beijingwalker
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 65,195
- Reaction score
- -55
- Country
- Location
China’s Defiance of International Court Has Precedent—U.S. Defiance
By
JEREMY PAGE
Updated July 7, 2016 7:51 p.m. ET
BEIJING—Beijing’s determination to reject an international tribunal’s ruling next weekon its South China Sea claims is unusual but not unprecedented. There is one especially notable case of a powerful nation ignoring an international court’s verdict: the U.S.
In 1986, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled in favor of Nicaragua in a case the Central American nation brought against the U.S. for aiding Nicaraguan Contra rebels and mining the country’s ports in a bid to undermine its socialist government.
The U.S. boycotted most of the proceedings, saying the court had no jurisdiction, and refused to observe its verdict, which granted Nicaragua an initial award of $370 million. The U.S. then used its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council to veto resolutions demanding it observe the Nicaragua ruling, ignored another passed by the U.N. General Assembly, and only stopped aiding the Contras when blocked by the U.S. Congress in 1988.
China’s case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, also in The Hague, was similarly brought by a small country against its giant neighbor. The Philippines argues that China’s claims over a vast expanse of the South China Sea, which Beijing has delineated with a “nine-dash line,” violate international law.
China also disputed the court’s jurisdiction and refused to take part in the proceedings. And if, as expected, the tribunal rules against China on several counts, Beijing is expected to adopt an approach similar to that of the U.S. 30 years ago: Ignore the ruling and muscle through.
That, however, is “not the end of the story,” said Paul Reichler, the lead lawyer for the Philippines, who also represented Nicaragua against the U.S.
He described the earlier case as a “blemish on the U.S. moral posture and its ability to project itself as a promoter of a rules-based international order.” China would face similar reputational damage, he said, as well as further legal challenges, if it disregarded the ruling.
As with many cases involving international law, the verdict, while legally binding, can only be enforced through international pressure—and the U.S. and its allies are sure to continue pressing Beijing to comply.
To counter that, Beijing has been trying to line up dozens of mostly small, developing nations to support its position in recent weeks. And China can use its own permanent seat on the Security Council to veto any enforcement effort there, as the U.S. did.
“If the tribunal insisted on its way and produced an ‘award,’ no one and no country should implement the award in any form, much less to force China into implementation,” said Dai Bingguo, China’s top foreign-affairs official from 2008 to 2013, in a speech in Washington on Tuesday.
In Beijing’s view, Washington’s position is undermined by the Nicaragua case and U.S. failure to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or Unclos, on which the ruling will be based.
U.S. officials say Washington abides by the terms of Unclos and the comparison with the Nicaragua case is inapt because the U.S. participated in the case at the initial stage, to determine jurisdiction, and ultimately resolved the dispute with Nicaragua in 1991. A new government there dropped the case that year in exchange for U.S. aid.
Still, Chinese officials have been studying the Nicaragua case as a precedent for disputing the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and for dealing with the international fallout, according to people involved in those efforts.
They said Chinese government lawyers have examined other examples of countries that bucked rulings from The Hague, including Russia in a case brought by the Netherlands over Moscow’s seizure of a Greenpeace ship in 2013.
China may be borrowing another page from the U.S. playbook in trying to negotiate a deal to shelve the issue with the Philippines’ new president, Rodrigo Duterte, possibly in exchange for Chinese aid or investment, according to foreign-policy analysts and diplomats.
Even so, China may find that ignoring the judgment makes life difficult in other ways, offering a pressure point to those seeking to stem its maritime ambitions.
The U.S. and its allies could step up their efforts to challenge China’s claims through “freedom of navigation” operations. The U.S. and China both moved naval ships into the South China Sea this week for what they call routine drills but which many interpreted as a sign of heightened tension.
China may also expose itself to further legal challenges from other claimants—particularly Vietnam, which has also aggressively challenged Beijing’s position and backed the arbitration.
A further risk is that China, after decades of presenting itself as a champion of small and developing nations, is seen by them as acting like a superpower that regards itself as exempt from international law.
Daniel Fung, a Hong Kong-based lawyer who co-wrote a submission to the tribunal arguing that it lacked jurisdiction, said ignoring the ruling could cut both ways.
On the one hand, it would show China acting like a traditional superpower, capable of resisting international pressure and criticism, as the U.S. was in 1986, he said. But it could be viewed negatively for the same reasons.
Ultimately, predicted Mr. Reichler, the lawyer for the Philippines, Beijing will reach an accommodation with its neighbors that reflects the ruling, or risk portraying itself as an outlaw state.
