BÂY GIỜ KẾT QUẢ TÒA CPA LA HAGUE PHÁN QUYẾT TRUNG CỘNG VI PHẠM CHỦ QUYỀN CỦA PHI LUẬT TÂN THÌ VIỆT CỘNG LẠI LÊN TIẾNG HOAN HÔ PHÁN QUYẾT CỦA TÒA LA HAGUE VÀO NGÀY 12-7-2016./-TCL
***XIN BẤM VÀO LINK NẦY ĐỂ ĐỌC NGUYÊN VĂN BẢN PHÁN QUYẾT:
PCA Press Release: The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of ...
============================
China's claims in South China Sea are invalid, tribunal rules, in victory for the Philippines
Summarizing its decision in a statement, the tribunal said China has no legal basis to claim historic rights to resources within the nine-dash line.
“Although Chinese navigators and fishermen ... had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources,” the court said. The court added that even if China had such rights, they were essentially extinguished when it signed on to UNCLOS.
In another blow to Beijing, the tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands are – in their natural state – capable of supporting human habitation. Therefore, the tribunal said, none of the features were entitled to a 200-mile economic exclusion zone. Only in such zones are countries entitled to build artificial islands.
Furthermore, the tribunal found that it could — without delimiting a boundary — “declare that certain areas in the South China Sea are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.”
Based on that finding, the tribunal ruled that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone. Among the violations, it said, were interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration; constructing artificial islands; and failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.
The tribunal said Chinese law enforcement vessels had “unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.”
And the court said China’s construction of artificial islands on seven outcroppings in the Spratly Islands “had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems.”
The panel said “Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities.”
The tribunal also scolded China for its “large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands,” finding it “incompatible with the obligations on a state during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the parties’ dispute.”
The panel said that because China had conducted such extensive artificial expansion of reefs, it had to consult historical materials to determine their natural conditions.
Lawrence Martin, another member of the Philippines’ legal team, said the tribunal’s ruling on the environmental questions was significant.
“This is the first time that an international court or tribunal has put teeth in [UNCLOS] provisions relating to environmental protection,” he said. “States should be on notice that they can expect to be held to their obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment in the world’s oceans and seas.”
Yingzhi Yang and Nicole Liu in The Times’ Beijing bureau contributed to this report.
No comments:
Post a Comment