【无良原创翻译】中国要求的澄清？

Clarification of China’s Claim?
中国要求的澄清？

By M. Taylor Fravel
M. Taylor Fravel is an Associate Professor of Political Science and member of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Taylor Fravel是麻省理工学院政治学副教授，安保研究项目成员

March 5, 2012

the-diplomat.com/china-power/2012/03/05/clarification-of-china%e2%80%99s-claim/

Ambiguity about the extent of China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea has been a key source of concern in this dispute.  In the 1990s, China issued a series of domestic laws detailing its maritime claims under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, including 12 nautical mile territorial seas and 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones (EEZ). Nevertheless, Chinese maps continue to contain a “nine-dashed line” around the South China Sea. The line first appeared on an official map produced by the Republic of China in 1947.  After 1949, China continued to use the line on its official maps, but never defined what the line included or excluded.  

中国在南中国海的海洋权益要求的歧义一向是争论中的主要担忧点。在90年代，中国颁布了一系列在国际海洋法公约框架下的国内法，仔细解释了对南中国海的权益要求，包括12海里领海，200海里海洋经济专属区。但就算这样，中国的地图还是包括了“九段线”。这条线最先是由中华民国在1947年官方提出的（根据我的资料，这段线实际上第一次官方出现在1935年的《中国南海岛屿图》上），1949年后中国继续使用这段线，但从来没有澄清这段线包括什么及不包括什么。

In a recent press conference, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs appeared to take an important step towards clarifying China’s claims in the South China Sea – and suggesting what the line might not mean.

在最近的一个新闻发布会上，外交部好像对南中国海的权益要求此做出了重要的解释，有可能意味那段线不包括什么。

First, the spokesperson, Hong Lei, distinguished between disputes over “territorial sovereignty of the islands and reefs of the Spratly Islands” and disputes over maritime demarcation. This affirms past statements, including a note to the United Nations in May 2011, that China will advance maritime claims that are consistent and compliant with UNCLOS. Under UNCLOS, states may only claim maritime rights such as an EEZ from land features like a nation’s coastline or its islands.

首先，外交部发言人洪磊分开了“南沙岛礁及岛屿的主权纠纷”和海洋权益分界的纠纷。这个和之前的声明，包括2011年5月对联合国的知会，说明中国会在国际海洋法公约的框架下解决海洋权益的问题。在公约下，主权国家只能在从海岸线或岛屿出发来划分海洋经济专属区。

Second, and more importantly, the spokesperson further stated that “No country including China has claimed sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.”  By making such a statement, this phrase suggests that the “nine-dashed line” doesn’t represent a claim to maritime rights (such as historic rights), much less a claim to sovereignty over the water space enclose by the line.  More likely, the line indicates a claim to the islands, reefs and other features that lie inside.

第二，也是更重要的，发言人说：“没有国家，包括中国，声称对整个南中国海拥有主权。”这个声明意味着“九段线”并不是九段线内的海洋权益要求（历史权利要求）或者是水域主权要求，这个更像是“九段线”内岛礁和其他事物的主张。

To be sure, China could advance a large claim to maritime rights in the South China Sea from the islands and other features in the Spratly Islands. Although UNCLOS only permits states to claim a 200 nautical mile EEZ from islands that can sustain permanent human habitation, sovereignty over a single island can generate an EEZ of approximately 125,000 nautical miles.

当然了，中国可以从南沙群岛出发要求非常大的海洋权益，尽管公约仅仅允许国家从能够永久住人的岛屿出发要求200海里专属区，但就从一个拥有主权的岛屿出发就能要求125000海里的专属区。

Nevertheless, even articulation of a large but UNCLOS-compliant claim would offer several advantages in terms of dispute resolution.  It would clarify where China’s EEZ claims from islands in the South China Sea overlap with the claims of littoral states from their coastlines.  As a result, disputed and undisputed areas would be clearly identified.  It would also allow states to invoke the dispute settlement mechanisms of UNCLOS, Part XV, which would a negotiated settlement to overlapping claims.

但是不管怎么说，就算是提出的要求很大，但是在公约框架下的话，还是有好处的。这能让人明确中国从其主张岛屿出发专属区要求是否和那些从海岸线出发的要求是否有冲突。结果就是有争议和没有争议的地方就会清晰出来，这也能让那些国家在公约第十五章下谈判解决问题。

Of course, this recent statement doesn’t represent a full and complete definition of the nine-dashed line.  Nevertheless, it does at least rule out one possible definition and provide an opportunity for other states to press China to further clarify its position.

