tuoitrenews
Updated : 11/28/2012 15:00 GMT + 7
Many French and European experts in foreign policies and politics have said that the "U-shaped line", also known as nine-dotted or nine-dash line, drawn by China over the East Sea has no legal basis, according to a conference in France last month.
It would be a serious mistake to assume that the conflicts in the East Sea just involve regional countries. It has the potential to be a world-scale conflict, said researcher Patrice Jorland, a veteran expert on Southeast Asia.
The event, organized by the Institute for International and Strategic Relations (IRIS) and Gabriel Peri Foundation, a reputable research organization specializing in political issues in France, attracted leading experts in France and Europe.
The conflicts in the East Sea have long been simmering, but became intensified in 2009.
"The sea and land areas around the East Sea has now become a new El Dorado with huge economic potentials for maritime fisheries and mining industries with rare minerals such as rare earths and gas, not to mention huge biological resources from marine flora and fauna, said Cyrille P. Coutansais, deputy of maritime law office of the General Staff of the French Navy.
“As above-ground resources are being depleted, regional countries are heading towards the sea, which has yet to be exploited,” he added.
“So as not to let such a resource-rich area fall into the hands of the mightier, there must be law and conventions defining the rules of the game there," Coutansais said, citing the 1958 Geneva Convention and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS).
"Only international laws can resolve all the related disputes in a fair, sustainable, and respectable manner by all involving parties,” he added.
Why call it “South China Sea”?
As a guide to the debate, researcher Patrice Jorland, collaborator of International Research Journal of France, emphasized the way the Western world called the East Sea as "South China Sea" or “China Sea" has created misunderstandings and a source of conflict.
“This name was given by European cartographers and navigators centuries ago during their expeditions to discover new land.”
“It is ambiguous. This term does not match the current geopolitical situation and creates the impression that this maritime area belongs to China. But such impression is completely wrong.”
Even though the name of a territory may contain a word relating to a certain country, it does not mean this territory belongs to that country, explained Patrice Jorland.
“Everyone knows it, except perhaps China. Thus, in 2009, China showed their "U-shaped line" map to the United Nations.
The U-shaped map "in any case cannot constitute the legal evidence for sovereignty," said Prof. Erik Franckx of the Department of International and European Law from the Vrije Universiteit Brussels.
"Regarding law, it is not enough to declare state sovereignty over any piece of land or territories with any maps or names provided by a country,” he said.
"The reference authority of the UN, the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), finds no hydrographic and scientific symbol on the map provided by China, he said, referring to the map of the East Sea that China provided to the UN in 2009.
“According to IHO as well as my personal point of view, China's U-shaped map is ambiguous, lacks the technical accuracy and therefore has no legal basis."
Concurring with the opinions of other legal experts at the workshop criticizing China's claims, law professor David Scott of Brunel University (UK) said: "When presenting the U-shaped map to the United Nations, China wants to formalize and legitimize” its sea demands.
“But at the same time China refused to give technical evidence for the maps, refused to comply with UNCLOS and do not want to bring the disputes with neighboring countries to any international arbitration institution.”
“We will never provide any specific evidence”
The observation of David Scott is echoed by the analysis of Prof. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, a specialist in public law and political science at the University Paris Diderot.
She recalled a meeting in Beijing with senior Chinese officials three years ago when they told her: "We will never provide any specific evidence [about the U-shaped map] and we will never go to court for it! The waters are ours, why must we demonstrate or prove it?"
Prof. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau admitted she was then "shocked" at the disrespectful attitude to the international rights and agreements to which China is a signatory.
“China cannot provide any scientific evidence for what they claim because they have nothing in their hands," she said.
In the case of territorial claims in modern times, the current settlement is based on what is known as "customary law".
China only referred to the islands in the East Sea “in a document dating back to 1930, while the emperors of Annam [the precursor of Vietnam] already draw cadastral maps of the Paracel and Spratly archipelagoes from the 17th century.”
“That means in terms of legal and verifiable evidence, the documents given by Vietnam are much older. Therefore, China does not want any international court of arbitration to step into the disputes”.
Let’s bring the case to the Hague
Prof. Monique Chemillier-Gendreau and Mr. Cyril P. Coutansais said that China is implementing a strategy called "I am already there, so I stay", or more precisely, “establishing the fact, step by step".
This strategy has happened with a number of other countries which are getting tired of such disputes and will be ready to sign bilateral agreements beneficial to China.
"China believes that other countries involved in the dispute with it will finally be economically and financially exhausted in trying to modernize their army, and then they will let it go" said David Scott of the Brunel University.
Resolving the dispute through bilateral negotiations and settlement is the "secret" weapon of China.
As a result, Professor Franckx said that "if countries like the Philippines, Vietnam and other countries want to protect their territory, they must jointly bring China to international institutions to handle those disputes in multilateral manner. Bilateral negotiations and settlement only result in losses ".
Experts at the conference said that the proper and sustainable solution is to bring the case to the International Court of the Hague.
"As Vietnam and the Philippines also have territorial disputes with each other and with China, if Vietnam and the Philippines agree to bring the matter to an international court, China must also participate whether it likes it or not. In the current situation, maybe that's the best way to proceed. “ ~said Cyril P. Coutansais
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento