II. Origin of the Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea

二、中菲南海有关争议的由来

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. 中菲南海有关争议的核心是菲律宾非法侵占中国南沙群岛部分岛礁而产生的领土问题。此外，随着国际海洋法制度的发展，中菲在南海部分海域还出现了海洋划界争议。

i. The Philippines’ invasion and illegal occupation caused disputes with China over some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao

（一）菲律宾非法侵占行为制造了中菲南沙岛礁争议

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. 菲律宾的领土范围是由包括1898年《美西和平条约》（《巴黎条约》）、1900年《美西关于菲律宾外围岛屿割让的条约》（《华盛顿条约》）、1930年《关于划定英属北婆罗洲与美属菲律宾之间的边界条约》在内的一系列国际条约确定的。

57. The Philippines’ territory so defined has nothing to do with China’s Nanhai Zhudao.

57. 中国南海诸岛在菲律宾领土范围之外。

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世纪50年代，菲律宾曾企图染指中国南沙群岛。但在中国坚决反对下，菲律宾收手了。1956年5月，菲律宾人克洛马组织私人探险队到南沙群岛活动，擅自将中国南沙群岛部分岛礁称为“自由地”。随后，菲律宾副总统兼外长加西亚对克洛马的活动表示支持。对此，中国外交部发言人于5月29日发表声明，严正指出：南沙群岛“向来是中国领土的一部分。中华人民共和国对这些岛屿具有无可争辩的合法主权……绝不容许任何国家以任何借口和采取任何方式加以侵犯”。同时，中国台湾当局派军舰赴南沙群岛巡弋，恢复在南沙群岛太平岛上驻守。此后，菲律宾外交部表示，克洛马此举菲律宾政府事前并不知情，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世纪70年代起，菲律宾先后以武力侵占中国南沙群岛部分岛礁，并提出非法领土要求。1970年8月和9月，菲律宾非法侵占马欢岛和费信岛；1971年4月，菲律宾非法侵占南钥岛和中业岛；1971年7月，菲律宾非法侵占西月岛和北子岛；1978年3月和1980年7月，菲律宾非法侵占双黄沙洲和司令礁。1978年6月，菲律宾总统马科斯签署第1596号总统令，将中国南沙群岛部分岛礁并连同周边大范围海域称为“卡拉延岛群”（“卡拉延”在他加禄语中意为“自由”），划设“卡拉延镇区”，非法列入菲律宾领土范围。

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. 菲律宾还通过一系列国内立法，提出了自己的领海、专属经济区和大陆架等主张。其中部分与中国在南海的海洋权益产生冲突。

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. 菲律宾为掩盖其非法侵占中国南沙群岛部分岛礁的事实，实现其领土扩张的野心，炮制了一系列借口，包括：“卡拉延岛群”不属于南沙群岛，是“无主地”；南沙群岛在二战后是“托管地”；菲律宾占领南沙群岛是依据“地理邻近”和出于“国家安全”需要；“南沙群岛部分岛礁位于菲律宾专属经济区和大陆架上”；菲律宾“有效控制”有关岛礁已成为不能改变的“现状”等。

ii. The Philippines’ illegal claim has no historical or legal basis

（二）菲律宾的非法主张毫无历史和法理依据

62. The Philippines’ territorial claim over part of Nansha Qundao is groundless from the perspectives of either history or international law.

62. 从历史和国际法看，菲律宾对南沙群岛部分岛礁的领土主张毫无根据。

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，南沙群岛从来不是菲律宾领土的组成部分。菲律宾的领土范围已由一系列国际条约所确定。对此，菲律宾当时的统治者美国是非常清楚的。1933年8月12日，美属菲律宾前参议员陆雷彝致信美国驻菲律宾总督墨菲，试图以地理邻近为由主张一些南沙岛屿构成菲律宾群岛一部分。有关信件被转交美国陆军部和国务院处理。1933年10月9日，美国国务卿复信称，“这些岛屿……远在1898年从西班牙获得的菲律宾群岛的界限之外”。1935年5月，美国陆军部长邓恩致函国务卿赫尔，请求国务院就菲律宾对南沙群岛部分岛屿提出领土要求的“合法性和适当性”发表意见。美国国务院历史顾问办公室一份由博格斯等签署的备忘录指出，“显然，美国毫无根据主张有关岛屿构成菲律宾群岛的一部分。”8月20日，美国国务卿赫尔复函美国陆军部长邓恩称，“美国依据1898年条约从西班牙获得的菲律宾群岛的岛屿仅限于第三条规定的界限以内”，同时关于南沙群岛有关岛屿，“需要指出的是，没有任何迹象显示西班牙曾对这些岛屿中的任何一个行使主权或提出主张”。这些文件证明，菲律宾领土从来不包括南海诸岛，这一事实为包括美国在内的国际社会所承认。

