久久亚洲国产成人影院-久久亚洲国产的中文-久久亚洲国产高清-久久亚洲国产精品-亚洲图片偷拍自拍-亚洲图色视频

US EUROPE AFRICA ASIA 中文
Opinion / Op-Ed Contributors

Tribunal arbitration on S. China Sea neither fair not just

By Lu Yang (China Daily) Updated: 2015-12-19 09:22

Tribunal arbitration on S. China Sea neither fair not just

A formation of the Nanhai Fleet of China's Navy on Saturday finished a three-day patrol of the Nansha islands in the South China Sea. [Photo/Xinhua]

By dragging the South China Sea dispute to arbitration, the Philippines has made a politically provocative move under the cloak of law. At the end of October, in disregard to basic facts and fundamental jurisprudence, the Arbitral Tribunal set up at the unilateral request of the Philippines rendered the award on jurisdiction and admissibility of the arbitration. Confounding black and white, the Tribunal spared no effort in backing up the Philippines' arguments, and thus rendered support and encouragement to the Philippines' illegal occupation of China's territory and encroachment upon China's maritime rights and interests.

Fraught with far-fetched and unfounded assumptions, the reasoning process of the Tribunal was by no means based on facts, common sense or justice, and its positions were neither fair nor impartial.

What has truly happened cannot be covered up by an arbitration that ignores facts. The Tribunal deliberately framed the previous consultations between China and the Philippines on disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation as consultations on the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and affirmed these consultations as evidence that the Philippines had fulfilled its obligation of exchange of views.

As a matter of fact, China and the Philippines have never held any negotiation, not even exchange of views, on the matter of arbitration.

There is no trace of justice in an arbitration that violates jurisprudence. For example, the Tribunal knows full well that it has no jurisdiction over a case concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.

On the one hand, it evaded the essence of the dispute and insisted that this case had nothing to do with territorial sovereignty. On the other, in disregard of China's declaration in accordance with the UNCLOS in 2006 that excludes disputes over maritime delimitation from arbitral proceedings, the Tribunal deliberately included in its jurisdiction matters that, in essence, concern territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.

Such moves to arrogate power are a violation of the spirit of diligence and self-discipline which judicial bodies should honor when hearing cases. They are also detrimental to the credibility and value of dispute settlement through judicial means.

Another example is the one-sidedness and lack of impartiality in the Tribunal's selection and citation of judicial cases. On many occasions, it cited biased, highly controversial judicial or arbitral cases and used controversial views and verdicts put forth by arbitrators of this very Tribunal as legal precedent in support of views on the verdict of this case. Such so called self-sufficient and partial arguments have seriously damaged the integrity, logic and consistency of the relevant legal conclusion.

Yet another example is the distortion of the relations between the UNCLOS and customary international law. Turning a blind eye to customary international law, the Tribunal kept citing the UNCLOS and attempted to make the UNCLOS applicable to everything related to the sea.

Any one familiar with international law would know well that the regime of international law of the sea provided in the UNCLOS is, in itself, a summary of maritime history and practices and a reflection of the common aspirations of countries, and that the very text of the UNCLOS shows respect for customary international law. What the Tribunal has done is a breach of the basic purposes and spirit of the UNCLOS.

The Tribunal accepted the Philippines' false arguments in its entirety disregarding the basic fact of the country's abuse of legal procedures. Its moves to jump to conclusions first and then prove them by distorting evidence and verdicts will be a serious erosion of the international judicial system that champions fairness and justice.

The author is a researcher in international studies.

Most Viewed Today's Top News
...
主站蜘蛛池模板: 亚洲精品欧美精品 | 国产免费成人在线视频 | ffee性xxⅹ另类老妇hd | 国产乱淫视频 | a毛片免费 | 国产精品18久久久久久小说 | 亚洲免费在线观看视频 | 精品国产成人在线 | 国产精品欧美激情在线播放 | 波多野结衣中文在线 | 日本特黄a级高清免费酷网 日本特黄特色 | 亚洲成人手机在线观看 | 网禁呦萝资源网站在线观看 | 久久黄网站 | 成人高清在线观看播放 | 日韩国产欧美精品综合二区 | 综合免费视频 | 久久熟 | 欧美操操操 | 国产综合亚洲专区在线 | 91欧美视频 | 国产a精品三级 | 久久久久依人综合影院 | 99色视频在线观看 | 日韩欧美一区二区在线观看 | jul-179在线中文字幕 | 欧美亚洲国产成人高清在线 | 欧美精品高清 | 波多野一区二区 | a级毛片网站 | 国产日韩高清一区二区三区 | 一区二区三区观看 | 欧美成人性色xxxx视频 | 国内自拍视频在线看免费观看 | 中文字幕一区二区在线观看 | 亚洲欧美日韩国产精品26u | 欧美性色黄大片一级毛片视频 | 久草中文在线观看 | 国产三级午夜理伦三级 | 国产在线观a免费观看 | 欧美大片国产在线永久播放 |