3月5日，《海峡时报》刊登陈晓东大使题为《中方不参与、不接受南海仲裁案既依法又讲理》的署名文章。全文如下：

        自2013年菲律宾单方面就中菲有关南海争议提起强制仲裁以来，引发各方持续关注。一些西方政要、学者近来频频发声，“预判”裁决结果，突出其法律约束力，强调各方都应遵守。中国从一开始即亮明不接受、不参与仲裁的立场，这既是行使《联合国海洋法公约》赋予中国的正当权利，也是维护国际法权威性的切实体现，具有充分的国际法依据。

　　首先，中菲南海争议的实质是南沙群岛部分岛礁领土争议和海域划界问题，仲裁庭对菲律宾提出的仲裁请求不具管辖权。

　　菲律宾提交的南海仲裁诉状长达数百页，企图绕开南海南沙群岛部分岛礁存有领土争议的事实，要求适用《联合国海洋法公约》（以下简称《公约》）规定确定中国在南海的海洋权利，将其仲裁请求包装成为《公约》的解释和适用问题，企图否定中方在南海的领土主权和海洋权益。但再巧妙的包装，也不能掩饰其提请仲裁事项的实质是南海南沙群岛部分岛礁的领土主权和海域划界问题。

　　关于岛礁领土争议，有国际法常识的人都清楚，这并不属于《联合国海洋法公约》管的事。对此，《公约》序言中就开宗明义指出，“认识到有需要通过本公约，在妥为顾及所有国家主权的情形下，为海洋建立一种法律程序。”显然，“妥为顾及所有国家主权”是适用《公约》确定缔约国海洋权利的前提。

　　关于海域划界问题，中方已于2006年根据《公约》第298条作出声明，将涉及海域划界、军事活动等相关事项排除适用《公约》第十五部分规定的强制争端解决程序。事实上，中国不是首个行使这一权利的国家。全球已有30多个国家根据《公约》作出了排除性声明，5个常任理事国中除了尚未加入《公约》的美国外，其它四国都作出了类似声明。中国作出的排除性声明符合相关国际法和普遍国际实践。而菲律宾在并未穷尽双边磋商和谈判途径的情况下，不经与中方协商，单方面强行提起仲裁，与仲裁需要由当事方同意的普遍国际实践背道而驰。

　　第二，仲裁庭于2015年10月底就管辖权和可受理性作出的裁决是无效的，对中方没有约束力。

　　对此，中国外交部在该裁决出台后不久即发表声明，阐明上述立场。仲裁庭回避了中菲南海争议实质是岛礁领土争议和海域划界问题的事实，并根据菲方单方面陈述认定自身对案件具有管辖权，极力扩权，不仅在很大程度上降低了各缔约国进入强制争端解决程序的门槛，而且背离了《公约》的宗旨和目的，给《公约》的完整性和权威性造成损害。

　　更需要引起重视的是，仲裁庭在其作出的管辖权和可受理性裁决中，刻意贬损《南海各方行为宣言》的作用和效力。这份宣言是由中国和东盟十国政府签署，其中也包括菲律宾时任外长的签字，是中国和东盟国家致力于妥善处理南海问题的心血结晶和纲领性文件。这种做法不仅无法有效发挥定纷止争的应有作用，也将影响中国和地区国家共同维护南海和平稳定的努力。

　　第三，处理南海问题的“双轨”思路，即由直接当事国通过友好协商和谈判寻求和平解决，而南海的和平与稳定由中国和东盟国家共同维护，才是真正的问题解决之道。

　　南海问题复杂敏感，找到各方均能接受的方案绝非易事。无论仲裁庭作出何种裁决，都不会改变什么，相反很可能会一石激起千层浪，刺激个别声索国采取进一步的侵权和挑衅行为，不仅无助于问题的解决，而且使有关矛盾进一步复杂化、扩大化、尖锐化，对管控局势和争议解决产生负面影响。这也是中方所不愿看到的。

　　中菲是搬不走的邻居。中菲之间解决南海争议的唯一正确途径，还是要秉持“双轨”思路，回到双边谈判桌前，谈起来、谈下去、直至谈出双方都能接受的方案。我注意到，菲律宾国内一些有识之士也愈发认识到，双边谈判才是解决问题的钥匙。对中方而言，通过直接谈判解决南海争议的大门始终向菲方敞开。

　　同时，中国和东盟国家正全面落实《南海各方行为宣言》，积极推进“南海行为准则”磋商，取得了“重要和复杂问题清单”和“‘准则’框架要素清单”两份共识文件等重要早期收获，“准则”磋商业已进入复杂和敏感问题讨论的新阶段。作为中国—东盟关系协调国，新加坡为此发挥了积极作用。我们期待着继续同新加坡等东盟国家一道，秉持“双轨”思路，为妥善处理南海问题，维护地区和平稳定不懈努力。

英文原文版：

The arbitration case filed unilaterally by the Philippines on its disputes with China in the South China Sea is drawing wide attention. Some Western politicians and pundits are already second-guessing the outcome of this case and calling for the award to be legally binding and observed by all parties.

