丁铎

By Ding Duo

近段时间，美国在台湾问题上的消极举动和负面言论依然不断，继续挑动台海局势紧张，威胁中国主权安全，危害地区和平稳定。在美国军舰多次穿航台湾海峡的同时，美国官员频繁炒作台湾海峡是“国际水域”，曲解和抹黑中国的立场与实践，为其怂恿支持“台独”势力、操弄涉台问题制造借口。

Recently, the passive moves and negative remarks of the US on the Taiwan question have continued to stir up tensions across the Taiwan Strait, threatening China’s sovereignty and security, and endangering regional peace and stability. While US warships sail across the Taiwan Strait once and again, the US officials frequently hype up the Taiwan Strait as “international waters” to misinterpret and smear China’s position and practices, so as to create excuses for its instigation and support of the “Taiwan independence” separatist forces and manipulation of Taiwan-related issues.

事实上，台湾海峡在国际法上的地位是明确的。位于中国大陆与台湾岛之间的台湾海峡南北连通东海和南海，东西最宽处约220海里，最窄处约70海里。根据1982年《联合国海洋法公约》（下称《公约》）和中国国内法，台湾海峡水域由两岸的海岸相向延伸，依次为中国的内水、领海、毗连区和专属经济区，中国在台湾海峡对不同的海域分别享有主权、主权权利和管辖权。

In fact, the legal status of the Taiwan Strait has been clear according to international law. The Taiwan Strait, between the Chinese mainland and the Taiwan island, connects the East China Sea and South China Seas from north to south and is about 220 nautical miles wide at its widest point and 70 nautical miles narrow at its narrowest. The waters of the Taiwan Strait extend from the shores of both sides, which in turn includes China’s internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, and exclusive economic zone, according to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and China’s domestic law. Correspondingly, China enjoys sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction over different waters of the Taiwan Strait.

具体而言，台湾海峡两岸领海基线面向陆地一侧的水域是中国的内水。从领海基线面向海峡量起12海里内的水域是中国的领海。在中国领海内，外国非军用船舶享有无害通过权，外国军用船舶进入中国领海需经中国政府批准。在领海范围以外的台湾海峡中部水域则全部是中国的专属经济区（根据《公约》，专属经济区的宽度为200海里），各国船舶和航空器享有航行和飞越自由，但同时应适当顾及中国作为沿海国的权利与义务，遵守中国作为沿海国按照《公约》和其他国际法规则所制定的法律和规章。

Specifically, the waters on the landward side of the baselines of the territorial sea of China constitute its internal waters. The breadth of the territorial sea of China is 12 nautical miles, measured from the baselines of the territorial sea, which is determined by the UNCLOS. In China’s territorial waters, foreign ships for non-military purposes shall enjoy the right of innocent passage, while foreign ships for military purposes shall be subject to approval by the Government of the People’s Republic of China for entering its territorial sea. The central waters of the Taiwan Strait beyond the territorial sea are entirely China’s exclusive economic zone (according to the UNCLOS, a country’s exclusive economic zone cannot extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is drawn), in which ships and aircraft of other countries enjoy the freedom of navigation and overflight, while taking into account China’s rights and obligations as the coastal state and abiding by the laws and regulations formulated by China in accordance with the UNCLOS and considering.

中国尊重其他国家在相关海域的合法权利。但美国军舰频繁通过台湾海峡并进行高调政治渲染和舆论炒作，将军舰穿航与台海情势联系起来，事实上是对中国大陆展现军事挑衅姿态，对“台独”势力释放错误信号。这损害了台海的和平稳定，无疑应当受到严厉谴责，也必然遭到中国强烈反对。

China respects the legitimate rights of other countries in relevant waters. However, the US warships have frequently passed across the Taiwan Strait with high-profile political exaggeration and hyping up public opinion, linking the passage of warships with the situation across the Taiwan Strait. As a matter of fact, this is showing the US military's provocative posture toward the Chinese mainland and sending wrong signals to the “Taiwan independence” separatist forces. This serves to undermine the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, deserves severe reprimand, and will inevitably be strongly opposed by China.

美国一再声称台湾海峡是“国际水域”，但其口中的“国际水域”既不是出自《公约》，也不是源于包括习惯国际法在内的一般国际法规则，而是基于其内外政策、国内法和美国对国际海洋法规则的单方面解读拟制而来。

The US has repeatedly claimed that the Taiwan Strait is “international waters”. However, the so-called “international waters” is neither derived from the UNCLOS nor from general rules of international law including customary international law; instead, this is an operational, rather than legal, term based on the US internal and external policies, and domestic laws, as well as its own unilateral interpretation of the rules of the international law of the sea.

