波多野结衣办公室双飞_制服 丝袜 综合 日韩 欧美_网站永久看片免费_欧美一级片在线免费观看_免费视频91蜜桃_精产国品一区二区三区_97超碰免费在线观看_欧美做受喷浆在线观看_国产熟妇搡bbbb搡bbbb_麻豆精品国产传媒

US EUROPE AFRICA ASIA 中文
China / Society

The tribunal's award in the 'South China Sea Arbitration' initiated by the Philippines is null and void

By Chinese Society of International Law (www.csil.cn) Updated: 2016-06-10 14:30

The Tribunal's Award in the "South China Sea Arbitration" Initiated by the Philippines Is Null and Void

Chinese Society of International Law

10 June 2016

Since 22 January 2013 when the Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration with respect to certain issues in the South China Sea ("Arbitration"), China has maintained its solemn position that it would neither accept nor participate in the Arbitration, having stated that the tribunal constituted at the unilateral request of the Philippines ("Arbitral Tribunal" or "Tribunal") manifestly has no jurisdiction. On 7 December 2014, the Chinese Government released 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 ("Position Paper"), which elaborated on these positions. The Chinese Society of International Law strongly supports the positions of the Chinese Government.

China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and the adjacent waters. The core of the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea is issues of territorial sovereignty resulting from the Philippines' illegal seizure and occupation of certain maritime features from China in the Nash Islands, and issues concerning maritime delimitation between the two States. These are also exactly the essence of the Arbitration instituted by the Philippines.

On 29 October 2015, the Tribunal issued its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility ("Award on Jurisdiction" or "Award"), in which it found that disputes between China and the Philippines concerning the interpretation or application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS" or "Convention") existed with respect to the matters raised by the Philippines in all of its Submissions. The Tribunal further found that it had jurisdiction over some of the Submissions made by the Philippines, and reserved consideration of its jurisdiction with respect to the other Submissions to the merits phase. This finding is full of errors in both the determination of fact and the application of law, at least in the following six respects:

First, the Tribunal errs in finding that the claims made by the Philippines constitute disputes between China and the Philippines concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS;

Second, the Tribunal errs in taking jurisdiction over claims which in essence are issues of sovereignty over land territory and are beyond the purview of the UNCLOS;

Third, the Tribunal errs in taking jurisdiction over claims concerning maritime delimitation which have been excluded by China from compulsory procedures in line with the UNCLOS;

Fourth, the Tribunal errs in denying that there exists between China and the Philippines an agreement to settle the disputes in question through negotiation;

Fifth, the Tribunal errs in finding that the Philippines had fulfilled the obligation to "exchange views" regarding the means of disputes settlement with respect to the claims it made;

Sixth, the Tribunal's Award deviates from the object and purpose of the dispute settlement mechanism under the UNCLOS, and impairs the integrity and authority of the Convention.

The Chinese Society of International Law is of the view that having jurisdiction over the claims is a prerequisite for the Tribunal to initiate its proceedings on merits, and a basis for the validity of any final decisions. In the present Arbitration, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over any of the claims made by the Philippines. Its Award on Jurisdiction is groundless both in fact and in law, and is thus null and void. Therefore, any decision that it may make on substantive issues in the ensuing proceedings will equally have no legal effect.

I. The Arbitral Tribunal errs in finding that the claims made by the Philippines constitute disputes between China and the Philippines concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS

The Arbitral Tribunal recognizes that, under Article 288(1) of the UNCLOS, its jurisdiction is limited to "disputes concerning the interpretation and application of this Convention" (Award, para.130). The Tribunal also recognized that, to find its jurisdiction in the present Arbitration, it must be satisfied that 1) disputes existed between China and the Philippines with respect to the claims made by the Philippines, and 2) the disputes, if they existed, concerned the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS. It concludes that "disputes between the Parties concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention exist with respect to the matters raised by the Philippines in all of its Submissions in these proceedings" (Award, para.178). This conclusion, however, is untenable.

1. The Arbitral Tribunal erroneously determines that the relevant claims constitute disputes between China and the Philippines

A dispute in an international judicial or arbitral procedure is "a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons" (Award, para.149, quoting from Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Jurisdiction, Judgment of 30 August 1924, PCIJ Series A, No.2, p.11). This classic definition of "dispute" has been followed extensively in practice by the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") and other international judicial or arbitral bodies.

In international practice, to determine the existence of a dispute, one must first demonstrate that specific subject-matters on which the parties disagree have come into existence before the judicial or arbitral proceedings are initiated. As the ICJ pointed out in 2011 in the Georgia v. Russian Federation Case, a State, prior to the initiation of proceedings, "must refer to the subject-matter of the treaty with sufficient clarity to enable the State against which a claim is made to identify that there is, or may be, a dispute with regard to that subject-matter" (Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p.85, para.30, emphasis added). Second, apart from the existence of subject-matter of disagreement, one must also demonstrate that there is "clash of propositions" or "point of contention" on the same subject-matter or claim. In the South West Africa Cases, the ICJ held in 1962 that to prove the existence of a dispute, "[i]t must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other" (Award, para.149, quoting from South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 December 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p.328, emphasis added). Therefore, a mere assertion by one party does not suffice to prove the existence of a dispute. It must be shown that the parties maintain "opposing attitudes" or "opposite views" on the same subject-matter. It is based on these criteria that the ICJ has found the existence of a dispute in a number of cases (See e.g., Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 17 March 2016, pp.29-32, paras.67-79; Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, pp.84-85, paras.30-31; East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p.99, para.22).

In the present Arbitration, it is obvious that the Tribunal did not follow the above-mentioned rules and practice of international law in determining the existence of disputes. To take a few examples:

In its Submission No. 3, the Philippines argues that Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Dao) generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. In order to prove that this claim constitutes a dispute between China and the Philippines, it must be shown, with factual proof, that prior to the initiation of arbitration the Philippines had made such a claim to China and the claim had been positively opposed by China. The Tribunal should have done this, but it did not.

In its Submission No. 4, the Philippines argues that Mischief Reef (Meiji Jiao), Second Thomas Shoal (Ren'ai Jiao) and Subi Reef (Zhubi Jiao) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. In order to prove that this claim constitutes a dispute between China and the Philippines, it must be shown, with factual proof, that prior to the initiation of arbitration the Philippines had made such a claim to China and the claim had been positively opposed by China. The Tribunal should have done this, but it did not.

In its Submission No. 6, the Philippines argues that Gaven Reef (Nanxun Jiao) and Mckennan Reef (Ximen Jiao) (including Hughes Reef (Dongmen Jiao)) are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. In order to prove that this claim constitutes a dispute between China and the Philippines, it must be shown, with factual proof, that prior to the initiation of arbitration the Philippines had made such a claim to China and the claim had been positively opposed by China. The Tribunal should have done this, but it did not.

In its Submission No. 7, the Philippines argues that Johnson Reef (Chigua Jiao), Cuarteron Reef (Huayang Jiao) and Fiery Cross Reef (Yongshu Jiao) generate no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. In order to prove that this claim constitutes a dispute between China and the Philippines, it must be shown, with factual proof, that prior to the initiation of arbitration the Philippines had made such a claim to China and the claim had been positively opposed by China. The Tribunal should have done this, but it did not.

As is clear from the above analysis, the Tribunal should have concluded that the above-mentioned claims of the Philippines did not constitute disputes between China and the Philippines. But, regrettably, the Tribunal does not apply the above-mentioned requirements to the Philippines' claims, one by one, in accordance with international law. It attempts to infer the existence of disputes between China and the Philippines with respect to the above claims, simply by bundling them together and asserting that they "reflect a dispute concerning the status of the maritime features and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea" (Award, para.169, emphasis added). By generalizing claims regarding the status and maritime entitlements of "specific" features into a "general" disagreement concerning the status of maritime features and the source of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, the Tribunal, sub silentio, replaces one concept with another, in order to conceal its incapability to prove that the Philippines' claims regarding the status and maritime entitlements of the nine features constitute disputes between China and the Philippines. The Tribunal then attempts to justify its approach by asserting that a dispute concerning the maritime entitlements generated in the South China Sea "is not negated by the absence of granular exchanges with respect to each and every individual feature" (Award, para.170), without giving any legal ground for this assertion, and further, says only evasively that it must "distinguish between the dispute itself and arguments used by the parties to sustain their respective submissions on the dispute" (Award, para.170). The conclusion of the Tribunal is thus unconvincing.

