12次 "中國的台灣當局" 南海仲裁書 原文段落 供大家參考

[丁丁]

12 JULY 2016

PCA Press Release: The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China)

 

89

(c) The third letter invited the Parties’ comments on four new documents that had come to the Tribunal’s attention, namely a “Position Paper on ROC South China Sea Policy,” the comments of the People’s Republic of China Foreign Ministry Spokesperson in response to that Position Paper; a document published by the “Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law” and some remarks of Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, then President of the Taiwan Authority of China, at an international press conference “regarding Taiping [Itu Aba] Island in Nansha Islands.”

 

 

139. Eighth, in accordance with Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that the Tribunal may “take all appropriate measures in order to establish the facts,” and Article 25, which states that the Tribunal “may take whatever other steps it may consider necessary . . . to afford to each of the Parties a full opportunity to present its case,” the Tribunal has on several occasions invited the Parties to comment on various sources concerning the prevailing conditions on features in the South China Sea, including some materials in the public domain emanating from the Taiwan Authority of China. 59 The Philippines has responded with comments both during the hearings and in written submissions after the hearings. 60 On 11 March 2016, the Philippines submitted written comments, accompanied by two new expert reports on soil and water quality at Itu Aba.61 On 25 April 2016, the Philippines responded to

 

142. As explained in the Tribunal’s communications to the Parties, the Tribunal considered historical records concerning conditions on features in the Spratly Islands, prior to them having been subjected to significant human modification, to be more relevant than evidence of the situation currently prevailing, which reflects the efforts of the various littoral States to improve the habitability of features under their control. Accordingly, although the Tribunal has fully considered the contemporary evidence provided by the Philippines, as well as certain materials made public by the Taiwan Authority of China, the Tribunal has not itself sought additional materials on contemporary conditions on any feature in the Spratlys. The Tribunal has, for the same reason, not sought to take advantage of the Taiwan Authority of China’s public offer to arrange a site visit to Itu Aba. In this respect the Tribunal notes that China, through its Ambassador’s letter of 6 February 2015, objected strongly to the possibility of any site visit to the South China Sea by the Tribunal.67

 

197. Reviewing the published archival records of the Taiwan Authority of China, 180 which the Philippines considers to comprise documents selected to support China’s claims, the Philippines emphasises the absence of “any documents evidencing any official Chinese activities in regard to any South China Sea feature prior to the beginning of the 20th century.”181 The Philippines also emphasises a Note Verbale from the Legation of the Chinese Republic in France to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1932, stating that the Paracel Islands “form the southernmost part of Chinese territory.”182 According to the Philippines, when China “sought to assert its claim to the South China Sea islands,”183 following the defeat of Japanese forces in the Second World War, the plans included an effort to develop Chinese names for the features, the majority of which were then identified only by Chinese transliterations of their English names.184 According to the Philippines “Lord Auckland Shoal was thus ‘Ao ke lan sha’, and Mischief Reef ‘Mi-qi fu’. Gaven Reef was ‘Ge wen’, and Amy Douglas Reef ‘A mi de ge la’.” 185 Based on this record, the Philippines questions how China could have historic rights in an area “over which it had so little involvement or connection that most of the features had no Chinese names.”186

 

357. The Philippines argues that the “[c]harts produced by China, the Philippines, the UK and US and Japan all depict McKennan Reef as a low-tide elevation”345 and the Tribunal understands that statement to apply equally to Hughes Reef, in light of the Philippines’ conflation of the two features. The Tribunal is reluctant, however, to draw significant conclusions from the comparatively small scale (1:250,000 or smaller) depictions of the features on Union Bank in more recent charts for the reasons outlined above (see paragraph 330). The Tribunal agrees that the U.S. and Philippine charts at 1:250,000 do not depict any feature on the reef platform at Hughes Reef, but notes that the same charts also do not depict any high-tide feature at Sin Cowe, where a high-tide feature unequivocally exists. U.S. Defense Mapping Agency Chart No. 93044 also indicates that its survey data for Union Bank are derived from Taiwan Authority of China Chart No. 477A, which is, in turn, a reproduction of Imperial Japanese Navy Chart No. 525, rather than the product of independent survey work.346 The Tribunal sees no reason to assume that the removal of any indication of a high-tide feature on Hughes Reef in Chart No. 93044 reflects anything more than a reduction in detail corresponding with the decrease in scale from original 1:100,000 scale of Imperial Japanese Navy Chart No. 525 to the 1:250,000 scale of Chart No. 93044. At the same time, however, China’s Chart No. 18400 (the same chart to note a height at McKennan Reef) includes no indication of a height or high-tide feature at Hughes Reef.

