South Koreans protest US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile deployment


https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/knkmDTsGTYA

  • South Koreans protest US missile deployment
  • People from Seongju county hold the national flags of South Korea and banners to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), during a rally in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016. More than 2,000 people from Seongju county, where one THAAD battery will be deployed, gathered at a square in Seoul for a rally on Thursday, to protest against the deployment of THAAD. (Xinhua/Yao Qilin)


    South Koreans protest US missile deployment

  • South Koreans protest US missile deployment. Thousands of South Koreans from Seongju county gathered in Seoul to protest against the government’s decision to deploy a U.S.-built THAAD missile defense unit in their home town. People from Seongju county hold the national flags of South Korea and banners…

“Stop the deployment! NO THAAD! NO THAAD! NO THAAD!” Protesters said.

“The way that the government made the decision completely on their own, without talking to residents first, is completely wrong. We are here to express the people’s anger living in Seongju,” Protest organiser Seok Hyeon-Cheol said.

“The missile deployment site is right in the middle of a city that has around 20,000 people. I can see it when I open the door of my house, the door of my house! And I can see it from my living room. That is why we strongly oppose the THAAD deployment. We oppose it for our children, and their children — for the future of our county, for our health, and our right to live,” Protester form Seongju County Kim An-Su said.

The protest follows a raucous standoff last week between residents and the country’s prime minister, Hwang Kyo-ahn, who was pelted with eggs and plastic bottles and trapped inside a bus for several hours when he visited the county to explain his decision to deploy the missile system there.

South Korea’s President Park Geun Hye has called for people to support the government’s plans. She said the move was “inevitable” because of a growing threat from the DPRK. South Korea’s defense ministry says the country’s THAAD missile system will become operational before the end of 2017.

A senior official of Seongju county (2nd L, front) attends a rally to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016. More than 2,000 people from Seongju county, where one THAAD battery will be deployed, gathered at a square in Seoul for a rally on Thursday, to protest against the deployment of THAAD. (Xinhua/Yao Qilin)

People from Seongju county hold the national flags of South Korea and banners to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), during a rally in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016.

People from Seongju county hold the national flags of South Korea and banners to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), during a rally in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016. (Xinhua/Yao Qilin)

People from Seongju county hold banners to protest against the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), during a rally in Seoul, capital of South Korea, on July 21, 2016. More than 2,000 people from Seongju county, where one THAAD battery will be deployed, gathered at a square in Seoul for a rally on Thursday, to protest against the deployment of THAAD. (Xinhua/Yao Qilin)

HAAD poses real threat to security of China

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/rhlxr6BRv4E

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched during a successful intercept test, in this undated handout photo provided by the US Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency. [Photo/Agencies]

What has historically been ours is ours. Even if others say it is not. That is why, annoying as it is, the Philippines-initiated South China Sea arbitration is actually not worth the limelight it is being given.

It is time for Beijing to get down to real, serious business. It has bigger issues to attend to, the most imperative of which is the anti-missile system being deployed on its doorsteps. Because, while it was coping with the worthless arbitral award from The Hague, Washington and Seoul finalized their plan for the deployment of the US’ Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system in the Republic of Korea.

The arbitral ruling, which is null and non-executable, will have little effect on China’s interests and security in the South China Sea. But not THAAD, which is a clear, present, substantive threat to China’s security interests.

The installment of the US system in the ROK should be of far greater concern to Beijing, and warrants a far stronger reaction. Or should we say retaliation?

The ROK has legitimate security concerns, especially with Pyongyang constantly threatening nuclear bombing. With that in mind, Beijing has been adamant about de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and worked closely with Seoul and Washington in implementing and upgrading United Nations sanctions, and appealed tirelessly for restarting the Six-Party Talks.

But Seoul has brushed aside Beijing’s security interests while pursuing those of its own.

Washington and Seoul did claim that THAAD would be focused “solely” on nuclear/missile threats from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and would not be directed toward any third-party nation. But THAAD far exceeds such a need. Besides the far more credible threat from Pyongyang’s artillery, short-range and lower-altitude missiles is simply beyond the system’s reach.

While it will deliver a limited security guarantee to the ROK, THAAD’s X-band radar will substantially compromise the security interests of China and Russia, no matter how the United States shrouds its purpose.

Yet having made such a beggar-thy-neighbor choice, Seoul has in effect turned its back on China. By hosting THAAD, it has presented itself as Washington’s cat’s-paw in the latter’s strategic containment of China. All rhetoric about friendship is meaningless lip service with the deployment of THAAD.

Beijing must review and readjust its Korean Peninsula strategies in accordance with the latest threat from the peninsula, including its ROK policies.

That does not mean forsaking its commitment to de-nuclearization, or UN resolutions. But Beijing must concentrate more on safeguarding its own interests, both immediate and long-term.

Source: China Daily Updated: 2016-07-15

China can counter THAAD deployment

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QTVgIJT1DaY

The US and South Korea on Friday announced their decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system on the Korean Peninsula.

Apart from monitoring missiles from North Korea, THAAD could expand South Korea’s surveillance range to China and Russia and pose serious threat to the two countries.

Though South Korea claims it can reduce the surveillance range, the country cannot make the call as the system will be controlled by US forces in South Korea, and such cheap promises mean nothing in international politics.

We recommend China to take the following countermeasures.

China should cut off economic ties with companies involved with the system and ban their products from entering the Chinese market.

It could also implement sanctions on politicians who advocated the deployment, ban their entry into China as well as their family business.

In addition, the Chinese military could come up with a solution that minimizes the threat posed by the system, such as technical disturbances and targeting missiles toward the THAAD system.

Meanwhile, China should also re-evaluate the long-term impact in Northeast Asia of the sanctions on North Korea, concerning the link between the sanctions and the imbalance after the THAAD system is deployed.

China can also consider the possibility of joint actions with Russia with countermeasures.

The deployment of THAAD will surely have a long-term and significant influence. South Korea will be further tied by its alliance with the US and lose more independence in national strategy.

North Korea’s nuclear issue has further complicated the situation on the Korean Peninsula, but the country’s possession of nuclear weapons also results from outside factors.

The biggest problem of the peninsula’s messy situation lies in US’ Cold-War strategy in Northeast Asia, and its mind-set of balancing China in the region. Neither Pyongyang nor Seoul could make their own decisions independently, as the region’s stability and development are highly related to China and the US.

The whole picture of the situation on the Korean Peninsula could not been seen merely from the view of Pyongyang and Seoul. China’s relationship with North Korea has already been affected, and ties with South Korea are unlikely to remain untouched.

China is experiencing the pains of growing up. We have to accept the status quo of “being caught in the middle.”

China should neither be too harsh on itself, nor be self-indulgent. Being true to itself, China will fear no challenges

Source: Global Times Published: 2016-7-9

Dao inhabits people’s hearts: Tribunal’s dangerous precedent in international law !


Political manipulation violates combined concept of fairness, justice, rule, trend and direction.

ON July 12, the award on the South China Sea arbitration came out. This political anti-China farce in the disguise of law, manipulated by the United States, and acted by the former Philippine Government, eventually came to an awful end.

This award caused a storm of questions and negative comments in the international community. A lot of professionals are shocked, not to speak of how ridiculous it is to define Taiping Island as a “reef”.

As Professor Tom Zwart from the Netherlands said, “In the region (East Asia), the award will be widely regarded as the fruit of a poisonous tree, and it will fail, therefore, to garner the necessary support.”

Abraham Sofaer, former legal advisor to the US State Department, also pointed out that the arbitration had brought a lot of difficulties and anxiety, which were not good for any parties.

The US attempted to smear and “isolate” China with the arbitration, but unexpectedly received little response. China’s position of non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration has won more and more support.

Even the Philippine people realised that the arbitration is a total conspiracy of the US for its own agenda. This proves again the age old saying, “a just cause enjoys abundant support while an unjust cause finds little support”.

Dao, a combined concept of fairness, justice, rule, trend and direction, and derived from ancient Chinese philosophy, inhabits people’s hearts. The Dao of the present world lies in peace, development and winwin cooperation, and the Dao of solving international disputes lies in fair, lawful and peaceful solutions. On the premise of peaceful settlement, international law provides the right of every state to choose the means of dispute settlement, which should be based on consent, used in good faith and in the spirit of cooperation.

China persists unswervingly in pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace; advocates the awareness about human common destiny; and opposes the Cold War mindset and zero-sum games, and the bullying of the weak by the strong.

China will never seek hegemony or engage in expansion. With regard to territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes, China adheres to settlement through amicable consultation and negotiation by directly concerned countries, and does not accept any means of third-party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on it.

The violation of Dao by the US lies in its “imperialist mindset” and pursuit of hegemony. After World War II, the US global strategy has always been seeking the “leadership of the world”.

In 2009, the Obama administration launched the Asia Pacific Rebalance Strategy, and took the South China Sea issue as the pivot to maintain its regional hegemony and achieve strategic containment of China.

