原标题：[特稿]马英九：中国南海“仲裁”結果有瑕疵

馬英九日前以“A Flawed Verdict in the South China Sea（中國南海仲裁結果有瑕疵）”為題投書美國《華爾街日報》，文章7月26日刊登在《華爾街日報》網路版。馬英九文中表示，南海仲裁結果不僅沒有解決問題，反為南海聲索各方製造更多問題。不僅沒能指出和平解決之路，反而為此增加阻礙。

馬英九在仲裁結果出爐後，曾於7月14日出席國際法學會舉辦的“南海仲裁案研討會”表達看法，也曾在7月16日投書台灣媒體對蔡英文提出捍衛南海主權等10點建議。 馬英九以“A Flawed Verdict in the South China Sea（中國南海仲裁結果有瑕疵）”為題，在《華爾街日報》投書。馬辦確認《華爾街日報》網路版刊出後，提供中文翻譯。以下為翻譯全文內容： 标题：《中国南海仲裁結果有瑕疵 》 仲裁庭的決定並非基於全部事實，因此（中国）台灣拒絕接受。 本月稍早，位於海牙的常設仲裁庭就陸菲南海仲裁案，做出對菲律賓有利的判斷。並將“我國”太平島的法律地位降格為岩礁，竟無視於太平島是南沙群島中最大的自然生成島嶼，並且也是南沙唯一島上蘊含淡水的事實。 這個裁決結果對台灣並不公平，顯然也不合理。首先是欠缺正當法律程序，“中華民國”政府已有效統治太平島達70年，然而當仲裁庭討論太平島地位時，台灣卻未獲邀請參加，更未被徵詢意見。 台灣一個非官方的頂尖學術組織—“中華民國”國際法學會，向仲裁庭遞交一份長達400頁的法庭之友意見書。其中以科學證據詳細敘明，太平島在重大人為修建前的自然狀態，證實島上具有充沛淡水、豐富農作物，以及自1950年代起，就有超過200位居民在島上生活的歷史證據。 國際法學會希望成為觀察員或擔任證人，並公開邀請仲裁員與菲方官員親自登訪太平島，然而兩項要求都被斷然拒絕。更讓此單方仲裁結果，奠基在不足、過時且不精確的資訊上。 其次這項裁決邏輯也不合理。《聯合國海洋法公約》第121條指出“無法維持人類生存與自身經濟生活的岩礁，不得享有專屬經濟區或大陸礁層的權益。”現在仲裁庭卻修改了這項標準，裁定地物須有“維持一個穩定人類社群的客觀承載力”，這不僅是《公約》原先用語未曾出現過的額外要求，甚至還加上排除政府人員的適用。 難道“政府人員”就不是《公約》第121條所說的“人類”嗎？仲裁庭沒有解釋。仲裁員也認為所謂“經濟活動”，並不該依賴於外來資源。不過現今世上可有任一島嶼或城市，竟會是完全自給自足，完全不需依賴任何外來資源嗎？仲裁庭也沒有解釋。舉例來說，新加坡就向外進口大量民生用水、食物與能源，難道新加坡因此就不配享有專屬經濟區或大陸礁層權益嗎？ 台灣人現在都感到很氣憤，“立法院”不分朝野黨派也通過決議譴責仲裁結果，並要求蔡英文登訪太平島，重申台灣主權與海洋權益的主張。蔡英文與本人均拒絕這項不公平，更欠缺台灣參與的仲裁結果。 事實上從去年12月到今年5月，本人以“中華民國總統”身份，邀請超過150位重要人士登訪太平島，訪賓們都親眼見證太平島在南沙群島中，享有得天獨厚的自然條件，包括每天可抽取65噸的淡水，足以提供1,500人飲用，並可維持約200人在島上居住與其經濟生活。 我已盡其所能地提供仲裁庭，關於太平島最新、最精確的資訊。我在今年1月28日親自登訪太平島，當日晚間與三月間分別舉行國際記者會，接受美國有線電視新聞網（CNN）與新加坡海峽時報專訪談太平島，並在美國《華爾街日報》發表太平島專論，都是為了讓仲裁庭了解這項事實—太平島是島不是礁。過去7個月的努力，已成功吸引國際媒體的關注，相關台灣主張的報道迄今超過430篇。 然而結果顯示，仲裁庭漠視本人以上所有努力。依據《公約》規定，仲裁員是可以登島調查的，而我相信這正是關鍵所在，因為仲裁員並未親自登訪太平島，他們最後才會相信菲方代表的片面之詞。 一項欠缺登島調查與親眼證詞的遠距仲裁結果，豈能具備任何說服力呢？不僅不能說服（中国）台湾，對於其他島嶼權利受到潛在威脅的國家而言，更是沒有說服力。 換言之，這項仲裁結果不僅沒有解決問題，反為南海聲索各方製造更多問題，不僅沒能指出和平解決之路，反而為此增加阻礙。 （馬先生是“中華民國”前“總統”） 英文原文如下： By MA YING-JEOU,

