久久久无码人妻精品无码_6080YYY午夜理论片中无码_性无码专区_无码人妻品一区二区三区精99

US EUROPE AFRICA ASIA 中文
World / Opinion

An Open Letter on the South China Sea Arbitration

(chinadaily.com.cn) Updated: 2016-07-12 19:55

An Open Letter on the South China Sea Arbitration

Overseas scholars of international law hold copies of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in hands in front of the Peace Palace in Hague, Netherlands on July 8, 2016. They try to seek justice of the international law by publicizing an open letter about scholars' professional stance on the South China Sea case. [Photo by Fu Jing/China Daily]

International courts and tribunals,

State Parties to the UNCLOS,

Scholars, students, and lawyers of international law,

All supporters to the peaceful settlement of disputes,

At the issuance of the final award of the South China Sea Arbitration (the Arbitration), we, the undersigned scholars and students of international law, hereby emphasize that the ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal (the Tribunal) has no jurisdiction over the relevant disputes, and that the Award has no binding force.

Below, we clarify that state consent is the basis of the compulsory arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the UNCLOS). We then demonstrate that the real disputes between China and the Philippines and those under the Arbitration are disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, for which there is no mutual state consent to the compulsory jurisdiction. We also show how the Philippines and the Tribunal have exceeded mutual state consent. Finally, we show that the Arbitration is neither binding nor helpful to the settlement of disputes in the South China Sea. We argue and state as follows:

I. State consent as the basis of the compulsory arbitration

There is no supra-national international judicial or arbitral organ. These international organs are established under state consent, as reflected in relevant treaties, compromis and resolutions of the UN Security Council. Thus, state consent constitutes the legal basis for these organs and defines their competence. Within the scope of state consent, an organ is legitimate. If it oversteps this scope, its legitimacy has no legal basis. Compulsory arbitration and other compulsory procedures under the Convention, as agreed upon by more than 160 countries in nine years’ negotiation, are strictly based on state consent.

Going through the UNCLOS carefully, one will easily find how state consent defines the applicability of compulsory procedures, including compulsory arbitration. First, these procedures are authorized only for disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention (Article 286). Hence, without mutual state consent, an arbitral tribunal cannot address territory disputes. Second, parties to maritime disputes can agree upon the means to settle their dispute and to exclude any further procedure, including the UNCLOS procedures, such as the compulsory arbitration (Articles 281, 282). Third, States are entitled to declare that they do not accept compulsory procedures with respect to maritime delimitation disputes and other disputes involving vital national interests (Article 298). Compulsory procedures are subject to such declarations.

With such declarations, relevant dispute may be submitted to compulsory procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute (Articles 286, 299). So far, 35 States, including China, have made such declarations. Fourth, negotiation and exchange of views are prior requirements to trigger compulsory procedures (Articles 279, 283, 286).

The above-mentioned limitations, exceptions and prior requirements are the major limits of state consent, which define the extent of jurisdiction of the judicial and arbitral organs under the UNCLOS. If an organ acts beyond this limits, its legitimacy will have no legal basis. It is notable that, by recognizing the “competence-competence” (a court/tribunal’s power to decide on disputes as to whether it has jurisdiction; Article 288.4), the UNCLOS indicates no intention to reduce the above limits and to grant additional power. The “competence-competence” must also be exercised within the limits of state consent.

II. The real disputes in the Arbitration are territorial dispute and maritime delimitation

There are solid legal bases for China’s sovereignty over the Dongsha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Nansha Islands in the South China Sea (hereinafter collectively referred to as the SCS Islands) and the adjacent waters. The Chinese people were the first to discover, name and develop these Islands, and China’s original title thus acquired has been maintained by its continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty ever since. In addition, China’s sovereignty over these Islands is also reflected in the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration and subsequent international legal documents.