It is obvious that during the whole process of the arbitration unilaterally initiated and pushed by the Aquino III administration, the US was deeply involved in every step. Although alleging “neutrality and non-involvement”, the US manipulated behind the scene, and tried to forge a “coalition” to hype up the issue, resulting in rise of tension in the South China Sea.

The US always regards itself as “judge of the world”, but history and reality have repeatedly shown that the US has always adopted double standards. In the eyes of the US, international law is only applicable to other countries rather than itself. It only applies the law when it is consistent with its own interest and resolutely abandons it otherwise.

For instance, while advocating “the rule of law on the sea”, it has not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

While insisting that China must accept the arbitration award, it chooses to forget the Nicaragua case in which it not only withdrew from the proceedings and refused to implement the ruling, but also revoked the declaration of accepting the compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice. While opposing militarisation in the South China Sea, it has been provocatively dispatching military aircraft and warships into the area, and even deploying aircraft carrier fleets to this region.

More and more countries have found out who is the biggest “trouble-maker” in the world. It is the US intervention that makes the world worse. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all fallen into its trap and are left with mess in the region. As the new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte frankly said, the root of the bloodshed in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries lies in the intervention of the US.

Furthermore, just prior to the arbitration award, the UK Iraq Inquiry published its report, stating that the decision of the US and UK to start the Iraq War was based on “flawed” intelligence. Under such circumstance, who will follow such a “leader of the world”?

The violation of Dao by the former government of the Philippines lies in breaching previous commitment and causing a lot of trouble in the shelter of a superpower.

The Philippines and China had been friendly neighbours over a long history. However, in recent years, the bilateral ties were damaged by the Philippine policy of confrontation, especially the unilateral arbitration claim.

The government of Aquino III willingly acted as the pawn of the US Rebalance Strategy and took the road to confront China. It deliberately provoked the Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal) incident, unilaterally initiated and pushed the arbitration, and tried to hijack other Asean countries to smear China and benefit from the unlawful arbitration award. Its intention is vicious, and its action illegal.

First, although fully aware that territorial issues are not subject to UNCLOS and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China, the Philippines deliberately packaged the disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS.

Second, the arbitration infringes upon China’s right to choose the procedures and means for dispute settlement. In 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China declared to exclude from the compulsory procedures disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. There are over 30 countries that have made similar declaration.

Third, the unilateral arbitration broke the bilateral agreements reached between China and the Philippines over the years to resolve relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiation.

Fourth, the arbitration violated the commitment jointly made by China and Asean countries, including the Philippines, in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) to resolve the relevant disputes through negotiations by states directly concerned.

The Aquino III administration thought itself clever, but how can it deceive the whole world? As Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said, the arbitration is “the worst political collusion in the framework of international politics”, and “would bring negative impacts to Asean and peace in the region”.

Rod P. Kapunan, Philippine columnist of The Standard newspaper, pointed out that “after six years of hypocrisy and deceit, this shameless stooge (here refers to Aquino III) has brought us right into the doorstep of possible armed conflict with China all because it has chosen to pursue the US-designed policy of inciting hostility with our neighbour”.

Regarding the South China Sea situation, he wrote that “the lives of the Filipinos would be sacrificed to enforce a decision that if examined closely is a US proxy war which the Philippines would serve as cannon fodder in securing its interest in this part of the globe”.

The escalation in the South China Sea will bring enormous risks to the regional and even global security. The Philippines should recognise its mistakes and return to bilateral negotiation with China.

The violation of Dao by the arbitral tribunal lies in political manipulation, unfairness and unlawfulness. The arbitration is completely a political farce under legal pretext. The establishment of this tribunal lacks legitimacy.

The arbitrators it chose lack fairness. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction, and it evidently expanded, exceeded and abused its power.

The so-called “award” is even ridiculous. Experts pointed out that all the fees of the tribunal, including the huge reimbursement to the arbitrators, are borne by the Philippines alone. This has raised a lot of concerns and problems. People are asking if the Philippines “hired the judges”.

The composition of the tribunal is a result of political manipulation. Japan and Yanai Shunji, then president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, acted as the broker.

The composition of the tribunal is quite weird: four of the five arbitrators are from Europe, the fifth one is a permanent resident in Europe, and all of them lack basic understanding of Asian culture and the South China Sea issue.

One fact could better show the play under the table. When the tribunal was established in April 2013, the first president appointed by Yanai was Chris Pinto, a senior Sri Lankan diplomat. Since Pinto’s wife is Philippine, he especially asked advice from both parties to the dispute and was recognised by the Philippines.

However, when Pinto later hinted that the tribunal might not have jurisdiction over the case, it raised deep concern of the US, Japan and the Philippines. The latter asked Yanai to find somebody to replace Pinto for a so-called “just cause”. In May 2013, Pinto was forced to resign.

The tribunal abused power for its own interest. Many experts of international law believe that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Just as Sofaer said, this arbitration is related to sovereignty disputes. It shouldn’t have been started, especially when a state party has declared in writing that it does not accept compulsory procedures over such disputes as maritime delimitation according to Article 298 of UNCLOS. The tribunal’s ruling “will broadly undermine the potential utility of international adjudication”.

The tribunal disregarded the fact that the essence of the subject matter of the arbitration is the issue of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.

It erroneously interprets the common choice of means of dispute settlement already made jointly by China and the Philippines, erroneously construes the legal effect of the relevant commitment in the DOC, deliberately circumvents the optional exceptions declaration made by China, selectively takes relevant islands and reefs out of the macro-geographical framework of the South China Sea Islands, and subjectively and speculatively interprets and applies UNCLOS.

The conduct of the tribunal and its award seriously contravene the general practice of international arbitration, completely deviate from the object and purpose of UNCLOS to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, substantially impair the integrity and authority of UNCLOS, gravely infringe upon China’s legitimate rights as a sovereign state and state party to UNCLOS, and are unjust and unlawful. It has set an extremely dangerous precedent in the history of international law.

The professional ethics of the arbitrators are widely criticised. All the Western arbitrators and expert witnesses played a shameful role as though they were chameleons.

They reversed their previous position as stated in published papers and even backtracked from their long-held views to make the case for the Philippines.

Arbitrator Alfred Soons had published his opinion that the status of islands was closely associated with demarcation and sovereignty issues.

However, when the tribunal ruled on jurisdiction and admissibility, he said the tribunal had the right to decide on the Philippines’ submissions concerning legal status and maritime entitlement of certain islands including Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal) and Meiji Reef (Mischief Reef ), which was entirely contradictory to his previous viewpoint.

Expert witness Clive Schofield also changed his views at the proceedings. On the same subject, using the same materials, he drew totally different conclusions in and out of the tribunal.

People must be wondering: how could they discard professional ethics to serve the interests of those who pay them?

Facts speak louder than words. The unilateral arbitration initiated by the Aquino III administration violates international law.

The tribunal has no jurisdiction over this case. The award of the tribunal is null and void. China’s position is justified and lawful.

It is time to put an end to the arbitration on the South China Sea. Consultation is the right way to settle disputes between states.

China will continue to work together with the Asean countries to implement the DOC comprehensively and effectively, promote the consultation on a code of conduct in the South China Sea, manage and control relevant disputes properly and explore maritime cooperation, in order to build the South China Sea into a sea of peace, friendship and cooperation.

by Huang Huikang The Star Malaysia 20 Jul 2016

The writer is a member of the International Law Commission of the United Nations and the Chinese Ambassador to Malaysia. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.

 

Related:

South China Sea arbitration:

Who are the arbitrators?

 https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/j3VsgQQJNZQ

The Xinhua news agency has accused the US government, the Philippines, the arbitration panel and Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe of collusion in the recently concluded South China Sea arbitration case.

Four of the five arbitrators of the temporary tribunal were appointed by Shunji Yanai, the former president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The former Japanese diplomat’s political stance and speeches went against the principles of the independence of the international judiciary. Shunji Yanai served the Japanese Foreign Ministry for 40 years from 1961. He has been involved in controversial issues, including Japan’s 2015 security bill, and the Diaoyu Islands dispute with China. He has a close relationship with Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe.

The fairness of the tribunal’s operations was called into question by the personal wishes of Shunji Yanai. The Xinhua news agency commented that it was not surprising that Yanai generally chose arbitrators who were biased against China.

In addition, an American legal team provided help in drafting thousands of pages of legal documents, representing the Philippines presenting arguments to the tribunal. American lawyer Bernard Oxman, who represented the Philippines, had worked with most of the arbitrators and Yanai. He attended the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea as a representative for United States government. Based on the principles of independence of the international judiciary, the impartiality of a judge can be questioned if there are any links to a party involved in a case. Despite that, Oxman was still involved.

There is no doubt the close relationship between Oxman and US government, the Philippines government, arbitrators, Yanai and Abe. These links form a complex network of special political interests. The Xinhua news agency says they took advantage of legal platform and after three years they issued their pre-arranged ruling and finished their political farce.

