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 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: 18成人网| 国产精品jvid在线观看 | 手机在线播放视频 | 午夜三级理论在线观看视频 | 台湾三级 | 美女张开腿让男人桶爽免费网站 | 岛国搬运工最新网地址 | 九九热久久免费视频 | 久久五| 成人男女18免费o | 性感美女视频黄.免费网站 性高湖久久久久久久久 | 欧美特黄一区二区三区 | 日本道综合一本久久久88 | 成年午夜性爽快免费视频不卡 | 九九精品在线视频 | 日本高清专区一区二无线 | 日韩在线视频网址 | 香蕉亚洲精品一区二区 | www.亚洲成人 | 中国a级淫片免费播放 | 一二三区在线观看 | 日韩午夜视频在线观看 | 日本不卡一区二区三区在线观看 | 在线观看一区二区三区四区 | 久久网免费| 成人精品国产亚洲 | 成人亚洲欧美综合 | 巨乳激情| 91av福利视频 | 亚洲欧美中文日韩二区一区 | 日本一区二区三区高清福利视频 | 国产精品99久久免费观看 | 普通话对白国产情侣自啪 | 一级毛片看一个 | 怡红院免费全部视频在线视频 | 在线观看视频亚洲 | 亚洲精品高清国产麻豆专区 | 亚洲图片 自拍偷拍 | 欧美一级片网 | 国产精品成人久久久久久久 | 亚洲国产精品a一区二区三区 |