南海：不仅关乎岩石，也关乎鱼 [美国媒体]

-------------译者：Benita-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------



The South China Sea remains politically roiled. It has been almost a month since the UN Tribunal’s announcement. Chinese rhetoric attacks both court and verdict military demonstrations continue and ASEAN’s foreign ministers issued a decidedly equivocal statement following their meeting. Secretary of State John Kerry’s request for a reference to the decision of the UN’s Permanent Court of Arbitration failed. China’s diplomatic efforts to moot the verdict and by extension moot the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) achieved an early success. This dispute now enters a new—and not especially encouraging—phase.

联合国仲裁决议已经过去快一个月了，中国南海局势仍然动荡不安。中国人花言巧语地诋毁法庭以及仲裁结果，军事示威在继续，以及在东盟外长会议中发表了一个模棱两可的声明。国务卿John Kerry要求中国执行联合国常设法院的仲裁结果遭到了否决。中国的外交努力使仲裁以及联合国海洋法公约变得无实际意义这方面取得了初步成效。目前这场争论进入了一个新的（不是特别让人鼓舞的）阶段。

China’s nationalist ambitions mandate the recovery of lost territory specifically including islands rocks and low-tide elevations deemed—by China—to be Chinese from ancient times. The July 12 judgment by the UN Tribunal was a stunning rebuke to this goal.

中国的民族主义者野心勃勃的要求恢复丢失的领土，特别是被认为自古以来就是中国领土的岛屿岩石和低海拔地区。联合国特别法庭7月12日的判决是对这一目标的一个极好的谴责。


-------------译者：Benita-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

David
The UN decision may provide a foundation for settlement of disputes? UN already clarified that the paid ruling has nothing to do with UN. Can the writer tell the truth.

联合国仲裁庭决议可以提供解决问题的基石？联合国已经澄清这个被贿赂的决议与联合国无关。这个作者就不能能写一些真相吗

shield parasite
it was not the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that decided on the Philippines' complaint against China but an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Article 287 Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The PCA only serves as a registry.

给出这个裁决的并非常设仲裁法庭，而是根据《联合国海洋法公约》附录7第287条所形成的仲裁法院给出的。常设仲裁法院在其中所扮演的角色只是一个登记处而已。

David
china has just finished two months of no fishing period in south china seas. vietnam and phippline did not follow for years. Which nation is protecting fishery? the simple-minded writer did not know the details in asia. just shout to obey the ruling which is manipulated by DSA. According the ruling DSA and japan will lose a lot of islands (which become just rocks)

中国刚刚结束在南海为期2个月的禁捕期。越南和菲律宾已长达数年对禁鱼期不管不顾。哪个国家更保护渔业呢？头脑简单的作者不了解亚洲的情况，只会叫嚣着要遵守由美国操纵的仲裁结果。如果根据这个仲裁，美国和日本就应该失去很多的岛屿，因为它们变成了礁石。

-------------译者：Benita-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

ting_m_1999
The world order was established by WWII victors right after WWII to settle the leftover territories of German Italy and Japan. China being one of the victors announced the Dash Lines and physically claimed the features within the Lines with USA support and received no renunciation from WWII victors including USA. That means the features within the Lines belong to China. The features that Vietnam and Philippine occupy right now within the Lines were not granted as territories Vietnam and Philippine when France and USA granted them their independence. That means the features within the Lines that Vietnam and Philippine occupy right now were looted from China and are illegal. The PCA tribunal violated UNCLOS authority. provisions and legal procedure in arriving to the rulings. The rulings are therefore void null and not binding. The recent ASEAN meetings refused to acknowledge the PCA rulings as the basis for SCS dispute settlement effectively nullifying the PCA rulings.

世界秩序是由二战战胜国建立的，它们在二战后接手了意大利德国和日本留下的土地。中国作为战胜国之一公布了九段线并且在美国的支持下使用断续线对外公布了领土，二战战胜国包括美国并未对此提出抗议。这意味着断续线内的领土属于中国。越南和菲律宾目前侵占的线内领土在当时美国和法国同意越南和菲律宾独立的时候，不能视为越南和菲律宾的领土。这意味着越南和菲律宾目前占据的线内领土是从中国掠夺过来的，是不合法的。联合国仲裁庭做出裁决是违反了《联合国海洋公约》权限规定以及法定程序。仲裁是无效没有约束力的。最近东盟会议拒绝将常设仲裁庭的裁定作为解决南海争议的基础，这实际上取消了该裁决的合法性。

-------------译者：Benita-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

John H
China have become massive ecological vandals and the other tragic thing is Green Peace have been clearly shown up as hypocrites and a joke for not uttering a word against them while whole reefs have been totally destroyed in order to make artificial islands that have now been militarised. Try doing only a tiny portion of that damage in a western country and see how they squeal and carry on.

中国已成为大规模的生态破坏者，另一个悲惨的事情是绿色和平已经显露了伪君子本色变成了一个笑话，当中国为了建立军事化的人工岛毁掉所有的礁石时不置一词。
而如果西方国家哪怕只做出一点点破坏环境的举动，该组织就会大呼小叫纠缠不休。

ashleyhk
Having destroyed its own fishing stock China has no problem destroying everyone elses even in Africa and South America

中国已经毁掉了自己的渔场，所以接下来他们毁掉非洲和南美的渔场也在所不惜。

David
The Nine Dash Line was rejected as a basis for South China Sea claims. the ruling just likes to say red indian had no law-based claim for north america in 1800s.