Telegraph.co.uk – 

The so-called award made by the South China Sea arbitral tribunal attracted wide attention.

 

Related posts:

PLA Air Force conducts combat air patrol in South China SeaUndated photo shows a Chinese H-6K bomber patrolling islands and reefs including Huangyan Dao in the South China Sea. The People’s Li…
In ignoring the verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following precedents by great powers as no permanent member of the UN Securit…
China issues white paper on settling disputes with Philippines in South China Sea China is committed to upholding
Permanent Court of Arbitration clarifies role in South China Sea case THE HAGUE, July 16 (Xinhua) — The Permanent Court of Arbitration …
国际法院(ICJ)在此希望媒体和公众注意,南海仲裁案(菲律宾共和国与中华人民共和国)裁决结果由常设仲裁法院(PCA)提供秘书服务下的一个特别仲裁庭做出。相关信息请访问PCA网站( www.pca-cpa.org )。国际法院作为完全不同的另一机构,至始至终未曾参与该案…

 

Dialogue 07/10/2016 Differing views on South China Sea   China enhances maritime law enforcement China established Sansha City
four…

Notorious Philippines’s Abu Sayyaf & Law-abusing tribunal on South China Sea

Foreign captives: A file picture showing hostages Hall (right) and Sekkingstad in the southern Philippines. — Reuters Abu Sayyaf Milita…

“Who is the real saboteur of international law?” the editorial outlined the history and legal basis involved in the issue. The award of …

PLA Air Force conducts combat air patrol in South China Sea


Undated photo shows a Chinese H-6K bomber patrolling islands and reefs including Huangyan Dao in the South China Sea. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force conducted a combat air patrol in the South China Sea recently, which will become a “regular” practice in the future, said a military spokesperson on July 18, 2016. The PLA sent H-6K bombers and other aircraft including fighters, scouts and tankers to patrol islands and reefs including Huangyan Dao, said Shen Jinke, spokesman for the PLA Air Force. (Xinhua/Liu Rui)

China to make ‘regular’ air combat patrols over South China Sea

 The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force conducted acombat air patrol in the South China Sea recently, which will become a

‘regular’ practice in the future, said a military spokesperson on Monday. http://t.cn/Rtz9LNO

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force conducted a combat air patrol in the South China Sea recently, which will become a “regular” practice in the future, said a military spokesperson on Monday.

The PLA sent H-6K bombers and other aircraft including fighters, scouts and tankers to patrol islands and reefs including Huangyan Dao, said Shen Jinke, spokesman for the PLA Air Force.

During the mission, the aircraft carried out tasks including aerial scouting, air combat and island and reef patrol, fulfilling the patrol’s objective, Shen said.

The Air Force aims to promote real combat training over the sea, improve combat abilities against various security threats and safeguard national sovereignty and security, according to the spokesperson.

“To effectively fulfill its mission, the air force will continue to conduct combat patrols on a regular basis in the South China Sea,” he said.

Shen pointed out that the South China Sea Islands have been China’s territory since ancient times, and China’s rights and interests in relevant maritime areas should not be infringed upon.

“The PLA Air Force will firmly defend national sovereignty, security and maritime interests, safeguard regional peace and stability, and cope with various threats and challenges,” he said.

Chinese naval commander urges more cooperation with US

The commander of the People’s Liberation Army Navy Wu Shengli has stressed that China and the United States have key roles in ensuring peace and stability in the South China Sea, and cooperation
between the navies of the two countries is ‘the only correct option.’http://t.cn/Rtz9Mir

Wu made the remarks on Monday while meeting with his U.S. counterpart Admiral John Richardson and his delegation to discuss maritime security.

Describing the current security situation in waters around China as “complicated and sensitive” and noting the escalating South China Sea issue, Wu said Richardson’s visit will be beneficial for the two countries to strengthen communication, promote trust, resolve doubts and avoid misjudgments.

“We will never sacrifice our sovereignty and interests in the South China Sea,” Wu said, stressing that it is China’s “core interest” and concerns the foundation of the Party’s governance, the country’s security and stability and the Chinese nation’s basic interests.

Wu said that China will not recede over territorial sovereignty or fear any military provocation, which the Chinese navy is fully prepared to cope with.

“We will never stop our construction on the Nansha Islands halfway… the Nansha Islands are China’s inherent territory, and our necessary construction on the islands is reasonable, justified and lawful,” Wu said.

He stressed that “no matter what country or person applies pressure,” China will push forward and complete island construction as planned.

According to Wu, China will never be caught off guard, and the number of its defense facilities is completely determined by the number of threats it faces.

Wu vowed that China will never give up its efforts to solve the South China Sea issue peacefully, despite “many negative factors at present,” but also warned that “any attempt to force China to give in through flexing military muscles will only have the opposite effect.”

Wu expressed his hope that the two countries’ air and maritime forces fully follow the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea and the Rules of Behavior for the Safety of Air and Maritime Encounters to avoid strategic misjudgment or exchange of fire, and to jointly ensure the peace and stability of the South China Sea.

Wu called on the two sides to promote strategic mutual trust, seek common ground, expand the scope of cooperation and create new momentum for China and the United States to develop a new type of major-power relations between the two countries.

 

Wu: China won’t halt construction in South China Sea

Admiral Wu Shengli, the Commander of the Chinese Navy, has
held talks in Beijing with the US Chief of Naval Operations John
Richardson, amid tensions in the South China Sea.

South China Sea arbitration award won’t hamper China-ASEAN cooperation: experts

SINGAPORE, July 18, 2016 (Xinhua) — Photo taken on July 18, 2016 shows the Think Tank Seminar on South China Sea and Regional Cooperation and Development held in Singapore. Organized by the Institute of Chinese Borderland Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the seminar attracted more than 20 experts from academic institutes in China and countries in the region, including Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and India. (Xinhua/Then Chih Wey)

SINGAPORE, July 18 (Xinhua) — The so-called South China Sea arbitration award will not hamper cooperation between China and the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), experts said here on Monday.

The ad hoc arbitral tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration, set up at the unilateral request of the former Philippine government, last Tuesday issued an ill-founded award sweepingly sided with Manila, denying China’s long-standing historic rights in the South China Sea.

China has refused to participate in the proceedings, reiterating that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case, which is in essence related to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, and has also made clear that it neither accepts nor recognizes the award and the award “is null and void and has no binding force.”

China has also reaffirmed that it will continue to endeavor to peacefully resolve disputes in the South China Sea with parties directly concerned through negotiation and consultation on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law.

Nearly one week after the so-called award was rendered, more than 20 experts on international law and foreign relations from academic institutes in China and Southeast Asian countries including Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia convened here Monday for the Think Tank Seminar on South China Sea and Regional Cooperation and Development, which was organized by the Institute of Chinese Borderland Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

In a keynote speech at the seminar, Zhao Qizheng, former minister of China’s State Council Information Office, reiterated that the ad hoc arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case.

Zhao said the Philippine tax payers’ money was used for a pile of waste paper, blasting the tribunal for “taking big money to do dirty things” and describing its proceedings as “amateurish and unsightly, null and void.”

Zhao’s remarks were echoed by attendees, who also agreed with Zhao that the disputes can only be settled through dialogue and by deepening China-ASEAN ties.

Kong Lingjie, vice dean of China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies, China’s Wuhan University, criticized the so-called arbitration, branding it as “a bold interpretation and ambitious development of article 123(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

“The most absurd ruling was on the Taiping Island’s status as a rock,” said Kong, adding that the ruling would deny most of the Nansha Islands’ rights to exclusive economic zones.

In this case, Kong said, the arbitration violated the international law and fabricated “an illegal definition of the distinction between islands and reefs.”

Experts at the seminar also voiced support for the notion of bringing concerned parties involved in the South China Sea issue back to the negotiating table.

Zheng Yongnian, director of the East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore, said he believes that China and the Philippines should start the dialogue process to solve the dispute.

“It is not true that a great power has been bullying small countries,” Zheng said, noting that certain countries in the region kowtow too much to the United States.

Zheng suggested that China and other concerned parties over the South China Sea issue could firstly initiate cooperation in maritime rescue efforts, fishery and protection of maritime resources.

At the one-day seminar, experts, in addition, all agreed that the arbitration would not impede the cooperation process between China and the ASEAN countries.

Li Guoqiang, deputy director of the Institute of Chinese Borderland Studies, told Xinhua in an exclusive interview on the sidelines of the seminar that there lies a huge potential for the development of China-ASEAN ties.

“With the strategic opportunity produced by China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road initiative, the two sides are planning to upgrade their free trade agreement,” Li said.

Zhao Qizheng, meanwhile, underscored the fact that China became ASEAN’s biggest trade partner in 2009.

He said that despite the difficulties, including territorial disputes, the intervention of countries outside the region and the not well-established cooperation mechanism, the communication and cooperation between China and the ASEAN members has never ceased and has brought great benefits to all countries.