On the other hand, the Philippine territory has nothing to do with the SCS Islands. All the SCS Islands are located to the west of 118 degrees east, which is the westernmost limit of the Philippine territory, as defined by the 1898 US-Spain Treaty of Peace, the 1900 US-Spain Treaty for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines, the 1930 US-UK Convention Delimiting the Boundary between the Philippines Archipelago and State of North Borneo, as well as the 1935 Philippine Constitution and the 1961 Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines.

In the 1970s, the Philippines invaded eight maritime features of the SCS Islands, which gave rise to the territorial disputes between China and the Philippines. Later on, with the negotiation of the UNCLOS in process, the Philippines expanded its maritime claims, which overlapped with China’s and led to their maritime delimitation disputes.

The real disputes in the South China Sea are therefore of and about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. According to the principle that the land dominates the sea, with the territorial dispute pending, the coastal State, and the relevant coast and relevant areas for delimitation, cannot be determined; consequently, the task of delimitation cannot start. Therefore, the territory and delimitation disputes in the South China Sea are closely intertwined, and the territorial dispute is predominant.

In the Arbitration, the Philippines raised three categories of inter-related submissions, on the validity of the U-shaped line, on the status/entitlements of maritime features and on China’s interference in the Philippines’ sovereign rights. And the Philippines asserted that these submissions are not relevant to the territorial and delimitation disputes. Careful examination can easily pierce the veil:

First, the U-shaped line depicts China’s sovereignty over the SCS Islands, thus the submissions regarding the line concern the sovereignty of the Islands. In addition, in the Philippine submissions, the line is asserted as representing China’s maritime claim. If the Philippine assertion is correct, resolving the disputes on the U-shaped line is plainly part of the delimitation process, as “the task of the delimitation involves resolving overlapping claims” (Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea, para. 77).

Second, the submissions on maritime entitlements are inalienable parts of the delimitation process, and are closely related to territorial disputes. According to the established jurisprudence, the first step of any delimitation is to determine whether there are entitlements and whether they overlap (Bangladesh v. Myanmar, para. 397; Barbados /Trinidad and Tobago, para. 224). Further, as maritime entitlements are granted to coastal States, the determination of coastal States, i.e. the settlement of territorial disputes, is a precondition for ascertaining maritime entitlements.

Third, the submissions on the legality of China’s activities are dependent on the settlement of the territorial and delimitation disputes. These submissions reflect the existence of disputed areas, and cannot be addressed without the settlement of the underlying territory and delimitation disputes.

As demonstrated above, all the Philippine submissions are either territorial and delimitation disputes per se, or subsequent to the underlying disputes. In other words, the real disputes in the Arbitration are those regarding territory and maritime delimitation. With respect to the jurisdiction, the UNCLOS does not address territorial disputes, and delimitation disputes have been excluded from compulsory procedures by China’s declaration under Article 298. Therefore, the disputes in the Arbitration are beyond mutual state consent to compulsory jurisdiction.

III. The abuse of legal process and ultra vires acts in the Arbitration

As elaborated in Section I, State Parties to the UNCLOS agree to be bound by the compulsory procedures, but only under the circumstances set out in Articles 281, 282, 286, 298 and 299 of the Convention. To maintain the balance and compromise in the Convention, Article 300 requires that right and jurisdiction shall be exercised in a manner that would not constitute an abuse; Article 294 further provides preliminary proceedings to address claims that might constitute abuses of legal process. These non-abuse requirements serve an essential role in safeguarding the overarching principle of state consent. However, the South China Sea Arbitration demonstrates how the legal process is abused by one party to the dispute, and how the arbitral organ acts beyond its power.

The abuse of legal process by the Philippines is apparent. To trigger the Arbitration, the Philippines tried everything possible to exceed the limits of mutual state consent, by disguising the real disputes, by circumventing China’s declaration, and by degrading the bilateral and regional agreements on resolving disputes through negotiation. In so doing, no good faith was demonstrated. Furthermore, according to the explicit provisions in the UNCLOS, given China’s declaration, the Philippines has no right at all to unilaterally initiate the arbitration (Articles 286, 299).

