China is bound to lose as South China Sea arbitration verdict looms

Originally, the Philippines, as a small country, was supposed to be under a big tree. But for the sake of its ambitions, it has taken advantage of the winds of the United States Asia-Pacific strategy to gain more international attention and resources by causing trouble for China.2013surname Nian1moon22On January 1, the Philippines sent a letter to China placing the"Dispute with China concerning the maritime jurisdiction of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea"The Written Notice of Submission to Arbitration and Claims initiated the Philippines v. China arbitration case, which led to the ensuing Hague arbitration.

As the date for the United Nations Arbitration Tribunal in The Hague to pronounce its judgment on the South China Sea arbitration case draws nearer and nearer, the veil of hypocrisy of the Arbitration Tribunal in The Hague will also be gradually lifted. It is reported that"The Hague Tribunal"5of the two arbitrators4The appointments are made by Japanese nationals. Under the Convention, even if a party does not participate in the appointment of arbitrators and the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the other party may accomplish the above through the relevant mechanism of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, i.e., the appointment of the arbitrators by the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.5in a human arbitral tribunal ......................4Bit of an arbitrator. And2013The President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea at the time in 2007 was none other than Judge Shunji Yanai, a Japanese national. In other words, the South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal5Of the seven arbitrators, there are4The appointment was made by a Japanese national. As a country with which China has territorial disputes and maritime delimitation disputes, the impartiality of the designation made by the Japanese President is questionable.
       

exist2015surname Nian10moon29As of today, judging from the arbitral tribunal's jurisdictional ruling, the tribunal's judicial philosophy is overly radical, exceeding the status quo prevailing in the international community and appearing to be unjust. It is difficult for China to get respect and fairness from such a tribunal, which is inherently unjust or premeditated. In view of the current situation.China is bound to lose with biased South China Sea rulingThe

China doesn't need to get involved in South China Sea ruling

    The ruling in the South China Sea is nothing more than a conspiracy by some countries with evil intentions against China, and there is no need for China to pay any attention to it or even to participate in it. China's active participation in this premeditated ruling will not only result in no change in the outcome, but will also lead to molestation, humiliation and vilification.      

In the face of the Philippines' submission of the South China Sea dispute to international arbitration, China pointed out that the substance of the matter submitted by the Philippines for arbitration was the issue of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs in the South China Sea, which was beyond the scope of adjustment of the Convention and did not involve its interpretation or application; the settlement of disputes in the South China Sea by way of negotiation was an agreement reached by China and the Philippines through bilateral documents and declarations, and the unilateral submission by the Philippines of the dispute between China and the Philippines to compulsory arbitration The unilateral submission by the Philippines of the dispute between China and the Philippines to compulsory arbitration violates international law; based on the above, and in view of the fact that countries have the right to independently choose their own means of dispute settlement, China's non-acceptance of, and non-participation in, the arbitration initiated by the Philippines has a sufficient basis in international law.        

There is no real fairness or justice to speak of in this world. The submission of the South China Sea dispute by the Philippines to international arbitration is both a manifestation of the incompetence of the Philippines and a reflection of the hegemony behind it. Otherwise, how can a tiny Philippines dare to move the earth on the head of a taiwanese? Back then, Mrs. Aquino shamelessly said to China: Huangyan Island is very close to the Philippines and it should be the Philippines'. Deng Xiaoping took a drag on his cigarette and said coldly: Taiwan is very close to the mainland, and the Philippines is very close to China. Mrs. Aquino was too scared to squeak. How come the Philippines did not submit the recording of this conversation to the Office of International Arbitration?  

     On the issue of sovereignty, the state arbitration has no jurisdiction, and the Philippines by disguising the sovereignty to throw away the arbitration of other matters, it is a farce, China insists on not to be accompanied by the position is correct, the state arbitration tribunal forcibly part of the Philippine's claim to enjoy the jurisdiction of the grounds, and substantive hearings, in itself, is the western world to follow the United States to contain the strategy of China's a speculation, China rightly with contempt of the China has rightly pointed out in a defiant manner that the Chinese government's refusal to accept the arbitration case in the South China Sea is entirely in accordance with the law. What the Philippines is doing is precisely illegal, untrustworthy and unreasonable.

The country with the highest number of refusals to accept the award was the United States

   Under the contemporary international system, international law was created by sovereign States, especially the great Powers, to serve inter-State relations, not the other way around. That is why any international body that fails to recognize its role and function correctly and tries to override the diplomacy of the major Powers is bound to fail.

