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

    黑森林福利视频导航| 欧美成人三级在线播放| 无码人妻精品一区二区三区66| 五月天色婷婷综合| 看av免费毛片手机播放| 日韩中文在线字幕| 三级a三级三级三级a十八发禁止| 成人午夜精品久久久久久久蜜臀| 黄色片免费网址| 欧美婷婷精品激情| 欧美丰满熟妇bbbbbb百度| 超薄肉色丝袜足j调教99| 狠狠躁狠狠躁视频专区| av网站在线观看不卡| 日韩亚洲欧美一区二区| 中文字幕亚洲影院| 黄色aaa级片| 能在线观看的av| 搞av.com| 青青青在线观看视频| 色中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲天堂2018av| 日本999视频| 欧美三级午夜理伦三级| 亚洲不卡中文字幕无码| 视色,视色影院,视色影库,视色网| 亚洲精品第三页| 91 在线视频观看| 福利在线一区二区三区| 日韩av播放器| www黄色av| 国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| theporn国产精品| 国产又大又黄又猛| 波多结衣在线观看| 午夜免费福利在线| 在线免费视频a| 男操女免费网站| 国产精品入口免费软件| 欧美国产日韩激情| 和岳每晚弄的高潮嗷嗷叫视频| 9色porny| 精品欧美一区免费观看α√| 欧美大片在线播放| 久久精品.com| www.日本xxxx| 国产原创精品在线| 中文字幕国产高清| 日韩不卡的av| 强伦女教师2:伦理在线观看| 国产日产欧美一区二区| www.激情网| 少妇人妻在线视频| 美女福利视频在线| 热久久精品免费视频| 日本中文字幕二区| www.午夜色| 欧美日韩福利在线| 国产综合av在线| 免费国产成人av| 嫩草视频免费在线观看| 天堂av免费看| 日韩精品在线中文字幕| 玩弄中年熟妇正在播放| 成人性做爰aaa片免费看不忠| www.com黄色片| 99久久久无码国产精品性色戒| 97在线免费视频观看| 黄页网站在线观看视频| 午夜dv内射一区二区| 天天色天天综合网| h无码动漫在线观看| 大肉大捧一进一出好爽动态图| 中文字幕在线综合| 69精品丰满人妻无码视频a片 | 黑人糟蹋人妻hd中文字幕| 黄色三级视频片| 国产又粗又长又爽又黄的视频| 成年人三级视频| 北条麻妃在线观看| 中文字幕在线观看日| 六月婷婷激情综合| 欧美在线观看视频网站| 男人的天堂成人| 欧美网站免费观看| 在线不卡一区二区三区| 欧美一级片免费播放| 男女男精品视频站| 国产精品久久久久久久久电影网| 国产精品宾馆在线精品酒店| 天堂av在线8| 激情深爱综合网| 国产精品自在自线| 日本www在线视频| 制服丝袜中文字幕第一页 | 最新天堂在线视频| 日韩黄色短视频| 超碰超碰在线观看| 成年人网站免费视频| 国产欧美精品一二三| 欧美一级在线看| 国产系列第一页| 国产天堂在线播放| 免费一级淫片aaa片毛片a级| 91女神在线观看| 久久久999视频| 成人免费看片视频在线观看| 国产xxxxx视频| 国产一二三在线视频| 一级做a免费视频| 国产成人亚洲精品无码h在线| 99亚洲国产精品| 杨幂毛片午夜性生毛片| 日本在线xxx| 毛片在线视频观看| 亚洲制服中文字幕| 一级特黄性色生活片| 国产在线播放观看| 香蕉视频免费版| 国产美女18xxxx免费视频| 凹凸国产熟女精品视频| 亚洲乱码日产精品bd在线观看| 天天综合网久久| 91av俱乐部| 国产视频一视频二| 国产aaa免费视频| 99精品一区二区三区的区别| 色一情一区二区| 99草草国产熟女视频在线| 免费成人午夜视频| 丰满的少妇愉情hd高清果冻传媒| 精品国产无码在线| 思思久久精品视频| 日韩一区二区三区不卡视频| 国语对白做受xxxxx在线中国 | 在线观看岛国av| 亚洲五月天综合| 99福利在线观看| 日韩黄色片视频| ww国产内射精品后入国产| 国产成人在线小视频| 老司机午夜免费福利视频| 污污视频在线免费| 永久av免费在线观看| www.51色.com| 午夜xxxxx| 黄色片免费网址| 日韩精品aaa| 亚洲天堂一区二区在线观看| 天天操狠狠操夜夜操| 第一区免费在线观看| 中文字幕日韩综合| 99九九99九九九99九他书对| 亚洲精品视频三区| 中文字幕制服丝袜在线| 亚洲综合激情五月| 日本a级片在线观看| 菠萝蜜视频在线观看入口| 日韩精品一区二区三区四| 国产美女永久无遮挡| 99热亚洲精品| 无码人妻丰满熟妇区96| 欧美三级午夜理伦三级| 四季av一区二区| 亚洲午夜精品一区| 手机看片日韩国产| av一区二区三区免费观看| 成人免费毛片在线观看| 精品中文字幕av| 欧美黄网站在线观看| www.涩涩涩| 天天操精品视频| 国产91porn| 日韩欧美亚洲天堂| 日韩免费高清在线| 亚洲视频一二三四| 五月天在线免费视频| 日本午夜激情视频| 人妻丰满熟妇av无码区app| 特黄视频免费观看| 欧美激情亚洲天堂| 欧美日韩激情视频在线观看| 一道本视频在线观看| 视频一区二区视频| 霍思燕三级露全乳照| 国产wwwxx| 男女爱爱视频网站| 日本www在线播放| 亚洲欧美日韩精品一区| 日韩久久久久久久久久久久| www.亚洲天堂网| 欧美日韩理论片| 久草热视频在线观看| 一道本在线免费视频| 日本香蕉视频在线观看| 国产精品久久久久9999小说| 奇米777在线视频| 国产免费黄色小视频| 性生活免费在线观看| 久操手机在线视频|