裁决否认了九虚线作为南海主权声明的依据，就好比说19世纪的印第安人对北美不具有合法主权声明。

-------------译者：Benita-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Ako Madamosiya 毛むくじゃら
Where did you get that kind of comparison? Are you coming from the left field with a curved ball?
I don't think you even read the transcxts from the hearing last December. Be enlightened. You may change your mind on the None Dash Line.
 or your information read up on the US constitution. You'll be surprised it is based on a group of Northeastern Indians that starts with an I.

你从哪里得到这样的比较？你是用弧形球从左外野来的吗？
你可能都没读过去年12月份听证会上的文本内容。
受到启发。您可以改变关于九段线的想法。
为了供您参考，你可以看看美国宪法。你会惊讶的发现美国宪法的基础是一群东北部印第安人。

shield parasite
China already GAVE UP SCS rights after signing UN Treaty better to know the fact.

签署联合国条约后，中国就已经放弃了南海权利，中国最好认识到这一点。

-------------译者：Benita-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Zsari Maxim
Nowhere in UNCLOS ever stipulated that the treaty nullifies any historic titles but rather that Article 15 preserves one's rights to historic title. To rule otherwise is in violation of the treaty not to mention Article 298 puts any ruling related to historic title outside the jurisdiction of the court.

《联合国海洋公约》没有任何地方规定这个条约抵消任何历史性权利，而且其中第15条还维护了一国的历史权利。其中第298条还规定任何针对历史权利的裁决都超出了法院的管辖权。

nirv
Let's avoid distorting the Award's ruling.
This is how the experts explain the issue of historic "titles" to us.
UNCLOS Tribunal Award documen § 209:
"Having concluded that the exception to jurisdiction in Article 298(1)(a)(i) is limited to disputes involving historic titles and that China does not claim historic title to the waters of South China Sea but rather a constellation of historic rights short of title the Tribunal holds that it has jurisdiction to consider the Philippines' Submissions No. 1 and 2."

让我们避免弯曲法庭的裁决。 这是专家向我们解释历史性“主权”的问题。《联合国海洋公约》法庭裁决文件第209条：“已经得出结论，298（1）（a）(i）条的排除性申明仅限于涉及历史主权的争端，但是中国没有声称对南海拥有历史所有权，只声称对南海具有一系列的历史权利。法庭认为对菲律宾编号为1和2的意见书有管辖权。

-------------译者：天羽屠龙舞-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Zsari Maxim
In section 180 the court noted that China never expressly clarify the nature and the scope of its claim yet it injected the term historic right to it. That's what I call arbitrary reasoning. Basically it's saying we don't know exactly what is China's claim so let's just call it historic right so we can rule on it. But one forgot that to rule whether or not the Chinese claim is on historic title is a ruling related to historic title. Such laps of logic is throughout the award paper.

在180节，法院提到，中国从没有明确的阐明她声索的性质和范围而是加入了历史权利这一名词。这就是我所说的武断推理。大体上他们说的是他们不清楚中国声索的是什么，所以他们就认为是历史权利，因此他们就可以对此作出裁决。但是，裁决中国的主权声明是否基于历史所有权，这实际上就等于是一个与历史所有权相关的裁决。这样的逻辑充斥着整篇判决书。

-------------译者：Benita-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

nirv
Why did this Tribunal conclude that China did not claim a historic "title"?
Here is the explanation (Award document §228):
"For the Tribunal the dispositive proof that China's claim is not one to historic title lies in China's conduct which as discussed above (see paragraphs 207 to 214) is incompatible with a claim that the waters of the South China Sea constitute China's territorial sea or internal waters."
So if it is NOT a claim of a "title" what could it be Dr Watson?

为什么仲裁庭判定中国没有主张过历史主权？
判决书第228条的解释如下：“在法庭看来，中国主权声明不是历史所有权声明的决定性证据在于中国的行为（详见207到214段）与南海海域构成中国的领海或内海的声明互相矛盾。”
所以，如果它不是一个主权申明，华生医生，你觉得它是什么呢？

ting_m_1999
China was not a participant in the case and China cannot correct and cannot accept what is quoted in #228中国没有参与这个仲裁案，所以中国无法纠正也无法接受228条中的引言。

-------------译者：整天喵喵喵-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Zsari Maxim
Wow you and the court don't understand the difference between claim and enforcement? More logic failure to covert logic failure. Is it a court to promote peace and stability or is the court's purpose to see war and chaos? It's basically saying hey you didn't goto war over your claim you must not being serious. Such a disgrace of a court that is against the very spirit of the treaty.

哇，你和仲裁庭都不懂“要求”和“强制执行”的区别？你逻辑有问题，所以你用了更多错误逻辑想来弥补。这个仲裁庭是要提倡和平与稳定吗，还是它的目的其实是导致战争与混乱？它只是在说：“嘿，你没有就你的诉求走向战争吗，你一定在逗我。”这种仲裁庭不光彩的行为是与联合国条约的核心精神背道而驰的。

ting_m_1999
China was not a participant in the case and China cannot correct and cannot accept what is quoted in #209

中国根本就没参与这个案件，所以中国无法修改也不能接受209号裁决文件的引用内容。