened. These issues have taken so much time and energy at so many regional and international fora, and the time and energy should have been spent on promoting cooperation. Have anyone really benefited from this? I don''t think so. Not China, not ASEAN countries, not even the U.S. in the long run. If the Asia-Pacific is destabilized, if the momentum of regional economic growth is weakened, if armed conflict started, everybody''s interest will be hurt, including our interest, the interest of other countries in the region, and I''m sure the interest of the U.S.
As for those people who might have the illusion that they could have a free ride on the pivoting exercise and gain something from it, please go to countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria and ask the people there. Be careful what you wish. You might actually get it.
Some might put the blame on China''s recent reclamation activities. But the fact is that China is the last country to do so, and we are doing so only on the islands and reefs under our own control - islands and reefs where we have people stationed there. We are not trying to take back the islands and reefs that are illegally occupied by others. And speed does not change the nature of the issue. With the completion of the facilities we are building there, I am sure we will be able to offer more international public goods, such as services for civilian use. Of course, the bottom line is that we will be in a position to defend ourselves.
Many things have been done under the name of freedom of navigation. But freedom of navigation for commercial vessels has never been a problem in the South China Sea. "Freedom of Navigation Operations" by the U.S. were originally designed as a counter-measure to the provisions of the UNCLOS. Many contracting parties believe that distinctions should be made between freedom of navigation of commercial and civilian vessels, and freedom of navigation of military vessels.
China firmly stands for freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, because these sea lanes are the economic life lines for China and many countries in the region. We will do everything possible to safeguard the unimpeded flow of commerce and stop any attempt to destabilize the region. But what worries us is that there might be some self-fulfilling prophecies. Such an assembly of aircraft carriers, airplanes and sophisticated weapons could pose a real threat to the freedom of navigation of commercial and civilian vessels. Such a concentration of fire-power would be a source of concern anywhere in the world.
Third, how should we deal with the disputes now?
I believe negotiations and consultations among parties concerned still offer the most feasible and effective way. Diplomatic efforts should not, and will not be blocked by a scrap of paper or by a fleet of aircraft carriers. China remains committed to negotiations and consultations with other parties. This position has never changed and will not change. In fact, China has an excellent record in this regard. We have already solved boundary issues with 12 neighbors out of 14 on the land. We even have agreed with Vietnam for part of the maritime delimitation in Beibu Bay (Tonkin Gulf). So we are confident that China and other parties concerned, if not disturbed, will be able to solve the disputes over time through negotiations and consultations. This record of China of solving boundary issues with its neighbors is quite unique in the world. I don''t think you could give me another example of solving such long-standing border issues with its neighbors in the last few decades.
So the door is always open for negotiations and consultations. We have full confidence in our relations with our neighbors, particularly with ASEAN countries. Maritime or territorial disputes are only part of the relations between China and some ASEAN countries. It certainly does not represent the entirety of the relationship between China and ASEAN countries as a group. We have been neighbors for centuries. We are actually a community of common destiny. All of us have high stakes in regional stability, peace and prosperity. All of us will benefit a great deal from closer cooperation and enhanced mutual confidence, and none of us will ever pivot to anywhere else in the world.
Fourth, What then should we do between China and the U.S.?
First of all, these territorial issues in the South China Sea should not become issues between our two countries. We don''t have territorial disputes between us. Still less should they be seen as part of "strategic rivalry" between our two countries. These are just territorial disputes. They should not be magnified or exaggerated. And we should never allow them to define the important relationship between our two countries.
Secondly, cold war mentality will not solve problems of today''s world. Today''s world needs more than ever before partnership among countries, especially among the major players. Today''s world needs more than ever before a set of new international relations centered on win-win cooperation. We in China stand for a new model of relationship with the U.S., characterized by no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation. We want to see constructive and positive interactions in the Asia-Pacific between our two countries. We are here to see what kind of choice the U.S. will make: how you see the world today, how you see China''s development, and how you see the relationship between our two countries.
I know that you have important choices to make this year, but this is also an extremely important choice for you to make. Will you make the right choice? Can we go forward with a win-win partnership? I hope you make the right choice, and I hope you do so in a very clear way.
（来源：中华人民共和国驻美利坚合众国大使馆网站）
