日韩精品久久一区二区三区_亚洲色图p_亚洲综合在线最大成人_国产中出在线观看_日韩免费_亚洲综合在线一区

US EUROPE AFRICA ASIA 中文
Opinion / Op-Ed Contributors

Tribunal proceedings on Manila's claims flawed

By Chris Whomersley (China Daily) Updated: 2016-06-16 08:27

When the Philippines commenced arbitration proceedings under UNCLOS, China declined to appear, arguing that the proceedings were covered by one of the exceptions in UNCLOS. Non-appearance by a State in international proceedings is actually not so unusual. Most famously, the United States declined to participate in the proceedings brought by Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice in the 1980s after the Court had held that it had jurisdiction.

So, on what basis did the Tribunal find that it had jurisdiction? The first point to note is that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the territorial sovereignty over the various land features in the South China Sea-even though it is common knowledge that this issue is hotly disputed, not only by China and the Philippines, but also by Viet Nam, Malaysia and Brunei. In other words, the Tribunal cannot say that a particular feature belongs to China or the Philippines. This is because the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to decide on disputes over the "interpretation or application" of UNCLOS, and UNCLOS of course is not concerned with resolving disputes over land territory. The Philippines recognized the difficulty here and expressly denied that it was seeking a decision on sovereignty over land territory.

Despite this, the Tribunal took the view that it can decide upon the status of features in the South China Sea (ie whether they are "rocks" or low-tide elevations), even though it cannot rule on which State the feature belongs to. I have described this elsewhere as putting the status cart before the sovereignty horse, and there appears to be no precedent for an international tribunal proceeding in such circumstances.

In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal asked itself what was the "real issue" in the case brought by the Philippines, and decided that it was not about the sovereignty over the features, but about their status; thus, it said that it could rule on the latter question without touching on the former. This is despite the recent precedent of the case brought by Mauritius against the United Kingdom, in which by bringing proceedings under UNCLOS questioning the validity of the marine protected area declared around the Chagos Archipelago, Mauritius sought to dispute the sovereignty over the islands. The Tribunal in that case rightly saw through that device and declined to accept Mauritius's argument on this point. It is perhaps surprising that the Tribunal in the Philippines case did not follow this precedent.

It is also important to note that one of the exceptions in UNCLOS which China has made use of relates to maritime delimitation. Thus, there can be no compulsory recourse to arbitration in a case about maritime delimitation involving China. But actually one of the key questions in any maritime delimitation is: what is the status of the various features in the maritime area being delimited. This is because, as we have seen, low-tide elevations do not generate maritime zones at all and "rocks" only generate a territorial sea. So, deciding upon the status of maritime features is an indispensable component in effecting a maritime delimitation. In other words, delimiting a maritime boundary necessarily involves also considering the status of maritime features. There is a strong argument therefore that the Chinese exception for maritime delimitation should also have been held to cover the question of the status of the maritime features which are an indispensable part of effecting a maritime delimitation.

Furthermore, there is a well-known legal dictum that "the land dominates the sea". In other words, a State's entitlements to maritime zones depends upon the territory owned by that State. Thus, the International Court of Justice in its case-law has always decided upon disputes over land territory before proceeding to prescribe a maritime boundary. So, there are three interdependent elements: the status of features, maritime delimitation and sovereignty over land territory. But even though the Tribunal accepted that it has no jurisdiction over the latter two elements, it has decided to proceed with the case on the basis that it has jurisdiction over the first element.

Most Viewed Today's Top News
...
主站蜘蛛池模板: 午夜影网 | 欧美成a人片在线观看久 | 国产精品免费视频网站 | www午夜 | 碰碰碰精品视频在线观看 | 狠狠干夜夜草 | 少妇特黄a一区二区三区88av | 亚洲97 | 亚洲一区二区三区在线播放 | 久草黄视频 | 日日干夜夜操s8 | 亚洲免费视 | 欧美第四页 | 成人av免费在线观看 | 欧美福利视频在线观看 | 91久久精品国产一区二区 | 日韩丝袜在线观看 | 亚洲成人日韩 | 色综合天天综合网国产成人网 | 亚洲国产99在线精品一区二区 | 成人黄色短视频在线观看 | 天天看高清特色大片 | 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 | 国产一精品一av一免费爽爽 | 国产成人视屏 | 亚洲午夜免费视频 | 午夜视频在线观看视频 | 久久成人18免费网站 | 欧美午夜在线播放 | 中国一级毛片在线视频 | 久久精品视频免费观看 | 国产九一精品 | 色网站视频 | 国产日本在线播放 | 91久久99热青草国产 | 国产精品久久久久aaaa九色 | 中文视频在线 | 久久免费福利 | 国产精品主播视频 | 中文字幕乱码视频32 | 国产视频中文字幕 |