A new twist in the South China Sea Arbitration: The Chinese Society of International Law’s Critical Study

Published on May 25, 2018        Author: , EJIL Talk

On Monday 14 May 2018 the Chinese Journal of International Law, an Oxford University Press journal, published an extraordinary 500 page “Critical Study” of the Awards on jurisdiction and the merits in the South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China. Readers will recall the case was brought under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by the Philippines against China and that there was an awards on jurisdiction in 2015 and a final award on the merits in 2016 (discussed in many places including here, here, here, here and here). The Critical Study was produced by the joint efforts of some 70 scholars and is listed as having been authored by the Chinese Society of International Law (CSIL). It examines almost every issue raised in the case – and several that weren’t – and concludes the Tribunal was catastrophically wrong on every single point, right down to how many times the Philippines was allowed to amend its pleadings. Tiếp tục đọc “A new twist in the South China Sea Arbitration: The Chinese Society of International Law’s Critical Study”

The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A Critical Study

Related article: A new twist in the South China Sea Arbitration: The Chinese Society of International Law’s Critical Study

Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 17, Issue 2, 1 June 2018, Pages 207–748, https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmy012
Published: 14 May 2018
This critical Study analyzes in detail the award on jurisdiction and admissibility of 29 October 2015 and the award of 12 July 2016 in the South China Sea Arbitration. After briefly introducing the project and the Study and describing the background to and course of the South China Sea Arbitration and the position of the Chinese Government, the Study moves to address one by one the following matters: jurisdiction; admissibility; historic rights; the status of China’s Nansha Qundao and Zhongsha Qundao; the legality of China’s activities in the South China Sea; due process and evidence. The Study closes with the conclusion that the Tribunal’s many errors deprive its awards of validity and threaten to undermine the international rule of law. Included as annexes are five useful official documents of the Chinese government on jurisdiction, the two awards, China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, and China’s adherence to the position of settling through negotiation the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea. Tiếp tục đọc “The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A Critical Study”