South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion

[itaskol]

I did not even mentioned ITLOS or the ICJ in my post, nor do I need to. It is you that need to understand more about UNCLOS.

When there are a certain type of disputes between signatories of UNCLOS (which include China), there is a compulsory dispute settlement mechanism that a dispute party can invoke, which include ITLOS, ICJ or an abitration tribunal:



ITLOS and ICJ is not necessary because the Philippines chose option (c), to establish an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Anx VII. This Abitration tribunal was located in the Hague.

What is Anx VII? It is this:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex7.htm

Basically it is provisions under UNCLOS to establish an arbitration tribunal as a dispute settlement mechanism. The thing to note about this provision is that the ruling and judgment of the abotration tribunal is final, and even if one party refused to participate, it can still continue proceed to settle the dispute.

So you are wrong my dear, this arbitration tribunal was indeed established legally under the provisions of UNCLOS.

talking about legally. the arbitrators themselves must have legally right.

A list of arbitrators shall be drawn up and maintained by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

DO the 5 arbitrator really have the right identity? can you answer me???

This is new to us and very interesting.

that is one main problem.
the identity and reliability of the 5 arbitrator are now questioned in china.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Arbitration not answer to S. China Sea disputes
28th June 2016

The disputes over the South China Sea between China and the Philippines are not appropriate for a judicial settlement or arbitration, experts said Monday.

An arbitral tribunal's decision to allow a case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines is also highly questionable, according to a group of leading experts on international law who concluded a seminar in The Hague, Holland.

"Because there are so many possible choices regarding how to settle the claims, it will be difficult for a court or an arbitral tribunal to make a proper decision," said Sienho Yee, chief expert at the Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies of Wuhan University, who presented a conclusion of some 30 experts during a press briefing.

"We also heard the positions by the experts that the tribunal seemed to be manipulating words in its decision (on jurisdiction)," Yee said, noting that the tribunal did not respect China's explicit right to exclude territorial and delimitation disputes written in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).


Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, former chairman of the UN International Law Commission, said the tribunal has put itself in a very difficult position.

"The tribunal said it would not try to settle sovereignty disputes, but only to determine geological features. However, the Philippines' claims will eventually lead to the question of who owns it, and the tribunal has no jurisdiction over this matter," said Rao, who participated in the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea from 1973 to 1982 that led to the adoption of the UNCLOS.

Rao's opinion was echoed by Abdul G. Koroma, a former judge of the International Court of Justice who also took part in the historic conference.

"It is stated in the convention that a tribunal will not be entitled, will not have the right to pass judgment on a territorial and boundary dispute, because it has not been equipped; it has not been given competence to do so," Koroma said. "You cannot use the jurisdiction of one to determine the other."

"It's like someone who has a brain tumor and went to the doctor, and only asked for flu medication. We all know that it is not going to cure his headache," Michael Sheng-ti Gau, a professor of public international law at the Law of the Sea Institute at Taiwan's Ocean University, commented on the Philippines' claims in the case.

The claims of the Philippines only scratch the surface, but do not cover the core dispute, which is a sovereignty issue. As the court cannot rule on something that is not presented in the claims, the result of the arbitration is unlikely to have any effect on the current situation, Gau said.

The experts from Asia, Africa, the United States and Europe exchanged views on the case at the seminar, co-organized by Leiden University's Grotius Center for International Legal Studies and Wuhan University's Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies.

 

[Tiqiu]

US Department of State Spokesperson John Kirby: The world is watching......

2 new Chinese airline routes to Chinese Islands have been officially opened.....

 

[kuge]

looks like philippines is fighting a losing case & being used again...pitiful
what should philippines do going forward?

 

[greenwood]

International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) announce on its official website:

The SCS arbitration case has nothing to do with ICJ.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) announce on its official website:

The SCS arbitration case has nothing to do with ICJ.

View attachment 317450

Now detractors in here will have a very hard time explaining to us what has this unilaterally appoined Tribunal to do with the United Nation as they were defending.

It is all SO DECEIVING even the ICJ is embarrassed and is pressured to release a clarification through its official website.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

United Nations stresses separation from Hague tribunal
The Permanent Court of Arbitration rents space in the same building as the UN’s International Court of Justice, but the two organisations are not related

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 14 July, 2016

The United Nations clarified on its Chinese microblog yesterday that the tribunal that ruled against China’s historic claims over the disputed South China Sea was not a UN agency.

The statement came amid apparent public misunderstanding of the tribunal’s operations.

The UN said the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which issued the decision on the case on Tuesday, operated out of the same building, the Peace Palace, as the UN’s primary justice branch, the International Court of Justice, but the two agencies were unrelated.

Key rulings to watch out for in South China Sea case

“The UN makes donations to the Carnegie Foundation (the building’s owner) every year for using the building,” the UN post said.

“Another renter of the Peace Palace is the Permanent Court of Arbitration established in 1899, but [it] has nothing to do with the UN.”

The post came a day after the tribunal dismissed China’s sweeping claims to contested waters in the South China Sea, adding that it violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights by building artificial islands and caused irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem.


China has long claimed almost all of the South China Sea, including reefs and islands that also claimed by other Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines and Vietnam.

The Chinese government reacted angrily to Tuesday’s decision, calling the ruling invalid.

Some internet users also lashed out at the UN, apparently thinking the international body was linked to the tribunal.

“When we make such sacrifices to keep peace, a subsidiary of the UN makes a ruling against China’s sovereign rights. So what do you want to do?” a Chinese microblogger wrote in response to a UN post after the ruling was announced.

