Part 3: Solutions for East Sea tensions
 |
A vessel of the China Coast Guard attacks a
Vietnamese ship by water cannons, in Vietnam's waters.
|
The use of force or threat
to use force is not an appropriate solution to "possess sovereignty"
in the East Sea, as it is against international law, and destroys world and
regional peace. Moreover, if a country occupies the East Sea in the field, its
sovereignty will never be recognized by other countries. In this context, the
parties involved can find some solutions as follows:
Using negotiation and
dialogue: This is the best and most suitable measure for all parties. It may
take time but the final results will help handle the disputes and conflicts well.
The “model” is here: most recently – on May 23 - the Philippines and Indonesia
signed the "Agreement on demarcation of the exclusive economic zone"
for the Mindanao and Celebes, after 20 years of negotiations.
The “lower expression” of
this measure is "setting aside disputes and pursuing joint
development". In the world, many countries have made similar agreements in
various forms and in various fields such as fishing, oil and gas exploitation:
for example, the Agreement on joint exploitation between Japan - South Korea
(1974) in overlapping waters; and the Agreement on joint development in
overlapping waters in the East Timor Sea between Australia and Indonesia
(1989).
China appears to be
reluctant to show its willingness for this option. For example, this country
did not respond to or even want to delay the process of developing a Code of
Conduct in the East Sea (COC), which has higher legally binding nature than the
Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea (DOC).
For "setting aside
disputes and pursuing joint development", since Deng Xiaoping’s time,
China has in turn raised the idea with the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore,
Malaysia and Vietnam, but resolutely reserved a prerequisite condition,
"sovereignty belongs to China", which is unacceptable.
For legal instruments,
international laws are tools to help resolve disputes. Article 287 of the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that when signing or
ratifying the Convention or joining the Convention or at any time thereafter,
to resolve disputes related to the interpretation or application of the
Convention, state countries have freedom to choose, in the form of a written
statement, of one or more of the following measures: 1. The International Court
of Justice (ICJ) 2. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
3. An arbitration tribunal that is constituted in accordance with Annex VII of
the Convention and 4. A special tribunal to resolve disputes in each individual
area such as marine scientific research and fisheries and marine transportation
that is constituted in accordance with Annex VII of the Convention. It is more
common for disputes to go through the ICJ and ITLOS.
ICJ is the key judicial
organ of the UN. According to the regulations of the ICJ, the final decision of
15 judges is final, without appeals, and is effective immediately. In case one
party in the dispute that agreed to go to court does not observe the court’s
judgment, the other party may request the UN Security Council to intervene to
enforce the judgment. China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council
with the right of veto, so lawsuits filed against this country in the ICJ will
be in trouble.
Related to the East Sea,
Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia have put the issue of marine sovereignty to
the ICJ and accepted the final decision of this court. In 2002, the ICJ decided
to give sovereignty over the two islands of Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan to
Malaysia in the dispute with Indonesia. In 2008, the ICJ gave sovereignty over
Pedra Branca Island to Singapore, Middle Rock to Malaysia, and South Ledge to
both countries based on territorial waters, after the two countries lodged
claims to the ICJ in 2003.
The ITLOS is a separate
legal body, established under the UNCLOS to explain the terms and the
application of the Convention. However, ITLOS does not have jurisdiction to
resolve disputes over territory and borders, but only has jurisdiction to resolve
disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the UNCLOS. The
lawsuit against China at the ITLOS can only focus on the statement and action
of Beijing’s "assertion of sovereignty" under the "nine-dotted
line” or “U-shaped line" as the Philippines did in January 2012.
China's view on resolving
disputes by the legal path is clear: They stated that they did not accept
international adjudication, based on the reservation of Article 298 of the
UNCLOS, under which it has the right to not accept any dispute resolution
measures in accordance with the provisions of Article 287. When the Philippines
filed a lawsuit against China to the ITLO, China did not accept the
jurisdiction of the court, but the court still accepted the petition of the
Philippines. The "price" that China has to pay for its behavior is
its ugly image before the international community and its weakness in
"justice and legality" regarding its claims in the East Sea.
Not really interested in
settling disputes peacefully, in accordance with international law, China is
determined to cling to the so-called “nine-dotted line” which has no legal
value. What does China really want? "Occupying the East Sea" is its
plot throughout. While waiting for the right time to realize this ambition, Beijing
will conduct action to escalate tensions in the East Sea. Truth and morality
will not allow China to occupy the East Sea because if it succeeds in the
so-called "claiming back" of more than 3 million km2 of waters being
"seized" by other countries, the world will have to witness the act
of "misappropriating territory on the largest scale the world since World
War II," according to Forbes Magazine.
Source: VNN
