Legal anchor

===

===

TT - arbitration ruling whether any way, the issue of sovereignty in the South China Sea will not be solved. That's how Chinese scholars often argue constantly.

China refused to attend the trial and repeatedly stressed that the court has no jurisdiction to submit the present, and the results of the trial will not lead to a real solution for the dispute at Sea Thunderstorm.

Going further, there is the argument that the Court PCA political means rather than legal and color tinged lawsuit competitive strategy for the Philippines is being manipulated from outside the country and promoted.

However, PCA Court ruling in late October the past have shown that the above are incorrect.

Type argued see verdict will complicate the situation even further is incorrect. Legal significance of building ever more clearly to affirm the diversity of the disputes in the South China Sea, but the destabilizing factors stemming from the absence of a uniform interpretation and application of UNCLOS .

It can not determine the geographical entity carries any legal regulation (between islands, rocks or semi submersible floating) makes the delimitation of adjacent waters come to a standstill and controversy. Or as the rights and obligations of the countries in the surrounding waters.

Many times and in many forums, China has "attacked" America on the intentions which they call US "interference" in the South China Sea.

Even at the international conference held late last November (in Vung Tau and Hanoi), the Chinese scholar said repeatedly said that the geographical entities they build artificial islands is "half submersible, floating half "is not entirely accurate, because the still existing different assessments.

Maybe they are right in saying that there are many gray areas in law and in political approaches internationally through which countries can seek to take advantage of, or make a dimly serve the best interests of the himself.

But it's more than proven that institutional and international courts are the appropriate venue to curb the looming there. The ruling is a competent point, creating a legal basis and the guideline for action for specific countries.

So it is easy to understand why China wants to maintain a "gray area" when refusing to participate in the settlement of disputes by the courts and a still greater voice face of the complexity of the legal issues but refused by the court land.

And it would not be a sensible explanation for the view that Beijing is creating itself as "historic rights" or "waters of artificial islands", which are "puppets", rather than helping to solve situation.

Since the hearing in The Hague for the ruling is beneficial to the Philippines, things were clear: from the lack of a legal foundation for the SCS are already there are indications as well as the approach suggests platforms that slowly shaped.

It is an anchor in the storm season, which even a country like America when choosing to act unilaterally in the region through events patrolling the USS Lassen can not stand outside.

The discussion of both academia and political circles from Washington indicate an important lesson has been learned: it is necessary consistency in all actions, words and how to apply international law even in the implementation geostrategic purpose and politically.

And that is how the next patrol around Mischief stone that American announced that it would implement this in early December.

As always argue scholars, and legal and diplomatic forums from 2009 until now, the ball is in the Chinese leadership vacuum.


Internal political situation economically and politically tend to promote policies adventure. But also it will make tipping point of uncertainty in terms of security and geopolitics that Beijing can not premeditated.


Thank you for leaving valuable comments