ASIAdocument.write(“” + m[today.getMonth()+1]+ ” “+ today.getDate()+”, ” + theYear + ” “);HOMECHINAWORLDBUSINESSLIFESTYLECULTURETRAVELSPORTSOPINIONREGIONALFORUMNEWSPAPERChina Daily PDFChina Daily E-paperChina Daily Global PDFChina Daily Global E-paperOpinion / Op-Ed ContributorsEditorialsOp-EdColumnistsContributorsCartoonsSpecialsFrom the PressForum TrendsTalk from streetDebateEditors Pick:Syrian refugeescyberspaceV-Day paradeshrimp scandalTPPItalian expert: China has the right to not participateBy Tullio Treves ( Updated:2016-07-11 14:00Comments Print Mail Large Medium SmallFile photo of South China Sea. [Photo/Xinhua]Relying on certain clauses of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, to which both the Philippines and China are parties, Manila started an arbitration procedure against Beijing. This procedure concerns the status of many features in the South China Sea and the legality of the conduct of China in some incidents that occurred in that sea. The arbitration has resulted in an award handed out on Oct 29, 2015, in which the tribunal affirmed its right to adjudicate (jurisdiction), on about half of the Philippines submissions, and stated that jurisdiction and the merits are linked on the remaining submissions.So the tribunal did not exclude to have the right to adjudicate any of Manilas submissions. The final award on the merits will concern all these submissions.China has made it very clear since the beginning of the procedure that: “It will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration … initiated by the Philippines.”This position has been criticized as inconsistent with the fact that, being bound by UNCLOS, China is also bound by the provisions in UNCLOS providing that a case concerning the interpretation and application the convention may be submitted unilaterally, by one state party, to a court or tribunal, including arbitral tribunals.As will be shown, in fact, Chinas position is perfectly legal under international law. The 2015 award of the tribunal does not deny such legality, but it considers Chinas position only in part.Chinas position consists in two distinct statements. The first is that China does not accept the arbitration. The second is that China will not participate in it. The 2015 arbitral award considers in some detail Chinas non-participation in the arbitration, but treats only cursorily its non-acceptance (or “rejection”) of it. Non-acceptance may be seen as a political statement underlining that, with its initiative, the Philippines acts in contradiction with numerous statements, declarations and agreements in favor of friendly negotiations.Of course, this political meaning is included in Chinas non-acceptance of the arbitration. However, such non-acceptance has also a specific legal meaning. It conveys the message, that, as stated by China in a Position Paper of December 2014, “the unilateral initiation by the Philippines of the present arbitration constitutes an abuse of the compulsory procedures provided in the Convention”.The tribunal did not consider seriously the “non-acceptance” of the arbitration as distinguished form “non-participation”. It simply states that the language used by China “calls to mind” UNCLOS Articles 300 or 294. The tribunal comes to the correct conclusion that these articles are not relevant, but does not pursue its analysis further. In light of the evident aim of the Philippines submissions to circumvent the limits of compulsory jurisdiction under UNCLOS, the notion of abuse of legal proceedings should have been examined in detail at a very preliminary stage.It must be regretted that the tribunal did not consider seriously Chinas “non-acceptance” of, as distinguished from “non-participation” in, the arbitration. Doing so could have brought the tribunal to discuss seriously this very general aspect of the case which is the one China is most keen about, and which explains its non-participation. Such serious examination — whatever its results — would have been necessary in order to ensure the balanced treatment of the parties.Previous Page1 2 Next PagePrevious Page1 2 Next Page0Related StoriesArbitral court not best place for South China Sea dispute settlement: Croatian law expertSouth China Sea arbitration to set serious, wrong and bad example: Chinese ambassadorUS atlas shows South China Sea islands part of Chinese territoryDiplomat reaffirms Chinas South China Sea stanceAmbassador Liu Xiaoming gives interview to Reuters on the South China SeaUS focus has shifted from Middle East to the South China SeaCold war mentality lingers in South China Sea arbitrationChina, US need to manage differences over South China Sea: expertsSouth China Sea: How we got to this stageDai Bingguo: China not to be intimidated, even if US sends 10 aircraft carriers to South China SeaMost Viewed Todays Top NewsDevelopers must be made to obey the law when demolishing homesSlow pay rises necessary for growthUnfair for people to pay a real estate taxRacial dilemma in the USThird parties are only making things worseForum TrendsIs it time for China to upgrade its drainage systems?Should first aid be taught in schools?Should campus loans be curbed?Tips for foreigners to get a job in ChinaWould you help adult children buy a home?Tips for new graduates hoping to score a jobFathers Day storyColumnistsCurse of the honey potMilitary-to-military exchanges key to better Sino-US trustFeatured ContributorsThe ruling of the arbitration panel cannot challenge Chinas territorial integrity in the South China SeaUS focus has shifted from Middle East to the South China SeaStar BloggersShanxi harmony taste By François de la ChevalerieFor many foreigners residing in China, a question arises constantly: what are the timeless sources of inspiration and guidance of China? Behind this question looms a second one, how this country works?Brexit: The failure of the European elite By ChevalerieFirst, I shall beware of giving a definitive comment on the British vote. The democratic system ensures that each one is able to participate to vote at its sole discretion. What had to happen finally happened, ineluctable destiny, thats all!Quality of Chinese healthcare By MichaelMTwo days ago, I returned home from a 13 day stay in the hospital in Zhengzhou. I was admitted to Central Hospital of Zhengzhou on June 3. I had surgery the next morning and another one 10 days later.SpecialMy China Story MeetupChina Daily, 35 years on: your memoriesPositive energy Leifeng laowai story…| About China Daily | Advertise on Site | Contact Us | Job Offer | Expat Employment |Copyright 1995 -var oTime = new Date();
document.write(oTime.getFullYear());. 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