<tt id="6hsgl"><pre id="6hsgl"><pre id="6hsgl"></pre></pre></tt>
          <nav id="6hsgl"><th id="6hsgl"></th></nav>
          国产免费网站看v片元遮挡,一亚洲一区二区中文字幕,波多野结衣一区二区免费视频,天天色综网,久久综合给合久久狠狠狠,男人的天堂av一二三区,午夜福利看片在线观看,亚洲中文字幕在线无码一区二区
          Global EditionASIA 中文雙語(yǔ)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

          VI. Why is it absurd for the tribunal to rule that China's activities in the South China Sea are illegal?

          The arbitral tribunal mischaracterized the legal status of sea areas, erred in its factual findings, accepted inadmissible evidence, misinterpreted and misapplied the law. Consequently, its conclusion that China's related activities in the South China Sea violated the Convention's provisions or were illegal was based on entirely subjective speculation.

          First, the tribunal's conclusion that China's activities in the South China Sea were illegal was based on false facts and an illegal premise. The tribunal erroneously asserted that the relevant sea areas of the Nansha Qundao belonged to the exclusive economic zone or continental shelf of the Philippines. For example, the tribunal found that China's activities to affirm and safeguard its sovereignty and rights, as well as its resources management and exploitation activities in the South China Sea, violated the sovereignty rights of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines. However, this decision was founded on the erroneous assumption that the relevant sea areas involved in China's activities fell within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. China and the Philippines have not resolved their territorial issues or delimited their sea boundaries. Therefore, the basis for determining their respective claims is absent. As a result, the fundamental prerequisites for establishing the Philippines' claims do not exist. Hence, it is impossible to discuss whether the relevant sea areas are the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines, and it is completely untenable to argue that China's activities in the South China Sea are illegal based on this preposterous premise.

          Second, the tribunal seriously erred in its factual findings, accepted inadmissible evidence, misinterpreted and misapplied the law regarding China's various activities in the South China Sea. In its factual findings, the tribunal's conclusion that the fishing activities of Philippine fishermen gave rise to "traditional fishing rights" lacked a factual basis. In dealing with evidence, the tribunal was biased towards China's activities related to marine environmental protection in the South China Sea. It relied on a report by three experts who conducted a complex scientific assessment of the South China Sea marine environment in no more than 17 days, lacking first-hand empirical data. Additionally, the tribunal made numerous errors in interpreting and applying the law, including incorrectly applying "traditional fishing rights" to the legal régime of the territorial sea through Article 2(3) of the Convention. In short, the conclusion that China's activities in the South China Sea are illegal is entirely absurd.

          In conclusion, the arbitral tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration egregiously exceeded its jurisdiction, shockingly abused and expanded its power, and seriously infringed on China's rights and interests, rendering the awards illegal and invalid from the beginning. These awards, marred by staggering procedural irregularities and wrongful adjudication, not only harm China but also undermine the common interests of all States Parties to the Convention and the international community at large; therefore, these awards are not worth the paper they are printed on. China neither accepts nor recognizes them, standing firmly in support of international fairness and justice, a stance believed to be backed by an increasing number of countries advocating for these principles.

          Ma Xinmin is director-general of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

          If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.

           

           

          |<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6   
          Most Viewed in 24 Hours
          Top
          BACK TO THE TOP
          English
          Copyright 1994 - . 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: 亚洲欧美综合精品成| 在线观看日本亚洲一区| 色吊丝中文字幕在线观看| 毛片av中文字幕一区二区| 亚洲色一色噜一噜噜噜| 国产最大成人亚洲精品| 国产女人18毛片水真多1| 国产精品一区二区久久精品无码 | 无码精品一区二区免费AV| 在线精品国精品国产不卡| 国产亚洲精品第一综合另类无码无遮挡又大又爽又黄的视频 | 中文人妻| 久久精品亚洲日本波多野结衣| 国产明星精品无码AV换脸| 成人福利国产一区二区| 国产精品一区二区久久岳| 狠狠综合久久综合鬼色| 色综合人人超人人超级国碰| 亚洲综合小综合中文字幕| 老司机午夜精品视频资源| 亚洲国产精品综合久久20| 越南毛茸茸的少妇| 国产午夜福利视频第三区| 亚洲高潮喷水无码AV电影| 国产精品乱码人妻一区二区三区| 中文字幕亚洲日韩无线码| caoporen国产91在线| 免费中文字幕无码视频| 亚洲午夜理论无码电影| 欧美妇人实战bbwbbw| 精品中文人妻在线不卡| 啦啦啦视频在线观看播放www | 国产激情综合在线看| 亚洲精品一区二区18禁| 在线精品国精品国产尤物| 亚洲综合一区二区三区视频| 国内精品久久久久影院日本| 国产农村老熟女乱子综合| 国产精品女在线观看| 久久永久视频| 亚洲欧美综合人成在线|