本帖最后由 vivicat 于 2009-8-22 20:02 编辑
【中文标题】中国声称占有东海的80%是完全没有根据的
【原文标题】China’s claim to 80 percentof East Sea completely unfounded
【登载媒体】越南青年人报
【原文链接】http://www.thanhniennews.com/features/?catid=10&newsid=51851
【翻译方式】人工
【翻译者】連長
【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载。
【原文库链接】http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-190134-1-1.html
【译文】
[译者注：南中国海因位于越南东部，因此在越南被称为东海，本文的东海即南中国海；本文译者非专业人士，部分法律条文名词性翻译可能有误，在此仅作参考；文中才出现的部分人名、地名一律采用原文。]
China’s claim to 80 percentof East Sea completely unfounded
中国声称占有东海的80%是完全没有根据的
Alongwith adiplomatic note dated May 7, 2009 to the UN Secretary Generalobjecting toVietnam’s Submission on its Outer Limits of
the Continental Shelf to the UN,China also attached a map stating its “nine-dash line” claims over the EastSea.
随着外交人员于2009年5月7日照会联合国秘书长反对越南向联合国提交的关于其大陆架的外部界限，中国还附上了地图说明其声称拥有东海的“九虚线”。
The Chinesenote stated that “China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in theSouth China Sea (Eastern Sea) and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereignrights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed andsubsoil thereof (see attached map).”
中国人暗示“中国对南中国海（东海）的群岛以及近水领域拥有无可争辩的主权，包括在有关水域的海床和海土享有主权权利和管辖权利。（见附图）
On May 8,Vietnam’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations sent diplomatic note 86/HC –2009 to the UN Secretary-General refuting the claim and the map submitted byChina.
5月8日，越南常驻联合国代表团发出外交照会86/HC – 2009，向联合国秘书长批驳中国地图主张的要求。
On the same day, the Vietnamese Foreign Ministryspokesman Le Dung told a press conference that Vietnam held incontrovertiblesovereignty over the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) archipelagoes,saying they were Vietnamese territory.
在同一天，越南外交部发言人LeDung在记者招待会上说：“对Hoang Sa (Paracel) 岛和Truong Sa(Spratly)群岛拥有不容置疑的主权，这是越南的领土。”
“China’s claim of the nine-dash line on the map attachedto its diplomatic note is null and void as it has no legal, historical andfactual ground,” Dung said.
“中国外交照会地图上主张的九虚线是无效的，因为它没有任何法律、历史和事实依据。”Dung说。
In this article, I will not analyze Vietnam’s sovereigntyover the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes, but will instead focus on thelarger East Sea as a whole and provide an in-depth analysis of the nine-dashline China drew on the map attached to its diplomatic note.
在本篇文章中，我不会分析越南对Hoang Sa (Paracel)岛和TruongSa (Spratly)群岛的主权，但是会整体聚焦大东海以及深入分析中国外交照会上提供的九虚线。
The creation of the dubious line
设立有争议的界线
The dotted line – drawn in the East Sea on the map fromthe Chinese side – is usually referred to as the “nine-dash line” (since it iscomposed of nine dashes) or the “U-shaped line.”
该虚线—在中国地图上的东海面---通常被称为“九虚线”（因为它由9个破折号组成）或者叫做“U形线”。
The “U-shaped” or “nine-dotted” line are two differentways international scholars have addressed the same demarcation of China’sclaims to over 80 percent of the East Sea. The line was drawn close to severalcountries, including Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines.
关于“U形线”或者“九点”线，国际上的学者以两种不同的方法同样主张划分中国拥有东海的80%。该线画出了接近的国家，包括越南、印度尼西亚、马来西亚、文莱和菲律宾。
An original 11-dotted line was first drawn by the Chinesegovernment of 1947. The Chinese government then altered it to the nine-dashline with two dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin deleted.
原始的11点线最开始是由中国政府在1947年提出的。然后中国政府在北部湾删除了2个破折号后变为九虚线。
China’s note dated May 7, 2009 is perhaps the firstdiplomatic statement in the last 60 years of China’s official stance on theinternational legal significance of the nine-dash line. It was also the firsttime China formally introdrced the world to the nine-dash line map.
中国2009年5月7日的照会也许是60年来中国官方首次站在国际舞台上对法律意义上的九点线发表外交声明。这也是中国第一次在世界上正式介绍九虚线。
China had never ever issued any official declaration onthe international and national legal significance of this line before, despitethe fact that the line had been drawn many times on Chinese maps.
中国在这之前的任何时候都从没有在国际间对法律意义上的这条线发表任何正式声明，尽管事实是中国地图已经多次标出该线。
Even in important legal documents issued by China , likethe 1958 Declaration on China'sTerritorial Sea, the 1992 Law of thePeople's Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the1996 Declaration of the Government of thePeople's Republic of China on the Baselines of the Territorial Sea, and the1998 Law of the People's Republic ofChina on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf, China hadalways stopped short of explaining this nine-dash line.