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，“卡拉延岛群”是菲律宾发现的“无主地”，这一说法根本不成立。菲律宾以其国民于1956年所谓“发现”为基础，将中国南沙群岛部分岛礁称为“卡拉延岛群”，企图制造地理名称和概念上的混乱，并割裂南沙群岛。事实上，南沙群岛的地理范围是清楚和明确的，菲律宾所谓“卡拉延岛群”就是中国南沙群岛的一部分。南沙群岛早已成为中国领土不可分割的组成部分，绝非“无主地”。

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，南沙群岛也不是所谓的“托管地”。菲律宾称，二战后南沙群岛是“托管地”，主权未定。菲律宾的说法从法律和事实看，都没有根据。二战后的“托管地”，均在有关国际条约或联合国托管理事会相关文件中明确开列，南沙群岛从未出现在上述名单上，根本就不是“托管地”。

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，“地理邻近”和“国家安全”都不是领土取得的国际法依据。世界上许多国家的部分领土远离其本土，有的甚至位于他国近岸。美国殖民统治菲律宾期间，就菲律宾群岛附近一座岛屿的主权与荷兰产生争端，美国以“地理邻近”为由提出的领土主张被判定为没有国际法依据。以所谓“国家安全”为由侵占他国领土更是荒谬的。

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，菲律宾称，中国南沙群岛部分岛礁位于其专属经济区和大陆架范围内，因此有关岛礁属于菲律宾或构成菲律宾大陆架组成部分。这一主张企图以《公约》所赋予的海洋管辖权否定中国领土主权，与“陆地统治海洋”的国际法原则背道而驰，完全不符合《公约》的宗旨和目的。《公约》序言规定：“在妥为顾及所有国家主权的情形下，为海洋建立一种法律秩序……。”因此，沿海国必须在尊重他国领土主权的前提下主张海洋管辖权，不能将自己的海洋管辖权扩展到他国领土上，更不能以此否定他国主权，侵犯他国领土。

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，菲律宾所谓的“有效控制”是建立在非法侵占基础上的，是非法无效的。国际社会不承认武力侵占形成的所谓“有效控制”。菲律宾所谓“有效控制”是对中国南沙群岛部分岛礁赤裸裸的武力侵占，违背了《联合国宪章》（以下简称《宪章》）和国际关系基本准则，为国际法所明确禁止。菲律宾建立在非法侵占基础上的所谓“有效控制”，不能改变南沙群岛是中国领土的基本事实。中国坚决反对任何人试图把南沙群岛部分岛礁被侵占的状态视为所谓“既成事实”或“现状”，中国对此绝不承认。

iii. The development of the international law of the sea gave rise to the dispute between China and the Philippines over maritime delimitation

（三）国际海洋法制度的发展导致中菲出现海洋划界争议

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. 随着《公约》的制订和生效，中国和菲律宾之间的南海有关争议逐步激化。

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. 基于中国人民和中国政府的长期历史实践及历届中国政府的一贯立场，根据国内法以及国际法，包括1958年《中华人民共和国政府关于领海的声明》、1992年《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》、1996年《中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于批准<联合国海洋法公约>的决定》、1998年《中华人民共和国专属经济区和大陆架法》和1982年《联合国海洋法公约》，中国南海诸岛拥有内水、领海、毗连区、专属经济区和大陆架。此外，中国在南海拥有历史性权利。

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. 根据菲律宾1949年第387号共和国法案、1961年第3046号共和国法案、1968年第5446号共和国法案、1968年第370号总统公告、1978年第1599号总统令、2009年第9522号共和国法案等法律，菲律宾公布了内水、群岛水域、领海，专属经济区和大陆架。

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，中国的陆地领土海岸和菲律宾的陆地领土海岸相向，相距不足400海里。两国主张的海洋权益区域重叠，由此产生海洋划界争议。