美国《联邦法规》在“商业与对外贸易”部分的术语解释中，将“国际水域”定义为“美国领海之外的水域和任何国家领土（含领水）之外的水域”。《美国海上行动法指挥官手册》在“海域和空域的划分”中对“国际水域”作出进一步解释，认为“出于海上行动目的，世界海域可以分为两部分，第一部分包括内水、领海和群岛水域，处于沿海国的主权管辖之下；另一部分包括毗连区、专属经济区和公海，这些都属于国际水域”。简而言之，美国出于自身“海上行动的目的”，将一国领土主权范围外的水域（包括沿海国享有主权权利和管辖权的专属经济区）都视为“国际水域”。

The United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defines “international waters” as “Waters located outside the U.S. territorial sea, which extends 12 nautical miles measured from the baselines of the United States, and outside the territory of any foreign country, including the territorial waters thereof” in terminology interpretation in the Commerce and Foreign Trade section. The US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations makes an even more detailed explanation of “international waters” in the Legal Division of Oceans and Airspace section, arguing that “ for operational purposes, the world’s oceans are divided into two parts. The first includes internal waters, territorial seas, and archipelagic waters. These national waters are subject to the territorial sovereignty of coastal nations, with certain navigational rights reserved to the international community. The second part includes contiguous zones, waters of the exclusive economic zone, and the high seas. These are international waters in which all nations enjoy the high seas freedoms of navigation and overflight.” In short, the US tends to regard waters beyond the territorial sovereignty of a country (including the exclusive economic zone in which the coastal state enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction) as “international waters” for the purpose of its own “maritime operations.”

《公约》虽然规定“公海对所有国家开放”，但从未使用过“国际水域”这一表述。美国兜售和炒作“国际水域”概念，这一做法的本质是美国试图将其对海洋法规则的片面解释和单方面适用，在国际上转化为对其最为有利的制度规范和海上行动，其追求和维护的绝不是真正的航行和飞越自由，而是作为海上霸权的绝对活动自由。

Although the UNCLOS stipulates that “the high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land locked”, the concept “international waters” has never been used. The US is crazy about peddling and hyping up the concept: the essence of this practice is that the US tries to transform its one-sided interpretation and unilateral application of the rules of the law of the sea into the most favorable institutional norms and maritime actions internationally. What it truly wants to pursue or maintain is by no means the true freedom of navigation and overflight; instead, it is eager to obtain absolute freedom of operations as a great power with maritime hegemony.

美国长期以来将自己标榜为“国际法治捍卫者”，但事实上却是劣迹斑斑。美国曾参与诸多国际条约的谈判磋商，最后却往往因一己私利或选择不签署这些条约，或对已加入的条约作出一系列声明和保留，或在加入条约后又“退约”“退群”。据统计，20世纪80年代以来，美国曾退出联合国人权理事会、世卫组织、联合国教科文组织、《巴黎气候协定》、《伊朗核问题全面协议》、《武器贸易条约》、《中导条约》、《开放天空条约》等17个国际组织或协议。

The US has long posed itself as a “defender of the international law”, but in fact it has been scandal-ridden. It has chosen to not sign treaties out of selfish interests, or make a series of declarations and reservations to treaties to which it has joined, or “withdraw” after joining, after attending multiple international treaties’ negotiations. Statistics have shown since the 1980s, the US has withdrawn from 17 international organizations or agreements including the United Nations Human Rights Council, WHO, UNESCO, the Paris Climate Agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), and the Open Skies Treaty.

谁对国际法合则用不合则弃，谁在国际法实践中推行“例外论”“优先论”和“法律孤立主义”，谁试图为其他国家设立行事规则，但自身却时常游离在国际法治框架之外，国际社会有目共睹，答案不证自明。

In addition, it has been transparently clear to the international community who pursues an all-time principle of applying international law in a selective and utilitarian way, who promotes “exceptionalism”, “priority” and “legal isolationism” in the practice of international law, who tries to set up rules of conduct for other countries, but often strays from the framework of the international rule of law. The answers are self-evident.

（作者是中国南海研究院海洋法律与政策研究所副所长、副研究员）

(The author is Deputy Director and an associate research fellow of Research Center for Oceans Law and Policy, National Institute for South China Sea Studies)

Editor's note: This article is originally published on huanqiu.com, and is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.