中国决不接受所谓仲裁庭裁决结果（中英对照）

China Will Never Accept So-called Arbitral Ruling

中国决不接受所谓仲裁庭裁决结果

On 26 July, the Financial Times and its website published a signed letter by Ambassador Liu Xiaoming entitled “China will never accept so-called arbitral ruling”. The full text is as follows:

2016年7月26日，英国主流大报《金融时报》纸质版和网络版同时刊登驻英国大使刘晓明题为《中国决不接受所谓仲裁庭裁决结果》的署名信函，全文如下：

Sir, your editorial “A big test for Beijing over the South China Sea” (July 13) accuses China of sabotaging international law, called for “a united front” to press China at the G20 summit and make China pay the “hefty costs” for rejecting the arbitration ruling. I hereby reiterate that China is firmly opposed to the South China Sea arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines and will never accept the so-called ruling.

7月13日，贵报发表了题为《北京在南海问题上面临巨大考验》的社论，无端指责中国破坏国际法，呼吁结成“国际统一战线”，要在G20等各种场合对华施压，让中国为拒绝仲裁庭裁决结果“付出代价”。我愿重申，中方坚决反对菲律宾单方面非法提起的南海仲裁案，决不承认所谓仲裁结果。

First, China does not acknowledge that the arbitral ruling is safeguarding the primacy of law. In the name of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dispute settlement, the tribunal’s operation was totally against the provisions of the Convention. An example of this is the tribunal’s self-expansion of power and ultra vires. The nature of the arbitration initiated by the former Philippine government boils down to disagreements over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Territorial issues are beyond the purview of UNCLOS, and issues of maritime delimitation have been excluded by the declaration that China made in 2006 under Article 298 of UNCLOS. The arbitral ruling not only severely infringed upon China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, but also severely violated the credibility and authority of international law.

一、中国不承认仲裁结果是维护国际法的权威。南海仲裁案仲裁庭打着《联合国海洋法公约》的幌子审理争议，干的却是完全违反《公约》的勾当。特别需要指出的是，仲裁庭擅自扩权、滥权。菲律宾前政府提起仲裁事项的实质是领土主权与海洋划界问题，而领土主权问题不属于《公约》调整范围。2006年中国政府根据《公约》298条款，已声明将涉及海洋划界等方面的争端排除出《公约》强制争端解决程序。因此，仲裁庭裁决结果严重侵犯了中国的领土主权和海洋权益，严重损害了国际法的信誉和权威。

Second, the composition and proceedings of the tribunal were both dubious. Having not a single arbitrator from Asia, the composition of the tribunal lacks representativeness. In addition, the tribunal adopted unusual procedures. UNCLOS stipulates that if the States Parties which are parties to a dispute have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful means of their own choice, third-party dispute settlement procedures apply “only where no settlement has been reached by recourse to such means”. However, when it decided upon whether to start compulsory arbitration, the tribunal totally ignored China’s stance and efforts to resolve the dispute peacefully through negotiation.

二、仲裁庭组成、审理程序问题重重。其组成缺乏代表性，没有一名来自亚洲的仲裁员。其程序不合常理，《公约》明文规定，缔约国如果已协议自行选择和平方法解决争端，则只有在用尽这种方法而仍未得到解决的情况下，才适用第三方争端解决程序。然而，仲裁庭在裁定是否有权启动强制性仲裁的时候，完全无视中方通过谈判和平解决争端的立场和努力。

Third, China maintains that the dispute should be settled through negotiation between countries directly concerned. During the past decades, China has settled boundary issues with 12 of its 14 neighbours on land, and has delimited the maritime boundary in Beibu Bay with Vietnam. We welcome the recent statement by the new government of the Philippines that it’s ready to reopen consultation and dialogue with China on the South China Sea issue. We hope the two countries will work together to bring China-Philippine relations back to the track of healthy development at an early date.

三、中国主张通过与直接当事国谈判解决争议。过去几十年，中方与14个陆上邻国中的12个划定了陆地边界，与越南完成了北部湾的海洋划界。我们欢迎菲律宾新政府最近表示愿同中国就南海问题恢复协商对话，我们期待菲方与中方相向而行，共同推动中菲关系尽早重回健康发展轨道。