The ultra vires (acts beyond one's legal power or authority) by the Arbitral Tribunal is also obvious. Given China’s declaration, the establishment and functioning of the Tribunal has no legal basis (Article 286). With its legitimacy in doubt, the Tribunal further exceeded the limits of state consent by wrongly establishing its jurisdiction, particularly by the following ultra vires acts:

The Tribunal has restricted the rights of States to exclude compulsory procedures with declarations under Article 298 of the UNCLOS. According to the customary rule for treaty interpretation, i.e. the textual approach and good faith principle as enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 298 of the UNCLOS grants States the right to exclude compulsory procedures with respect to all disputes on or concerning the whole delimitation process. By endorsing the Philippine assertion that the Arbitration is irrelevant to territorial dispute and delimitation, the Tribunal has overlooked the relationship among territorial dispute, delimitation and the issue of entitlement. It has also disregarded the terms “concerning” and “relating to” in Article 298, and has neglected the jurisprudence that the first step of any delimitation is to determine whether there are entitlements, and that the task of delimitation involves resolving overlapping claims. With such a fragmentary approach, the Tribunal has not only failed to isolate the real disputes, but has also largely nullified the right of States by only recognizing the right to exclude compulsory procedures with respect to disputes on the final determination of the maritime boundary line.

In addition, the Tribunal has restrictively interpreted the right of States to opt out compulsory procedures by entering into agreements among themselves. With the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and a series of bilateral documents, China and the Philippines have repeatedly agreed and undertaken to resolve their disputes through friendly negotiations and consultations. By the Joint Statement on August 10, 1995, and on May 16, 2000, the two countries have also agreed to “eventually” negotiate a settlement of their bilateral disputes. The term “eventually” clearly indicates that negotiation is the only means chosen by the two States for resolving their disputes, and that other means including compulsory arbitration have been excluded, because “the absence of an express exclusion of any procedure is not decisive” for States to exercise the rights to exclude further procedures by their agreement (the Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, para. 57). Nonetheless, despite the previous case law and with no basis in the Convention, the Tribunal interpreted that the compulsory procedures could only be excluded explicitly, and consequently set an unreasonably higher standard to limit States’ right.

IV. The Awards are neither binding nor helpful

According to the UNCLOS, the Awards of the Tribunal shall have no binding force. States shall comply with the decision rendered by a court or tribunal, but only insofar as the court or tribunal has jurisdiction (Article 296.1). The current Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the real disputes in the Arbitration, and its ultra vires acts could create neither jurisdiction nor binding force; consequently, its Awards do not meet the qualification of being complied.

Alternatively, according to Article 296.2, the decision of a court or tribunal shall have no binding force except in respect of that particular dispute at issue. Since the Philippines and the Tribunal have reiterated, time and again, that the Arbitration concerns neither territorial dispute nor delimitation, the Awards shall have no effects in respect of the territory and delimitation disputes in the South China Sea.

Moreover, the Arbitration is detrimental to the settlement of disputes. The fragmentary approach employed by the Philippines and the Tribunal, and their degradation of existing bilateral and regional agreements, are not helpful to the ongoing efforts for managing and resolving disputes in the South China Sea, and will only be counterproductive. Besides, the abuse of legal process and ultra vires will break the balance of the UNCLOS dispute settlement regime and contravene procedural justice.

In conclusion, the real disputes in the Arbitration are those about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, both of which are beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. By obscuring the real disputes and bypassing the limits to compulsory procedures, the Philippines does abuse the legal process, and the Tribunal does exceed the state consent and act ultra vires. According to Article 296, the Awards on jurisdiction and on merits will have no binding force whatsoever.

