Exposing vaChina continuation : 51. The Philippines claims that because China has been a serious violation of the provisions of its own manifesto, it is not entitled to invoke the manifesto Article to exclude the tribunals jurisdiction in the case. The fact that a serious breach of the above statement. The Philippines accused China of taking action, including the threat of use of force in the Huangyan Island waters expelled long-term, continuous operation of the Philippine fishermen, as well as the Philippines, China to stop caring for the reef sit beach replenishment ships and personnel, trying to explain China in violation of the manifesto of regulations. But the fact is that in the Huangyan Island, the Philippines, the first to take the threat of use of force means, on April 10, 2012 to send warships forcibly detained illegally in Huangyan Island waters, arrest Chinese fishing boats and fishermen. Charity reef on the issue, the Philippine warship in May 1999 with the so-called technical failure as an excuse, the Spratly Islands in Chinas Second Thomas Shoal illegal sit Beach. China has repeatedly made representations to the Philippines, the Philippine request immediately towed the ship. The Philippines has repeatedly towed clear commitment to China due to technical failure sit Beach warships. But 15 years ago, the Philippines is not only contrary to previous commitments, refused towed related warships, but trying to build permanent facilities on the reef. March 14, 2014, the Philippines has publicly declared that it is the warships deployed as a permanent facility at Charity Reef in 1999. In response to these provocations in the Philippines, China was forced to take the necessary measures. Thus, the Philippines accused Chinas unjustified. 52. In the Philippines, on the one hand to support its arbitration filed deny the effectiveness of Article IV, Declaration on the other hand, but the initiative to resolve the South China Sea issue in the August 1, 2014 Foreign Ministry statement called on all parties to comply manifesto of the provisions of Article V, and that full and effective implementation of the Declaration . Philippines This paradox manifesto taken by backtracking approach, a clear violation of international law principle of good faith. 53. The principle of good faith requires States to reach a mutual agreement to make an honest explanation, not in order to obtain improper benefits, while the agreement was made in violation of the original intent of misinterpretation. Vital principle of good faith, it is reflected in Article 2.2, the Charter, involving various aspects of international law (see Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts in 1992 made Oppenheims International Law on Edition Volume 9 p. 38). In 1974 the International Court of Australia - French nuclear test case ruled that one of the guiding the development and implementation of international obligations of the basic principle is the principle of good faith, regardless of what the origin of this obligation is based on trust and confidence is essential for international cooperation. (paragraph 46 of the judgment). 54. China would like to take this opportunity to emphasize, manifesto is an important document between China and ASEAN countries, after years of patient negotiation, mutual respect, mutual understanding, based on agreed. In the Declaration, the parties promised by sovereign states directly concerned to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes through friendly consultations and negotiations; the parties reiterated to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, 1982 Convention, Southeast Asia Friendship and Cooperation Treaty Peaceful Coexistence and other universally recognized principles of international law as the basic norms governing inter-state relations; parties committed these principles, on the basis of equality and mutual respect, to explore ways to build trust; the parties reaffirmed respect and commitment to the freedom of navigation and overflight recognized principles of international law, the South China Sea, including the 1982 Convention as stipulated in; commitment of the parties to maintain self-restraint, refrain from making controversial complicate or escalate and affect peace and stability in action , including not now uninhabited islands, reefs, beaches, sand or other natural tectonic action live, and in a constructive manner their differences. In addition, the manifesto also details the interested parties before a peaceful solution to their territorial and jurisdictional disputes and establish ways of mutual trust and areas of cooperation. As a follow-up to manifesto, the parties undertake to consult develop the South China Sea code of conduct. 55. Manifesto to stabilize the situation in the South China Sea between China and ASEAN countries to promote maritime cooperation and enhance mutual trust has played a positive role. Manifesto of each clause constitutes an integral part of the file. Deny the role of manifesto will lead to a serious setback South China Sea between China and ASEAN partnership. 