“It is beyond doubt that maintaining regional peace and stability, and keeping the momentum of cooperation and development is in the best interest of all,” Zhao said.

– by Zhang Ning, Lin Hao Xinhua

Experts: ‘Award’ won’t settle disputes

Nearly 30 legal and political experts from China and Southeast Asian countries have compared notes on the South China Sea arbitration case at a think-tank seminar in Singapore.

Biased award in South China Sea arbitration has no binding force: expert

SINGAPORE, July 18 (Xinhua) — The biased award rendered by an arbitral tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration has no binding force as the ad hoc tribunal violated international law principles and standards, an expert said here on Monday.

Sienho Yee, chief expert at the Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies of Wuhan University, said the arbitral tribunal adopted an excessively expansive interpretation of the jurisdictional grant, played a game of words, and distorted the text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The wrongful exercise by the tribunal did a substantial damage to the international rule of law, he said, adding that it had failed to consider and respect the limitations imposed by UNCLOS and China’s intents and purposes in invoking its explicit right under the convention to exclude disputes concerning maritime delimitation and historic titles.

“It is manifestly clear that the tribunal abuses its power and as a result the award is null and avoid,” he told Xinhua during a think tank seminar on South China Sea and regional cooperation and development.

Yee also pointed out that the arbitral award was not generally accepted, so they would be with no binding force.

“The large number of states supporting China’s positions seems to show that the decisions of the tribunal are not generally acceptable and therefore are without binding force,” he said.

The Chinese government said the ad hoc arbitral tribunal established at the unilateral request of the Philippines has no jurisdiction over relevant submissions, and the award rendered by it is null and void with no binding force.

The tribunal had exemplified the philosophy of “the end justifies the means” by excessively expansive interpretation of the jurisdictional grant and the sweeping final award, in a bid to exhibit its determination to settle any dispute that may exist in its view, while disregarding any other issues such as respect for the sovereignty of the states involved, said Yee.

“The danger of this philosophy to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the international legal system, international rule of law and the world order at large is clear, and we must guard against this danger,” he said.

Unmasks manipulator behind South China Sea arbitration

Citing a survey from the Xinhua News Agency, a People’s Daily article has unmasked Shunji Yanai as a manipulator behind the null South China Sea arbitration.

Shunji Yanai (Photo: http://www.itlos.org)

Published on Monday, the article names Yanai, a Japanese diplomat and former president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), played a key role in the case. He appointed four of the five-member arbitral tribunal on the South China Sea case, the fifth appointed by the Philippines.

Yanai appointed the four members because China did not agree to the arbitration.

Rightist, hawkish, pro-American, unfriendly to China…these are the labels people often associate with Yanai, the article said. His closeness to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is also no secret. Such an academic and political background also speaks for his political inclination during his tenure in the ITLOS.

Coming from a diplomatic family, Yanai entered the Japanese Foreign Ministry upon graduation in 1961, where he was involved in sensitive projects related to the Diaoyu Islands and the Japan-US security alliance.

But in 2001, he left the Foreign Ministry along with three other officials amid a series of embezzlement scandals within the ministry.

However Yanai, on recommendation of Japan despite his tainted record, became a judge of the ITLOS in 2005 and president of the organization from 2011 to 2014.

After the Philippines unilaterally initiated the arbitration case against China in 2013, a five-member arbitral tribunal was created by Yanai, the then president of the ITLOS.

The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the UN to better maintain justice, stipulated that the extra-judicial activities conducted by the judges and arbitrators should not contradict their work or impede the judicial process.

However, Yanai also served as a mastermind of the Japanese government on military actions and security policies when he worked for the ITLOS.

With close ties to Abe, Yunai served as chairman of an expert panel advising the prime minister on security laws. In May 2014, his panel presented a report to Abe, advising to revise the country’s constitution and lift the ban on Japan sending its military overseas.

As a result, Japan, in 2015, ended its 70 years of pacifism by enacting controversial security laws that allow for Japan to dispatch troops overseas to engage in armed conflict.

As conflicts between China and Japan over the sovereignty and delimitation of the Diaoyu Islands increased in recent years, Yanai advocated to lift the ban on Japan sending its military overseas and expanding the Japan-US military alliance to gain a military edge.

Given the maritime conflicts and historical issues between China and Japan, as well as Yanai’s political leanings, he is not the right person to engage in the South China Sea issue. Also, it is not surprising that Yanai generally chose arbitrators that were biased against China.

In addition, the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary also clarify that in exercising rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

However, Yanai has a clear political position as a rightist. During his term on the private panel, he repeatedly told Japanese media that the country has not given up its right to collective self-defense as prescribed in their constitution.

In a program by the Japan Broadcasting Corporation, he also asked Japan to resort to the Japan-US Security Treaty for security assurance, claiming that the UN is useless in this regard, thus exposing his double-sided nature.

“From the results of the arbitration, people can see that it was conducted by a bunch of people who knew very little about South China Sea issues,” said Motofumi Asai, a former official of the Japanese Foreign Ministry in charge of China affairs and a former colleague of Yanai.

“The arbitration was obviously conducted in accordance to the will of the Abe administration,” he said.

All these facts prove that Yanai’s political background and leaning run counter to the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Yanai’s tribunal was flawed in both justice and validity from the very first day of its establishment, the article concluded. –  (People’s Daily Online)

Related:  

Japan’s interference makes summit unlikely

 

 Philippine media: Gov’t spent $30 mln on arbitration

Philippine media report that the government spent 30 million US dollars on the South China Sea arbitration case over the past three and half years. Neither the Philippines nor the tribunal have given details of that spending. But we can get some idea from published charges and past tribunal fees.
Related posts:

 

In ignoring the verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following precedents by great powers as no permanent member of the UN Securit…

China issues white paper on settling disputes with Philippines in South China Sea China is committed to upholding

Permanent Court of Arbitration clarifies role in South China Sea case THE HAGUE, July 16 (Xinhua) — The Permanent Court of Arbitration …
国际法院(ICJ)在此希望媒体和公众注意,南海仲裁案(菲律宾共和国与中华人民共和国)裁决结果由常设仲裁法院(PCA)提供秘书服务下的一个特别仲裁庭做出。相关信息请访问PCA网站( www.pca-cpa.org )。国际法院作为完全不同的另一机构,至始至终未曾参与该案…

 

Dialogue 07/10/2016 Differing views on South China Sea   China enhances maritime law enforcement China established Sansha City four…

Foreign captives: A file picture showing hostages Hall (right) and Sekkingstad in the southern Philippines. — Reuters Abu Sayyaf Milita…

“Who is the real saboteur of international law?” the editorial outlined the history and legal basis involved in the issue. The award
of …

PCA clarifies role, double standards in South China Sea arbitration profane international law


Permanent Court of Arbitration clarifies role in South China Sea case

THE HAGUE, July 16 (Xinhua) — The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) said on Friday that it is not a UN organ and only provided registry services to the South China Sea arbitral tribunal.

An ad hoc tribunal, set up at the unilateral request of the former Philippine government, on Tuesday issued an ill-founded award sweepingly sided with Manila, denying China’s long-standing historic rights in the South China Sea.

Judith Levine
In an email responding to Xinhua’s request for comment on the case, Judith Levine, senior legal counsel of the PCA, said the court has served as registry in interstate disputes under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adding that the tribunal should determine its own procedure.

Sovereignty issues, under UNCLOS is beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. China has validly excluded delimitation disputes in a declaration in 2006.

The appointment of arbitrators was conducted according to UNCLOS Annex VII, she said.

Both parties of a dispute are entitled to appoint an arbitrator, she explained. In the South China Sea arbitration, which China reiterated that it would not participate in, the Philippines appointed German arbitrator Rudiger Wolfrum,

and the four other arbitrators were appointed by Japan’s Shunji Yanai, 
Japan’s Shunji Yanai

then president of the Hamburg-based International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
Yanai’s political leanings rules out the possibility of a fair judgement, as he has helped Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe lift the ban on Japan’s collective self-defense right and challenge the post-WWII international order.

The South China Sea arbitral tribunal, constituted on June 21, 2013, appointed the International Bureau of the PCA to serve as registry for the proceedings.

As a registry, the PCA undertook financial management of the case, which involved collecting payment from both parties, and paying fees to arbitrator, experts, technical support, court reporters, among others.

In the South China Sea case, due to China’s firm stance of nonparticipation, the Philippines paid shares of both parties, in order for the arbitration to proceed.

According to the “Rules of Procedures” of the tribunal, the functions of the registry also included maintaining an archive of the arbitral proceedings, providing appropriate registry services as directed by the tribunal, publishing information about the arbitration and issuing press releases, and organizing hearings at the Peace Palace, the seat of the PCA.

On the PCA’s relationship to the UN, Levine confirmed that although it is housed in the same premises with the ICJ, the PCA is not a UN organ.