即使是中国发布的重要的法律文件, 像《1958年的中国领海宣言》, 《1992年中华人民共和国领海和毗邻水域法》,1996年政府颁布《中华人民共和国中国的基线领海 》, 1998年《中华人民共和国中国专属经济区和大陆架 》，中国一直没有解释这个九虚线。
At numerous international conferences, such as the annualWorkshop on Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea in Indonesiasince 1991, Chinese scholars have offered different and even dividedexplanations of what the dotted line means.
在多次国际会议上，如1991年来每年一次的致力于管理中国与印尼在南中国海的潜在冲突的研讨会，中方学者总是提出不同的甚至是用分开解释的手段说明什么是九虚线。
But there is a very important question that has remainedunanswered by international and Chinese scholars: how were the exact locationsof each dash established?
但那儿还有一个非常重要的问题仍然没有得到国际的和中方学者的答复：如何确立每个破折号设立的地点？
No document, be it official or unofficial, has beenissued to account for this.
无论是官方还是非官方的，都没有文件解释这个问题。
A claim with no international legal value
对（南中国海）的要求没有国际法律意义
The first and most commonly used argument Chinesescholars have clung to when explaining the dotted lines drawn on the EasternSea map is that the claim must be considered under the international lawsexisting when the map was drawn. China has dismissed the use of the 1982 UNConvention on the Law of the Sea as a way to evaluate the legality of itsclaim.
中国学者第一最常用的论据是紧握住东海地图上的九虚线不放，声称地图的绘制必须考虑现有国际法律。中国否认使用1982年联合国海洋法公约作为一种评价其主张具有合法性的手段。
At the time the original 11-dotted line was drawn in1947, the International Law of the Sea stipulated that the territorial watersof a country would be a three mile territorial sea limit from the lowest tide.Outside the territorial waters of each country, international waters would be arealm in which every country could enjoy the freedom of the high seas.
原始的11虚线是在1947年画出的，国际海洋法规定的领海是一个国家从最低潮开始的3海里宽度内设限。领海以外为彼此共有，其中每个国家都能享受公海自由。
Until 1958, different governments of China allrecognized, or at least did not publicly object to, the three-mile sea limitrule. Thus, even according current international laws, China’s claims over 80percent of East Sea cannot be considered legal.
在1958年以前，中国不同的政府都承认，或者没有公开反对3海里上限规则。因此，即使按照目前的国际法律， 中国声称拥有80%的东海主权是不能被认为合法的。
Dr.Hasjim Djalal , a prominentIndonesian sea law expert, wrote: “It is inconceivable that in 1947, when generalinternational law still recognized only a three mile territorial sea limit,that China would claim the entire South China Sea.”
Hasjim Djalal博士，一位印尼的著名海洋法专家，他写道：在1947年，当时一般国际法仍然只承认3海里领海限制，令人不可思议的是中国将要求整个南中国海。
The same conclusion can only be drawn about the claims of“sovereignty and jurisdiction” over 80 percent of the East Sea stated inChina’s May 7, 2009 note, since at the moment, coastal countries have no rightsto expand their sovereignty outside their territorial waters. It needs to beemphasized that the International Law of Sea includes the “seabed and subsoilthereof” inside the territorial waters. Thus, China cannot demand thesovereignty and jurisdiction over the large sea located in its dotted line.
中国在2009年5月7日提交的照会只能得出关于南中国海80%的“主权和管辖权”主张的同样结论，因为目前，沿海国家都没有权利去扩大其主权以外的水域。需要强调的是，国际海洋法规定领海包括“海床和底土”。因此，中国不能要求其主权和管辖权的线占大部分海域。
The second argument offered by Chinese scholars toaccount for the dotted line is that the line was drawn in 1947 so China can saythe sea area located in the line is it’s “historic” territory.
中国学者所提出第二个论据解释界限是1947年画出的，以便中国可以说明界限内的领土的“历史性”。
It needs to remembered that participating countries atthe Third United Nations Conference On The Law Of The Sea were at odds over theadoption of regulations and definitions about the historic waters into the 1982UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, from deliberations at theworkshop, it can be concluded that the criteria necessary to declare historicalsovereignty over territory are:
需要记住的事实是在联合国海洋法公约第3次会议上，各国没有就将历史海域的概念写入1982年《联合国海洋法公约》达成一致。然而，研讨会上可以得出的结论认为申报领土主权的历史性必须具有一定的标准：
- The claim has to be made public.
- 有关主张已经公布
- The claiming country has to exercise sovereignty overthe area efficiently, continuously, and peacefully for a long period of time.
- 主张行使主权的地区由该国控制，并以和平的方式持续很长一段时间。
- The claim must be recognized by countries involved.
- 有关主张必须是参与国公认的
Although international law has never recognized thedemands made by China in relation to the East Sea, let’s consider objectivelyif China can meet those aforesaid criteria.
