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
Opinion / Op-Ed Contributors

Tribunal proceedings on Manila's claims flawed

By Chris Whomersley (China Daily) Updated: 2016-06-16 08:27

When the Philippines commenced arbitration proceedings under UNCLOS, China declined to appear, arguing that the proceedings were covered by one of the exceptions in UNCLOS. Non-appearance by a State in international proceedings is actually not so unusual. Most famously, the United States declined to participate in the proceedings brought by Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice in the 1980s after the Court had held that it had jurisdiction.

So, on what basis did the Tribunal find that it had jurisdiction? The first point to note is that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the territorial sovereignty over the various land features in the South China Sea-even though it is common knowledge that this issue is hotly disputed, not only by China and the Philippines, but also by Viet Nam, Malaysia and Brunei. In other words, the Tribunal cannot say that a particular feature belongs to China or the Philippines. This is because the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to decide on disputes over the "interpretation or application" of UNCLOS, and UNCLOS of course is not concerned with resolving disputes over land territory. The Philippines recognized the difficulty here and expressly denied that it was seeking a decision on sovereignty over land territory.

Despite this, the Tribunal took the view that it can decide upon the status of features in the South China Sea (ie whether they are "rocks" or low-tide elevations), even though it cannot rule on which State the feature belongs to. I have described this elsewhere as putting the status cart before the sovereignty horse, and there appears to be no precedent for an international tribunal proceeding in such circumstances.

In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal asked itself what was the "real issue" in the case brought by the Philippines, and decided that it was not about the sovereignty over the features, but about their status; thus, it said that it could rule on the latter question without touching on the former. This is despite the recent precedent of the case brought by Mauritius against the United Kingdom, in which by bringing proceedings under UNCLOS questioning the validity of the marine protected area declared around the Chagos Archipelago, Mauritius sought to dispute the sovereignty over the islands. The Tribunal in that case rightly saw through that device and declined to accept Mauritius's argument on this point. It is perhaps surprising that the Tribunal in the Philippines case did not follow this precedent.

It is also important to note that one of the exceptions in UNCLOS which China has made use of relates to maritime delimitation. Thus, there can be no compulsory recourse to arbitration in a case about maritime delimitation involving China. But actually one of the key questions in any maritime delimitation is: what is the status of the various features in the maritime area being delimited. This is because, as we have seen, low-tide elevations do not generate maritime zones at all and "rocks" only generate a territorial sea. So, deciding upon the status of maritime features is an indispensable component in effecting a maritime delimitation. In other words, delimiting a maritime boundary necessarily involves also considering the status of maritime features. There is a strong argument therefore that the Chinese exception for maritime delimitation should also have been held to cover the question of the status of the maritime features which are an indispensable part of effecting a maritime delimitation.

Furthermore, there is a well-known legal dictum that "the land dominates the sea". In other words, a State's entitlements to maritime zones depends upon the territory owned by that State. Thus, the International Court of Justice in its case-law has always decided upon disputes over land territory before proceeding to prescribe a maritime boundary. So, there are three interdependent elements: the status of features, maritime delimitation and sovereignty over land territory. But even though the Tribunal accepted that it has no jurisdiction over the latter two elements, it has decided to proceed with the case on the basis that it has jurisdiction over the first element.

Most Viewed Today's Top News
...
主站蜘蛛池模板: 国产片网址 | 亚洲国产系列 | 亚洲男人天堂2023 | 天天操天天舔 | www.日韩av | 亚洲成人一区二区 | 国产h视频| 精品欧美激情精品一区 | 三毛片| 国产美女永久免费无遮挡 | 亚洲人人精品 | 午夜精品久久久久99蜜桃最新版 | 日韩色图av | 国产精品第一页在线观看 | 日韩视频免费看 | 国产成人97精品免费看片 | 欧美日韩久久 | 狠狠欧美 | 日韩黄色在线视频 | 国产又大又猛 | 国产精品国产精品国产专区 | 国产不卡视频 | 男人天堂网在线视频 | 日本a大片 | 校园春色 亚洲 | 激情久久视频 | 九色视频在线播放 | 国产精品12区 | 97爱爱爱| 亚洲激情视频在线观看 | 国产91精品一区二区绿帽 | 成人免费视频国产免费网站 | 欧美 日本 国产 | 日韩精品亚洲精品 | 香蕉网在线 | 先锋av资源站 | 永久免费精品 | 久久久久久久久久久国产精品 | 久久天堂 | 亚欧精品在线 | 91免费|