“The PCA is an intergovernmental organization that predates the UN and is independent of the UN,” she explained. “The PCA was established by the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. China became a member State of the PCA in 1904.”

The PCA has observer status at the UN, and PCA delegations have attend UN General Assembly meetings and UN multilateral treaty negotiations, she added.

There has been a confusion among the public that the award in the case was made by a “UN-backed tribunal,” or even “UN tribunal,” due to misleading reports by some media.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN, has issued a notification on its website to clarify that it had nothing to do with the case.

According to the PCA’s 2015 annual report, it provides services for the resolution of disputes involving various combinations of states, state entities, intergovernmental organizations, and private parties.

Its International Bureau, or Secretariat, is the unit that provides registry services, ranging from secretarial support to travel arrangements.- Xinhua

Double Standards Applied in South China Sea Arbitration Profane International Law 

 

After the tribunal in The Hague announced its so-called verdict concerning the arbitration that the Philippines unilaterally filed despite China’s repeated objection, several countries including the US have been pressuring China to accept the void verdict under the banner of “respect for law”.

Their acts, against the rule of law and the basic principles of international law and relations, obstructed relevant sides to manage maritime tension and seek a peaceful settlement. Their blind eye to the basic facts also exposed the inglorious role played by these external powers in the entire political farce.

Ever since the administration of Benigno Aquino III filed the South China Sea arbitration, the US, Australia, Japan and some other countries accused China as a violator of international law and requested China carry out the so-called award.

But this tough talk only exposed their dirty strategic motives. Such tricks are not able to cover the legitimacy of China’s stances, nor alter the strong support to China from those international forces standing for justice.

It’s worth mentioning that the above countries adopted a completely different attitude when themselves were involved in issues related with the international rule of law. The sharp contrast speaks for their hypocrisy and arbitrariness.

For years, with double standards on international law, some Western countries have set a plate of bad precedents. They supported international judicial rules that they can benefit from, but trampled on those not in favor of them.

As the strongest maritime power in the world, the US, worried about a possible cripple of its marine hegemony, never ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While evading its obligations, it is still enjoying the rights under the UNCLOS.

The US has never been accused under UNCLOS because the Washington has never ratified the law, one article on Foreign Affairs wrote in an ironic tone.

Back in 1980s, Nicaragua charged the US with taking military and paramilitary actions in and against Nicaragua and violating the sovereignty of Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. But the US, with a tough attitude, refused to participate in the proceedings and rejected the verdict delivered by the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the UN.

The US later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the UN Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.

The US argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction, with then US ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick dismissing the Court as a semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, whose rules nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.

The same goes for Australia, which always wants to follow the “international police” posture. When concluding maritime rights treaties with Timor-Leste, the Australian government unilaterally rejected such articles concerning maritime delimitation and third-party dispute settlement procedure. Without any other options, Timor-Leste had to file for arbitration to overrule the validity of the treaty.

In order to stop Timor-Leste from initiating the arbitration, the Australian intelligence agency resorted to despicable actions such as searching the legal representative office of Timor-Leste in Australia, detaining documents and preventing witnesses from appearing before the tribunal.

Japan also did not wait too long before joining in the clique of violating the international law. Its whale-hunt in the Antarctica was ruled as breaching the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling by the ICJ, which ordered Japan to stop issuing whaling permits in the South Pole.

Though talking a good talk about respecting the verdict, the Japanese government did not match its actions with words. No effective measures were taken to curb domestic whaling. Even its ally Australia could not stand it and condemned Japan for violating international law.

In sharp contrast to these Western countries, China has always staunchly supported the authority of international law. At the commemoration marking the 60th anniversary of the “Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence”, Chinese President Xi Jinping pointed out that all countries should advance the rule of law in international relations together.

“We should urge all parties to abide by international law and well-recognized basic principles governing international relations and use widely applicable rules to tell right from wrong and pursue peace and development,” Xi said in his speech.

This not only is a solemn commitment of China to the global community in safeguarding and building the international rule of law, but also expounds that the fundamental key to build international rule of law is to tell right from wrong, stop disputes and uphold win-win collaboration by adopting widely-applicable rules, instead of encouraging hegemony in the name of the international law and stirring up conflicts to stray away the international rule of law.

The law cannot execute itself. Unlike Western countries who selectively apply international law, China always applies the spirit of the international rule of law in its diplomatic practice. So far, China has established over 23,000 bilateral agreements and joined more than 400 multilateral treaties.

Moreover, China has participated in almost all inter-governmental organizations and demarcated nearly 90 percent of land borderlines with 12 out of its 14 land neighbors through negotiation and consultation.

For China, equal treatment is the cornerstone in its diplomacy regardless of the territorial size and national strength of the other country. China will never bully any state.

Regarding the international rule of law, the US and some other countries can hardly qualify as a “teacher” to China. In addition, they should look back to their past mistakes, abandon their long-upheld hegemony, egoism, hypocrisy and double standard and implement the basic norms of the international law and international relations through practical actions. – (People’s Daily)

Related:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/lVo-bd6Ytas

Interview with Prof. Tony Carty: China has historical rights in S. China Sea

 CCTV reporter Li Jiejun spoke with Professor Tony Carty from Tsinghua University on the South China Sea arbitration. He believesChina has historical rights in the South China Sea, and maintained thatthere are records pointing to the economic use of islands in the regionby Chinese fishermen.

Related Posts:

国际法院(ICJ)在此希望媒体和公众注意,南海仲裁案(菲律宾共和国与中华人民共和国)裁决结果由常设仲裁法院(PCA)提供秘书服务下的一个特别仲裁庭做出。相关信息请访问PCA网站( www.pca-cpa.org )。国际法院作为完全不同的另一机构,至始至终未曾参与该案…



China issues white paper on settling disputes with Philippines in South China Sea China is committed to upholding int’l rule of …
Foreign captives: A file picture showing hostages Hall (right) and Sekkingstad in the southern Philippines. — Reuters Abu Sayyaf Milita…
Might the rush to arbitration be nothing more than a US provocation to provide an excuse for military engagement?
asks Shannon Ezra   …
Analysts refute Ashton Carter’s China ‘self-isolation’ claims SINGAPORE – US defense secretary’s China “sel…

UN distances itself from Permanent Court of Arbitration, had No role in Philippines case vs China


国际法院(ICJ)在此希望媒体和公众注意,南海仲裁案(菲律宾共和国与中华人民共和国)裁决结果由常设仲裁法院(PCA)提供秘书服务下的一个特别仲裁庭做出。相关信息请访问PCA网站(www.pca-cpa.org)。国际法院作为完全不同的另一机构,至始至终未曾参与该案,因此在国际法院网站上无法查询到相关信息。

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA’s website (www.pca-cpa.org). The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case and, for that reason, there is no information about it on the ICJ’s website.

A screenshot of the official Sina Weibo account of the UN which states that the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration independent from the UN. [Photo: Weibo.com]

The United Nations has made it clear that it had nothing to do with the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

A tribunal, which was established and registered at the PCA, issued an ill-founded award on Tuesday through the abuse of law on the arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines against China in 2013.

In a post on its official Twitter-like Sina Weibo account on Wednesday, the United Nations pointed out that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the UN’s principal judicial organ, which was set up in June 1945 in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The post added that the ICJ is a totally distinct institution from the PCA and it had no involvement in the above mentioned case.

In fact, the PCA in The Hague just happens to be neighbors with the ICJ, as both are located in the Peace Palace in The Hague in the Netherlands. Of the six major organs of the United Nations, the ICJ is the only one located outside New York City in the United States, the headquarters of the United Nations.

 UN distances itself from Permanent Court of Arbitration

The International Court of Justice has taken the unusual step of distancing itself from the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which ruled on the arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines against China in 2013, concerning the South China Sea disputes.

In a statement in both English and Chinese on its website the IJC said it wished to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the award was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and that no further information would be found on its website.

A former judge of the United Nations’ International Court of Justice, Abdul G. Koroma, says the only link between the two bodies is their base in the Peace Palace in The Hague.

“The Permanent Court of Arbitration, the PCA, and the International Court of Justice share the same building in The Hague which is called the Peace Palace. So it’s not very easy for a non-lawyer to be able to make the distinction between the two bodies.”

The former judge added the purpose of any arbitral settlement is to bring peaceful resolution of a conflict, rather than for any political motives.

The United Nations has also made it clear that the Permanent Court of Arbitration is not one of its organs. – http://english.cri.cn/index.htm

UN International Court had no role in Philippines case

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rushed to dispel the myth that it was involved in the South China Sea arbitration case filed by the Philippines, just as the United Nations made a similar online clarification.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/L1codx6AsR4

The ICJ, the UN”s principal organ of justice, issued a notice on its website that it is “a totally distinct institution” from the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which offered secretarial assistance to the Arbitral Tribunal that ruled on the case. The ICJ said it “has had no involvement in” that case.

It pointed out that it has posted no information about the case on its website and said that anyone seeking such information must refer to the PCA’s website.