“It may take six months, it may take a year, it may take two years, it may take more, but I think it’s inevitable,” he said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-...al-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982
By
JEREMY PAGE
Updated July 7, 2016 7:51 p.m. ET
BEIJING—Beijing’s determination to reject an international tribunal’s ruling next weekon its South China Sea claims is unusual but not unprecedented. There is one especially notable case of a powerful nation ignoring an international court’s verdict: the U.S.
In 1986, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled in favor of Nicaragua in a case the Central American nation brought against the U.S. for aiding Nicaraguan Contra rebels and mining the country’s ports in a bid to undermine its socialist government.
The U.S. boycotted most of the proceedings, saying the court had no jurisdiction, and refused to observe its verdict, which granted Nicaragua an initial award of $370 million. The U.S. then used its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council to veto resolutions demanding it observe the Nicaragua ruling, ignored another passed by the U.N. General Assembly, and only stopped aiding the Contras when blocked by the U.S. Congress in 1988.
China’s case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, also in The Hague, was similarly brought by a small country against its giant neighbor. The Philippines argues that China’s claims over a vast expanse of the South China Sea, which Beijing has delineated with a “nine-dash line,” violate international law.
China also disputed the court’s jurisdiction and refused to take part in the proceedings. And if, as expected, the tribunal rules against China on several counts, Beijing is expected to adopt an approach similar to that of the U.S. 30 years ago: Ignore the ruling and muscle through.
That, however, is “not the end of the story,” said Paul Reichler, the lead lawyer for the Philippines, who also represented Nicaragua against the U.S.
He described the earlier case as a “blemish on the U.S. moral posture and its ability to project itself as a promoter of a rules-based international order.” China would face similar reputational damage, he said, as well as further legal challenges, if it disregarded the ruling.
As with many cases involving international law, the verdict, while legally binding, can only be enforced through international pressure—and the U.S. and its allies are sure to continue pressing Beijing to comply.
To counter that, Beijing has been trying to line up dozens of mostly small, developing nations to support its position in recent weeks. And China can use its own permanent seat on the Security Council to veto any enforcement effort there, as the U.S. did.
“If the tribunal insisted on its way and produced an ‘award,’ no one and no country should implement the award in any form, much less to force China into implementation,” said Dai Bingguo, China’s top foreign-affairs official from 2008 to 2013, in a speech in Washington on Tuesday.
In Beijing’s view, Washington’s position is undermined by the Nicaragua case and U.S. failure to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or Unclos, on which the ruling will be based.
U.S. officials say Washington abides by the terms of Unclos and the comparison with the Nicaragua case is inapt because the U.S. participated in the case at the initial stage, to determine jurisdiction, and ultimately resolved the dispute with Nicaragua in 1991. A new government there dropped the case that year in exchange for U.S. aid.
Still, Chinese officials have been studying the Nicaragua case as a precedent for disputing the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and for dealing with the international fallout, according to people involved in those efforts.
They said Chinese government lawyers have examined other examples of countries that bucked rulings from The Hague, including Russia in a case brought by the Netherlands over Moscow’s seizure of a Greenpeace ship in 2013.
China may be borrowing another page from the U.S. playbook in trying to negotiate a deal to shelve the issue with the Philippines’ new president, Rodrigo Duterte, possibly in exchange for Chinese aid or investment, according to foreign-policy analysts and diplomats.
Even so, China may find that ignoring the judgment makes life difficult in other ways, offering a pressure point to those seeking to stem its maritime ambitions.
The U.S. and its allies could step up their efforts to challenge China’s claims through “freedom of navigation” operations. The U.S. and China both moved naval ships into the South China Sea this week for what they call routine drills but which many interpreted as a sign of heightened tension.
China may also expose itself to further legal challenges from other claimants—particularly Vietnam, which has also aggressively challenged Beijing’s position and backed the arbitration.
A further risk is that China, after decades of presenting itself as a champion of small and developing nations, is seen by them as acting like a superpower that regards itself as exempt from international law.
Daniel Fung, a Hong Kong-based lawyer who co-wrote a submission to the tribunal arguing that it lacked jurisdiction, said ignoring the ruling could cut both ways.
On the one hand, it would show China acting like a traditional superpower, capable of resisting international pressure and criticism, as the U.S. was in 1986, he said. But it could be viewed negatively for the same reasons.
Ultimately, predicted Mr. Reichler, the lawyer for the Philippines, Beijing will reach an accommodation with its neighbors that reflects the ruling, or risk portraying itself as an outlaw state.
“It may take six months, it may take a year, it may take two years, it may take more, but I think it’s inevitable,” he said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-...al-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982
, P5 aint powerfull enuf to do that.
