日批在线视频_内射毛片内射国产夫妻_亚洲三级小视频_在线观看亚洲大片短视频_女性向h片资源在线观看_亚洲最大网

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: 国产最新在线视频 | 三级视频在线 | www.成人在线 | av大全在线观看 | 免费成人结看片 | 国产又色又爽 | 亚洲天堂777 | 欧美日韩精品一区二区三区四区 | 成人福利视频在线观看 | 香蕉视频导航 | 成年女人色毛片 | 欧美性猛交xxxx乱 | 亚州春色 | av亚洲在线 | 欧美激情精品久久久久久蜜臀 | 成人自拍视频在线观看 | 日韩一级片网站 | 蜜臀久久久久 | 亚洲激情视频在线播放 | 天堂av中文在线 | 国产毛片视频 | 亚洲无遮挡 | 天堂av中文在线 | 在线免费观看成年人视频 | 亚洲影视大全 | 午夜av一区二区三区 | 欧美日韩毛片 | 91免费 | 纯洁的轮舞曲在线观看 | 日韩xxx视频| 免费成人高清在线视频 | 国产日韩欧美精品在线 | 欧美视频中文字幕 | 精品国产黄色 | 最新中文字幕第一页 | 成人日韩在线 | 96国产在线 | 四虎影院永久免费 | 91高清视频在线 | 久久三级视频 | 亚洲欧美视频在线播放 |