In fact, there exists no real "clash of propositions" between China and the Philippines with respect to the latter's Submissions No. 3, 4, 6 and 7. China has always maintained and enjoyed territorial sovereignty over the Zhongsha Islands (including Huangyan Dao (Scarborough Shoal)) and the Nansha Islands (including the above-mentioned eight features such as Meiji Jiao (Mischief Reef)) in their entirety. It has neither expressed its position on the status of individual features referred to by the Philippines such as Huangyan Dao (Scarborough Shoal), Meiji Jiao (Mischief Reef) and Ren'ai Jiao (Second Thomas Shoal), nor claimed maritime entitlements based on individual features in question, each separately as a single feature. The Philippines, on the other hand, formulated its claims on the status and maritime entitlements of certain individual features as separate features. These facts reflect that the propositions of China and the Philippines concern different issues and do not pertain to the same subject-matters. There are no positively opposed disagreements, thus no disputes, with respect to the same subject-matters.

It is undeniable that disagreements exist between China and the Philippines with respect to issues regarding the South China Sea. However, the disagreements, in essence, concern territorial sovereignty over certain features and maritime delimitation between the two States in the South China Sea, and constitute no dispute with respect to the claims advanced by the Philippines. An international judicial or arbitral body shall address "real" disputes between "real" parties with respect to "real" issues. However, in the present Arbitration the Tribunal distorts China's arguments and erroneously finds that there exist disputes between China and the Philippines over the latter's claims.

2. The Arbitral Tribunal erroneously determines that the relevant claims concern the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS

Even if a claim constitutes a dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal would still have no jurisdiction over it if it does not concern the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS (UNCLOS, art. 288). Obviously, the interpretation or application of general international law, including customary international law, shall not be regarded as falling within the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. As written by Rothwell and Stephens, both Australian international lawyers, "[t]he Part XV dispute settlement mechanisms ... do not have jurisdiction over disputes arising under general international law" (Donald R Rothwell and Tim Stephens, The International Law of the Sea (Hart Publishing, 2010), p.452).

In the present case, in its Submissions No. 1 and 2, the Philippines in essence requests the Tribunal to declare that China's maritime entitlements in the South China Sea are beyond those permitted by the UNCLOS and thus are without lawful effect. The Tribunal finds that the relevant dispute between China and the Philippines is "a dispute about historic rights in the framework of the Convention", and "a dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention" (Award, para.168). However, "historic rights" had come into existence long before the conclusion of the UNCLOS. Although the nature and scope of "historic rights" remain undetermined, it can be safely asserted that they originated from and are governed by general international law including customary international law, and rules of customary international law regarding "historic rights" operate in parallel with the UNCLOS. Accordingly, disputes concerning "historic rights" do not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention. In the Continental Shelf Case?between Tunisia and Libya, the ICJ pointed out in 1982 that "the notion of historic rights or waters … are governed by distinct legal régimes in customary international law" (Continental Shelf (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1982, p.74, para.100). Ted L. McDorman, a Canadian international lawyer, also wrote that, "whether historic rights exist is not a matter regulated by UNCLOS … when these rights involve fisheries and the resources of the continental shelf UNCLOS does become engaged" (Ted L McDorman, "Rights and jurisdiction over resources in the South China Sea: UNCLOS and the ‘nine-dash line'", in S. Jayakumar, Tommy Koh and Robert Beckman (eds.), The South China Sea Disputes and Law of the Sea (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014), p.152).