Bearing in mind the significance of state consent as the very foundation of international judicial/arbitral organs,

Concerned about the abuse of legal process and ultra vires acts in the South China Sea Arbitration,

Noting the dangerous tendency towards the judicial/arbitral expansion in the field of the law of the sea, and,

Worried about the degradation of the role of State’s negotiation,

We hereby:

Request international judicial and arbitral organs to act strictly within their mandate under international law, to faithfully fulfill their duty in identifying the real dispute between parties, to adjudicate within the realm of their jurisdiction and to avoid acting ultra vires. The arbitral tribunals, ad hoc as they are, shall still be responsible for the overall and long-term functioning of the UNCLOS without breaking the balance contained therein, and shall show their respects for the consent of relevant State Parties.

Urge the Philippines to unconditionally terminate its illegal occupation of the Chinese maritime features in the South China Sea, to stop all activities that may escalate regional tension, to withdraw the claims that are inconsistent with the facts and law, and to solve maritime disputes with its neighbors in good faith.

Call upon all State Parties to the UNCLOS to join China in the efforts to combat abuse of legal process and ultra vires, to adopt all necessary measures, including practical guidance to the judicial/arbitral organs, so that the judicial/arbitral powers are exercised in a way consistent with state consent in the Convention.

Invite scholars, students and lawyers of international law to further study the UNCLOS disputes settlement mechanism so as to contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea dispute.

Trudeau visits Sina Weibo
May gets little gasp as EU extends deadline for sufficient progress in Brexit talks
Ethiopian FM urges strengthened Ethiopia-China ties
Yemen's ex-president Saleh, relatives killed by Houthis
Most Popular
Hot Topics

