news details |
|
|
| Flagrant violation of China of International Law on South China Sea | | | A N Bharadwaj
It is well known that dispensable administration of Maritime islands peaceful rule which affected by the Chinese communal rule in 1949. No country dared to have it to an international tribunal before the Philippines in 2013, invoked the dispute settlement of the U N convention on the law of the Sea, thereby setting in motion an arbitration proceedings resulted in the bring rebuke of China expensive claims in South China Sea.
Apart from that the trigger for manila approaching the international tribunal for the law of the Sea was its capture in 2012 of Scarborough shore, located close to the Philippines but hundreds of miles from Chinese coast, ITLOS then set up a five members tribunal under The Hague based permanent court of Arbitration, despite strenuous Chinese efforts to dismal and discredit the proceedings from the start it i.e China tried un-successfully to persuade the tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case, but in a strong verdict having embarrassed China.
The tribunal rejected its claims that it had historic rights to much of the South China Sea and held that it was in violation of international law by causing ecological damage including through its island building spree. The panel effectively declared as illegitimate China nine dash line boundaries. It remained recalcitrant strict to is baseless argument to ignore a legally binding ruling. It was its outlook one of the responsible governments of the world to encroach upon other interest through might at the cast of its interest, without taking into regard of the verdict of PCA.
On the other side India regarded its adverse ruling by PCA in two separate cases Maritime boundary dispute with Bangladesh and Indus river related dispute with Pakistan over Krishna Ganga Project. It was tamely accepted the verdicts with due respects.
China disdained for the ruling showed that international law matter to the great powers only when it could be served their own interest. It presumed that it was a judge in its own cause. It consolidated its political power in South China Sea by completing ports, air ships and building up its military infrastructure in man male islands.
The adamantine China vowed to protect South China Sea sovereignty as a monarch, while in fact it had no status to intrude in the sovereignty of maritime island countries. It asserted on its own to have a right to set up an Air Defence Zone, despite rejecting an international tribunal ruling denying its claim to energy rich waters. It had in the nation having called the permanent court of Arbitration, Hague, a puppet but it exercised its powers declared of breaching the Philippine sovereign rights by endangering its ships, fishing and oil projects to keep away to indulge in its sovereign rights, which it had since centuries. The Hague court issued a clear verdict in favor of Philippines by upholding all the latter, contentions through there was no mechanism to enforce the judgment. So much so, it objected on an agreement made by Vietnam with the Rashtrapati India on the issue of exploring resulting in snubbing India. It was warned that as a Rashtrapati a sovereign country be had right to enter into an argument with any one and it's had nowhere to object it, although it had no right to intrude in their affairs.
In net shell China has no historic title over the waters of South China Sea. The entire basis of China claim and the nine dash line was ruled to be invalid under international law and the UCLOS. China reaction was negative and told that award was null and raid, and with no binding force. It was termed a conspiracy and a threat to Chinese sovereignty on vague basis because that award had shacked the monopoly of South China Sea Maritime countries.
It is very amazing that U N based tribunal verdict on south China Sea on Philippine issue decided China political rights, where in it striated not to go beyond its rights, as it had no historic title on the maritime island countries, but that legal ruling binding declared by the UN court of Arbitration was objected with resentment of a dangerous of sovereignty while it had nothing sort of any relation to interfere in the maritime countries. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