虽然国际法从来没有承认中国提出的关于东海的要求，让我们客观地考虑，如果中国能够满足这些上述标准。
Firstly, it is evident that all maritime, oil, andfishing activities of all countries inside and outside the East Sea had facedno obstruction from the Chinese side until the 1990s. It is thus easy tounderstand why people have doubted that Chine can meet the criterion ofexercising real sovereignty in a continual and peaceful manner for a longperiod of time since 1947.
首先，显而易见的是所有海事，石油，捕鱼都在东海的内部或外部进行并且中国直到90年代都一直没有阻挡，因此不难理解为什么人们怀疑从1947年以来中国能够满足在和平的方式下行使真正的主权的标准。
Secondly,countries in the region have refused to recognize what China calls its“historic rights”. On the contrary, they have worked out their own regulationson the waters and signed joint treatieson overlapping waters as well as other cooperation deals in the East Seadespite objections from China, let alone other disputes about sovereignty overarchipelagoes in the East Sea.
其次，该地区国家均拒绝承认什么中国所谓的“历史性权利”。相反，他们已制订出在各自水域的章程，尽管中国反对，但仍签署了《重叠水域联合条约》以及其他在东海的合作协议，更不用说在东海其他争议群岛的主权。
The nine-dotted line China drew on the map attached withthe May 7, 2009 note also fails to meet the criteria of sovereignty andjurisdiction over the waters inside the line as stipulated by the 1982Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Exclusive Economic Zone and theContinental Shelf.
中国2009年5月7日提交的照会上所附地图上的九虚线也未能满足1982年海洋法公约关于海域内部专属经济区和大陆架的主权和管辖权标准。
In a study called “Competing Claims of Vietnam and Chinain the Vanguard Bank and the Blue Dragon Areas of the South China Sea”, US lawyer Brice M. Claget wrote:“China's claim to ‘historic’ sovereignty and title to virtually the entireSouth China Sea and/or its seabed and subsoil is contrary to the entiredevelopment of the modern international law of the sea, and cannot be takenseriously as a matter of law.”
在一项研究中所谓的“在南中国海，越南与中国的the Vanguard Bank地区以及the Blue Dragon地区相抵触”，美国律师Brice M. Claget写到：“中国提出的'历史'主权和所有权，几乎是整个南中国海包括/或者未包括海床和底土，这违背了现代国际海洋法的发展，并不能认真考虑作为一项法律文献。
Thus, given the classic and modern international laws,the nine-dash line claim of China has no scientific grounds, no legal value andis utterly unacceptable.
因此，鉴于传统的和现行的国际法，中国提出的九虚线是没有科学依据和任何法律意义的，是完全不能接受的。
An action against the regional trend
打击区域内发展趋势的一个行动
People can understand why during the last years China hasprinted out maps drawing the nine-dash line but not announced its officialclaims over the East Sea in the same way. In addition to the reasons analyzedabove, China’s caution in this regard might stem from its consideration of theimpact of the claim over its image in the eye of the international community.
人们可以理解为什么在过去几年里中国已经印出来的地图绘制有9虚线，但其官方尚未以同样方式声称拥有东海。除了上述分析的原因外，中国在这一问题上保持谨慎也可能来自于中国要考虑在国际社会眼中的形像。
China may be worried that its official claim over 80percent of the area of the East Seam might shatter the image of a peaceful,hospitable, friendly, and cooperative China its people have been trying tobuild for a long time. China may also be worried that the claim would affectthe way ASEAN countries perceive Chinese policies and actions under theDeclaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
中国可能会担心其官方声称百分之八十以上的要求可能会打破热情、友好和合作的中国人民一直努力在该地区建立了很长时间的和平。中国也可能是担心会影响到东盟国家认同中国在南中国海的政策公告和各种行动。
Considering the topography, natural conditions andsocio-economic activities in the East Sea, the body of water is clearly thecommon house of all regional countries. ASEAN countries and China have takengreat strides in sustaining peace and stability and developing internationalcooperation over the East Sea.
就东海的地形、自然条件和社会经济活动而言，这一水域无疑是该区域内所有国家的共同家园。东盟国家和中国在维护东海的和平与稳定，发展国际间合作上已经取得了巨大进步。
The official issuance of the nine-dash line now will justworsen the situation in the East Sea. It goes against the grain and is contraryto the efforts of regional countries and the international community in seekinglong-term stable solutions to East Sea disputes.
正式发布在东海的九虚线只会使局势恶化，它违背了该区域国家和国际社会寻求稳定的解决东海争端的意愿。
East Sea issues need fair solutions accepted by allcountries involved – solutions accepted in the spirit of honoring each others’sovereignty, developing mutual benefits and observing international law.
东海问题需要参与国家公认的公正的解决方案，要尊重彼此的主权，发展互利互惠，遵守国际法。
--附图
A map submitted by China to the UN in May declaringits sovereignty over 80 percent of the East Sea, as stipulated by the nine-dashline
[中国 5月份向联合国提交的地图宣称对九虚线所划定的80%的东海海域享有主权] | 
狗仔卡
发表于 2009-8-20 11:31
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
楼主
