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: jizz日本视频 | 久久婷婷成人综合色 | 亚洲精品国产免费 | 天堂成人在线视频 | 91精品国产麻豆 | 亚洲色图欧美视频 | 亚洲精品一区二区三区蜜桃 | 日本一区二区三区在线观看视频 | 亚洲午夜小视频 | 午夜精品在线视频 | 成人看的视频 | 麻豆国产一区二区三区四区 | 欧美性猛交xxxx免费看 | 久久精品无码一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品视频二区 | 久久国产高清 | 久久久久亚洲精品 | 91看片视频 | 超碰在线观看免费 | 国产免费看片 | 黄色大片黄色大片 | 欧美一级特黄视频 | 欧美日韩在线中文字幕 | 久久99久久99精品免观看粉嫩 | 狠狠久| 四虎免费视频 | 色多多av | 午夜视频福利 | 国产原创视频在线观看 | 男人天堂2014| 一级做a爱片久久毛片 | 色综合久久久久久 | 亚洲a在线观看 | 国产精品久久久久久久久久久久久久久久 | 免费成人小视频 | 日韩一区二区精品视频 | 麻豆性生活 | 每日av在线| 欧美bbbbbbbbbbbb精品 | 四虎com| 午夜天堂视频 |