China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration

[Beast]

Wow you feel said and yet your stealing from us resources, Islands, flooding our country with cheap useless dangerious products killing local business and hitting us with something that is being working under the courts and unlike in lawless party ruled china peopel are all guilty no justice and real trail i guess being a mindless zombie thats why!

You just lost of words for your country failed to protect ordinary Pinoy. May I know will ordinary Pinoy accuse of crime has same privilege like the US marine? No, US citizen is special breed in Philippine. Above the law

 

[Zero_wing]

You just lost of words for your country failed to protect ordinary Pinoy. May I know will ordinary Pinoy accuse of crime has same privilege like the US marine? No, US citizen is special breed in Philippine. Above the law

The what i dont understand your stupidity sir please try again your full of crap?

 

[BoQ77]

Limits in the Sea

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf

 

[sword1947]

Huh? what do you mean?

You either remain a signatory to UNCLOS and its laws, conventions and rulings will be legally binding to you.

Or you can stay out of UNCLOS like the US and the law and conventions of UNCLOS will not apply to you.

It's like someone offering you a business contract. You can choose to enter into that contract or refuse it. If you refuse, then you are safe from that contract and no one can use that contract against you.

But if you sign that business contract, then you will be legally binded to that contract. If you break a contract clause, some one else can then use that contract against you and a court can make a legally binding ruling against you. You can ignore the ruling, but under the law, you will be regarded as a law breaker (criminal).

So you can either stay out of UNCLOS or stay in. If you stay in and ignore its law and ruling, you will be regarded as a law breaker (criminal).

OK, tell you the truth. a law powerful or not depend on how powerful the law executer is. we do sign this document, but it is inferior to our domestic law. the power of our domestic law is guaranteed by our soldier & economy, so what kind of power back this Convention up? we do have ignored it, have we been nuked, have we been economic sanction? for example, the international law have asked all countries abandon cluster bomb for a long long time, but many countries still ignore it. above all, I just want to tell you without powerful guarantee, all intertional laws are pieces of shxt, understand?

 

[Zero_wing]

Second class citizen ,just admit it. As long as you side with American. Pinoy will always be sidekick for Americans. But never mind, Aquino loves it.

Wow that made a lot of sense from a zombie slave

 

[BoQ77]

Remarks by Xu Hong, Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines

Updated: Dec 7,2014 10:48 AM fmprc.gov.cn

On 7 December 2014, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China is authorized to release the Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines. Xu Hong, Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Foreign Ministry, gave an interview to the Xinhua News Agency on this occasion.

Xinhua: Why does our government need to publish a position paper on the matter of jurisdiction in the South China Sea arbitration initiated by the Philippines?

Xu Hong: On 22 January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated international arbitral proceedings regarding the dispute with China in the South China Sea. The Chinese Government is firmly opposed to that, and has reiterated on several occasions its firm position not to accept or participate in the arbitration.

Despite China’s strong objection, the Philippines has been obstinately pushing forward the arbitral proceedings. Some people, who do not know the truth, have questioned China’s position of not accepting or participating in the arbitration. Some others, who harbor ulterior motives, have made one-sided and misleading readings of international rules and, on that basis, made accusations or insinuations that China does not abide by international law, and perversely branded China as a “challenger” to international rules.

In response to this situation and with a view to clearing up the confusion, the Chinese Government publishes the Position Paper to elaborate on the legal basis for China’s position that the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction in this case and to demonstrate that China’s position not to accept or participate in the proceedings stands on solid ground in international law.

Xinhua: Our government’s Position Paper clearly states that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the arbitration initiated by the Philippines. What are the grounds for this position?

Xu Hong: It is quite obvious that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the arbitration. The Position Paper presents this view by making analyses from the following three aspects.

First, the essence of the Philippines’claims. The subject-matter of the Philippines’ claims is in essence an issue of territorial sovereignty, which, however, goes beyond the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (”Convention”). The dispute settlement procedures within the framework of the Convention are only confined to disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention and therefore are not competent to address a matter falling outside the scope of the Convention.

Second, the bilateral agreement reached between China and the Philippines concerning this issue. Through a series of bilateral and multilateral instruments, China and the Philippines have agreed to settle their disputes in the South China Sea through friendly consultations and negotiations, to the exclusion of all other means. This is a mutual obligation binding on the two States under international law. By unilaterally submitting the dispute to arbitration, the Philippines has breached the agreement between the two States and violated international law.

Third, the dispute settlement clauses of the Convention itself. Even if the subject-matter of the Philippines’ claims could be considered in part as concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, it constitutes an integral part of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. However, China has already excluded, through a declaration made in 2006 pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention, disputes concerning maritime delimitation, inter alia, from the application of arbitration and other compulsory procedures.

It follows from the above three points that the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over the claims that the Philippines has submitted for arbitration.

Xinhua: There is one view saying that the arbitration the Philippines has initiated pursuant to the Convention is in itself a peaceful means of dispute settlement; yet, China, a party to the Convention and a champion of peaceful settlement of international disputes, has refused to accept or participate in this arbitration. This makes China’s stand look unconvincing. How would you comment on this?

Xu Hong: States have at their disposal many ways of resolving disputes peacefully. The most important and preferred means is direct negotiation between the State parties to a dispute, rather than arbitration.

Under international law, it is the sovereign right of the States concerned to choose a means of dispute settlement. Arbitration is only one of the means, and it must be based on the principle of consent. In a bilateral dispute, if one party does not accept or participate in arbitration, the other party shall not institute arbitration against its will.

Although the Convention provides for arbitration and other compulsory procedures for dispute settlement, recourse to this category of procedures is subject to conditions and constraints. This category of procedures can only be employed to settle disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. If the State parties to a dispute have chosen other means of dispute settlement of their own accord, the chosen means has priority over this category of procedures. Furthermore, a State party may also make a declaration pursuant to the Convention to exclude specified categories of disputes from the application of the compulsory procedures.

Regarding the arbitration initiated by the Philippines, as discussed above, the essence of the subject-matter of its claims is territorial sovereignty, an issue completely beyond the scope of the Convention. China and the Philippines have reached agreement to settle their relevant disputes through negotiation. And China has never accepted any compulsory procedures for the relevant disputes. It follows that the unilateral initiation of compulsory arbitration by the Philippines is a clear abuse of the compulsory procedures provided for in the Convention. Such a practice is and should be frowned upon internationally. By refusing to accept or participate in the arbitration initiated by the Philippines China is defending its sovereign right to choose a means of dispute settlement of its free will. Our decision is an exercise of the rights we enjoy under international law, and is well founded on international law.

Xinhua: A core claim made by the Philippines concerns the maritime rights China asserts on the basis of the dotted line in the South China Sea. Some voices in the world have expressed the hope that China clarify the meaning of the dotted line. But the Position Paper does not answer these questions. What are the considerations behind this?

Xu Hong: In 1948, the Chinese Government published an official map that displayed the dotted line in the South China Sea. The Position Paper does mention this fact when setting out the historical background to the relevant dispute in the South China Sea.

China’s position on the relevant issue is consistent and clear. China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and the adjacent waters. China’s sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea have formed and evolved over a long course of history. They are solidly grounded in history and law and have been continuously upheld by the Chinese Government.

Given China’s decision not to accept or participate in the arbitration, the Position Paper of the Chinese Government only expounds on its view that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case. It does not address the substantive issues involved in the arbitration. This point is made very clear in the introduction of the Position Paper.

Xinhua: It has been learned that the Arbitral Tribunal requested that China submit its counter-memorial before 15 December of this year. Our government has chosen to publish the Position Paper at this juncture. May the Position Paper be considered as a response to the request of the Arbitral Tribunal? What effect will the Position Paper have on the Arbitral Tribunal?

Xu Hong: The Position Paper of the Chinese Government is neither a counter-memorial on the arbitration nor a response to the request of the Arbitral Tribunal. The publication of the Position Paper does not represent China’s acceptance of or participation in the arbitration initiated by the Philippines. China’s position not to accept or participate in the arbitration will not change.

The Chinese Government publishes this Position Paper in order to set forth its legal positions, together with due reasoning and support, on the matter of jurisdiction in this arbitration. On the basis of international law, this Position Paper debunks the Philippines’ groundless assertions and projects China’s image as a defender and promoter of the international rule of law. I believe that any organ or individual that conscientiously upholds the rule of law will respect and appreciate the stand of the Chinese Government.

Xinhua: What positive effect will the publication of the Position Paper have on the settlement of relevant disputes in the South China Sea and the maintenance of peace and stability in the South China Sea?

