South China Sea Forum
- Thread starter SinoChallenger
- Start date
tranquilium
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,107
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Yes, and I have shown in my post that China is following UNCLOS to the letter.
BoQ77
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 8,704
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
As @tranquilium confirm that China follow UNCLOS it's better to solve this in peaceful way, we go to court for UNCLOS application definition.
but I'm afraid that China never dare to go to court, and they tend to act out of laws.
but I'm afraid that China never dare to go to court, and they tend to act out of laws.
Don't troll.
UNCLOS is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.
tranquilium
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,107
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Nope, we followed UNCLOS article 298 down to the letter. Let me quote it for your benefit again.
"Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention."
PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
WuMaoCleverbot
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Experts debunk China's claim on defying int'l rulings
Published 5:04 PM, Jun 06, 2014
Updated 5:04 PM, Jun 06, 2014
Facing a historic case filed by the Philippines, China claims it is 'commonplace' to snub international rulings
MANILA, Philippines – China's refusal to answer the Philippines' pleading by December 15, the deadline set by the designated tribunal, revived a common question: What if China snubs a ruling that favors the Philippines?
China, in the first place, told the arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that it “does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines,” according to the PCA's news release on Tuesday, June 3.
The Asian giant stated this in a note verbale sent to the PCA on May 21, after the tribunal said China should respond to the Philippines' written pleading or memorial by December 15.
China said it is common, after all, to snub international rulings.
In a position paper sent to the media on April 3, Chinese Embassy spokesman Zhang Hua explained: “In international practice, when their major national interests or positions are involved, many countries have taken the position of not accepting the jurisdiction nor enforcing the rulings of related international litigation or arbitration. Among them are both big countries like the United States and small and medium-sized countries. This is a commonplace practice.”
“To accuse China of disobeying international law on the ground that it has not accepted the arbitration is an act of applying 'double standards.' This is not fair to the Chinese side. And it does not conform to the true spirit of international rule of law. In fact, and much to the contrary, China's refusal to accept the arbitration submitted by the Philippine side is an act truly in keeping with the law,” Zhang added.
'Compliance at 95%'
Experts, however, debunked these claims by China.
The Philippines' lawyer in its case against China, Paul Reichler, said losing parties in international cases comply “at least 95%” of the time.
Dr Lowell Bautista, a lecturer at the University of Wollongong in Australia, also contradicted China's claims on international rulings.
In an e-mail to Rappler, Bautista said, “China’s assertion that it is 'commonplace practice for countries to ignore the rulings of international litigation and arbitration' is definitely without any factual, historical, legal or philosophical basis.”
“On the contrary, compliance with international law, including the rulings of international institutions, adjudicative or otherwise, is the norm in international relations. The whole structure of the international legal system is founded on the voluntary compliance of sovereign states of international legal norms despite the absence of a global coercive power or institution that ensures compliance,” said Bautista, who specializes in territorial and maritime issues in the South China Sea.
True, he added, international courts can't enforce their decisions.
The way other experts put it, international courts do not have police powers.
Reputation at stake
“However, states, by and large and in general, do comply,” Bautista said. “Compliance is ensured because states are rational and self-interested in nature. Therefore, states will comply with international law to maintain their standing and reputation as good and law-abiding members of the international community or to avoid direct or indirect sanctions following an infraction or non-compliance.”
“To suggest otherwise, as China does in its statement, is not only dangerous and subversive, it is also a threat to the peace, security and stability of international relations,” he explained.
International law expert Dr Suzette Suarez, who used to work at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, pointed out that “there has been substantial compliance with decisions of international courts.”
Suarez cited a journal article in 2004, titled “Compliance with Final Judgments of the International Court of Justice Since 1987.”
The article, authored Colter Paulson, said commentators on the ICJ “note that cases of noncompliance with final judgments are very rare.”
“Outright defiance has not been asserted in any case; rather, in cases where total compliance was not achieved, the noncompliance was slight,” Paulson said in his introduction.
“The following 4 factors... contribute to such compliance: external political influence, the internal need for a definitive solution, the substance of the judgment issued, and internal political influence,” the author said.
