Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
PH Files Case vs China Before UNCLOS Tribunal; Ph challenges China's 9-dash claims in WPS at UN Tribunal
Topic Started: Jan 22 2013, 05:03 PM (50,574 Views)
raider1011


Quote:
 
July 16, 2013

Part of the process is to determine if the tribunal has jurisdiction over Manila’s complaint. The case will only proceed once the tribunal decides that the complaint filed by the Philippines has legal merit and falls under its jurisdiction.

Whether they have decided jurisdiction, they will publicly announce this,” Hernandez said.
Manila pledged its “fullest cooperation” with the tribunal “in order to assure a fair, impartial and efficient process that produces a final and binding judgment in conformity with international law.”

GMA News

Good luck.




God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.

|| Chester W. Nimitz

Loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.

|| Mark Twain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

Historical Fiction: China’s South China Sea Claims
Mohan Malik


As far as the "jurisprudence evidence" is concerned, the vast majority of international legal experts have concluded that China's claim to historic title over the South China Sea, implying full sovereign authority and consent for other states to transit, is invalid. The historical evidence, if anything, is even less persuasive. There are several contradictions in China's use of history to justify its claims to islands and reefs in the South China Sea, not least of which is its polemical assertion of parallels with imperialist expansion by the United States and European powers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Justifying China's attempts to expand its maritime frontiers by claiming islands and reefs far from its shores, Jia Qingguo, professor at Beijing University’s School of International Studies, argues that China is merely following the example set by the West.

China's claim to the Spratlys on the basis of history runs aground on the fact that the region's past empires did not exercise sovereignty. In pre-modern Asia, empires were characterized by undefined, unprotected, and often changing frontiers. The notion of suzerainty prevailed. Unlike a nation-state, the frontiers of Chinese empires were neither carefully drawn nor policed but were more like circles or zones, tapering off from the center of civilization to the undefined periphery of alien barbarians. More importantly, in its territorial disputes with neighboring India, Burma, and Vietnam, Beijing always took the position that its land boundaries were never defined, demarcated, and delimited. But now, when it comes to islands, shoals, and reefs in the South China Sea, Beijing claims otherwise. In other words, China's claim that its land boundaries were historically never defined and delimited stands in sharp contrast with the stance that China's maritime boundaries were always clearly defined and delimited. Herein lies a basic contradiction in the Chinese stand on land and maritime boundaries which is untenable.


http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/historical-fiction-china%E2%80%99s-south-china-sea-claims

Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ayoshi
Member Avatar


Lack of mention of China during SONA ‘good judgment’ - DFA
Yahoo! News

Quote:
 
“I think it was good judgment on the President’s part not to mention it,” Del Rosario said on the sidelines of the SONA at the Batasan Complex. “It’s like when you’re in dispute and you’re already in court, you really don’t discuss the issue.” “I think the plans are clear, because the train has left the station.

We filed for arbitration and we’re waiting for the process to continue,” he added. The Philippines sought arbitration under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) last January to have China’s nine-dash claim declared “illegal.” China's territorial claims cover almost all the South China Sea, including sections that have been declared as the West Philippine Sea. Del Rosario also said he saw no need for the president to mention the issue of disputed territories, as the decision of the UN Arbitral Tribunal would be final.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raider1011


He did "mention" Chinese intrusion. Indirectly.

Our country has never lacked for people prepared to take a stand and fight for our country regardless of the enormity of the challenges before them. There is the courage of Commodore Ramon Alcaraz during the Second World War. In a small wooden Q-Boat, he took on nine Japanese Zero fighters—then considered among the most modern planes; three of these, he shot down. In fact, he would have continued fighting had he not received an order from his superiors to surrender. This type of bravery is what our soldiers display every day as they patrol our most remote mountains and our farthest islands; soldiers who continuously bear the distance from their families, who proudly stand their ground against anyone who challenges our sovereignty.


God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.

|| Chester W. Nimitz

Loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.

|| Mark Twain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

SEA DISPUTE
UN court to rule soon on PH case vs China
By Tarra Quismundo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Friday, August 9th, 2013


MANILA, Philippines - The arbitration case the Philippines filed in the United Nations' arbitral tribunal seeking to invalidate China's nine-dash line claim to nearly all of the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) is moving along, with the body soon expected to rule on the matter of jurisdiction over the case.

According to Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, the five-member ad hoc tribunal may decide whether or not it has jurisdiction over the case in "maybe one or two weeks."

He said the UN body, currently holding court in The Hague, was looking into the question of jurisdiction and would release a ruling "hopefully soon." The panel held its first session on July 11 on the legal action the Philippines is pursuing as a "last resort" to clarify maritime boundaries with China in the contested waters.

Del Rosario is set to fly to Thailand next week for Asean's preparatory meetings on the COC talks. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, ahead of consultations on the COC between Asean and China to be held in Beijing next month.

"I think there's full consensus on the part of Asean, and it has always been our hope that we would have China on board in terms of a full and effective implementation of the DOC for one, and moving on to, as I said, an expeditious conclusion of the COC," said Del Rosario.



http://globalnation.inquirer.net/82871/un-court-to-rule-soon-on-ph-case-vs-china


Edited by Hong Nam, Aug 12 2013, 01:26 PM.

Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Kampilan
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Philippines given until March next year for submissions against China's nine-dash line claim

Sorry Hong posted it in another thread already.
Edited by Santi Kampilan, Aug 28 2013, 11:21 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Kampilan
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Philippines-China UNCLOS arbitration moving forward without Chinese participation
By Luke Eric Peterson, Investment Arbitration Reporter

The Permanent Court of Arbitration has just updated its website so as to offer information about the pending arbitration initiated by the Philippines against China pursuant to Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Readers may recall that the Philippines requested arbitration in January of this year, citing a long-running dispute with China over “the maritime jurisdiction of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea.” (For background see this post on the EJIL Talk blog, as well as this one from Opinio Juris.).

China disputes that arbitrators have authority to adjudicate the Philippines’ claims, and the Chinese government has thus far declined to cooperate with the arbitration. The PCA website describes China’s response to the arbitration in the following terms:

“On 19 February 2013, China presented a Note Verbale to the Philippines in which it described ‘the Position of China on the South China Sea issues,’ and rejected and returned the Philippines’ Notification.”

Appointing Authority picked four of five arbitrators

In light of this Chinese stance, it fell to the President of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to act as appointing authority in the case, and to appoint four of the five tribunal members. (The Philippines appointed German lawyer Rudiger Wolfrum as its party-appointed arbitrator).

The five member tribunal hearing the case consists of four European lawyers and one Ghanaian:

Judge Thomas A. Mensah (President; Ghana)
Judge Jean-Pierre Cot (France)
Judge Stanislaw Pawlak (Poland)
Professor Alfred H. Soons (Netherlands)
Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum (Germany)

Mr. Mensah is the second President of the young tribunal. An earlier nominee, Sri Lankan attorney M.C.W. (Chris) Pinto resigned his seat in May of this year.

Rules of procedure finalized, and Philippines given deadline of March 2014 to file memorial

The PCA website contains an August 27 press release announcing that the tribunal met in July of this year and established rules of procedure and an initial timetable for the case. The tribunal has set a deadline of March 30 2014 for the Philippines to file a memorial that fully addresses “all issues”, including the admissibility of the Philippines’ claim, the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the merits of the dispute.

It was not clear, initially, whether that memorial will be public. The tribunal’s procedural order has not been published on the PCA website, which may point to the possibility that arbitration-related documents will remain confidential. (I’ve emailed lawyers involved in the case to seek clarification on this point, and I’ll update this post if I receive more information.)

In light of China’s ongoing refusal to participate in the arbitration, the tribunal has set no further procedural deadlines, planning instead to decide at a latter date on “the need for and scheduling of any other written submissions and hearings, at an appropriate later stage, after seeking the views of the Parties.”

The recent press release confirms that the tribunal consulted the parties for comments on its draft rules of procedure prior to their being finalized. In response, China addressed a Note Verbale dated August 1, 2013 to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in which it reiterated its position that “it does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines” and its plan to not participate in the proceedings.

Is the arbitration futile due to China’s non-participation?

China’s decision not to cooperate with the arbitral proceeding has generated debate as to whether the arbitral process becomes “futile” or doomed to failure. Julian Ku, writing on the Opinio Juris blog has pointed out that the arbitration is capable of moving forward even in the face of a recalcitrant party. (Enforcement of any final award is another matter, and Prof. Ku rightly notes that enforcement is never a foregone conclusion even when the two parties are cooperating and engaged in the arbitration process.)

Support for Prof. Ku’s views can be taken from the sphere of investor-state arbitration, where I’ve covered several recent arbitrations – including claims against Moldova, Tajikistan and Belize – where the respondent state has refused to participate in the arbitration. Those arbitrations have managed to proceed to final resolution nonetheless, sometimes with the arbitrators expressing a heightened need to consider the interests and positions of the non-cooperating state.

Indeed, in the aftermath of the Moldovan case, reporting work by IAReporter found that a final arbitral award against Moldova was indeed paid by the government despite that country’s non-participation in the relevant arbitration.

It may be a much further stretch to assume that China will accept the final arbitral verdict in this highly-sensitive dispute, but based on recent events there is less concern that the arbitration process itself is in jeopardy due to the non-participation of a party.

Kluwer Artbitration Blog
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Kampilan
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
.Sorry i had to delete them. It posted twice.
Edited by Santi Kampilan, Aug 29 2013, 01:51 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Kampilan
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
.
Edited by Santi Kampilan, Aug 29 2013, 01:49 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ayoshi
Member Avatar


International court starts proceedings over PH claim to disputed waters
September 3, 2013
Quote:
 
In the first Procedural Order, the Arbitral Tribunal formally adopts the Rules of Procedure and fixes March 30, 2014 as the date on which the Philippines should submit its Memorial,” the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) said in a statement released August 27.

The PCA is an international organization in The Hague, Netherlands that provides arbitration and resolution of disputes between states. The Philippines sought for arbitration proceedings under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) following a dispute with China over ownership of the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).

“The Arbitral Tribunal directs the Philippines to fully address all issues, including matters relating to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, the admissibility of the Philippines’ claim, as well as the merits of the dispute,” PCA said in its statement.

Quote:
 
“The Arbitral Tribunal will determine the further course of the proceedings, including the need for and scheduling of any other written submissions and hearings, at an appropriate later stage, after seeking the views of the Parties,” the PCA said.


source: globalnation.inquirer.net
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic »
Add Reply