Xu Hong: The Position Paper elucidates legally why the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the compulsory arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines and why China’s decision not to accept or participate in the arbitration is well grounded in law. At the same time, the Position Paper stresses that negotiation is recognized by international law as the most direct, most effective and most frequently used means of peaceful settlement of international disputes. It sends a message to the international community that the relevant countries must properly handle their disputes in the South China Sea; any attempt to impose one’s will on others will get nowhere, and consultation and negotiation is the right way forward.

As pointed out in the Position Paper, through negotiation China has settled its land boundary with almost all of its neighbours and has delimited its maritime boundary in Beibu Bay with Vietnam. Facts have shown that the existence of differences is nothing to be afraid of, neither is the complexity of the issues. As long as the relevant countries have the goodwill and engage in friendly consultations and negotiations on an equal footing, they can enhance mutual trust, expand common understanding and gradually and properly settle their territorial and maritime delimitation disputes. The same is true with the South China Sea issue.

China urges the Philippines to return as soon as possible to the right track of negotiation to settle the disputes. China is also ready to work with all relevant countries to properly resolve their disputes through negotiation and on the basis of respect for historical facts and international law, and strengthen win-win cooperation, to jointly maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.



Remarks by Xu Hong, Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the Position Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines

South China Sea Tensions Flare as Vietnam Files Stance to Court
By Diep Ngoc Pham and John Boudreau Dec 12, 2014 4:54 PM GMT+0700

Tensions over the South China Sea were reignited after Vietnam said it had submitted its stance on the dispute to the international arbitration tribunal reviewing the Philippines’ challenge against China’s claims.

Vietnam has asked the arbitration court to take into account its legal rights and interests in the disputed sea region, spokesman Le Hai Binh, said in a foreign ministry statement posted on its website yesterday. The country also refuted China’s claims to the Paracel and Spratly islands in the statement, which provoked a Chinese response yesterday that its neighbor’s claims were unlawful.

The renewed tensions are being sparked as the United Nations tribunal in the Hague considers Philippine’s challenge to China’s claim to much of the South China Sea as the island nation seeks to check Beijing’s bid for control of waters rich in oil, gas and fish. Vietnamese and Philippine leaders say they are determined to oppose China’s move to control the sea region after China placed an oil rig, HYSY-981, in May off Vietnam’s coast.

“Beijing will be irritated that Vietnam has submitted its views to the Arbitral Tribunal, which in China’s view has no jurisdiction over this issue,” said Ian Storey, senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. “Despite efforts by both sides to repair the damage caused by HYSY-981, it demonstrates yet again that the South China Sea dispute continues to bedevil bilateral relations.”

International Arbitration
China said it rejects international arbitration of the territorial dispute and will not join in the proceedings, according to a position paper released December 7. China has “indisputable” sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, according to a foreign ministry statement.

Vietnam reiterates it has “sufficient historical evidence and legal ground to affirm its sovereignty” over the Paracel and Spratly islands, according to the statement. The foreign ministry didn’t say when the submission to the arbitration court was made. The South China Morning Post reported it was submitted Dec. 5.

Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung said in May the country has prepared evidence for a legal suit challenging China’s claims to the waters and is considering the best time to file it.

Vietnam’s submission “raises the stature of the case in the eyes of the arbitrational tribunal,” Carlyle Thayer, an emeritus professor at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra, said by phone. “It pushes management of the dispute slightly down the legal path. Vietnam may have concluded that if it does not look out for its own interests, it will be left behind.”

For now, Vietnam is most likely content to let the Philippines bear the brunt of China’s anger for taking the case to the tribunal, Storey said.

China claims much of the island chains and waters in the South China Sea that extends hundreds of miles south from Hainan Island outlined in its nine-dash line map, first published in 1940s.

To contact the reporters on this story: K. Oanh Ha in Hanoi at oha3@bloomberg.net; Diep Ngoc Pham in Hanoi at dpham5@bloomberg.net

 

[yusheng]

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei's Remarks on Vietnam's Statement on the Chinese Government's Position Paper on Rejecting the Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal Established at the Request of the Philippines for the South China Sea Arbitration
2014/12/12
Q: In response to the position paper on the South China Sea arbitration that China released on 7 December, the spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of Vietnam said on 11 December that Vietnam has sovereignty over Nansha Islands and Xisha Islands, and opposes China's claims in the South China Sea based on "the dotted line". He stated that the Vietnamese side had already made clear its position on the arbitration case to the Arbitral Tribunal. What is China's comment on that?

