What's new

Choice insults Beijing has hurled at the international tribunal about to rule on the South China Sea

Red Wolf

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
295
Reaction score
0
Country
Germany
Location
Germany
Choice insults Beijing has hurled at the international tribunal about to rule on the South China Sea
Steve Mollman | July 06, 2016
LM8ibQm.jpg

It’s safe to say China’s leadership doesn’t think highly of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague. The international tribunal will issue a ruling on July 12 that could invalidate China’s sweeping territorial claims to most of the South China Sea, a strategically important waterway rich in natural resources.

Ahead of that ruling, China’s leaders have come up with a variety of ways to try to discredit the tribunal and its upcoming decision.

Last week state-controlled media ran articles describing the PCA as a “law-abusing tribunal” with “widely contested jurisdiction.” In May, senior diplomat Xu Hong said the tribunal of acted unjustly by taking up the case.

And as for the upcoming ruling? It will be nothing more than a “piece of trash paper,” said former state councillor Dai Bingguo in Washington Tuesday (July 5) at a dialog hosted by US and Chinese think tanks. He added:

First, the urgent priority is to stop the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines. 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… The arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case.

“China sees itself as a global super power that shouldn’t be questioned,” says Anders Corr of Corr Analytics. “So here they have this sort of upstart court out in the middle of nowhere that is somehow challenging their historical claim, and they see that as impudent. China reacts intensely against any country or any organization, whether it be the UN or an international court, that’s trying to impinge on what it sees as its backyard.”

Sonya Sceats, an associate fellow of international law at Chatham House, believes China’s fury over the case belies legal insecurities. But she notes Beijing is on a hiring spree of international lawyers and is gearing up to play a bigger role in international law.

Meanwhile, a sense of paranoia can be detected in China’s attacks on the tribunal. An editorial in the state-controlled Global Times described the ruling (link in Chinese) as “obviously American-back and supported” and said the court was “playing the fool,” pretending to not know that the Philippines was trying to do: use the tribunal to claim territory. The proceedings, it said, were a trap laid out to discredit China.

Beijing also complained that a Japanese citizen participated in the formation of the tribunal, saying that’s inappropriate because Japan has its own maritime disputes with China. When the Philippines filed the case in early 2013, Shunji Yanai was president of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Because China refused to participate in the case, the president, per standard procedure, chose two judges on China’s behalf to sit on the five-judge tribunal. (Yanai himself did not sit on the tribunal.)

Last week Hong Lei, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, said the entire case was “an abuse of international law and the international arbitration mechanism.”

He added—in case anyone had missed it—that China would not accept the verdict.


Source: Quartz
 
. .
The West believe in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague, they can use the court to solve among their own issues.


To be fair, UK has mostly ignored the ruling handed by Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague when it comes to "Chagos Marine Protected Area".

---

On 18 March 2015, the Permanent Court of Arbitration unanimously held that the marine protected area (MPA) which the UK purported to declare around the Chagos Archipelago in April 2010 was illegal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as Mauritius had legally binding rights to fish in the waters surrounding the Chagos Archipelago, to an eventual return of the Chagos Archipelago, and to the preservation of any minerals or oil discovered in or near the Chagos Archipelago prior to its return. The decision of the court is final and binding.

The Prime Minister of Mauritius pointed out that it is the first time that the UK's conduct with regard to the Chagos Archipelago has been considered and condemned by any international court or tribunal. He qualified the ruling as an important milestone in the relentless struggle, at the political, diplomatic and other levels, of successive Governments over the years for the effective exercise by Mauritius of its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The tribunal considered in detail the undertakings given by the United Kingdom to the Mauritian Ministers at the Lancaster House talks in September 1965. The UK had argued that those undertakings were not binding and had no status in international law. The Tribunal firmly rejected that argument, holding that those undertakings became a binding international agreement upon the independence of Mauritius, and have bound the UK ever since. It found that the UK's commitments towards Mauritius in relation to fishing rights and oil and mineral rights in the Chagos Archipelago are legally binding.

Source: Wikipedia

Further reading: Depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago / Stealing A Nation (Video)
 
.
The West believe in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague, they can use the court to solve among their own issues.

Oh poor china get over yourselves your victims of your imperialism are in bad end here
 
. . . . . . .
Back
Top Bottom