 

364

(d) More recently published U.S. charts that include Tizard Bank do not reflect more recent survey information. Chart No. 93044—which the Philippines considers to dispose of the existence of a cay on Gaven Reef (North)—indicates that its survey data for Tizard Bank are derived from Taiwan Authority of China Chart No. 478. This chart is, in turn, a reproduction of Imperial Japanese Navy Chart No. 523, rather than the product of independent survey work.354 The “newer” U.S. chart thus reflects the same underlying Japanese survey as the chart depicting a sand cay. The absence of detail on Gaven Reef (North) is a result of the smaller 1:250,000 scale of the later chart, in comparison with the 1:75,000 scale of the earlier plan.

 

371. As an initial matter, the Tribunal does not believe that any reliable conclusions can be drawn from the absence of a depiction of Sandy Cay in the 1984 edition of United States Defense Mapping Agency Chart No. 93044. That chart indicates that the area surrounding the Thitu Reefs was drawn from the Taiwan Authority of China’s Chart No. 477, which is in turn is drawn from British Admiralty Chart No. 1201 and the same survey of the Thitu Reefs from 1867.360 The Tribunal sees nothing to suggest that the later U.S. publication reflects new information on the conditions prevailing on the Thitu Reefs, rather than simply a reduction in detail corresponding with the decreased scale of the chart.

 

401. Itu Aba is known as “Taiping Dao” (太平岛) in China and “Ligaw” in the Philippines. It is the largest high-tide feature in the Spratly Islands, measuring approximately 1.4 kilometres in length, and almost 400 metres at its widest point. Its surface area is approximately 0.43 square kilometres. It is located at 10° 22′ 38″ N, 114° 21′ 56″ E, lying atop the northern edge of Tizard Bank, 200.6 nautical miles from the archipelagic baseline of the Philippine island of Palawan and 539.6 nautical miles from China’s baseline point 39 (Dongzhou (2)) adjacent to the island of Hainan. The general location of Itu Aba, and that of the other major Spratly Island features described in this Section, is depicted in Map 3 on page 125 above. It is surrounded by a coral reef and shallow water. Itu Aba is currently under the control of the Taiwan Authority of China, which stations personnel there. There are multiple buildings, a lighthouse, a runway, and port facilities on Itu Aba.

 

428. The Philippines points particularly to the lack of drinkable water and the fact that the Taiwan Authority of China has had to compensate for this through construction of desalination plants.428 The Philippines relies on a 1994 scientific study on “The Flora of Taipingtao (Aba Itu Island)” (the “1994 Study”), prepared based on a field inspection by Taiwanese botanists whose work was financed by the Taiwan Authority of China, and submits that its conclusions on water, soil, and vegetation demonstrate the impossibility of sustaining human habitation.429

 

 

583. Another Japanese account of a visit to Itu Aba in 1919 similarly indicates that “[t]he quality of the water was good, and the quantity was abundant.”611 More recent accounts of water quality are mixed. One study by Taiwanese botanists in 1994 indicates that “[t]he underground water is salty and unusable for drinking.”612 Another study from the same year indicates that “[o]n the whole, the two freshwater sites actually had better water quality than in usual rivers or lakes” and that “the freshwater resources of the island were still in good condition.”613 Media coverage of recent visits to Itu Aba by officials and guests of the Taiwan Authority of China also stress that the well water there is drinkable.