       Unfair justice and arbitration inevitably lead to the rejection of the award by the parties. According to the American professor of law at the University of Chicago, Erik–Posner (Eric Posner) Statistics from1946years up to1965The percentage of all cases in dispute at the International Court of Justice that were enforced during the period83%Of these, the percentage of compulsory jurisdiction cases that were enforced is80%while in1966until1985In the two decades since the establishment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the proportion of disputed cases that have been enforced has fallen rapidly to20%. During this period, all cases of compulsory jurisdiction were not enforced.1986years up to2004In 2007, the percentage of contested cases that were enforced was only29%The implementation rate, except for cases brought to court by special agreement, is only17%The

since1946years up to2004year, the average execution rate of cases was only44%The average enforcement rate for cases in mandatory jurisdiction is only33%The Court's decisions have not been fully complied with by States. In addition, the main cases in which States have not fully complied with the judgment of the International Court of Justice are.: "Case concerning Land, Island and Maritime Disputes"(El Salvador v. Honduras, in which Nicaragua participated)Plaintiff's side El Salvador;"Territorial dispute cases"(Libya and Chad)Libya in the Middle;"Lagrange case (law)"(Germany v. United States)Respondent United States;"Case of Avena and Other Mexican Nationals"(Mexico v. United States) Respondent United States;"The Rakimaro Dam case"(Hungary and Slovakia)The parties in the"Dispute concerning Delimitation of Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria"(Cameroon v. Nigeria, in which Equatorial Guinea participated)Respondent Nigeria.
     

  Cases that are difficult to enforce often involve concerns about the territorial sovereignty, security and other vital interests of the State, and even if a judgment is rendered, it does not allow the parties to settle their disputes.

How China should respond      

Although we should strategically defy and insist on our own position, indifference is still undesirable, and how to change the current relatively passive state of international public opinion is an important issue that we cannot avoid. If the new president of the Philippines as a breakthrough, ease the relationship between China and the Philippines, so that the Philippines initiative to give up the South China Sea arbitration is undoubtedly the best plan. However, in terms of this action, there are still many difficulties.      

Secondly, the country's current commitment to"South China Sea arbitration case"Adoption of a non-acceptance and non-participation attitude and non-implementation in the future"final ruling"They are also legal rights. However, the use of negative rights is not the same as the use of positive rights, and it is not the same as not speaking out, not being reasonable, and going against the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague and its judges. On the premise of not violating the principle, channels and ways of direct communication and contact with the judges still exist: we can express our views and opinions through international academic seminars in the form of non-government organizations, so as to urge the judges to re-conceptualize or reconsider the relevant issues. What is the meaning of"inviolability"? According to the researcher of the National Marine Development Research Center, firstly, the Philippines is not qualified to initiate arbitration in violation of article 4 of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, and is therefore unlawful, untrustworthy and unreasonable;Secondly, the Philippine side"South China Sea arbitration case"All claims related to sovereignty, border demarcation, military and outside the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague;Thirdly, this case is obviously manipulated by the United States behind the scenes and is not a normal legal case.

  "South China Sea Arbitration Case"The final solution to the problem cannot be resolved without"nine-dashed line, joining the DMZ between North and South Korea"legal status, the key lies in whether China can use the"nine-dashed line, joining the DMZ between North and South Korea"Delimitation in the South China Sea."nine-dashed line, joining the DMZ between North and South Korea"Is it contradictory, antagonistic and irreconcilable with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or is it unified, compatible and reconcilable? If we are unable to have a clear understanding of"nine-dashed line, joining the DMZ between North and South Korea"Legitimacy of existence, to"nine-dashed line, joining the DMZ between North and South Korea"Feasibility of demarcation and"nine-dashed line, joining the DMZ between North and South Korea"The historical nature of the connotation makes a more internationally persuasive case for a similar"arbitration case"Unavoidable.
   In all circumstances, our country should insist on"nine-dashed line, joining the DMZ between North and South Korea"It is the outer boundary line of the maritime areas under the jurisdiction of the South China Sea: it has sovereignty over the islands within the line and can exercise full dominion over them.;It has sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the overlying waters and the subsoil of the seabed within the line, and other countries enjoy the freedom of overflight, the freedom of navigation at sea, the freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, and the freedom of other countries, with the approval of the Government in advance, to go to the seabed and the subsoil of the South China Sea to explore and exploit seabed resources. The delimitation of maritime boundaries between China and its South China Sea neighbors must be based on"nine-dashed line, joining the DMZ between North and South Korea"The legal status of islands, overlying waters, seabed and subsoil within the line may be interpreted on the basis of the Convention's regime of the territorial sea, the regime of the exclusive economic zone, and the regime of the continental shelf, provided that the latter two are invoked to exclude200The concept of distance in nautical miles.