July 26, 2016 1:14 p.m. ET, the Wall Street Journal Earlier this month, a tribunal at The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines in its case challenging the legitimacy of mainland China’s claims in the South China Sea. In the process, it also downgraded the legal status of Taiping Island (also known as Itu Aba) to a rock, despite the fact that Taiping is the largest naturally formed island in the Spratly group and the only one among the Spratlys that has fresh water. For Taiwan, the verdict is unfair and patently unreasonable. First, it lacks due process of law. The Republic of China (Taiwan) government has effectively ruled Taiping Island for the past 70 years. Yet when the tribunal was discussing Taiping Island’s status, Taiwan was neither invited to participate nor consulted. The Chinese (Taiwan) International Law Society, a top academic nongovernmental organization, filed a 400-page amicus brief detailing scientific evidence of Taiping Island’s “earlier, natural condition” prior to the “onset of significant human modification.” That evidence showed ample fresh water, rich agricultural production and a history of human habitation by more than 200 residents since the 1950s. However, the society’s request for observer or witness status and its open invitation for the arbitrators or Philippine officials to visit Taiping Island were flatly rejected. The single-party award was therefore based on insufficient, outdated and inaccurate information. The award’s logic is also unreasonable. Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) provides that “rocks” that cannot “sustain human habitation or economic life of their own” are not entitled to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. The tribunal now modifies that standard, ruling that the land feature must have an “objective capacity which can sustain a stable community of people,” an extra requirement not contained in the original language of Unclos. It also adds that this capacity does not include official personnel. Are official personnel not human beings under Article 121 of Unclos? The tribunal did not explain. It also ruled that economic activity should not be “dependent on outside resources.” Is there any island or city in the world today that is completely self-sufficient and independent of outside resources? The tribunal did not explain that either. Singapore, for instance, imports large quantities of water, food and energy. Should it therefore not be entitled to have an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf?

The people of Taiwan are furious. The National Legislature passed a bipartisan resolution condemning the award and have asked President Tsai Ing-wen to visit Taiping Island and reiterate Taiwan’s sovereign and maritime claims. Both President Tsai and I have rejected the unfair award, rendered without Taiwan’s participation. In fact, from December to May, I invited, as president of the ROC (Taiwan), more than 150 dignitaries to visit Taiping Island. The invitees all witnessed its favorable natural conditions, unique to the Spratlys, including its capacity to produce 65 tons of fresh water every day, sufficient to supply 1,500 people. The island can sustain human habitation by about 200 people and its own economic life. I have made every possible effort to provide the tribunal with new and accurate information about Taiping Island. I visited the island on Jan. 28, held international press conferences in January and March, gave interviews to CNN and the Straits Times, and published an op-ed in these pages, all to help the tribunal understand the fact that Taiping is an island, not a rock. My efforts in the past seven months drew attention from international media, generating 430 news reports about Taiwan’s claims. Nevertheless, the ruling shows the tribunal’s disregard for these efforts. I believe that the tribunal members’ absence from the on-site survey of Taiping Island, which would have been permitted under Unclos, was a key factor that led them to believe the one-sided story offered by representatives of the Philippines. A remote ruling that lacks evidence from on-site investigation and testimony from eyewitnesses cannot be convincing—not for Taiwan nor for any other country whose island stakes are potentially threatened. Instead, this ruling produces more problems than answers for claimants in the South China Sea. It creates an obstacle rather than a path leading to a peaceful resolution.