56. The Philippines, as a member of ASEAN, participated in the entire consultation process manifesto should very clearly the importance of manifesto for a peaceful settlement of the South China Sea issue through negotiations. At present, China and ASEAN countries including the Philippines, have established working mechanism to actively implement the Declaration and on the South China Sea Code of Conduct to start negotiations, to maintain the stability of the South China Sea situation and create conditions for the final peaceful settlement of the South China Sea issue. The Philippines is now compulsory arbitration proceedings filed with the common aspiration of China and ASEAN countries and efforts contrary, its purpose is not to seek a peaceful settlement of the South China Sea as the Philippines, as advertised, but trying to exert political pressure on China through arbitration order through the Convention The so-called interpretation or application to achieve negate Chinas legitimate rights in the South China Sea, according to their ideas and willingness to unilaterally resolve the South China Sea issue purposes. The Chinese, of course unacceptable. Fourth, even if the arbitration involving the Philippines raised about the Convention interpretation or application problems, but also constitutes an integral part of maritime delimitation, China has been excluded in 2006 declared, shall be submitted to arbitration 57. Part XV convention to confirm the Contracting State may declare in writing to exclude certain items mandatory application of the dispute settlement provisions of section II program. China in 2006 to make such a declaration, in line with the relevant provisions of the Convention. 58. August 25, 2006, China submitted a statement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations under Convention two hundred and ninety eighth of the Ordinance. The statement said: About Convention Second Article 298, paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) any of the items in dispute, the government does not accept the Peoples Republic of China in Part XV of the Convention. Any program provisions of Section II. That is, for involving maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities as well as the Councils duties, the Charter and other disputes conferred, the Chinese government does not accept the fifteenth part of the Convention under Section Any compulsory dispute settlement procedures, including mandatory arbitration. China firmly believes that sovereign states directly concerned friendly consultations and negotiations, the maritime disputes between China and neighboring countries, the most effective way to a peaceful solution. 59. China and the Philippines are maritime neighbors, both countries belong to the Article 74 and Article 83 of the meaning of opposite or adjacent coasts of the country, Convention, there is a maritime demarcation issues between the two countries. Because of the Philippine Islands and related unresolved territorial disputes, maritime delimitation between the two countries has not yet been negotiated but has to cooperate to create conditions for the final demarcation. 60. September 3, 2004, in the Philippines two sides issued a coalition government Peoples Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Press Release, and that both sides reaffirmed their commitment to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea in full and final settlement of the South China Sea has not yet former territory and maritime rights and interests of the disputed area, the two sides will continue to explore joint development cooperation (Joint Press para. 16). 61. The above-mentioned two days before the joint statement issued by China and the Philippines government approved and witnessed by two heads of state, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation and the Philippine National Oil Company signed the South China Sea Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking part of the agreement. . The agreement extends the protocol China, Philippines, Vietnam between the three parties on March 14, 2005. This is relevant countries to strengthen cooperation and create conditions for a negotiated settlement of the South China Sea dispute useful attempt. The agreement is within the scope of the waters covered by the mention of arbitration in the Philippines. 62. April 28, 2005, when he was appointed President Hu Jintao during his state visit to the Philippines, the two sides issued a Joint Statement of the Republic Peoples Republic of China and the Philippines, agreed to continue efforts to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea, of China National Offshore Oil Corporation, the Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation and the Philippine National Oil Company signed the South China Sea area Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking Agreement welcomed (paragraph 16 of the Joint Declaration). 63. January 16, 2007, when he was appointed Premier Wen Jiabao during an official visit to the Philippines, the two sides issued a Joint Statement of the Republic Peoples Republic of China and the Philippines, once again, said the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the South China Sea could become the regions cooperation A demonstration of the two sides agree, you can explore the next stage will enhance trilateral cooperation to a higher level in order to strengthen mutual trust in the region to establish a good momentum (paragraph 12 of the Joint Declaration). 64. seen between China and the Philippines to promote the maritime demarcation issues through cooperation final solution has reached a consensus. In view of the statement made by the Chinese in 2006, the Philippines may not unilaterally maritime demarcation issues will be submitted to arbitration. 65. In order to cover up the essence of the Philippine domain demarcation disputes, bypassing China in 2006 declared that the Philippines will split the maritime delimitation dispute, extracting a few matters submitted to arbitration as an isolated problem, request the arbitral tribunal were so-called law interpretation. 66. easy to see that the arbitration matters raised by the Philippines, including marine claims, reefs and marine nature right range, and maritime law enforcement activities, etc., are the international judicial or arbitral bodies in the past, the waters of the submission in the trial The main issue, but also questions the practice of maritime delimitation between countries need to be addressed. These issues are an integral part of maritime delimitation. 67. maritime delimitation is a whole system works. Article 74 and Article 83 of the Convention provides opposite or adjacent coasts maritime demarcation issues between countries, should be in the basis of international law within the meaning of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court to agreement on designated to achieve an equitable solution. International jurisprudence and State practice have confirmed, for the maritime demarcation a fair result, we must take into account all relevant factors. Based on the above, apply to maritime delimitation of international law, both including the Convention, including general international law. Maritime delimitation involves both the right foundation, reefs effectiveness and other issues, but also involves the demarcation principles and methods, as well as to achieve an equitable solution for all relevant factors must be considered. 68. The proposed arbitration Philippines Philippine constitution domain demarcation integral part, only in the framework of the Philippine domain demarcation, with the parties based on a long history of general international law and practice Convention enjoyed by rights and interests, and to be considered. Philippines Philippine domain will be submitted to arbitration in the delimitation of the split and some of these problems will inevitably undermine the integrity and indivisibility of maritime demarcation issues, contrary maritime delimitation should be ICJ Statute Article 38 means based on international law and the need to take into account all relevant factors, the principle of equitable solution will directly affect the future of the Philippine domain Sea. 69. The Philippines is not required on the surface of demarcation, but the arbitration tribunal ruled that part of the reef is part of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of the Philippines, China ruled unlawful interference with the enjoyment and exercise of sovereign rights of the Philippines for its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, etc. . Request for arbitration is clearly above the requirements of the relevant waters belong to the tribunal confirmed the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines, the Philippines in the area are entitled to exercise sovereign rights and jurisdiction, which is actually request the arbitral tribunal in disguise conduct maritime delimitation. Arbitration matters raised by the Philippines, in fact, covers the main steps maritime delimitation and the main problem, if the substance of the arbitral tribunal to consider the specific claims of the Philippines, would be tantamount to indirectly the maritime delimitation. 70. States parties under two hundred and ninety eighth of convention to the exclusion of the statement should be respected, the Philippines trying to circumvent Chinese exclusion statement filed an abuse of the practice of compulsory arbitration provisions of the Convention, the dispute settlement procedures. 71. The exclusion of China in 2006, having made a statement that should be automatically applicable, its effectiveness, according to the provisions of two hundred and ninety ninth of the Convention, without Chinas consent, other countries against China on the relevant dispute shall be submitted to unilaterally enforce dispute settlement procedures. At the same time, China also gave up the right to dispute the same for other countries to unilaterally lift the compulsory dispute settlement procedures, and reflects the rights and obligations and so on. 72. The Philippines argues that China, as a party, the Convention, according to the two hundred and eighty seventh convention of the Ordinance, is not forced to make a choice of four dispute resolution procedures set forth in the section shall be deemed to have subject to mandatory arbitration. This view is deliberately misleading. The purpose and effect of Chinas 2006 statement that applies to a particular matter entirely exclude compulsory dispute settlement procedures. Regardless of four Chinese to Article 287, the Convention compulsory dispute settlement procedures set out to make a choice whether or not, as long as they belong to China in 2006 declared a dispute covered, China has explicitly exclude applicable Convention Tenth Any compulsory dispute settlement procedures under Section five parts, including the possibility of compulsory arbitration. 