国产热热热精品,亚洲视频久久】日韩,三级婷婷在线久久,99人妻精品视频,精品九热人人肉肉在线,AV东京热一区二区,91po在线视频观看,久久激情宗合,青青草黄色手机视频

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
Opinion
Home / Opinion / Chinese Perspectives

Analyzing the illegality and invalidity of the South China Sea Arbitration Awards via six 'whys'

Keynote Speech at the Symposium on "South China Sea Arbitration Awards and International Law"

By Ma Xinmin | chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2024-04-30 09:34
Share
Share - WeChat

VI. Why is it absurd for the tribunal to rule that China's activities in the South China Sea are illegal?

The arbitral tribunal mischaracterized the legal status of sea areas, erred in its factual findings, accepted inadmissible evidence, misinterpreted and misapplied the law. Consequently, its conclusion that China's related activities in the South China Sea violated the Convention's provisions or were illegal was based on entirely subjective speculation.

First, the tribunal's conclusion that China's activities in the South China Sea were illegal was based on false facts and an illegal premise. The tribunal erroneously asserted that the relevant sea areas of the Nansha Qundao belonged to the exclusive economic zone or continental shelf of the Philippines. For example, the tribunal found that China's activities to affirm and safeguard its sovereignty and rights, as well as its resources management and exploitation activities in the South China Sea, violated the sovereignty rights of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines. However, this decision was founded on the erroneous assumption that the relevant sea areas involved in China's activities fell within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. China and the Philippines have not resolved their territorial issues or delimited their sea boundaries. Therefore, the basis for determining their respective claims is absent. As a result, the fundamental prerequisites for establishing the Philippines' claims do not exist. Hence, it is impossible to discuss whether the relevant sea areas are the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines, and it is completely untenable to argue that China's activities in the South China Sea are illegal based on this preposterous premise.

Second, the tribunal seriously erred in its factual findings, accepted inadmissible evidence, misinterpreted and misapplied the law regarding China's various activities in the South China Sea. In its factual findings, the tribunal's conclusion that the fishing activities of Philippine fishermen gave rise to "traditional fishing rights" lacked a factual basis. In dealing with evidence, the tribunal was biased towards China's activities related to marine environmental protection in the South China Sea. It relied on a report by three experts who conducted a complex scientific assessment of the South China Sea marine environment in no more than 17 days, lacking first-hand empirical data. Additionally, the tribunal made numerous errors in interpreting and applying the law, including incorrectly applying "traditional fishing rights" to the legal régime of the territorial sea through Article 2(3) of the Convention. In short, the conclusion that China's activities in the South China Sea are illegal is entirely absurd.

In conclusion, the arbitral tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration egregiously exceeded its jurisdiction, shockingly abused and expanded its power, and seriously infringed on China's rights and interests, rendering the awards illegal and invalid from the beginning. These awards, marred by staggering procedural irregularities and wrongful adjudication, not only harm China but also undermine the common interests of all States Parties to the Convention and the international community at large; therefore, these awards are not worth the paper they are printed on. China neither accepts nor recognizes them, standing firmly in support of international fairness and justice, a stance believed to be backed by an increasing number of countries advocating for these principles.

Ma Xinmin is director-general of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.

 

 

|<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6   
Most Viewed in 24 Hours
Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1994 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
南开区| 禹城市| 平陆县| 禹城市| 庆云县| 南昌市| 瑞安市| 杭州市| 扎兰屯市| 灵璧县| 大城县| 浑源县| 岢岚县| 达拉特旗| 通渭县| 汉中市| 宁强县| 乐安县| 民和| 秭归县| 漳浦县| 江达县| 从化市| 闽侯县| 兴山县| 永宁县| 安徽省| 华宁县| 瑞昌市| 安多县| 三门峡市| 泰宁县| 冕宁县| 莆田市| 仁寿县| 安庆市| 呼伦贝尔市| 垣曲县| 自治县| 苏尼特右旗| 乐昌市|