男友太凶猛1v1高h,大地资源在线资源免费观看 ,人妻少妇精品视频二区,极度sm残忍bdsm变态

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

III. Why is it argued that the arbitral tribunal abused its power?

The arbitral tribunal's failure to uphold the principle of good faith in interpreting and applying international law is primarily evidenced in the following aspects:

Firstly, there was a malicious characterization of disputes. The arbitral tribunal chose to fragment the territorial sovereignty dispute concerning the Nansha Qundao and Zhongsha Qundao into individual disputes over the status of maritime features and associated rights. This approach circumvented the core issue of territorial sovereignty, described vividly as "putting the cart before the horse" by Chris Whomersley, former Deputy Legal Adviser in the United Kingdom's Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

Secondly, there was a malicious circumvention of general international law. The arbitral tribunal viewed the Convention as the exclusive basis for maritime claims, deliberately disregarding the significance of general international law in this context. First, the tribunal maliciously circumvented the eighth preambular paragraph of the Convention ("matters not regulated by the Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law"). Second, the tribunal deliberately ignored the well-established régimes of historic rights and continental States' outlying archipelagos in general international law.

Thirdly, there was a malicious interpretation of the law, exemplified by two instances. First, the arbitral tribunal improperly invoked Article 311 of the Convention concerning the "relationship between the Convention and other treaties" to assert the superiority of the Convention over historic rights under general international law. This effectively replaced customary law with other treaties despite the distinction between treaties and customary international law. The arbitral tribunal's view in this regard was totally untenable. Second, the tribunal invoked Article 293 of the Convention to expand its jurisdiction. Article 293, paragraph 1 provides that "A court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section shall apply this Convention and other rules of international law not incompatible with this Convention." However, this provision primarily addresses the application of law rather than conferring jurisdiction over disputes involving general international law. The prerequisite for invoking general international law is that the court or arbitral tribunal has already established jurisdiction over the relevant matter. This rule has been recognized in the awards of various Annex VII arbitrations, including the MOX Plant case, the Chagos Archipelago Marine Protected Area Arbitration and The Duzgit Integrity Arbitration.

|<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next   >>|
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: 区。| 南宁市| 台湾省| 大港区| 永修县| 尼玛县| 大理市| 峡江县| 若尔盖县| 太湖县| 镇康县| 德化县| 莫力| 衡水市| 南丰县| 蓝田县| 杂多县| 潞城市| 静海县| 咸阳市| 汤阴县| 广宁县| 永州市| 汉寿县| 珠海市| 类乌齐县| 海门市| 鸡东县| 观塘区| 泗洪县| 高台县| 合山市| 武邑县| 乡城县| 余江县| 阿巴嘎旗| 黔南| 永善县| 遂昌县| 苗栗市| 合江县|