In a forum, Reichler warned there “is a heavy price to pay for a state that defies an international court order, or a judgment of an arbitral tribunal that is seen, that is recognized, in the international community as legitimate, as fair, as correct, as appropriate.” – Rappler.com
Experts debunk China's claim on defying int'l rulings
Published 5:04 PM, Jun 06, 2014
Updated 5:04 PM, Jun 06, 2014
Facing a historic case filed by the Philippines, China claims it is 'commonplace' to snub international rulings
MANILA, Philippines – China's refusal to answer the Philippines' pleading by December 15, the deadline set by the designated tribunal, revived a common question: What if China snubs a ruling that favors the Philippines?
China, in the first place, told the arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that it “does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines,” according to the PCA's news release on Tuesday, June 3.
The Asian giant stated this in a note verbale sent to the PCA on May 21, after the tribunal said China should respond to the Philippines' written pleading or memorial by December 15.
China said it is common, after all, to snub international rulings.
In a position paper sent to the media on April 3, Chinese Embassy spokesman Zhang Hua explained: “In international practice, when their major national interests or positions are involved, many countries have taken the position of not accepting the jurisdiction nor enforcing the rulings of related international litigation or arbitration. Among them are both big countries like the United States and small and medium-sized countries. This is a commonplace practice.”
“To accuse China of disobeying international law on the ground that it has not accepted the arbitration is an act of applying 'double standards.' This is not fair to the Chinese side. And it does not conform to the true spirit of international rule of law. In fact, and much to the contrary, China's refusal to accept the arbitration submitted by the Philippine side is an act truly in keeping with the law,” Zhang added.
'Compliance at 95%'
Experts, however, debunked these claims by China.
The Philippines' lawyer in its case against China, Paul Reichler, said losing parties in international cases comply “at least 95%” of the time.
Dr Lowell Bautista, a lecturer at the University of Wollongong in Australia, also contradicted China's claims on international rulings.
In an e-mail to Rappler, Bautista said, “China’s assertion that it is 'commonplace practice for countries to ignore the rulings of international litigation and arbitration' is definitely without any factual, historical, legal or philosophical basis.”
“On the contrary, compliance with international law, including the rulings of international institutions, adjudicative or otherwise, is the norm in international relations. The whole structure of the international legal system is founded on the voluntary compliance of sovereign states of international legal norms despite the absence of a global coercive power or institution that ensures compliance,” said Bautista, who specializes in territorial and maritime issues in the South China Sea.
True, he added, international courts can't enforce their decisions.
The way other experts put it, international courts do not have police powers.
Reputation at stake
“However, states, by and large and in general, do comply,” Bautista said. “Compliance is ensured because states are rational and self-interested in nature. Therefore, states will comply with international law to maintain their standing and reputation as good and law-abiding members of the international community or to avoid direct or indirect sanctions following an infraction or non-compliance.”
“To suggest otherwise, as China does in its statement, is not only dangerous and subversive, it is also a threat to the peace, security and stability of international relations,” he explained.
International law expert Dr Suzette Suarez, who used to work at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, pointed out that “there has been substantial compliance with decisions of international courts.”
Suarez cited a journal article in 2004, titled “Compliance with Final Judgments of the International Court of Justice Since 1987.”
The article, authored Colter Paulson, said commentators on the ICJ “note that cases of noncompliance with final judgments are very rare.”
“Outright defiance has not been asserted in any case; rather, in cases where total compliance was not achieved, the noncompliance was slight,” Paulson said in his introduction.
“The following 4 factors... contribute to such compliance: external political influence, the internal need for a definitive solution, the substance of the judgment issued, and internal political influence,” the author said.
In a forum, Reichler warned there “is a heavy price to pay for a state that defies an international court order, or a judgment of an arbitral tribunal that is seen, that is recognized, in the international community as legitimate, as fair, as correct, as appropriate.” – Rappler.com
Experts debunk China's claim on defying int'l rulings
Huan
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,473
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Are you kidding me? Are they really saying it's good for the "international community" to decide for and dictate each country's sovereignty from now on? Would you really allow an overseas entity to control the affairs of your home territory?
OrionHunter
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,818
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
How can a verdict be enforced on a country like China? It can't. What's Philippines going to do if China doesn't cooperate or comply even on a verdict by an international court / tribunal?
Utter waste of time. The only way is to sort out problems mutually to the satisfaction of both countries.
Utter waste of time. The only way is to sort out problems mutually to the satisfaction of both countries.
Chinese-Dragon
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,932
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
No.
ViXuyen
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Why not?
Chinese-Dragon
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,932
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
Latest posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
No Strings Attached: Discover Local Ladies in Your Town- Latest: rana.aamir2990
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