当然了，这些近来的声明并没有完全解释清楚“九段线”，但这起码让一件事情清楚了，而且其他国家也能以此为依据要求中国更进一步解释其立场。Clarification of China’s Claim?
中国要求的澄清？

By M. Taylor Fravel
M. Taylor Fravel is an Associate Professor of Political Science and member of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Taylor Fravel是麻省理工学院政治学副教授，安保研究项目成员

March 5, 2012

the-diplomat.com/china-power/2012/03/05/clarification-of-china%e2%80%99s-claim/

Ambiguity about the extent of China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea has been a key source of concern in this dispute.  In the 1990s, China issued a series of domestic laws detailing its maritime claims under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, including 12 nautical mile territorial seas and 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones (EEZ). Nevertheless, Chinese maps continue to contain a “nine-dashed line” around the South China Sea. The line first appeared on an official map produced by the Republic of China in 1947.  After 1949, China continued to use the line on its official maps, but never defined what the line included or excluded.  

中国在南中国海的海洋权益要求的歧义一向是争论中的主要担忧点。在90年代，中国颁布了一系列在国际海洋法公约框架下的国内法，仔细解释了对南中国海的权益要求，包括12海里领海，200海里海洋经济专属区。但就算这样，中国的地图还是包括了“九段线”。这条线最先是由中华民国在1947年官方提出的（根据我的资料，这段线实际上第一次官方出现在1935年的《中国南海岛屿图》上），1949年后中国继续使用这段线，但从来没有澄清这段线包括什么及不包括什么。

In a recent press conference, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs appeared to take an important step towards clarifying China’s claims in the South China Sea – and suggesting what the line might not mean.

在最近的一个新闻发布会上，外交部好像对南中国海的权益要求此做出了重要的解释，有可能意味那段线不包括什么。

First, the spokesperson, Hong Lei, distinguished between disputes over “territorial sovereignty of the islands and reefs of the Spratly Islands” and disputes over maritime demarcation. This affirms past statements, including a note to the United Nations in May 2011, that China will advance maritime claims that are consistent and compliant with UNCLOS. Under UNCLOS, states may only claim maritime rights such as an EEZ from land features like a nation’s coastline or its islands.

首先，外交部发言人洪磊分开了“南沙岛礁及岛屿的主权纠纷”和海洋权益分界的纠纷。这个和之前的声明，包括2011年5月对联合国的知会，说明中国会在国际海洋法公约的框架下解决海洋权益的问题。在公约下，主权国家只能在从海岸线或岛屿出发来划分海洋经济专属区。

Second, and more importantly, the spokesperson further stated that “No country including China has claimed sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.”  By making such a statement, this phrase suggests that the “nine-dashed line” doesn’t represent a claim to maritime rights (such as historic rights), much less a claim to sovereignty over the water space enclose by the line.  More likely, the line indicates a claim to the islands, reefs and other features that lie inside.

第二，也是更重要的，发言人说：“没有国家，包括中国，声称对整个南中国海拥有主权。”这个声明意味着“九段线”并不是九段线内的海洋权益要求（历史权利要求）或者是水域主权要求，这个更像是“九段线”内岛礁和其他事物的主张。

To be sure, China could advance a large claim to maritime rights in the South China Sea from the islands and other features in the Spratly Islands. Although UNCLOS only permits states to claim a 200 nautical mile EEZ from islands that can sustain permanent human habitation, sovereignty over a single island can generate an EEZ of approximately 125,000 nautical miles.

当然了，中国可以从南沙群岛出发要求非常大的海洋权益，尽管公约仅仅允许国家从能够永久住人的岛屿出发要求200海里专属区，但就从一个拥有主权的岛屿出发就能要求125000海里的专属区。

Nevertheless, even articulation of a large but UNCLOS-compliant claim would offer several advantages in terms of dispute resolution.  It would clarify where China’s EEZ claims from islands in the South China Sea overlap with the claims of littoral states from their coastlines.  As a result, disputed and undisputed areas would be clearly identified.  It would also allow states to invoke the dispute settlement mechanisms of UNCLOS, Part XV, which would a negotiated settlement to overlapping claims.

但是不管怎么说，就算是提出的要求很大，但是在公约框架下的话，还是有好处的。这能让人明确中国从其主张岛屿出发专属区要求是否和那些从海岸线出发的要求是否有冲突。结果就是有争议和没有争议的地方就会清晰出来，这也能让那些国家在公约第十五章下谈判解决问题。

Of course, this recent statement doesn’t represent a full and complete definition of the nine-dashed line.  Nevertheless, it does at least rule out one possible definition and provide an opportunity for other states to press China to further clarify its position.

当然了，这些近来的声明并没有完全解释清楚“九段线”，但这起码让一件事情清楚了，而且其他国家也能以此为依据要求中国更进一步解释其立场。