China has no intention of challenging international order, say former diplomats

China was a founding member of the United Nations in 1945 and one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with the United States, Britain, France and Russia.

China has pledged to be more engaged in the UN, and is the second-biggest contributor to the organisation’s peacekeeping operations, paying 10.2 per cent of the UN’s peacekeeping operations budget.

Established by treaty, the Permanent Court of Arbitration is an intergovernmental organisation that provides various dispute resolution services to the international community, according to its official website.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

When they're told the reason why food is expensive is because Chinese ships are illegally fishing in Filipino waters I'm sure they will care very much, aren't you?

Do you think China would be happy to endure the same sanctions and subsequent economic recession Russia has for defying international laws?

But this is not international law right here. the PCA predates the UN and is entirely distinct from the ICJ, which is the judicial branch of the UN. the jurisdiction is under dispute.

China has also abided by every UN security council and UN general assembly resolution. there can be no argument that China does not follow international law.

 

[xunzi]

I think the response will just be business as usual in International waters, ignoring Your ranting.

View attachment 317139

I want to remind you that the international water is free for all countries, big and small, regardless of their political background, to operate and go to and not an exclusive rights of your US and their allies.

 

[Tiqiu]

This was what US State Department Spokesperson had to say when asked about China landing two aircrafts on the airfields of two islands In the SCS. Can someone tell me what he meant by "we don't have a dog in this fight"?

QUESTION: And Mark, is it relevant to you that the aircraft that landed today on the Chinese – on the Spratly Islands – that they were civilian and that they were not military? Is that significant?

MR TONER: I’m sorry, you’re talking about what exactly? There’s been so many different --

QUESTION: So today, two Chinese aircraft – civilian aircraft landed --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- at these new airports on these – on the Spratly Islands.

MR TONER: Is this the Mischief Reef and the Subi Reef? Is this what you’re talking about?

QUESTION: That’s correct.

MR TONER: Yeah, okay.

QUESTION: Yeah. Is it significant to you that they were civilian aircraft and not military aircraft?

MR TONER: I mean, look, there is, I guess, some measure of significance, but – to that, but we still see those – these kinds of actions as raising tensions unnecessarily rather than lowering them. And we want to see a lowering of tensions. So this is really for all claimants, as I said, to take advantage of the ruling and show restraint and take advantage of the opportunity presented by the tribunal’s finding or decision to work together to manage these. That’s our only focus here, I guess, is we don’t have a dog in this fight other than our belief that – other than, obviously, our treaty obligations but also our belief in freedom of navigation. But what we want to see in this very tense part of Asia – of the Pacific, rather – we want to see de-escalation of tensions, and we want to see all claimants take a moment to look at how we can find a peaceful way forward.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

View attachment 317424

Tell that to Americans first

 

[gambit]

That's your personal interpretation. China never tried to block the sea passage routes in this region, not in the past ,not in the future, what China will do is business as usual ,keeps doing what we always have been doing ,nothing more ,nothing less, sneezes at that void ruling cause that ruling is not worth even the toilet paper to us.

It does not matter.

If I claim the sidewalk in front of your house, are you going to sit still ? Would it matter if I tell you that I have never block your passage to the road ?

Do you think we give a shit if China ignores the PCA's ruling ? No, we do not. But what the ruling mean is we think China's claim to the entirety of the SCS is not worth even a square of toilet paper.

Here is the deal...

China can ignore the PCA's ruling and begins belligerency. China can say that any ship that does not comply with China's orders can be boarded, cargo confiscated, and crew imprisoned. Will there be ships that will comply with China's demands ? Of course there will be. But what could happen -- or WILL happen -- is that powerful navies like the US or JPN will offer to escort ships thru the SCS. What can China do ? Not an effing goddamn thing, pal.

 

[phancong]

It does not matter.

If I claim the sidewalk in front of your house, are you going to sit still ? Would it matter if I tell you that I have never block your passage to the road ?

Do you think we give a shit if China ignores the PCA's ruling ? No, we do not. But what the ruling mean is we think China's claim to the entirety of the SCS is not worth even a square of toilet paper.

Here is the deal...

China can ignore the PCA's ruling and begins belligerency. China can say that any ship that does not comply with China's orders can be boarded, cargo confiscated, and crew imprisoned. Will there be ships that will comply with China's demands ? Of course there will be. But what could happen -- or WILL happen -- is that powerful navies like the US or JPN will offer to escort ships thru the SCS. What can China do ? Not an effing goddamn thing, pal.

US was in the past reject the tribunal ruling by stated the tribunal court had no jurisdiction to precided over the lawsuit. China isn't the first or the last nation not honor the ruling by the arbitration court. US didn't suffer any setback by rejected the court verdict, same as the US, China image won't be tarnish by rejected the court verdict.

 

[gambit]

I want to remind you that the international water is free for all countries, big and small, regardless of their political background, to operate and go to and not an exclusive rights of your US and their allies.

Neither is it China's.

But it is hilarious that you said that considering China claiming the entirety of the SCS as her own, implying that passage thru the SCS belongs the exclusive right of China and that international shipping thru the SCS would be at China's generosity.

US was in the past reject the tribunal ruling by stated the tribunal court had no jurisdiction to precided over the lawsuit. China isn't the first or the last nation not honor the ruling by the arbitration court. US didn't suffer any setback by rejected the court verdict, same as the US, China image won't be tarnish by rejected the court verdict.

Shoo...Go back to wherever sandbox you came from, kid.

 

[Jason Zhao]

so what will you do next please? Handsome boy?

How does anyone look at that map and say,' Yeah, that's about right.' ? China is out of its' friggin' mind.



Nope.