73. Although the Philippines believes that it does not belong to the dispute referred to arbitration in China covered by the 2006 declaration, but have a different view of the case in China, the Philippines and China should first solve the problem, then we can decide whether to submit to arbitration. If you follow the logic of the Philippines, in any country as long as the dispute is not a unilateral claim to another country to exclude statements excluded dispute can unilaterally start compulsory arbitration procedure, then the provisions of two hundred and ninety ninth of the Convention becomes was meaningless. 74. Since the entry into force of the Convention, in this case is the first case in the case of a State has made a declaration of exclusion, and the other countries covered by the declaration for the dispute unilaterally start compulsory arbitration cases. If this design the Philippines is considered to meet the compulsory dispute arbitration jurisdiction of the conditions, you can imagine, any dispute listed second Article 298 can be in accordance with the method of the Philippines and the Convention certain provisions issues linked to the interpretation or application, you can lift the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of Part XV Section. If you can be so applicable, then the second Article 298 there any value Convention Convention? Currently there any significance to exclude statements made by the 35 countries? China believes that the Philippines unilaterally instituted arbitration in abuse Convention provides compulsory dispute settlement procedures, the Convention the seriousness of the dispute settlement mechanism poses a serious challenge. 75. In summary, the problem even if arbitration matters involving the Philippines concerning the Convention the interpretation or application of maritime delimitation dispute is an integral part of China in 2006 has been declared by the exclusion of the Philippines shall not be forced to bring this arbitration procedures. Fifth, Chinas independent right to choose the way of dispute resolution should be fully respected, China does not accept, does not participate in the Philippines filed arbitration has sufficient basis in international law 76. In accordance with international law, States have to choose the right way to solve the dispute. Any international judicial or arbitral bodies to exercise jurisdiction for disputes between States parties must agree on the basis that countries agreed in principle. Based on this principle, to attend the Third United Nations Conference of delegates after long and arduous negotiations, as a package deal, reached the relevant provisions of the dispute settlement mechanism of the fifteenth part of the Convention. 77. The fifteenth part of the Convention provides compulsory dispute settlement procedure applies only to disputes concerning the Convention interpretation or application; the State party to the dispute have the right to choose other than those specified in Part XV solutions; second, Convention Article 197 and the second Article 298 also provides for specific types of disputes compulsory dispute settlement procedures applicable limitations and exceptions. 78. The provisions of this Part XV balance the Convention, is in many countries has become an important consideration in determining whether a State Partys Convention. In 1974 the Third United Nations Conference on the second part of the meeting, Ambassador Salvador Renato Lindo good introduction to Pohl in the first draft of a dispute resolved stressed that the Convention, it is necessary to be directly related to national territorial integrity issue compulsory jurisdiction as an exception. Otherwise, many countries may not be approved by not even signed the Convention (see Shaba Tai Rosen and Louise Thorne in 1989 made 1982 commentary on page 88 of Volume 5, Section 297.1 segment). Therefore, in the interpretation and application of the provisions of Part XV of the Convention and must maintain balance and complete the section. 79. Chinese emphasis on Convention compulsory dispute settlement procedures positive role in the maintenance of order in terms of international maritime law. China, as a party, the Convention, Section II of Part XV accepted the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of the provisions of the Convention. However, China to accept the provisions of the scope does not include the territorial sovereignty dispute, does not include China and other States Parties agreed to choose a way to resolve the dispute, nor two hundred and ninety seventh of Convention and China in 2006 according to Convention all disputes 第二 Article 298 made a statement to exclude. Referred to arbitration in the Philippines, China never accepted any mandatory provisions of Section II of Part XV of the dispute, the Convention settlement procedures. 80. In accordance with the principle of national sovereignty, the parties to the dispute may choose their own dispute resolution, convention to confirm this. Convention Article 280 states: Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice any rights of States Parties to resolve the interpretation or application of this Convention disputes between them by any peaceful means of their own choice at any time of the agreement. 81. The parties to the dispute to force their own choice of dispute resolution in preference to the fifteenth part of the Convention settlement procedures provided for in section II. Article 281, paragraph Convention Article 15, section I: As Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, States parties to the dispute, as has been the agreement by peaceful means of their own choice to seek to resolve the dispute, the only recourse to such methods have not been resolved and the agreement between the parties does not exclude other program under any circumstances, the only procedure prescribed in this section apply. Article Convention eighty-six also states: In the third quarter limitations of this Convention concerning the interpretation or application of any dispute, if he has recourse to section 1 has not yet been resolved, the request of any party to the dispute shall be submitted in accordance with this section court or tribunal having jurisdiction. visible, as long as the parties have their choice of dispute resolution and the exclusion of any other program, Convention provides compulsory dispute settlement procedures completely NA. 82. States parties of their choice of dispute resolution priority and importance has been further confirmed in the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration award. The tribunal noted that Convention is far from a truly comprehensive, binding of the compulsory jurisdiction of the system (judgment, paragraph 62), Article 281, paragraph Convention allow States parties to the tenth Section mandatory five-part program is limited to all applicable parties agreed to submit the case (judgment, paragraph 62). If part of the first section of Article 15 can not be effectively complied with, would essentially deprive the State party to the dispute based on national sovereignty choose the right way to solve on their own, and thus in violation of state agreed to the principle of a balanced and complete destruction of Part XV of the Convention . 83. The relevant judicial or arbitral bodies in the exercise of the power to determine its own jurisdiction, and must fully respect the rights of States parties to choose their own way of dispute resolution. Paragraph Four of Article 288, Convention:. For if a court or tribunal has jurisdiction if a dispute occurs, the matter shall be the court or tribunal to solve the China respects the relevant judicial or arbitration institution these powers Convention enjoyed, but also stressed that the relevant judicial or arbitral bodies in the exercise of its powers should not prejudice the rights of States parties to their own choice of dispute resolution, and should not undermine national and international judicial or arbitration must follow the principle of consent. China believes that it is in the jurisdiction of the tribunal to determine its own provisions fourth paragraph of Article 288 restrictions when necessary. All in all, the parties to the dispute is a dispute settlement procedure completely master (Shaba Tai Rosen and Louis Thorne in 1989 made 1982 commentary, Vol. 5, page 20, paragraph 280.1 ). 84. Chinese respect to all States Parties in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the right to apply compulsory dispute settlement procedures. At the same time, you need to be emphasized that the provisions of Article 300, Convention: States Parties shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed under this Convention and shall not constitute an abuse of rights of way, the exercise of the rights recognized in the present Convention, jurisdiction and freedom . is the essence of arbitration in the Philippines on the reefs, knowing they raised the issue of territorial sovereignty, knowing that China never agreed to the dispute to compulsory dispute settlement procedures, the existence of the agreement on the settlement of the dispute through negotiations between the knowing and the Philippines, also To unilaterally instituted compulsory arbitration, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Convention, and does not contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes. 85. In view of China based on Convention in 2006 made the above, and based on the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case clearly, the Chinese government decided not to accept, does not participate in the arbitration proceedings to defend the sovereign rights of Chinas independent choice of dispute resolution, to ensure Exclusion Statement to play its due effect, maintaining the authority and integrity, and seriousness of international maritime law regime of Part XV of the Convention. China will not change this position. CONCLUSIONS 86. China believes that the tribunal unilaterally for the Philippines and the Philippines in the South China Sea dispute instituted compulsory arbitration obviously had no jurisdiction. First, the Philippines is the essence of the matter to arbitration territorial sovereignty of the South China Sea islands and reefs part, out of adjustment, the Convention, and does not involve the interpretation or application of the Convention of; Second, in order to negotiate settlement of disputes in the South China Sea and the Philippines is an agreement between the two countries through bilateral documents and the manifesto reached the Philippines and the Philippines unilaterally submit the dispute to compulsory arbitration in violation of international law; Third, even if the arbitration involving the Philippines raised about the Convention interpretation or application issues, China and the Philippines also constitute an integral part of maritime delimitation, while China has been under the Convention to make a statement in 2006, The maritime demarcation dispute involving matters such exclusion applicable mandatory arbitration dispute settlement procedures; Fourth, China will never accept arbitration in the Philippines had made compulsory dispute Convention resolution procedures; arbitral tribunal shall fully respect the rights of States parties to choose their own way of dispute resolution in the convention to determine the limits stipulated in the exercise of their jurisdiction the right to respect authority; the Philippines filed arbitration is the Convention compulsory dispute settlement procedures of the abuse. China does not accept, does not participate in the arbitration has sufficient basis in international law. 87. China has always pursued the policy of good neighborliness and friendship, and advocates peaceful coexistence on the basis of equal consultations, fair and reasonable solution to the territorial disputes and maritime demarcation issues. China believes that negotiations are always recognized by international law, international disputes most direct, most effective and most common way to a peaceful solution. 88. After a long diplomatic efforts and negotiations between China and the 14 land neighbors in 12 countries to properly resolve the border issue, the delimitation and demarcation of the boundary line length of over 20,000 kilometers, accounting for 90% of the total length of Chinas land borders . At sea, December 25, 2000 through negotiations between China and Vietnam signed the Peoples Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on cooperation in the Beibu Bay territorial waters, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf delimitation agreement between the two countries demarcated Beibu Gulf maritime boundary. China is also on November 11, 1997 with Japan signed the Peoples Republic of China and Japan Fisheries Agreement, August 3, 2000 and South Korea signed the Peoples Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Korea government fisheries agreements, December 2005 24th and North Korea signed the Government of Peoples Republic of China and the Democratic Peoples Government on the joint development of offshore oil agreement as a temporary arrangement maritime demarcation ago. 89. Facts have proved that as long as the relevant national uphold goodwill, friendly consultations and negotiations on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, we can properly resolve territorial disputes and maritime demarcation issues. For the dispute between China and the Philippines, China also adhere to the same principles and positions. 90. The Chinese do not think that the parties agree to submit the dispute to arbitration will be the basis unfriendly behavior. However, on issues concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, knowing that the country has made clear that he does not accept arbitration, knowing that the two sides have committed to resolve the dispute through direct bilateral negotiations, but also to force the dispute to arbitration, can not be considered friendly behavior , but can not be considered uphold the rule of law, because it runs counter to the basic principles of international law, in violation of the basic norms of international relations. This approach not only bilateral dispute can not be properly resolved, it will further damage the trust between the two countries, the problem between the two countries is further complicated. 91. In recent years, the Philippines continues to take on the Huangyan Island and caring reef issues new provocations, not only seriously damaged the political mutual trust between China and the Philippines, but also undermine the joint implementation of China and ASEAN countries, Declaration developed in consultation South China Sea Code of Conduct good atmosphere. In fact, over the past few years, in Southeast Asia, the Philippines is not depicted, China has become more powerful, but the Philippines yourself to become more aggressive. 92. The number of countries involved in the South China Sea issue, plus a variety of complex historical background and sensitive political factors, need patience and political wisdom of the parties to achieve a final settlement. China insists that all parties concerned should respect the historical facts and international law on the basis of seeking a proper solution through consultation and negotiation. In the problem to be solved before the parties should engage in dialogue and seek cooperation and safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea, and constantly enhance mutual trust and create conditions for the final solution to the problem. 93. Philippines unilaterally instituted the practice of arbitration, will not change China Sea islands and their adjacent waters of sovereignty over history and facts, do not shake Chinas sovereignty and maritime rights and interests of determination and will not affect China through direct negotiations to resolve the dispute as well as countries in the region to jointly safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea policies and positions. (China Military Online comprehensive self Peoples Daily, Xinhua News Agency)
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 03:53:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015