男女羞羞视频在线观看,国产精品黄色免费,麻豆91在线视频,美女被羞羞免费软件下载,国产的一级片,亚洲熟色妇,天天操夜夜摸,一区二区三区在线电影
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 1995 - . 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
主站蜘蛛池模板: 永宁县| 奉新县| 托克托县| 临高县| 中江县| 高密市| 阜宁县| 马龙县| 新民市| 上栗县| 庄河市| 安庆市| 彭州市| 红河县| 盐边县| 钟山县| 灵璧县| 股票| 中超| 承德市| 黄平县| 黔西| 大埔县| 涡阳县| 通道| 盱眙县| 谢通门县| 黄浦区| 巫山县| 武平县| 岳池县| 东至县| 太谷县| 香河县| 隆昌县| 大英县| 旅游| 西峡县| 定州市| 尤溪县| 吴旗县| 大安市| 开江县| 石家庄市| 大余县| 齐河县| 自治县| 高淳县| 武清区| 安顺市| 梁山县| 潞城市| 昌吉市| 秦安县| 巫溪县| 宁德市| 西贡区| 南通市| 稻城县| 洪洞县| 彭州市| 富民县| 望江县| 南阳市| 天气| 揭东县| 金寨县| 新竹县| 辰溪县| 万宁市| 霍山县| 都匀市| 蒙阴县| 吉林省| 正阳县| 阜城县| 邳州市| 凌云县| 景洪市| 峨眉山市| 彭州市| 大渡口区|