A: China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters. And it is an indisputable fact that the Xisha Islands are an integral part of China's territory. As early as 1948, the Chinese government published an official map which displayed "the dotted line" in the South China Sea. China's sovereignty over the South China Sea and its claims to the relevant rights have been formed over a long course of history. They are solidly grounded in international law and have been consistently upheld by successive Chinese governments. China will by no means accept Vietnam's illegal and invalid sovereignty claims over Nansha and Xisha Islands.

The Chinese side urges the Vietnamese side to earnestly respect China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, work with China to resolve relevant disputes over the Nansha Islands through consultation and negotiation on the basis of respecting historical facts and international law so as to jointly safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea.

China will stick to its principled position of neither accepting nor participating in the South China Sea arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines. The position paper that the Foreign Ministry of China was authorized to publish on 7 December has systematically elaborated on the legal basis for China's position that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this case. China's position will not change.

Appendix:
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei's Remarks on Vietnam's Statement on the Chinese Government's Position Paper on Rejecting the Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal Established at the Request of the Philippines for the South China Sea Arbitration

 

[BoQ77]

As early as 1948, the Chinese government published an official map which displayed "the dotted line" in the South China Sea. (stop here?) China's sovereignty over the South China Sea and its claims to the relevant rights have been formed over a long course of history. They are solidly grounded in international law and have been consistently upheld by successive Chinese governments. .

The whole world want to know more about that dotted line, but China always stop at that.
that's why others filed to arbitration. And they should do that because they have longer course of history practicing the rights there.

 

[William Hung]

OK, tell you the truth. a law powerful or not depend on how powerful the law executer is. we do sign this document, but it is inferior to our domestic law. the power of our domestic law is guaranteed by our soldier & economy, so what kind of power back this Convention up? we do have ignored it, have we been nuked, have we been economic sanction? for example, the international law have asked all countries abandon cluster bomb for a long long time, but many countries still ignore it. above all, I just want to tell you without powerful guarantee, all intertional laws are pieces of shxt, understand?

@yusheng please take care of this guy @sword1947.


I can see the PRC has been working hard to create that report to convince the world that the PRC obeys international law. Now this @sword1947 guy is saying that China will break international law because it is "shxt".

 

[Zero_wing]

Second class citizen ,just admit it. As long as you side with American. Pinoy will always be sidekick for Americans. But never mind, Aquino loves it.

And why? Am tax playing citizens am infrerior to no one only you imperialist arrogant $cum think of us that way and this coming from troll who country kills millions of its own for one dictator $cum who did not care about his own and person with no rights lecture me about rights? Hahahahahaha your the one whos sad and pathetic at less i can say what i want without fear from my government unlike you Bih0n SOB and your propaganda has nothing to do with topic troll face why have no real reason.

Han chinese were second class citizens to Manchurian rulers, you were no better than Philippinos, ha ha.

Dont put in the led of you guys you commies dont have rights to say anthing i dont need to take lectures on rights from people like you you people are the only second class citizens in your own countries and its filipino dumb dumd learn to say the correct political term

 

[BoQ77]

You just hurt your Vietnamese ally there, you dumb shit. LOL

there's no funded guys from Vietnam here. Most of Vietnamese isn't communist. So am I.

 

[sword1947]

@yusheng please take care of this guy @sword1947.


I can see the PRC has been working hard to create that report to convince the world that the PRC obeys international law. Now this @sword1947 guy is saying that China will break international law because it is "shxt".

We have done more, we trade with Iran, North Korea, Russia & many other countries which have been sanctions by so called "INTERNATIONAL LAW". can you do something to stop us?
One more time: without powerful guarantee, all intertional laws are pieces of shxt.

 

[BoQ77]

We challenge China to stand up for showing their historical evidences at arbitration.

 

[JayMandan]

They Can't swallow the fact that a poor, tiny island country is standing up against them and even holding their fishermen imprisoned yet they can't do anything about it. Man if I was from that country, I'd turn into an Internet troll also spreading propaganda for a few cents. Damn.

 

[William Hung]

We have done more, we trade with Iran, North Korea, Russia & many other countries which have been sanctions by so called "INTERNATIONAL LAW". can you do something to stop us?
One more time: without powerful guarantee, all intertional laws are pieces of shxt.

So why did China bothered releasing the position paper? it wants to reply to "pieces of shxt"?

BTW, no "international law" has ever sanctioned Iran, NK and Russia. Countries get together and sanctioned them, not the law.