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: 平乐县| 永定县| 正宁县| 贺兰县| 石楼县| 平武县| 望奎县| 南平市| 尼勒克县| 武乡县| 博湖县| 平罗县| 湖州市| 沽源县| 新化县| 五台县| 洪湖市| 岳阳市| 托里县| 科技| 鄂温| 若尔盖县| 和顺县| 天津市| 马边| 大渡口区| 娄底市| 涞水县| 岐山县| 石城县| 逊克县| 南溪县| 新建县| 固始县| 黔南| 特克斯县| 逊克县| 达孜县| 安图县| 景宁| 通江县| 湖南省| 连江县| 安岳县| 巴林左旗| 文化| 朝阳县| 新兴县| 昌平区| 三明市| 蒙阴县| 郸城县| 许昌市| 聂拉木县| 阳原县| 西乡县| 屯昌县| 安阳市| 湛江市| 宁国市| 抚州市| 临安市| 晋城| 马山县| 呼玛县| 湖南省| 娄烦县| 广河县| 木里| 四平市| 阳泉市| 泰宁县| 乐陵市| 固阳县| 栾川县| 苍溪县| 浦北县| 达拉特旗| 永仁县| 宜春市| 黔江区| 商都县|