...
久久久无码人妻精品无码_6080YYY午夜理论片中无码_性无码专区_无码人妻品一区二区三区精99

    久久精品999| 国产精品久久久久三级| 日韩精品国产精品| 欧美军同video69gay| 亚洲成人777| 欧美日韩美女一区二区| 亚洲国产精品久久艾草纯爱| 欧美在线观看一区二区| 中文字幕欧美国产| 成人黄色一级视频| 中文字幕日韩av资源站| 91网站最新地址| 亚洲最新视频在线播放| 欧美日韩精品二区第二页| 亚洲一区免费观看| 日本精品视频一区二区| 亚洲午夜在线电影| 欧美美女直播网站| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看| 欧美精品一区二| 成人福利视频网站| 亚洲欧美成aⅴ人在线观看| 欧美丝袜自拍制服另类| 久久66热re国产| 亚洲品质自拍视频网站| 三级精品在线观看| 欧美日韩国产综合一区二区| 免费看日韩a级影片| 国产亚洲午夜高清国产拍精品| 99精品视频在线观看| 日韩精品久久理论片| 久久九九99视频| 欧美三片在线视频观看| 国产在线国偷精品免费看| 欧美精品123区| 成人美女视频在线观看| 亚洲va欧美va天堂v国产综合| 日韩精品中文字幕在线一区| 99国产麻豆精品| 日本欧美大码aⅴ在线播放| 欧美激情一区二区三区全黄 | 99re热这里只有精品免费视频| 婷婷中文字幕综合| 亚洲国产电影在线观看| 欧美日韩国产精品成人| 成人黄色a**站在线观看| 天天色天天爱天天射综合| 亚洲国产成人私人影院tom| 欧美精品一级二级| 91在线视频播放| 狠狠色伊人亚洲综合成人| 亚洲一区二区五区| 欧美极品少妇xxxxⅹ高跟鞋 | 91精品国产综合久久精品app | 亚洲男同性恋视频| 精品国产青草久久久久福利| 欧美性生交片4| 成人黄色777网| 黄网站免费久久| 亚洲一区二区三区四区五区中文| 中文字幕不卡在线| 91精品国产91热久久久做人人| 99精品偷自拍| 亚洲免费色视频| 亚洲精品在线免费观看视频| 欧美视频在线一区| av一区二区三区在线| 国产一区二区三区久久悠悠色av | 日本成人中文字幕在线视频| 亚洲精品国产精品乱码不99| 欧美国产日韩在线观看| 欧美电影免费观看高清完整版在 | 欧美成人国产一区二区| 欧洲色大大久久| 91丝袜美女网| 成人综合在线观看| 国产一区二区三区观看| 日本成人在线网站| 亚洲国产精品一区二区尤物区| 欧美激情一区不卡| 久久在线观看免费| 日韩一二在线观看| 宅男在线国产精品| 欧美日韩一区二区三区高清| 色先锋aa成人| 91性感美女视频| 成人精品高清在线| 国产成人免费视频| 国产成人av影院| 国模无码大尺度一区二区三区| 理论片日本一区| 免费人成在线不卡| 蜜桃av一区二区三区| 午夜成人在线视频| 亚洲成人av一区二区| 亚洲小说欧美激情另类| 亚洲国产欧美日韩另类综合| 夜夜嗨av一区二区三区中文字幕| 伊人性伊人情综合网| 一区二区三区四区在线播放 | 久久精品人人做| 久久久精品免费观看| 久久亚洲一区二区三区四区| 久久天天做天天爱综合色| 日韩女优毛片在线| 日韩精品中午字幕| 久久一区二区视频| 国产亚洲精品bt天堂精选| 久久精品一区二区三区不卡| 国产色产综合产在线视频| 国产亚洲精品aa| 国产精品女同一区二区三区| 国产欧美精品一区| 一区在线观看视频| 亚洲最新视频在线观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添国产精品| 日韩精品一区第一页| 免费在线观看一区二区三区| 久久国产剧场电影| 国产精品99久| 北岛玲一区二区三区四区| 不卡的av电影在线观看| 色综合天天做天天爱| 欧美中文字幕久久| 91精品在线麻豆| 日韩欧美高清一区| 中文字幕精品一区二区精品绿巨人| 欧美国产精品一区| 亚洲婷婷在线视频| 亚洲h精品动漫在线观看| 免费黄网站欧美| 国产福利91精品一区| 91伊人久久大香线蕉| 欧美日韩免费一区二区三区| 日韩午夜在线影院| 久久久久久久久一| 亚洲欧美另类久久久精品2019| 亚洲福利电影网| 韩国三级在线一区| 99riav一区二区三区| 欧美日韩亚洲丝袜制服| 精品国产免费一区二区三区四区 | 婷婷国产在线综合| 国产一区二区三区香蕉| 91小视频免费看| 欧美一级日韩不卡播放免费| 国产婷婷精品av在线| 一区二区三区精品| 九九精品一区二区| 91啪在线观看| 欧美一级久久久久久久大片| 亚洲国产成人私人影院tom| 亚洲国产裸拍裸体视频在线观看乱了| 极品美女销魂一区二区三区免费| 99re视频精品| 欧美成人午夜电影| 亚洲日本中文字幕区| 日韩avvvv在线播放| av动漫一区二区| 欧美一区二区日韩一区二区| 国产精品美女久久久久高潮| 天天影视网天天综合色在线播放| 国产在线精品免费av| 欧美图区在线视频| 日本一区二区三区电影| 亚洲成人你懂的| 成人午夜私人影院| 欧美一区二区三区免费| 日韩理论电影院| 精品亚洲成a人在线观看| 色综合天天综合狠狠| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久久久久久 | 国产亚洲综合性久久久影院| 亚洲图片自拍偷拍| 高清不卡一区二区在线| 成人一区二区三区中文字幕| 欧美乱妇20p| 一区在线观看免费| 黄色成人免费在线| 欧美日韩电影一区| 国产精品理伦片| 精品一区二区久久| 欧美日韩在线电影| 中文字幕中文字幕在线一区| 久久精品国产亚洲高清剧情介绍| 在线亚洲人成电影网站色www| 久久久精品黄色| 日韩电影免费在线看| 91国产丝袜在线播放| 日本一区二区电影| 久久99国产精品免费| 欧美日韩国产欧美日美国产精品| 国产精品午夜春色av| 久久99精品久久只有精品| 欧美日韩一区二区三区不卡| 亚洲你懂的在线视频| 99热99精品| 国产欧美精品国产国产专区| 卡一卡二国产精品 | 26uuu欧美|