Is it international rule of law or Western rule by law?
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 07. 2024
- For more:
www.cgtn.com/video
Eight years ago, an arbitral tribunal housed in the Peace Palace in The Hague handed down a South China Sea Arbitration award, hailed by the West as a victory against "Chinese hegemony" and used to criticize China. However, China did not agree to the tribunal's jurisdiction and never recognized the legality of the case. Eight years on, the situation in the region has only worsened. What was behind China's non-participation? How far back can we trace this "see-you-in-court" approach from Western powers?
#SouthChinaSea #Arbitration #China #Philippines #Hague #PeacePalace #Geopolitics #InternationalRelations #CGTN #ThePoint #LiuXin
Subscribe to us on CZcams: goo.gl/lP12gA
Download our APP on Apple Store (iOS): itunes.apple.com/us/app/cctvn...
Download our APP on Google Play (Android): play.google.com/store/apps/de...
Philippines was still a colony of the US when at the Cairo declaration it was decided that SCS will be returned to China. When US gave independence to Philippines, she reminded Philippines that nothing in the SCS belongs to her. Even Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei etc.. were still colony.
It was clearly indicated by Arbitral Tribunal's ruling that AT had no power to award the sovereignty of the disputed reefs in favor of the Philippine over China.
Who appointed the USA to be a world ruler?
UN members must abide international laws and must have acted in good faith. UNCLOS of 1982 and Arbitral Ruling of 2016 is a reality and must be obeyed.
China was the signee of the UNCLOS. So they know that all countries are entitled to the 200 Nautical Miles territorial sea. 😮😮😮😮
Why does PH's arbitration have no legal standing?
The disputed area in south china sea is within in EEZ of the Philippines, and So it's clear that the UNCLOS in which agreed and signed by China to agree this law must be execute accordingly, to maintain the stability and peace in the region
At least now even the casual observer should know the difference between the UN endorsed 'International Law' and a hegemonic U.S. authored 'International Rules Based Order'.
I believe the commentators here are not aware that the UNCLOS arbitration was not properly carried out. An arbitration should have 2 claimants and an umpire acceptable by both parties. The 2016 arbitration is without the participation of China and without an umpire which is unlawful and invalid. At the time when the UNCLOS agreement was ratified, Philippines and China both opted out of the compulsory arbitration. Therefore both of them cannot compel other party to join the arbitration.
9 dash line will not hold. It is hard to defend in any court. 😅😅
May be China should pay for advertisement space to publish the actual fact on the illegal Court hearing in main media in ASEAN eg. Singapore/Malaysia/indonesia and in London/ New York. Or publish a special report for world wide circulation.
China is signatory of UNCLOS , the Philippines as well, therefore UNCLOS has jurisdiction over South China Sea conflict between China and Philippines. The problem is China is violator of international law because of its greediness.
Who were the signatories to UNCLOS? Why did most countries at the time sign onto the Treaty? Why did some not sign onto the Treaty? Clearly, signing the Treaty was not mandatory 40 years ago. Nor was ratifying the UNCLOS Treaty internally years later. Why did PRC ratify the Treaty? These seem to be the questions left out of public discussions.
This discussion is trying to disregard the worldwide-observed UNCLOS to which China signed as a signatory to abide by it, before the lately unilateral grab of South China Sea...Clever to have a Chinese Filipina in the panel; she's hardly known in the Phils.
For your information china was one of the signatories of united national law of the sea
Sorry I am a bit critical of one of the guests as it is always very easy to criticize others. 😅 I thought a program like this is to educate laypersons on the UNCLOS ruling regarding the dispute in the South China Sea between 2 countries. This is a very interesting discussion regarding the ruling. Ms Yan Yan is very knowledgeable on the issue but unfortunately her answer to the first question from Ms Liu Xin was too full of legal speak. I watched her answer a few times to break down exactly what she is saying but the terminologies used just flew right past me. Maybe I am just uneducated. Island features? Nansha Qing Dao? Zongsha Qing Dao? Maritime delimitation? Status of the component features? Territorial and Maritime delimitation disputes? Jurisdiction, admissibility, the termination, nature, content of the dispute, etc?? Spirit and principles? All these terms in just one answer and the laypersons are supposed to understand the issue? Even in the second answer to Ms Liu Xin when Ms Liu Xin tried to get her to explain more plainly, a few jargons still came out. I just gasped for air. However, her subsequent replies were more down to earth. I like Prof Warwick. His answers are simple, clear, directly answering the questions and easy to understand. That is the power of real communication.
The problem is hardly anyone has the audacity to challenge the Western way of forcing their way and ideal upon anyone. Right or wrong they're always on the offence to their last blood and breath.
Absolutely an international law. Bully's will not listen to law no matter what.
UNCLOS doesn't have anything to do with sovereignty claims which the dispute is all about in the SCS. In this case, the land feature (reef) may be within PH's EEZ, but more importantly China has the sovereignty of reef.
If China don't recognize international law. What's the reason of all countries to recognize the One China Policy on Taiwan.