To prove that a dispute concerns the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS, it is not adequate to show that it falls within the purview of the Convention. It must also be shown that the dispute is related to certain substantive provisions of the Convention, and a real link exists between them. In the M/V "Louisa" Case, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ("ITLOS") stressed in 2013 that "it must establish a link between the facts advanced by [the Applicant] ... and the provisions of the Convention referred to by it and show that such provisions can sustain the claim or claims submitted by [the Applicant]", in deciding whether the dispute between the parties concerned the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS (The M/V "Louisa" Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), ITLOS Case No.18, Judgment of 28 May 2013, p.32, para.99). In 2012, Wolfrum and Cot, both sitting in the present case, stated in the Ara Libertad Case that "[i]t is for the Applicant … to invoke and argue particular provisions of the Convention which plausibly support its claim and to show that the views on the interpretation of these provisions are positively opposed by the Respondent" (The "ARA Libertad" Case (Argentina v. Ghana), Provisional Measures, ITLOS Case No.20, Order of 15 December 2012, Joint Separate Opinion of Judge Wolfrum and Judge Cot, p.12, para.35). Furthermore, in the Georgia v. Russian Federation Case, Judge Koroma observed in 2011 that "a link must exist between the substantive provisions of the treaty invoked and the dispute ... any jurisdictional title founded on CERD's compromissory clause must relate to, and not fall outside, the substantive provisions of the Convention" (Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, Separate Opinion of Judge Koroma, p.185, para.7).

In the present Arbitration, with regard to the Philippines' Submissions No. 1 and 2 concerning "historic rights", the Tribunal makes a sweeping conclusion that the relevant claims constitute a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the UNCLOS, without identifying which specific provisions that the "dispute" relates to, and whether a real link exists between the "dispute" and the specific provisions. The conclusion is thus groundless in law.

Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page

Highlights
Hot Topics

...
波多野结衣办公室双飞_制服 丝袜 综合 日韩 欧美_网站永久看片免费_欧美一级片在线免费观看_免费视频91蜜桃_精产国品一区二区三区_97超碰免费在线观看_欧美做受喷浆在线观看_国产熟妇搡bbbb搡bbbb_麻豆精品国产传媒
国产99久久久久| 国产一二三四视频| 欧美在线观看你懂的| 久久色在线观看| 日韩主播视频在线| 国产精品系列在线播放| 激情五月深爱五月| 精品国产伦理网| 蜜桃精品视频在线| 给我看免费高清在线观看| 欧美日韩视频在线第一区 | 色婷婷av一区二区三区gif| 久久久噜噜噜久久中文字幕色伊伊| 日韩精品亚洲一区| 在线免费看黄色片| 精品视频全国免费看| 亚洲国产精品影院| 亚洲黄色小说在线观看| 欧美视频自拍偷拍| 一区二区三区精品| 男人女人拔萝卜视频| 日本精品视频一区二区| 亚洲激情一二三区| 色综合久久久无码中文字幕波多| 欧美性猛交xxxxxx富婆| 亚洲欧美激情视频在线观看一区二区三区| 粉嫩一区二区三区在线看| 美国美女黄色片| 这里是久久伊人| 日本不卡在线视频| 成人精品999| 久久久欧美精品sm网站| 国产精品原创巨作av| 日韩在线视频免费看| 国产精品久久午夜夜伦鲁鲁| 99久久久久免费精品国产| 欧美性大战久久| 亚洲不卡av一区二区三区| 亚洲 欧美 日韩在线| 26uuu国产电影一区二区| 丰满放荡岳乱妇91ww| 欧美色中文字幕| 六月丁香婷婷久久| 国产美女久久久久久| 夜夜操天天操亚洲| 国产激情在线免费观看| 国产精品素人一区二区| 亚洲av无一区二区三区久久| 欧美成人精品高清在线播放| 国产iv一区二区三区| 欧美日韩大陆一区二区| 精品系列免费在线观看| 色香蕉成人二区免费| 日产国产欧美视频一区精品| 精品女人久久久| 亚洲图片欧美视频| 国产精品成人在线视频| 亚洲精品一二三四区| 国产精品815.cc红桃| 日韩码欧中文字| 真人bbbbbbbbb毛片| 国产精品欧美经典| 免费黄色三级网站| 中文字幕欧美激情一区| 91人妻一区二区| 国产欧美日韩三区| 国产白袜脚足j棉袜在线观看| 久久久91精品国产一区二区精品 | 亚洲色图14p| 一区视频在线播放| 中国美女乱淫免费看视频| 亚洲欧洲日韩一区二区三区| 亚洲人人夜夜澡人人爽| 亚洲欧美日韩国产综合| 色噜噜日韩精品欧美一区二区| 一区二区三区在线视频观看| 精品亚洲aⅴ无码一区二区三区| 亚洲一区在线看| 中文字幕资源站| 蜜臀久久99精品久久久久久9| 在线亚洲一区观看| 国产一区高清在线| 日韩一区二区三区免费看| 91亚洲资源网| 亚洲国产激情av| 亚洲一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲综合色区另类av| 在线观看美女av| 久久国产精品99久久人人澡| 欧美亚洲免费在线一区| 粉嫩绯色av一区二区在线观看| 精品日韩99亚洲| 亚洲av人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 综合欧美亚洲日本| 国产美女网站视频| 美女mm1313爽爽久久久蜜臀| 欧美日本一区二区| 91在线视频网址| 国产精品第四页| 懂色av粉嫩av浪潮av| 青青草一区二区三区| 欧美伦理影视网| 91猫先生在线| 亚洲色图.com| 黄色a级片在线观看| 国产一区二区在线影院| 欧美成人精品1314www| 日本一级片在线播放| 亚洲国产一区二区三区青草影视 | 国内精品伊人久久久久av影院| 欧美一区二区三区四区高清| 少妇熟女视频一区二区三区| 一区二区三区不卡视频在线观看 | 少妇被躁爽到高潮无码文| 国产综合色产在线精品| 2021国产精品久久精品| 日本高清www| 蜜臀av性久久久久蜜臀aⅴ| 制服丝袜成人动漫| 污片免费在线观看| 午夜精品久久一牛影视| 777色狠狠一区二区三区| www.四虎精品| 午夜伊人狠狠久久| 91.xcao| 国产成人精品无码片区在线| 亚洲成av人片一区二区梦乃 | bt7086福利一区国产| ㊣最新国产の精品bt伙计久久| 老女人性淫交视频| 成人app在线| 一区二区三区欧美在线观看| 欧美日韩精品免费观看视频| 午夜男人的天堂| 热久久免费视频| 337p日本欧洲亚洲大胆色噜噜| 人妻精品久久久久中文| 国产在线一区观看| 欧美国产97人人爽人人喊| 精品国产视频在线观看| 99久久er热在这里只有精品66| 一区二区三区蜜桃| 91精品国产一区二区三区香蕉| 亚洲国产果冻传媒av在线观看| 美女性感视频久久| 国产日韩成人精品| 懂色av懂色av粉嫩av| 成人三级做爰av| 三级成人在线视频| 久久综合色鬼综合色| 日日噜噜夜夜狠狠久久波多野| 99精品视频中文字幕| 亚洲成人av一区二区| 精品人在线二区三区| 手机看片国产日韩| 不卡的电影网站| 亚洲va欧美va天堂v国产综合| 欧美一级国产精品| 欧美成人短视频| 91蜜桃网址入口| 蜜桃在线一区二区三区| 欧美极品美女视频| 欧美亚洲免费在线一区| 丰满少妇一区二区三区| 国产精品亚洲第一区在线暖暖韩国| 亚洲色图欧美激情| 日韩一级高清毛片| 91香蕉视频在线播放| 成人做爰69片免费| 韩国视频一区二区| 亚洲美女视频在线| 欧美电视剧在线观看完整版| 亚洲区一区二区三| 中国特级黄色片| 国产一区二区三区四| 亚洲男人的天堂在线aⅴ视频| 91精品国产手机| 国产福利视频网站| 国产十八熟妇av成人一区| 国产一区二区美女诱惑| 亚洲一区二区四区蜜桃| 久久久精品天堂| 欧美精品乱码久久久久久 | 日本一区二区三区电影| 欧美日韩一区二区欧美激情| 欧美人与性囗牲恔配| 老司机av网站| 国产精品综合在线视频| 亚洲成人动漫av| 国产精品三级在线观看| 欧美一级黄色录像| 亚洲色婷婷一区二区三区| 日本高清www| 少妇极品熟妇人妻无码| 国产一区二区三区四区五区入口| 亚洲高清视频的网址| 国产精品人妖ts系列视频| 欧美一区永久视频免费观看| 国产黄色片在线免费观看| 麻豆精品免费视频|