艹艹艹
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Messages
- 5,198
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
People’s Daily slams South China Sea arbitration tribunal for being political tool
The award on the South China Sea dispute has proven that the arbitration tribunal hasdegenerated into a political tool of external powers, the People’s Daily said on Tuesday.
“The arbitration is a political provocation and its true purpose is to violate China’sterritorial sovereignty, maritime rights and interests over the islands features in the SouthChina Sea,” noted the editorial published under the pen name Zhong Sheng, a homonym inChinese for “voice of China” that is often used to express the paper's views on foreignpolicy.
The following is an abridged translation of the editorial:
The arbitration tribunal announced its award on the South China Sea dispute on Tuesday.It is ridiculous that this award supports every single illegal claim unilaterally made by thePhilippines.
Such a biased award has exposed to the world that, from the very beginning, thearbitration lacked any legal basis or fairness and is nothing more than a political farce.
In truth, the arbitration is a political provocation and its true purpose is to violate China’sterritorial sovereignty, maritime rights, and interests over the islands features in the SouthChina Sea.
Whenever the law is used as a tool of political manipulation, it loses impartiality. Thetribunal’s actions during the arbitration prove that the court has degenerated into agent ofexternal powers who only seek their own benefit.
Through this case, the Philippines has sought to overturn the dashed-line established byChina in the South China Sea and to undermine China’s maritime rights and interests byarguing that China’s historic rights in the sea are in violation of the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Throughout the arbitration process, the tribunal has run counter to the basic principles ofUNCLOS and neglected international customary laws that carry the same legal force.
Founded on international customary law, the historic rights of China in the South China Seacame long before UNCLOS.
Moreover, UNCLOS never established unified provisions concerning historic rights nor didit state that it would replace historic rights.
Instead, UNCLOS has respected historic rights by classifying such rights under customaryinternational law.
Another appeal of the Aquino administration is concerning the legal status of several reefsand islands in the South China Sea.
Although the tribunal is fully aware of the fact that it has no jurisdiction over disputesconcerning territory and sovereignty, it turned a blind eye to the Philippines' intention toundermine China's sovereignty by putting forward the so-called islands-legal-statusappeal.
The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines published a Q&A document at thestart of the arbitration, claiming that the case aimed to “protect its territory and waters.”
Such a statement shows that the case is related to territory and sovereignty from the verybeginning.
To achieve its illegal motives, the tribunal deliberately packaged the case as a non-sovereignty issue by fragmentizing the Nansha Islands. Such a move, which oversteppedthe tribunal’s authority and abused China’s rights, went far beyond UNCLOS’ jurisdiction.
Moreover, some of the arbitrators of the case, notably Alfred Soons, completely steeredaway from their previous stances concerning the relation between the legal status of theislands and maritime delimitation. Such quick betrayal, almost incomprehensible fromacademic perspective, adds to the lingering doubts over the tribunal’s legal consciousnessand impartiality.
In addition, the tribunal totally disregarded the procedures that should be upheld injudicial practice. The Chinese Society of International Law and many other academicinstitutions have already challenged and criticized these practices in previous reports.
For example, in its reference to relevant international arbitration cases, the tribunaldeliberately avoided the general practices used in most cases, only adopting a few highly-controversial and examples or opinions which support its pre-determined conclusions.
When it came to the presentation of facts, the court turned a blind eye to or disparagedfactual information that favored China.
The fundamental value of international justice and arbitration lies in its fairness andobjectivity. Looking back at the behavior of the arbitration tribunal, it has derailed fromthe right track from the very start.
This farce has finally come to a close. China’s sovereignty and maritime rights and interestsin the South China Sea will not be affected by this so-called arbitration under anycircumstances. Nor will China accept any actions based on such a verdict award.
The award on the South China Sea dispute has proven that the arbitration tribunal hasdegenerated into a political tool of external powers, the People’s Daily said on Tuesday.
“The arbitration is a political provocation and its true purpose is to violate China’sterritorial sovereignty, maritime rights and interests over the islands features in the SouthChina Sea,” noted the editorial published under the pen name Zhong Sheng, a homonym inChinese for “voice of China” that is often used to express the paper's views on foreignpolicy.
The following is an abridged translation of the editorial:
The arbitration tribunal announced its award on the South China Sea dispute on Tuesday.It is ridiculous that this award supports every single illegal claim unilaterally made by thePhilippines.
Such a biased award has exposed to the world that, from the very beginning, thearbitration lacked any legal basis or fairness and is nothing more than a political farce.
In truth, the arbitration is a political provocation and its true purpose is to violate China’sterritorial sovereignty, maritime rights, and interests over the islands features in the SouthChina Sea.
Whenever the law is used as a tool of political manipulation, it loses impartiality. Thetribunal’s actions during the arbitration prove that the court has degenerated into agent ofexternal powers who only seek their own benefit.
Through this case, the Philippines has sought to overturn the dashed-line established byChina in the South China Sea and to undermine China’s maritime rights and interests byarguing that China’s historic rights in the sea are in violation of the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Throughout the arbitration process, the tribunal has run counter to the basic principles ofUNCLOS and neglected international customary laws that carry the same legal force.
Founded on international customary law, the historic rights of China in the South China Seacame long before UNCLOS.
Moreover, UNCLOS never established unified provisions concerning historic rights nor didit state that it would replace historic rights.
Instead, UNCLOS has respected historic rights by classifying such rights under customaryinternational law.
Another appeal of the Aquino administration is concerning the legal status of several reefsand islands in the South China Sea.
Although the tribunal is fully aware of the fact that it has no jurisdiction over disputesconcerning territory and sovereignty, it turned a blind eye to the Philippines' intention toundermine China's sovereignty by putting forward the so-called islands-legal-statusappeal.
The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines published a Q&A document at thestart of the arbitration, claiming that the case aimed to “protect its territory and waters.”
Such a statement shows that the case is related to territory and sovereignty from the verybeginning.
To achieve its illegal motives, the tribunal deliberately packaged the case as a non-sovereignty issue by fragmentizing the Nansha Islands. Such a move, which oversteppedthe tribunal’s authority and abused China’s rights, went far beyond UNCLOS’ jurisdiction.
Moreover, some of the arbitrators of the case, notably Alfred Soons, completely steeredaway from their previous stances concerning the relation between the legal status of theislands and maritime delimitation. Such quick betrayal, almost incomprehensible fromacademic perspective, adds to the lingering doubts over the tribunal’s legal consciousnessand impartiality.
In addition, the tribunal totally disregarded the procedures that should be upheld injudicial practice. The Chinese Society of International Law and many other academicinstitutions have already challenged and criticized these practices in previous reports.
For example, in its reference to relevant international arbitration cases, the tribunaldeliberately avoided the general practices used in most cases, only adopting a few highly-controversial and examples or opinions which support its pre-determined conclusions.
When it came to the presentation of facts, the court turned a blind eye to or disparagedfactual information that favored China.
The fundamental value of international justice and arbitration lies in its fairness andobjectivity. Looking back at the behavior of the arbitration tribunal, it has derailed fromthe right track from the very start.
This farce has finally come to a close. China’s sovereignty and maritime rights and interestsin the South China Sea will not be affected by this so-called arbitration under anycircumstances. Nor will China accept any actions based on such a verdict award.
