www射-国产免费一级-欧美福利-亚洲成人福利-成人一区在线观看-亚州成人

US EUROPE AFRICA ASIA 中文
Opinion / Op-Ed Contributors

Tribunal arbitration on S. China Sea neither fair not just

By Lu Yang (China Daily) Updated: 2015-12-19 09:22

Tribunal arbitration on S. China Sea neither fair not just

A formation of the Nanhai Fleet of China's Navy on Saturday finished a three-day patrol of the Nansha islands in the South China Sea. [Photo/Xinhua]

By dragging the South China Sea dispute to arbitration, the Philippines has made a politically provocative move under the cloak of law. At the end of October, in disregard to basic facts and fundamental jurisprudence, the Arbitral Tribunal set up at the unilateral request of the Philippines rendered the award on jurisdiction and admissibility of the arbitration. Confounding black and white, the Tribunal spared no effort in backing up the Philippines' arguments, and thus rendered support and encouragement to the Philippines' illegal occupation of China's territory and encroachment upon China's maritime rights and interests.

Fraught with far-fetched and unfounded assumptions, the reasoning process of the Tribunal was by no means based on facts, common sense or justice, and its positions were neither fair nor impartial.

What has truly happened cannot be covered up by an arbitration that ignores facts. The Tribunal deliberately framed the previous consultations between China and the Philippines on disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation as consultations on the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and affirmed these consultations as evidence that the Philippines had fulfilled its obligation of exchange of views.

As a matter of fact, China and the Philippines have never held any negotiation, not even exchange of views, on the matter of arbitration.

There is no trace of justice in an arbitration that violates jurisprudence. For example, the Tribunal knows full well that it has no jurisdiction over a case concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.

On the one hand, it evaded the essence of the dispute and insisted that this case had nothing to do with territorial sovereignty. On the other, in disregard of China's declaration in accordance with the UNCLOS in 2006 that excludes disputes over maritime delimitation from arbitral proceedings, the Tribunal deliberately included in its jurisdiction matters that, in essence, concern territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.

Such moves to arrogate power are a violation of the spirit of diligence and self-discipline which judicial bodies should honor when hearing cases. They are also detrimental to the credibility and value of dispute settlement through judicial means.

Another example is the one-sidedness and lack of impartiality in the Tribunal's selection and citation of judicial cases. On many occasions, it cited biased, highly controversial judicial or arbitral cases and used controversial views and verdicts put forth by arbitrators of this very Tribunal as legal precedent in support of views on the verdict of this case. Such so called self-sufficient and partial arguments have seriously damaged the integrity, logic and consistency of the relevant legal conclusion.

Yet another example is the distortion of the relations between the UNCLOS and customary international law. Turning a blind eye to customary international law, the Tribunal kept citing the UNCLOS and attempted to make the UNCLOS applicable to everything related to the sea.

Any one familiar with international law would know well that the regime of international law of the sea provided in the UNCLOS is, in itself, a summary of maritime history and practices and a reflection of the common aspirations of countries, and that the very text of the UNCLOS shows respect for customary international law. What the Tribunal has done is a breach of the basic purposes and spirit of the UNCLOS.

The Tribunal accepted the Philippines' false arguments in its entirety disregarding the basic fact of the country's abuse of legal procedures. Its moves to jump to conclusions first and then prove them by distorting evidence and verdicts will be a serious erosion of the international judicial system that champions fairness and justice.

The author is a researcher in international studies.

Most Viewed Today's Top News
...
主站蜘蛛池模板: 久草手机在线 | 欧美精品专区55页 | 91久久精品国产91久久性色tv | 国产精品精品国产 | 国产精品视_精品国产免费 国产精品视频久 | 欧美一级特黄特黄做受 | 欧美成人怡红院在线观看 | 国产高清视频免费 | 成人午夜影院在线观看 | 日本一级特大毛片 | 一级床上爽高清播放 | 成人高清视频在线观看 | 免费精品久久久视频 | 日韩精品一区二区三区乱码 | 色碰碰| 国产伦精一区二区三区视频 | 操美国女人 | 久久一本色系列综合色 | 伊人久久免费 | 日韩中文字幕在线观看视频 | 国产精品99久久久久久人 | 日本在线国产 | 亚洲人成在线影院 | 一级做a爱久久久久久久 | 久久免费视频7 | 久久欧美久久欧美精品 | 三级三级三级全黄 | 国产一级毛片一区二区三区 | 亚洲天堂久久精品成人 | 欧美日韩一区二区视频免费看 | 久久久久女人精品毛片九一 | 亚洲日本久久一区二区va | 中文字幕水野优香在线网在线 | 欧美一级特黄aaaaaa在线看片 | 欧美成人一级片 | 亚洲一区2区三区4区5区 | 八戒午夜精品视频在线观看 | 国产成人综合网在线播放 | 亚洲不卡在线观看 | 中国女人毛茸茸免费视频 | 成人在线不卡视频 |