China has made it clear from the very beginning that it does not accept the arbitration and will not participate in it. In doing so, China is exercising its lawful right under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) and demonstrating its commitment to upholding the authority of international law.

First, the South China Sea disputes between China and the Philippines are, in essence, territorial disputes over some islands and reefs in the Nansha islands and disputes of maritime delimitation thereof. The arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the Philippines' arbitration submissions.

The Philippines' Memorial is a careful attempt to circumvent the disputes over territory and maritime delimitation, negate China's sovereignty and maritime interests in the South China Sea, and reframe the arbitration to be about China's maritime rights under Unclos and the interpretation and application of Unclos. Such contrived spin, however, cannot conceal the very nature of the disputes, which are disputes over territory and maritime delimitation.

It does not require a profound knowledge of international law to recognise that Unclos does not have jurisdiction over territorial disputes. The preamble of Unclos proclaims "the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans". It is apparent that "due regard for the sovereignty of all States" is the prerequisite for determining maritime rights of the States Parties under Unclos.

As early as 2006, China had submitted, in accordance with Article 298 of Unclos, the declaration on Optional Exceptions, excluding China from the compulsory dispute-settlement proceedings in Part XV of Unclos in terms of maritime disputes over delimitation, military activities, among others. China is only one of the 30-plus Unclos signatories to exercise this lawful right. Others include four of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The odd man out is the United States, which has so far not ratified Unclos. Hence, China's declaration on Optional Exceptions is in line with international law and norms.

Moreover, the Philippines unilaterally launched the arbitration without exhausting the channels of bilateral consultation and negotiation or obtaining prior consent from the Chinese side, which is contradictory to the generally accepted norm, namely, arbitration should be filed with the agreement of the parties concerned.

Second, the award on jurisdiction and admissibility of the arbitral tribunal in October last year is null and void in the legal sense and has no binding effect on China.

Shortly after the award was rendered, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement expounding China's position. The arbitral tribunal ignored the fact that the case is about disputes on territory and maritime delimitation, and established and expanded its jurisdiction only on the basis of the Philippines' statement. In so doing, the tribunal's award has significantly lowered the threshold of the Unclos compulsory dispute- settlement proceedings. It ran counter to Unclos purposes and objectives, and eroded its integrity and authority.

More importantly, the arbitral tribunal, in its award, even cast doubts on the status and effects of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). The DOC was signed by the governments of China and 10 Asean member states, and there is also the signature of the then Philippine Foreign Minister. The DOC is a hard-won achievement and a guideline for China and Asean countries in properly handling the South China Sea issue. Downplaying its authority will undercut the DOC's role in promoting stability and the resolution of disputes, and undermine the joint efforts of China and regional countries in this regard.

Third, the dual-track approach provides a real way to resolve the South China Sea disputes. The dual track means that specific disputes should be addressed peacefully by parties directly concerned through friendly consultation and negotiation, and peace and stability in the South China Sea shall be jointly upheld by China and Asean countries.

The South China Sea issue is complex and sensitive. No matter what awards the tribunal makes, it won't change anything on the ground. On the contrary, the award would only encourage certain claimants to take desperate action, which will lead to further complications and escalation, and negatively impact the management of the situation and the settlement of disputes.

China and the Philippines are neighbours who can never run away from each other. The only right way for the two countries to resolve their disputes in the South China Sea is to uphold the dual-track approach and pursue bilateral negotiations until they are brought to a mutually acceptable conclusion. As far as I can see, insightful people in the Philippines have increasingly realised that negotiations with China hold the key to the solutions. On the part of China, the door for negotiations will always be open for the Philippines.

China and Asean countries are engaged in the comprehensive implementation of the DOC and active consultations over a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, which has yielded two lists of commonalities. The consultations have now moved to the stage of dealing with complex and sensitive issues.

As the Country Coordinator for Asean-China Dialogue Relations, Singapore has played a positive role in this process. China hopes to work together with Singapore and other Asean countries to jointly uphold the dual-track approach and relentlessly pursue the proper handling of the South China Sea issue, which is in the interest of regional peace and stability.

（来源：中国驻新加坡大使馆，海峡时报）