On Wednesday, the UN said on its Sina Weibo micro blog that it “has nothing to do with” the PCA, though the ICJ is located in the Peace Palace in The Hague, as is the PCA.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said on Thursday that these clarifications “show there is no legitimacy or representativeness to how the temporary tribunal was composed and operated, as well as show that its so-called ruling has no authority or credibility at all, and is totally invalid and not binding.

“It seems that this also is the reason why after this illegal ruling came out, only three or four countries wishfully claimed that it was ‘legally binding’,” Lu said.

Zhao Jianwen, a researcher at the Institute of International Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the reason the UN and the ICJ made such statements is that they “want to stay clear” of the ruling in the arbitration case, which, as Zhao said quoting Vice-Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin, might become “a notorious case”.

Zhao said “All of the tribunal’s expenses were paid by the Philippines, including its arbitrators’ wages, and these experts’ opinions are not neutral”. Also, the tribunal has no substantive relation with the PCA, he added.

The only relation between them is that the PCA offered secretarial service to the tribunal and the tribunal was held in the PCA’s hall, Zhao explained.

Zhao pointed out that the Arbitral Tribunal was a temporary one set up specially for proceeding the South China Sea case, and its work was “virtually done” once the ruling was issued.

By Wang Qingyun | China Daily | Beijinghttp: via The Jakarta Post: //www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/07/15/un-international-court-had-no-role-in-philippines-case.html

Arbitral court not a UN agency

The United Nations said on Wednesday it has nothing to do with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which set up a tribunal that handled the South China Sea arbitration case the Philippines filed unilaterally in 2013.

In a post on its Sina Weibo micro blog, the UN said the PCA is a “tenant” of the Peace Palace in The Hague, “but has nothing to do with the UN”.

The UN said the International Court of Justice, its principal judicial organ set up according to the Charter of the UN, is also located in the Peace Palace.

The construction of the palace was managed by the Carnegie Foundation, which is still the building’s owner and manager, according to the Peace Palace website.

The UN said it makes an annual donation to the foundation for using the Peace Palace.

When asked about the Arbitral Tribunal’s case’s ruling on Tuesday, Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said “The UN doesn’t have a position on the legal and procedural merits” of the South China Sea arbitration case.

In response, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said China will, as always, observe the goals and principles set up by the Charter of the UN, and solve maritime disputes peacefully by having talks with countries directly involved, “on the basis of firmly guarding China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime interests”.

Lu said: “China is a responsible member of the international community. It’s an important advocate and loyal implementer of the UN’s cause to push forward the international rule of law.” Li Jinming, a professor of international maritime law at Xiamen University, pointed out that the use of terms such “UN tribunal” or “UN-backed tribunal” – frequently reported by Western media – is incorrect, as they confuse the PCA with the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Wang Hanling, a maritime law researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said some countries and news media are “deliberately” confusing the tribunal with the ICJ./rga

-Inquirer.net

Related: 

Full text of statement by NPC Foreign Affairs Committee on award of South China Sea arbitration

Stay sober-minded in face of manipulated ruling

The arbitral tribunal’s award on Tuesday, which tries to deny China’s
historic claims in the South China Sea and wipe out its rights to
resources there, marked an end to the farce disguised as law.

China sticks to the path of peaceful development, and the history will finally tell who is the real [Read it]

Arbitration will only entail loss for Tokyo

If Tokyo launches an arbitration case over gas and oil fields in the East China Sea, it faces a high chance of losing.

  Related Posts:

China issues white paper on SCS; Arbitral court not an UN agency, unjust and questionable judges…China issues white paper on settling disputes with Philippines in South China Sea China is committed to upholding int’l rule of …

 

Notorious Philippines’s Abu Sayyaf & Law-abusing tribunal on South China SeaForeign captives: A file picture showing hostages Hall (right) and Sekkingstad in the southern Philippines. — Reuters Abu Sayyaf
Milita…
China’s reaction to arbitration depends on provocation“Who is the real saboteur of international law?” the editorial
outlined the history and legal basis involved in the issue. The award of …

Analysts refute Ashton Carter’s China ‘self-isolation’ claims SINGAPORE – US defense secretary’s China “sel…

China’s reaction to arbitration depends on provocation


The award of the South China Sea arbitration will be issued at 5 pm Beijing time Tuesday. The US and Japan have claimed that relevant countries, including China, should comply with the arbitration result. They stand in sharp confrontation with China, which has announced that the award would be “nothing but a piece of paper.” Whether the arbitration will lead to a severe geopolitical crisis has come under the global spotlight.

The Western media is analyzing how China will respond to the award. Bloomberg posited three scenarios from Beijing, from benign to moderately aggressive or aggressive. It considers that China establishing an South China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) would be moderately aggressive and towing away the Philippine warship grounded at Ren’ai Reef and construction on Huangyan Island as aggressive.

We believe the Chinese government must have made a series of contingency plans to deal with subsequent actions. What actions China may take on Huangyan and Ren’ai, and whether China will announce a South China Sea ADIZ depends on the reactions of the Philippines to the arbitration result and the degree of US and Japanese provocations.

So far, none of the concerned parties want military confrontation. But all are ratcheting up military preparations. The South China Sea has been clouded by unprecedented tensions. It’s uncertain where the situation will head to.

Chinese society pays close attention to the South China Sea situation. After the the post-arbitration wrestling begins, the most important thing for China is to show the outside world the solidarity of its society. For one thing, Chinese society has full confidence in the country’s diplomatic and maritime strength; for another, no matter what price China has to pay for the wrangling, all the Chinese will squarely accept it.

The Chinese people and government share the same interests and responsibilities. We should not only safeguard territorial sovereignty, but also make the utmost efforts to maintain peace in China’s periphery, prolonging China’s strategic opportunities for China’s rise.

The South China Sea is a big arena. China will devote its varied resources there. China in the past was weak. It could only express determinations through demonstrations or a few activists visiting its own islands in the South China Sea. But now it has multiple means at its disposal. It has become a formidable competitor that deserves respect. No power in the world could split a united China. As long as we stick together, provocateurs are doomed to fail.

Source:Global Times

Related:

https://player.cntv.cn/standard/cntvOutSidePlayer.swf

China calls for dialogues to resolve disagreement – CCTV News – CCTV.com English
http://english.cctv.com/2016/07/12/VIDEjonBZ4jsADHvtfqTLiBu160712.shtml

http://t.cn/R5DT1ML

 

Unlawful arbitration cannot negate China’s sovereignty over South China Sea: People’s Daily

The arbitration case is actually a trap set by the US and the Philippines in which the arbitral tribunal has played the role of an accomplice.

  

South China Sea arbitration invalid, law experts say

The tribunal has explained the case in an irresponsible way and set a bad precedent, according to experts and scholars from around the world.
Washington’s outsider position undercuts its message as it urges China to respect global maritime no[Read it]
Quotable quotes on S. China Sea arbitration: tribunal’s arbitration is unlawful

Western media have hyped up the South China Sea issue for a long time, with reports full of prejudice and distortion. They have purposely created rumors, smeared China and deliberately
overlooked voices of justice.

More countries voice support for China’s stance

 

Related posts:

不合法的裁决不过废纸一张, Illegal ruling but a waste paperDialogue

07/10/2016 Differing views on South China Sea   China enhances maritime law enforcement China established Sansha City four…

Jun 29, 2016 South China Sea arbitration abuses international law, threatens world …. in
maintaining a relatively stable international order after World War II.

Notorious Philippines’s Abu Sayyaf & Law abusing tribunal on South China Sea
… ZAMBOANGA CITY: The Abu Sayyaf has announced that it will be ….. 2 million
listings worldwide, with revenue of about $2.4 billion in t.


 Jul 2, 2016 America’s objective is to contain a rising power, which presents itself as a major

challenge to US global hegemony. Geo-strategically, the most .

Jun 6, 2016 Dialogue 06/05/2016 South China Sea & Sino-US ties – CCTV … Arbitral tribunal
abusing its power …. US containing a rising Chinese power.

 

不合法的裁决不过废纸一张, Illegal ruling but a waste paper


Video: Dialogue 07/10/2016 Differing views on South China Sea

China enhances maritime law enforcement

China established Sansha City four years ago to strengthen its maritime law enforcement.

Video:

Chinese navy conducted annual combat drill near Hainan Island & Xisha Islands in #SouthChinaSea

Over 100 vessels and dozens of fighter jets participated in the annual combat drill held on July 8 in South China Sea.

浩渺南海,水天相接。本是商舟渔船自在穿行的地方,近来却波诡云谲颇不寻常。

7月12日,所谓南海仲裁案结果即将出炉。围绕这毫无合法性可言的一纸裁决,一些人筹谋算计、排兵布阵,企图用它来强化对中国的舆论攻势,将莫须有的罪名强加给中国;一些人颠倒黑白、借题发挥,期望以此抹黑中国的形象,把“不守法”的帽子扣向真正的受害者。

种种急不可耐的喧哗与躁动,无一例外都打出了国际法的旗号,南海问题的真相却被有意忽略了——中菲南海争议究竟源于何处?菲律宾南海仲裁案实质为何?仲裁案所激起的种种波澜,又将给南海的和平稳定带来何种影响?

