日批在线视频_内射毛片内射国产夫妻_亚洲三级小视频_在线观看亚洲大片短视频_女性向h片资源在线观看_亚洲最大网

US EUROPE AFRICA ASIA 中文
World / Asia-Pacific

South China Sea arbitration abuses international law, threatens world order

(People's Daily) Updated: 2016-06-29 15:21

South China Sea arbitration abuses international law, threatens world order

File photo of South China Sea. [Photo/Xinhua]

A seminar on the South China Sea Arbitration and International Rule of Law was held on Sunday in the Hague, the location of the Permanent Court of Arbitration's arbitral tribunal. At the seminar hosted by both Chinese and Dutch academic institutions, experts from various countries warned that the unilateral filing of the South China Sea arbitration case by the Aquino administration of the Philippines and the arbitral tribunal's overreach and abuse of power is a desecration of the spirit of the rule of law and pose a threat to current international order.

With this move, the Philippines is just adorning itself with borrowed plumes. First of all, estoppel is a basic principle of international law. As is known to all, China and ASEAN countries, including the Philippines, signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002, in which all sides agreed to settle disputes over the South China Sea through friendly negotiation and consultation by parties directly concerned.

In 2011, the Philippines and China issued a joint statement, reiterating their respect and observation of the DOC. However, just two years later, the Aquino administration unilaterally submitted the South China Sea case for arbitration in spite of its previous commitments.

Secondly, the Philippines ignores basic historical facts by presumptuously claiming that the Chinese people never lived or conducted activities in the South China Sea region, thus bearing no sovereignty over the islands in the region.

Yet no one can deny the historical fact that those islands have been part of China's territory since ancient times. Successive Chinese governments have continued to govern the islands through multiple approaches including setting administrative divisions, military patrols and conducting salvages at sea.

Respecting historical fact is an important principle of international law. Through its lack of respect for the facts, the South China Sea case violates this principle.

Moreover, the Philippines' interpretation of the legal status of the islands and reefs in the South China Sea is not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) and other international laws.

The Southeast Asian nation claims that the Huangyan Island and the Nansha islands cannot be considered islands as such no one can establish exclusive economic zones or claim the continental shelves there. Such an argument flies in the face of objective reality.

The Philippines deliberately misrepresented factual information about the islands and reefs in the South China Sea during the trial and carelessly negated the integrity of the Nansha islands as well as the island status of Taiping Island and other large islands in area. However, its claims are not only inconsistent with reality, but also incompatible with UNCLOS and other international laws.

The legal representatives of the Philippines also withheld necessary information concerning other islands in the South China Sea (not included in its arbitration request) on purpose, and refused to present them to the court. It is safe to say that the Philippines' argument concerning the South China Sea islands and reefs lacks basic credibility.

Taking this into consideration, the arbitral tribunal has clearly violated UNCLOS, abused the UNCLOS settlement procedure and exceeded its jurisdiction by accepting the unilateral request of the Philippines and even trying to deliver a verdict on the South China Sea issue. Its self-proclaimed "jurisprudence" and "normative power" demonstrate great irony.

The core of the South China Sea issue between China and the Philippines are territorial and maritime delimitation disputes. Territorial issues do not fall within the scope of UNCLOS authority. Additionally, as early as 2006, China has excluded compulsory settlement procedures from maritime delimitation disputes in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS.

As a temporary institution founded on UNCLOS, the tribunal has zero jurisdiction over this case. Arbitration and other international judicial methods to resolve disputes means resorting to third-party settlement. However, this option has already been excluded by internationally binding bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines.

Previous Page 1 2 Next Page

Trudeau visits Sina Weibo
May gets little gasp as EU extends deadline for sufficient progress in Brexit talks
Ethiopian FM urges strengthened Ethiopia-China ties
Yemen's ex-president Saleh, relatives killed by Houthis
Most Popular
Hot Topics

...
主站蜘蛛池模板: 亚洲女同一区二区 | a级毛毛片 | 色婷婷aⅴ | 中文字幕免费高 | 国产精品国产三级国产aⅴ无密码 | 国产日韩在线播放 | 中文av在线播放 | 自拍偷拍第1页 | 国产精品亚洲一区二区三区 | www色婷婷 | 欧美午夜激情影院 | 国产婷婷 | 日本熟女毛茸茸 | 久久久久久美女 | 国产一二区在线观看 | 免费成人深夜夜行网站 | 伊人激情综合网 | 国产第一页在线 | 亚洲自啪 | 黄色片网站在线观看 | 中文字幕亚洲一区 | 中文字幕视频二区 | 亚洲高清免费 | 97午夜影院| 国产精品jizz | 国产福利在线 | 二三区视频 | 国产精品久久久久久无人区 | 一区色| 一级看片免费视频 | 国产第99页 | 怡春院在线视频 | 午夜看片网 | 99性视频| 一区二区三区国产视频 | 中文字幕97 | 色网站免费 | 91精品久久香蕉国产线看观看 | 日韩av在线免费播放 | 亚洲精品在线免费 | 欧美a视频|