Views: 4998|Replies: 12

UNCLOS excludes matters of sovereignty from mandatory ITLOS arbitration - TRUE! [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-1-23 12:10:49 |Display all floors
THE FACTS STRAIGHT FROM THE UNCLOS THAT REFUTE THE PHILIPPINE DEMAND FOR ITLOS ARBITRATION:

The UNCLOS excludes matters of sovereignty from mandatory arbitration by ITLOS.  China was following the rules of UNCLOS, but the Philippines was the one trying to circumvent it.  The Philippine attempt to use the UNCLOS even when it knows the UNCLOS exclude matters of sovereignty from mandatory arbitration by ITLOS is actually self-defeating.  It is time the Philippines realizes it was born in Asia, right in the South China Sea, surrounded by Chinese, and by islands belonging for countless centuries to China.  

The passage from the UNCLOS that contradicts the Philippine demand, and upholds China's choice, is as follows:

Article 298

Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2

1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:

(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;

(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;

(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;

(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;

(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.

2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.

3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.

4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.

5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.

6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.


Let's move on toward a bright and limitless future for both countries.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-1-23 12:46:59 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abramicus at 2013-1-23 12:48

China should not feel offended by the Philippine attempt to try using the UNCLOS.  Logically, it is the only viable option for the Philippines.  China does not have to accede to such a demand.  Facing reality is better than running away from it.  China and the Philippines can work out a mutually beneficial deal once the matter of sovereignty is settled, once and for all times.  The sooner both sides have gotten over it, the better for both.  In fact, the benefits of cooperation far exceed all the gas and oil reserves that may, or may not, lie under Huangyan and the Spratlys.  We are wasting time debating a fact that has been established for almost a thousand years.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

2016 Most Popular Member 2015 Most Popular Member 2014 Most Popular Member

Post time 2013-1-24 18:26:35 |Display all floors

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 2

Post time 2013-1-25 03:51:16 |Display all floors
This post was edited by st_jb at 2013-1-25 05:46

Either you are wilfully stupid or wilfully ignorant tard, or both.

China cannot just cherry pick the provisions in UNCLOS and apply what is only favourable to her. If China invokes its right under UNCLOS in its dispute with Japan over an island, she (China) cannot say to ITLOS or ICJ or to arbitral tribunal to opt out when it comes to disputes with the Philippines. That's totally crazy and stupid to think for China.

China is willing to accept the specific provisions in UNCLOS as long as it serve its interests and totally rejects the same when it contradict its interests, more specifically in its claims with disputed islands and sea with the Philippines.

While the PRC disavows UNCLOS against the Philippines, it is expressly invoking UNCLOS provisions in its claims against Japan -- so it wants to have its cake and eat it, too. In 2009, the PRC submitted a claim over the Senkaku Islands (which, like Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys, are believed to be fuel rich) and turned to UNCLOS rules in defining and delineating its continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone, again within the meaning of UNCLOS. There is some international legal doctrine supporting the view that a state's acts in one place can be used as an admission and adversely bind that State in another set of circumstances.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-1-25 13:09:00 |Display all floors
st_jb Post time: 2013-1-25 03:51
Either you are wilfully stupid or wilfully ignorant tard, or both.

China cannot just cherry pick th ...

Unfortunately for you, China's basis for application of UNCLOS to Diaoyudao is rock solid, because Diaoyudao by virtue of the Intrument of Surrender of the Japanese Empire of 1945, a binding treaty, has been ceded by Japan back to China, precisely because China used to own it until 1895 when Japan took over Diaoyudao by force, and thus must give it up as part of its terms of surrender.  

The Philippines has nothing remotely similar to China's position on Diaoyu as regards Huangyan.  In fact, China has every right to apply UNCLOS rules to the Huangyan it rightfully owns, and it will.  To the fullest extent allowed by the UNCLOS because of the Philippine's outrageous claims on China's Huangyan and Spratly.  You can be assured that China will NOT invite your crooks and thieves to share in the exploitation of these islands, given that they have vowed to take them all without any valid basis for their claims.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-1-25 13:11:16 |Display all floors
Stupid_JoeBlow is a western ass-kisser trying to find employment for his "English" in lying and trolling here.  He is one of the best examples of why the Philippines took so long to break the yoke of colonial slavery.  Precisely because of such ass-kissers and boot-lickers, on hire to lie through their teeth, to their last malodorous breath.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 5Rank: 5

Post time 2013-1-25 14:03:16 |Display all floors
abramicus Post time: 2013-1-25 13:11
Stupid_JoeBlow is a western ass-kisser trying to find employment for his "English" in lying and trol ...

You're not Chinese are you, at least not judging by your writing.

Ass kisser? Hypocrite describes you more!

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.