对于这些问题,7月5日在华盛顿举办的“中美智库对话会”,提供了一个视角——即使是一些来自美国的专家也认为,“中国在南海的权益是历史上形成的”“欧洲和其他国家的知名法律专家都表示,南海仲裁案整个过程都是非法的,菲律宾单方提起仲裁,违反了国际法”。

看来,有关南海仲裁案并非难以搞清。拨开一些人以国际法为名蓄意在南海上空制造的迷雾,还原真相,对于中国而言,是维护国家领土主权的神圣使命;对于世界来说,是主持国际公理正义的必然要求。

(一)

一段时间以来,西方舆论连篇累牍渲染南海问题,然而对于南海问题特别是中菲南海争议的历史经纬、事实真相,自诩“主持公道”的西方舆论却“选择性回避”了。

南海诸岛究竟属谁?历史早就给出了明确答案。南海诸岛自古以来属于中国,历代中国政府通过行政设治、海军巡航、生产经营、海难救助等方式持续对南海诸岛及相关海域进行管辖。二战期间,日本在发动全面侵华战争后,侵占了中国南海诸岛。二战结束后,中国根据《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》所作出的明确规定,收复南海诸岛,在岛上派兵驻守并建立各类军事、民事设施,从法律和事实上恢复对南海诸岛行使主权。

在二战结束后相当长一段时间内,美国通过外交询问、申请测量、通报航行飞越计划等方式,承认中国对南沙群岛的主权。中国还曾在南沙群岛有关岛礁上接待过美国军事人员。同期美国出版的地图和书籍等,如1961年版《哥伦比亚利平科特世界地名辞典》、1963年版《威尔德麦克各国百科全书》、1971年版《世界各国区划百科全书》,均确认中国对南海诸岛的主权。

可以说,中国在南海的主权和相关权益,二战结束后数十年没有任何国家提出异议。因为南沙群岛回归中国,是战后国际秩序和相关领土安排的一部分,受到《联合国宪章》等国际法保护;否认中国对南沙群岛的主权,就是对战后国际秩序的否定,就是对国际法的公然违背。

对于南海诸岛属于中国这一点,菲律宾同样心知肚明。菲律宾固有领土范围是由1898年《美西巴黎和平协议》、1900年《美西关于菲律宾外围岛屿割让的条约》、1930年《关于划定英属北婆罗洲与美属菲律宾之间的边界条约》明确规定的。南沙群岛和黄岩岛根本不在上述条约规定的菲律宾版图内。

但自上世纪60年代末南海地区发现丰富的油气资源后,这片原本安宁的水域频起波澜。在巨大资源利益的诱惑下,菲律宾等国开始非法侵占和蚕食属于中国的南沙岛礁,成为南海问题产生的根源。更有甚者,菲律宾等国还以南沙群岛位于自其本国海岸起200海里范围内为由,企图以海洋管辖权主张来否定中国对南沙群岛的主权。

显而易见,在南海问题上,中国绝不是加害者,而是受害者。如果真的遵从法律,应该谴责的是菲律宾等国公然违背国际法和《联合国宪章》的行径,应该禁止的是一切非法侵犯他国领土主权的行为。

作为南海最大沿岸国,中国从维护南海地区和平与稳定的大局出发,在南海问题产生后的几十年里始终保持了极大克制,从未主动挑起争议,也没有采取任何使争议复杂化、扩大化的行动。中国最先提出并始终坚持“搁置争议,共同开发”,坚持通过谈判协商和平解决争议;按照2002年《南海各方行为宣言》所确定的原则,在平等和相互尊重的基础上,探讨与南海声索国之间建立信任的途径;根据1982年《联合国海洋法公约》在内的国际法原则,切实保障在南海的航行及飞越自由。

在过去的几十年里,南海局势总体保持稳定,有关争议得到妥善管控,东南亚地区实现高速发展,这一地区成为世界上和平、稳定和繁荣之地。这自然得益于中国与东盟相关国家的共同努力,但不可否认的是,作为综合国力较强的一方,中国的克制是南海得以保持和平稳定、繁荣发展的最重要原因。中国政府有权利也有能力收复失地,但是中国并没有这样做,目的就是为了南海的和平稳定,以及沿岸各国人民的共同福祉。

遗憾的是,树欲静而风不止。2012年4月10日,菲律宾蓄意挑起“黄岩岛事件”。2013年1月,菲律宾阿基诺三世政府置昔日谈判协商解决南海争议的承诺于不顾,单方面提起有关南海争议的仲裁案。

纵观南海问题演进脉络,2009年以前,虽然相关国家间存在摩擦,但矛盾却总体保持可控。可是从2009年起,南海问题开始步步升级。

为何2009年成为中菲南海争议重要分界线?为何菲律宾阿基诺三世政府会在南海问题上选择一系列政治赌博?

(二)

审视菲律宾在南海问题上逐步走向“活跃”的整个过程,不得不说美国的“战略转变”提供了最有解释力的视角。

2009年1月,奥巴马政府就职,美国外交政策出现方向性调整,在“重返亚太”的战略布局下,南海问题迅速成为美国维护地区霸权地位、对中国进行战略牵制的重要抓手。

2010年7月,时任美国国务卿希拉里·克林顿在东盟地区论坛上宣布美国在南海地区“拥有国家利益”。观察人士指出,此举标志着美国对南海问题开始走向事实上的“选边站”和“引导式”路径,克林顿本人更是在事后回忆称,“这是精心选择的措辞”。此次会议被美方视为“检视美国在亚洲领导地位以及反击中国扩张的临界点”。

正如美国卡托研究所国防外交政策研究室副主任卡本特所言,美国想要通过干预中国与邻国的南海争议来达到制衡中国的目的,“最具挑衅的做法是奥巴马政府支持菲律宾及其对南海争议岛礁的声索”。

大量新闻报道显示,菲律宾正式提起南海仲裁案之后,美国的“深度参与”几乎无处不在。美国律师出任菲方法律顾问,全面帮助菲方向仲裁庭提交总计12册、长达3000页的答复书以回答有关菲方诉求和依据之问题,并一手代理了第一轮口头辩论的文件起草和庭辩。此外,美国多次公开发声,力挺菲律宾非法主张。2014年3月,美菲在华盛顿发表包括所谓以仲裁解决南海国际争端等内容的联合声明;同年4月,奥巴马在与菲律宾总统阿基诺三世会谈时再次对菲律宾诉诸国际仲裁表达了公开支持。

人们看到,美国借南海问题无端抹黑中国国际形象,无所不用其极。近年来,国务卿、国防部长、国会议员等各色美国高官在东盟地区论坛、东亚峰会、香格里拉对话会、亚太经合组织会议、七国集团峰会等各种场合,热炒南海问题,试图把“规则破坏者”“现状打破者”“军事扩张者”的帽子强加于中国头上。

人们看到,美国以所谓“航行自由”为借口,以种种手段炫耀武力,实质上推动了南海军事化。美国航空母舰、战略轰炸机多次闯入南海,美国导弹驱逐舰不断抵近中国南海岛礁,美国与盟国在南海的军事演习更是接二连三。美国还敦促东盟国家在南海地区进行联合海上巡逻,支持日本在南海地区进行海上巡逻。

人们看到,美国拉帮结派,迫切希望把南海问题引向多边化、国际化,妄图给中国施加所谓外交压力。美国极力推动在各种地区及全球性多边组织框架下讨论南海问题,企图使东盟在南海问题上统一口径,鼓动日本、澳大利亚、印度、欧盟等与南海问题无关的域外国家和地区关注南海问题。

美国有识之士对于华盛顿在南海问题上制造对抗之举深表忧虑。知名战略学家布热津斯基就曾发出警告,美国在南海必须非常小心,南海问题不应成为美中关系的中心问题。然而,在霸权本性驱使下,美国在南海问题上制造紧张局势、破坏和平稳定的冒险之举依然愈演愈烈。

(三)

事实清楚地表明,菲律宾南海仲裁案完全是一个由美国鼓动操纵、菲律宾挑头、仲裁庭客观上予以配合的针对中国的一个“局”。

这个“局”其实不难看穿,自仲裁闹剧开始后,国际社会“不平则鸣”的正义之声从未停歇。迄今,已有近70个国家和地区组织明确表示支持中方在仲裁案上的立场,其中既有东盟国家,也有域外国家,还有阿拉伯国家联盟、上海合作组织等区域组织。即使在西方国家,也有很多国际法专家从专业角度发表严肃、公正的评论,表达对中方法理主张的认同,表明对该案的批评和质疑立场。

为什么中国立场的支持者那么多,越来越多?归根结底,是因为中方不参与、不接受立场有着充分的法理依据,而菲律宾单方面提起南海仲裁案,仲裁庭违法扩权、滥权,才是在真正破坏国际法。

首先,禁止反言是国际法治的一条基本原则,但菲律宾阿基诺三世政府却置自身昔日承诺于不顾,单方面强行提起仲裁,侵犯了中国按照《联合国海洋法公约》规定享有的自主选择争端解决方式的权利。正如联合国国际法委员会前主席、联合国国际法院特别法官布朗利所言:“一般国际法上不存在解决争端的义务,以正式法律程序寻求解决的程序取决于当事各方的同意。”争端提交国际仲裁,通常都需经当事国达成合意,尊重当事方意愿才是体现“各国主权平等的一种必然结果”。如今,仲裁庭擅自扩大管辖权限、漠视一国之主权,哪里还有“法的精神”?

