- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by abramicus at 2013-4-4 12:04|
BY CONTRADICTING UNCLOS, THE ITLOS PANEL CONVENED BY A JAPANESE WHO SHOULD HAVE RECLUSED HIMSELF DUE TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST HIS COUNTRY HAS WITH CHINA, HAS LOST ITS LAST REMAINING SEMBLANCE OF AUTHORITY AND FAIRNESS . . . IT HAS BECOME . . . A
THE WAY THE ITLOS PRESIDENT CONVENED A PANEL WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO DELIBERATE ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF HUANGYAN PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT CHINA WAS RIGHT TO REFUSE ITS SERVICES IN ARBITRATING THIS ISSUE WITH THE PHILIPPINES.
WHO NEEDS A KANGAROO PARTY AFTER HAVING MET A CIRCUS OF CLOWNS?
NOBODY WITH COMMON SENSE WOULD RECOGNIZE THIS ARBITRARY PANEL, WHOSE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE RECLUSED HIMSELF, FIRST OF ALL, DUE TO OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT WHO INSTEAD AMPLIFIED HIS OWN DISQUALIFICATION BY PROCEEDING TO APPOINT OTHERS IN HIS OWN NAME.
THIS ARBITRARY PANEL HAS MADE THE ITLOS TOTALLY USELESS AS A FORUM FOR FUTURE ARBITRATION SINCE IT DOES NOT FOLLOW ITS OWN CHARTER AS SPELLED OUT UNDER UNCLOS.
CHINA HAS NO NEED TO ARGUE WITH THOSE WHO SIMPLY REFUSE TO READ THE UNCLOS ARTICLE 298 WHICH DEBUNKS THEIR PRETENSIONS OF MORAL OR LAWFUL AUTHORITY, OR WHO AFTER READING IT, REFUSE TO ABIDE BY ITS TERMS.
THE FACTS STRAIGHT FROM THE UNCLOS THAT COMPLETELY REFUTE THE PHILIPPINE DEMAND FOR ITLOS ARBITRATION:
The Philippines has no basis for mandating ITLOS arbitration over the sovereignty of China over Huangyan, and cannot find proof for it, using excerpts only that omit the exceptions to their quotes. 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, by casting aspersions on China for exercsing its RIGHT under UNCLOS to reject the Philippine demand for ITLOS arbitration. The current proceedings being called by the Japanese president of ITLOS whose country has invaded Chinese sovereign territory of Diaoyudao and whose objectivity cannot be assumed, are unlawful under the UNCLOS agreement, have NO MORAL OR LEGAL BINDING AUTHORITY WHATSOVER. As to why they are being held unlawfully, one has to ask the culprits in cahoots with each other, not their victim, China, which has every right to reject the whole proceeding from beginning to end.
The passage from the UNCLOS that the Philippines dares not quote is as follows:
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.
It is the Philippine government and its apologists who seem not to have read the UNCLOS after all . . .