
美日等14国南海仲裁十周年发声明 再拒中国“九段线”主张
2026年7月12日,美、日、菲等14国发表联合声明,纪念南海仲裁裁决十周年并重申其法律效力,中国以裁决非法无效为由强硬拒绝。
7月12日,在南海仲裁案裁决整十周年之际,美国、日本、菲律宾、英国、澳大利亚等14个国家发表联合声明,重申2016年根据《联合国海洋法公约》组成的仲裁庭所作裁决“最终且具有法律约束力”,并明确表示中国的广泛海洋主张,包括基于所谓“历史权利”的“九段线”诉求“没有法律依据”。欧盟单独发表声明支持该裁决。中国外交部立即回应,指裁决“非法、无效”,并重申中国既不接受也不承认。
联合声明因应在南海多年紧张局势升级而发。根据声明,签署国“强烈反对”使用武力或胁迫的任何单边行为,并对以海警、军事力量及海上民兵骚扰、阻碍他国合法航行的做法表示关切。日本外相茂木敏充在另一份声明中称,中国拒绝裁决“损害国际社会法治”。这些表述反映出华盛顿及其盟友试图运用国际法框架约束北京的海上扩张态势,并维持所谓“自由开放的国际秩序”。值得注意的是,参与声明的国家以西方和日本、澳大利亚为主,东南亚仅菲律宾签署,凸显地区内部对与中国对抗的分化立场。
北京针锋相对,不仅在外交辞令上回绝,更通过官方媒体释放信号。中国驻菲律宾大使黄溪连在中共机关报《人民日报》发文,要求马尼拉“放弃幻想,清除这一毒害遗产”,并将双边关系改善与菲方是否放弃仲裁主张直接挂钩。根据中国官方叙事,2016年仲裁庭组成及程序本身违反国际惯例,侵犯中国作为公约缔约国的自主权。中国坚持在南海拥有历史性权利,并持续以海警力量强化实际控制。近年记录显示,中国海警船多次使用高压水炮、军事级激光及危险拦截动作对抗菲律宾补给船和渔船,此类行为被联合声明列为威胁和平稳定的“胁迫”。
这一多边声明的发布时机恰逢印太地缘格局深度调整。印度总理莫迪刚刚完成对印尼、澳大利亚和新西兰的国事访问,期间印尼同意引进印俄合研的布拉莫斯超音速导弹,澳大利亚首度对印开放铀矿供应。分析界将此视作美日等盟友体系扩大安全与技术合作、对冲中国地区影响力的组成部分。南海行为准则(COC)谈判进展缓慢,中国与部分东盟国家立场靠近,但联合声明可能加剧外交对峙。未来几个月,美海军及盟国或增加航行自由行动频次,而菲律宾预计将继续在国际仲裁、军事威慑与双边对话间寻求平衡,区域内擦枪走火的风险仍存。
| 大西洋/英语圈媒体 | +0.80 | aligned |
|---|---|---|
| 欧洲大陆媒体 | +0.60 | aligned |
| 日韩媒体 | +0.70 | aligned |
The rules-based order defends itself against unilateral violations. The arbitration is final and binding, and destabilizing actions must cease.
The narrative universalizes the arbitration ruling as an unquestionable legal fact, framing non-compliance as a threat to regional stability, thereby delegitimizing any Chinese counter-narrative.
Omits the call for peaceful dialogue present in other blocs, which would soften the confrontational tone.
International law is clear: the ruling is final and binding, and all parties must respect it.
The emphasis on 'final, legally binding, and definitive' presents the ruling as an indisputable judicial fact, depoliticising the issue and making China's non-compliance appear as a legal violation.
Omits the explicit characterization of China's claims as 'illegal' and the term 'destabilising actions', present in the Atlantic bloc, which would strengthen the legal condemnation.
Japan and its partners defend the international maritime order, reminding China that the arbitration ruling is a matter of law, not negotiation.
The use of the 10-year anniversary frames the ruling as a historical milestone that cannot be ignored, thereby moralising the call for compliance.
Omits the reference to 'destabilising actions' and the regional security dimension present in the Atlantic bloc, focusing solely on the legal aspect.