其次,菲方不顾基本历史常识,妄称中国人历史上在南海没什么活动和存在,从未拥有对南海诸岛的主权。然而,中国渔民在南沙水域捕鱼作业,已成为南沙群岛主人的历史事实,有多个版本的《更路簿》可以证明;19世纪以来的外国文献,也明确记载了只有中国渔民在岛上生产生活的历史事实。法律的基点本就是“以事实为依据”,如今,昭昭青史仍在,凿凿证据如山,菲方却敢如此颠倒黑白篡改事实,对南海岛礁的有关论述缺失最起码的可信度。这样一个“并不构成争端”的无理诉求,竟然被仲裁庭接受,哪里还有“法的权威”?

再有,仲裁庭不顾中方一贯坚持将南沙群岛视为整体的立场,玩弄“切割”伎俩,歧视性地把中国驻守的南沙有关岛礁从南海诸岛的宏观地理背景中剥离出来。对菲律宾等其他国家非法侵占的岛礁,仲裁庭却只字不提,还将有关领土主权问题包装为所谓的岛礁法律地位问题。如此偷梁换柱、翻云覆雨,哪里还有“法的公信”?

南海仲裁案是否具有合法性和正当性?联合国国际法委员会前主席拉奥·佩马拉朱的判断一针见血:中菲南海争端的实质是关于主权和海域划界,而领土主权问题不属于《联合国海洋法公约》调整的范围,划界问题也可据中国政府声明而排除强制仲裁程序,此案仲裁庭对主权和海域划界问题都没有管辖权。菲律宾诉求的实质是领土问题,因此不属于《联合国海洋法公约》调整的范围。

然而,仲裁庭擅自扩大解释其自身管辖权限。对于领土和海洋划界问题,仲裁庭罔顾中菲早已选择谈判协商作为解决相关争议唯一方式这一前提,罔顾中国早已于2006年根据《联合国海洋法公约》将海洋划界争议排除适用强制争端解决程序这一事实,恶意解读此前中菲对争端解决方式的共同选择,轻易否定国与国之间达成的一致意见,严重侵犯中国作为主权国家和《联合国海洋法公约》缔约国享有的自主权利。其实质,不过是为个别国家滥用仲裁程序制造国际舆论实现政治目的提供配合。

培根在《论司法》中写道,“一次不公的判决比多次不平的举动为祸犹烈。因为这些不平的举动不过弄脏了水流,而不公的判决则把水源败坏了”。菲律宾及仲裁庭滥用强制仲裁程序,让《联合国海洋法公约》失去严肃性,其对《联合国海洋法公约》的破坏性、对国际法治秩序的冲击,不容低估。

事实上,很多西方专业法律人士都对强制仲裁程序被滥用表示担忧和关切。如果今后别国都效仿菲律宾的恶劣先例,只要将领土和海洋划界问题包装成《联合国海洋法公约》解释和适用问题即可提交仲裁,不仅会让30多个缔约国所作排除性声明成为一纸空文,也将伤害《联合国海洋法公约》争端解决机制的信誉,破坏《联合国海洋法公约》建立的国际海洋秩序,对现行国际秩序构成重大威胁。

正如英国牛津大学国际公法副教授安东尼奥斯·察纳科普洛斯、英国外交部前法律顾问克里斯·沃默斯利指出,如果仲裁庭允许菲律宾背弃其在《南海各方行为宣言》中的承诺继续推进强制仲裁,这种处理方式或造成“恶法”,会对国际关系的整体稳定造成潜在破坏。

从这个意义上来看,中国为捍卫国际法做针锋相对的斗争,不仅是在捍卫自己的领土主权,更是在切实捍卫国际海洋秩序、维护世界长治久安。

(四)

菲律宾南海仲裁案如此公然违背国际法,为何向来以“国际法官”自居的美国却在装糊涂?美国著名律师布鲁斯·费恩直言,美国的南海政策体现了其“危险的帝国思维”。

这种为所欲为的“帝国思维”,就是霸权主义。美国比任何人都喜欢把国际法挂在嘴边,但历史和现实一再表明,美国对待国际法,总是对人不对己,且每每玩弄法律于股掌之上——如果国际法对美国有利,美国就高高祭起这面大旗;如果国际法可能约束美国的行为,美国就会把它踩在脚下置之不理,甚至将“非法”尊为“合法”,将“合法”抹黑为“非法”。

美国如果真的关心国际法治,为何《联合国海洋法公约》推行几十年了还不愿加入?众所周知,作为规范当代国际海洋关系最重要的法律文件,《联合国海洋法公约》被誉为当今世界的“海洋宪章”,目前大部分国家都已加入《联合国海洋法公约》。美国作为世界上最大的海洋国家之一,却一直没有加入该公约,是安理会“五常”中唯一没有加入该公约的国家。根子就在美国霸权主义的国际法观和傲慢自私的海洋特权思想。

美国口口声声以海洋法治的维护者自居,却为一己之私拒不批准加入公约;口口声声要求别国接受第三方争端解决方式,自己却又拒不接受国际法院这一联合国最主要司法机构就尼加拉瓜诉美国案所作出的判决和命令;口口声声要求其他国家遵守国际法,却对自己和所谓盟友大开违法之门,长期以来对菲律宾非法侵占中国岛礁的行为视而不见。

这种自相矛盾与双重标准,集中体现了美国对待国际法“合则取,不合则弃”的虚伪本质,暴露了其根深蒂固的“帝国思维”。美国现实主义国际关系学者米尔斯海默谈及南海问题时曾说,“中国的邻国有动机在现阶段就把问题解决掉,而不是等到中国强大了,到时候就来不及了”,一句话道出了对中国防范遏制的阴暗心理。

中国正在成长,但一个多世纪里屡遭外敌入侵、强权欺凌的屈辱经历,是中国人民不可磨灭的记忆。在这样的历史记忆中强起来的中国,最懂得遭受欺凌和屈辱的滋味,“己所不欲,勿施于人”;在这样的历史记忆中走过来的中国人民,也决不会答应“屈辱的过去”哪怕在局部重演。

习近平总书记在庆祝中国共产党成立95周年大会上指出:“中国人民不信邪也不怕邪,不惹事也不怕事,任何外国不要指望我们会拿自己的核心利益做交易,不要指望我们会吞下损害我国主权、安全、发展利益的苦果。”这道出了全体中国人民的心声。

放眼南海,闪闪发光的航标灯,照亮的应该是和平的方向,驱散的应该是霸权主义的心魔,警醒的应该是被眼前蝇头小利冲昏的头脑。不合法的裁决不过是废纸一张,它否定不了中国在南海的合法权益,改变不了中国人民维护国际法治尊严,与相关国家一道维护南海和平稳定的坚定意志和决心。

编辑:刘雅萱, 来源:人民日报

Related:

U.S. should stop treating South China Sea as next Caribbea

The United States should stay away from the South China Sea issue and avoid repeating its history of military intervention
and political manipulation in the Caribbean in the past century.

Commentary: U.S. cold-war mentality not solution to South China Sea issue

Denouncing UNCLOS remains option for China after tribunal ruling

For many years, the People’s Republic of China has been a strong supporte[Read it]

Western countries should stop playing international law as political card: People’s Daily 

Although Western countries always label themselves as defenders of international law, historic facts[Read it]

Think twice before taking law-abusing arbitration as South China Sea solution

BEIJING, July 8 — Launching a legal action is not always the best way to solve a dispute, and it is[Read it]

 

Related posts:

 Notorious Philippines’s Abu Sayyaf & Law abusing tribunal on South China Sea
… ZAMBOANGA CITY: The Abu Sayyaf has announced that it will be ….. 2 million
listings worldwide, with revenue of about $2.4 billion in t.


US containing a rising Chinese power

 Jul 2, 2016 America’s objective is to contain a rising power, which presents itself as a major challenge to US global hegemony. Geo-strategically, the most .
 Jun 6, 2016 Dialogue 06/05/2016 South China Sea & Sino-US ties – CCTV … Arbitral tribunal
abusing its power …. US containing a rising Chinese power.
%d bloggers like this: