China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

It was only focused since the SF treaty was used as an argument that it validated Japan's sovereignty over Diaoyu which I do not see it being as such. A few replies back, I mentioned the fact that Japan proceeded to hash out a separate peace treaty with ROC, then abhorgated it, and then struck another peace treaty with PRC; that this most recent treaty would supercede the SF treaty when it comes to matters between China and Japan. I also question the SF treaty in matters pertaining to either Chinas because neither were invited to the table and neither were signatories.This was a result of disagreements between other states on who was the rightful representation of the Chinese at the time.

I have since my last post reviewed at least four legal arguments with their accompanying version of historical facts from both sides of the divide. The main legal argument boils down to who has better title between discovery vs prescriptive acquisition and they in turn are predicated upon the historical facts that can be brought to the table. Treaties like SF and others are simply incidental to the main question. The complexity of the case would require a process that can only be delivered through arbitral proceedings to settle the sovereignty issue if that is the end game. The next best solution is to set aside the sovereignty issue and focus on joint economic development in that area.

 

[ahojunk]

China responds to landing of military plane on South China Sea reef
Xinhua, April 19, 2016

China hit back at U.S. criticism over a Chinese military aircraft that landed on a reef in the South China Sea, saying dispatching military aircraft for humanitarian purposes is an international norm.

A Chinese navy patrol plane picked up three seriously sick workers on Yongshu Jiao and transported them to Sanya of Hainan Province in south China, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said.

Hua was speaking to reporters when asked to comment on remarks of U.S. Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis that “it is unclear why the Chinese used a military aircraft, as opposed to a civilian one” to evacuate the workers.


Hua Chunying, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson

“As we all know, the participation of military planes in disaster relief, humanitarian assistance and evacuating civilians is a common practice around the world,” Hua said.

Chinese military aircraft have been frequently seen during earthquake and other disaster relief. On Chinese soil, Chinese military planes and personnel will show up whenever they are needed, Hua said.

“It is the military’s responsibility and people’s expectation,” she said.

The spokesperson questioned why the United States sends military ships and planes, instead of civilian ones, to what they described as efforts to maintain freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

Hua urged the United States to take real actions to safeguard peace and stability on the sea.

“Serving the people whole-heartedly is the mission of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Rescuing the people in danger is a fine tradition of the PLA,” China’s Defense Ministry said in a statement on its website.

“When people’s lives are at risk, the U.S. is still obsessed with questioning whether a military or civilian plane should be the choice,” the defense ministry said, expressing doubt whether the U.S. military would stand aloof if U.S. citizens fell suddenly ill on U.S. soil.


China says it holds indisputable sovereignty to the Nansha Islands and its surrounding waters. The construction and defense facility deployment on relevant islands and reefs are within China’s sovereignty, the ministry said, urging the United States to stop pointing fingers.


Read more on CCTV News.
Story by Xinhua.

 

[Equation]

China responds to landing of military plane on South China Sea reef
Xinhua, April 19, 2016

China hit back at U.S. criticism over a Chinese military aircraft that landed on a reef in the South China Sea, saying dispatching military aircraft for humanitarian purposes is an international norm.

A Chinese navy patrol plane picked up three seriously sick workers on Yongshu Jiao and transported them to Sanya of Hainan Province in south China, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said.

Hua was speaking to reporters when asked to comment on remarks of U.S. Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis that “it is unclear why the Chinese used a military aircraft, as opposed to a civilian one” to evacuate the workers.

View attachment 26916
Hua Chunying, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson

“As we all know, the participation of military planes in disaster relief, humanitarian assistance and evacuating civilians is a common practice around the world,” Hua said.

Chinese military aircraft have been frequently seen during earthquake and other disaster relief. On Chinese soil, Chinese military planes and personnel will show up whenever they are needed, Hua said.

“It is the military’s responsibility and people’s expectation,” she said.

The spokesperson questioned why the United States sends military ships and planes, instead of civilian ones, to what they described as efforts to maintain freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

Hua urged the United States to take real actions to safeguard peace and stability on the sea.

“Serving the people whole-heartedly is the mission of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Rescuing the people in danger is a fine tradition of the PLA,” China’s Defense Ministry said in a statement on its website.

“When people’s lives are at risk, the U.S. is still obsessed with questioning whether a military or civilian plane should be the choice,” the defense ministry said, expressing doubt whether the U.S. military would stand aloof if U.S. citizens fell suddenly ill on U.S. soil.


China says it holds indisputable sovereignty to the Nansha Islands and its surrounding waters. The construction and defense facility deployment on relevant islands and reefs are within China’s sovereignty, the ministry said, urging the United States to stop pointing fingers.


Read more on CCTV News.
Story by Xinhua.

Boooyaaah! Ya hear that cricket chirping, mighty quiet isn't it? That's the US department of defense getting schooled and told by China's Foreign Minister Hua Chunying.

On a serious note who's the d.....a...s to ask that kind of question anyway?

 

[Blackstone]

It's called legally opting out of arbitration under UNCLOS' own rules.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The following are excerpts from a speech by Xiao Jianguo, Deputy Director General, Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, at the International Seminar on the Application of Compulsory Dispute Settlement Procedures under UNCLOS to the South China Sea Arbitration between the Philippines and China held at Wuhan University, China, on April 16.

I. What is the basic position of china towards the arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the Philippines?

In January of 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated the arbitration of the SCS under Part 15 and Annex 7 of UNCLOS and pushed it tenuously since then. China’s position of neither participating nor accepting is consistent and clear-cut. In December of 2014, China released the Position Paper on the matter of jurisdiction in the SCS arbitration, explicitly elaborating on China’s grounds to reject the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. In October of 2015, China issued a statement on the award delivered by the tribunal on the matter of jurisdiction and admissibility, declaring that the award was null and void, and that it is binding on China. China’s position can be summarized as 4-NOs, No Acceptance, No Participation, No Recognition and No Implementation.

II. China’s position is fully in accordance with international law, while the arbitration case is against international law.

First, the nature of the subject matter of the arbitration is the territory dispute caused by the Philippines’s illegal occupation of some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Islands since the 1970s and maritime delimitation disputes with the evolution of the contemporary law of the sea.

(1) The issue of territorial dispute is out of the scope of UNCLOS, rather it is governed by the UN Charter and general international law. In this regard, the South China Sea Islands are Chinese territory with ample legal base and historical evidence. From the ancient times, the successive Chinese governments have exercised jurisdiction over them through administration, military patrols, fishing and development activities and so on. During the WWII, Japan seized Xisha and Nansha Islands. When the war ended, Japan returned the Chinese territories it had stolen to China in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation in the 1940s. China recovered the Nansha islands, pronounced its sovereignty and reinforced jurisdiction through such measures as official renaming, publishing maps, setting up administrative units and stationing troops. In the several decades that followed, it was widely recognized by the international community that the Nansha islands belongs to China, and not a single country ever raised objections.

The scope of the Philippines territory was clearly limited by the treaties during the colonial period between the United States, Spain and United Kingdom which did not include any of China’s maritime features in the South China Sea.

Since the 1970s, after a release of the potential oil and gas reserve in the South China Sea, the Philippines pushed for expansionism beyond its inherent territory limit by sending troops to occupy eight maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands and sought to permanently station there and “legalize” the occupation through various means, such as construction of military facilities, ports and airports, administrative establishment, unlawful designation of the so-called “Kalayaan Island Group”. The Philippines also attempted to further invade and occupy more maritime features of China’s Nansha Islands by “running aground” an old naval ship at Ren’ai Jiao in 1999.

In April 2012, the Philippines sent a warship into the adjacent waters of China’s Huangyan Island, forcefully detained and harassed the Chinese fishermen and fishing boats conducting normal operation there, deliberately triggered the “Huangyan Island incident”. After the incident, the Philippines finally made up its mind to bring the bilateral disputes concerning SCS to the compulsory settlement under UNCLOS.

The Philippines’ activities mentioned above have violated the UN Charter and general international law, and seriously encroached upon China’s territory sovereignty. The Chinese government has always been firmly opposed to these actions.

Looking back into the history, it’s not hard to conclude that it is the Philippines’ illegal occupation and intrusion that led to these disputes. Even today’s arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines is actually the continuation and development of its territorial expansionism in the form of so-called legal means.

(2) In terms of maritime delimitation, China made a declaration in 2006 in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS, excluding disputes such as maritime delimitation, historic title or rights, military activities from the compulsory proceedings. China’s declaration of the optional exclusion means it will not accept the compulsory mechanism of Part.15 of UNCLOS in dealing with the overlapping maritime claims or delimitation issues. More than 30 countries have made similar statements. All these declarations made by China and other countries constitute an integral part of the UNCLOS and should be effective and respected. In disregard of the choice made by China, the Philippines violated the right that China enjoys as a state party to UNCLOS to seek dispute settlement of its own choice, violated the UNCLOS and damaged the integrity and delicate balance of the UNCLOS.

 

[Blackstone]

Continued...

Second, both China and the Philippines have committed themselves many times to resolving disputes between them through bilateral negotiations and consultations. According to China’s legislations and practice, such as notes verbales to UN in 2009 and 2011, China’s Nansha islands has its own territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ and continental shelf. Meanwhile China enjoys historic title and rights in the SCS. The above claims really overlap with those of the Philippines. Then how to solve this problem between the two countries? As I mentioned before, the third party settlement is excluded, which also means China advocates conducting direct negotiation and consultation based on international law including UNCLOS to get an equitable solution. Before the final solution is reached, both sides shall exercise self-restraint and try to make a provisional arrangement. In fact, negotiation and consultation is the best and effective way to a durable solution. For example, in 2000 China and Vietnam concluded the delimitation treaty in Beibu Bay through decades of bilateral talks. Currently China is engaging in the delimitation talks of the Yellow Sea with Republic of Korea. Looking at a bigger picture, China has concluded 12 boundary lines with 14 land neighboring countries through equal and friendly negotiations.

In this regard, China and the Philippines both actually have reached common understanding. There has been a long-standing agreement between China and the Philippines on resolving their disputes in the South China Sea through friendly consultations and negotiations. From 1995 to 2011, there were at least six joint statements between the two countries repeatedly reaffirming negotiations as the means for settling relevant disputes. The mutual understanding was also reflected in the Art. 4 of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (“DOC”), jointly signed in 2002 by parties including China and the Philippines, emphasizing that negotiations shall be conducted by the states directly concerned. All these obviously have produced the effect of excluding any means of third party settlement. By initiating the arbitration, the Philippines violated the agreement to resolve disputes through negotiations and was an act of dishonoring its commitment, running counter to pacta sunt servanda (pact must be honored), a basic principle in international law.

Third, the basic requirements for launching the compulsory procedure of UNCLOS are not satisfied. According to Art.280, 281, 282 and 283 of UNCLOS, there are several procedural preconditions, that is: the means of their own choice prevails, and such means shall be first resorted to and exhausted, when a dispute concerning the interpretation or application arises, parties shall proceed to an exchange of views. Given the fact that China and the Philippines have made a clear choice of the means and procedures of settling their disputes, and given that the Philippines has never fulfilled its obligation to have meaningful talk or fully exchange views with China, the Philippines violated UNCLOS and abused the procedures under it.

Fourth, the Tribunal has taken biased standing in favor of the Philippines, acting as the Philippines’ agent, having lost its ground of impartiality and justice. In the award of jurisdiction and admissibility, one can see there are lots of loopholes on the legal reasoning and facts finding, full of controversies. The Tribunal actually took a careless, negligent and irresponsible jurisprudence approach without a thorough and careful scrutiny. Let’s look at two examples. First, it is commonly recognized that a geographical feature at sea is meaningless in civilized society without a sovereign or an owner. Only if it is crowned a sovereign, can it generate maritime entitlement. That is why in the international law and practice, the legal status of maritime features and territory sovereignty as well as maritime delimitation are inseparable. Judge Alfred H. Soons, a member of the tribunal co-wrote a paper years ago stating that “entitlement to maritime spaces forms an inherent part of boundary delimitation”. But to our surprise, the tribunal only adopted the Philippines’ plea and reasoning without any hesitation. Second, the Tribunal turns a blind eye towards the wholeness or an archipelago of Nansha, a geographical, economic and political entity that has historically been regarded as one unit. But even if it takes a clinical and isolated view, the existence and full entitlement of Taiping Dao(Itu Aba Island) should not be neglected and shall be seriously taken into account. Recently Taiwan Ma Ying-jeou’s administration has already given a detailed description of Taiping Dao.

Based on what I said above, the compulsory settlement procedure laid out in the UNCLOS does not apply to the disputes between China and the Philippines. The tribunal set up thereof has no jurisdiction. Its forceful handling of the case and exercise of jurisdiction is a willful abuse of power in nature, it is unlawful from the very beginning. China will not accept or recognize such arbitration in any way.

III. Prospect and China’s possible reactions.

Disputes between China and the Philippines over SCS are complicated and comprehensive. It is hazardous to confine the disputes settlement solely to the legal approach, only creating more problems than solving them. This case brought forth by the Philippines is not simply a legal case, it is a political provocation under the cloak of law with some western power behind it. The Philippines and the arbitration tribunal intentionally circumvented China’s declaration, and packaged disputes of territory and maritime delimitation into disputes of interpretation and application of UNCLOS. What the Philippines intends to do is to use the arbitration to deny China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime entitlement in SCS, to seek support for its own illegal occupation of some parts of China’s Nansha Islands, and even to undermine China’s image. The arbitration has gravely hindered mutual political trust between China and the Philippines, and undermined the amicable atmosphere for China and ASEAN member states to implement the DOC and to consult on the proposed COC. The move constitutes a serious threat to regional peace and stability. China firmly opposes the arbitration case, will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration process. No matter what the final ruling will be, China will not recognize or implement it. China will remain committed to resolving the disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation, and will not accept any country’s attempt to use such a ruling as a basis for consultations with China on the SCS issue, nor will China accept any positions or activities proposed by any country based on such a ruling.

The South China Sea issue involves a number of countries, and it is not easy to solve it in a short time. Up to the present, the literal countries concerned are still working closely together and SCS is still peaceful and stable in general. China remains committed to maintaining peace and stability of the SCS, upholding the rule of law in the SCS and safeguarding the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all countries in accordance with international law in the SCS.

- See more at:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[taxiya]

Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is just a kangaroo court. One type of it is "a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations".
BTW, it is not a court (of law), but a bureaucracy. The word "court" does mislead people to believe it to hold higher legitimacy than it really has. It has nothing to do with but very often being confused with the UN ICJ also situated in Hague, once again "stealing" (by medias with agenda) legitimacy from UN.

As I have said before, non of the other SCS claimants than China did EXIST as a legal state entity at the time when China declared her sovereignty over SCS. IF for the argument's sake there is a dispute, it can only be between China, U.S.A. (Sovereign of Philippine) and/or France (Vietnam), UK (Malaysia), even Japan has a better standing than the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia, but it has surrendered its claim as the condition of ending WWII. Again, non of U.S.A., France or UK rejected China's claim back then. So how could some non-existence jump out and make a claim and being admitted into PCA proceeding? That really shows how low PCA has degenerated to be a kangaroo "court", a piece of junk.

 

[ahojunk]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Source: Xinhua 2016-04-17 23:14:47

WUHAN, April 17 (Xinhua) -- Both foreign and Chinese experts questioned and refuted the Philippines' standing on the South China Sea issue at a seminar that closed on Sunday in central China's Wuhan City.

Manila filed a case with the tribunal that arbitrates maritime disputes under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on April 3.

However, China has legitimate rights under international law to reject the arbitration, unilaterally initiated by the Philippines, as the UN tribunal has no jurisdiction over Manila's territorial claims to several islands, rocks, shoals and other land features across the South China Sea.

In addition, when ratifying the UNCLOS in 2006, China had the right to opt out of various aspects. One of these was compulsory arbitration of maritime boundary delimitations and historical rights by the tribunal.

The International Seminar on the Application of Compulsory Procedures under the Convention on the Law of the Sea to the South China Sea Arbitration initiated by the Philippines, discussed topics including the nature of the dispute, historic rights and maritime features.

More than 30 scholars and experts from Austria, Canada, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Britain, and the Chinese mainland and Taiwan attended the seminar.

Dean of the China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies at Wuhan University Hu Dekun said the origin and nature of the South China Sea dispute was the Philippines' illegal occupation of the Chinese islands and reefs, thus, he called on international law scholars to consider the South China Sea Arbitration in compliance with history and facts.

Hu shared how Chinese people first discovered and used the South China Sea islands, and how successive Chinese governments have enjoyed the sovereignty and have been exercising jurisdiction over the South China Sea islands for a long period of time.

Xiao Jianguo, deputy director general of the department of boundary and ocean affairs, under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, restated China's position on the issue, namely, non-acceptance, non-participation, non-recognition and non-implementation.

Xiao said the Philippines' unilateral arbitration was not a simple legal case, but political provocation under the cloak of law, which has gravely hindered mutual political understanding between the two sides, and constitutes a serious threat to regional cooperation.

Gao Zhiguo, a judge with the International Tribunal on the Law of Sea and a researcher with the China Institute for Marine Affairs under the State Oceanic Administration, said the current arbitration has failed to reach the goal of settling disputes and proposing solutions.

Gao said the tribunal had deviated from a just and objective stance due to the apparent bias in favor of the Philippines.

Thomas Cottier, professor at the University of Bern, Switzerland, said the exclusive economic zone delimited by China does not impede freedom of navigation in the region.

He said China's non-acceptance and non-participation position is understandable, as the case is not simply a legal dispute, but involves political factors, and the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is unable to solve the dispute.

Fu Kuncheng, director of Xiamen University's South China Sea Institute, said the essence of the case is sovereignty and delimitation, adding that China should step up the research and expounding of its historic rights, which does not come into conflict with the statutory rights given by conventions.

Hyun-soo Kim, professor at Inha University in Republic of Korea, said China and the Philippines should try to settle the dispute through negotiation.

Kim said the Declaration on the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea, signed by China and ASEAN, could the legal framework for the settlement of the issue.

The two-day seminar was hosted by the Collaborative Innovation Center for Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Rights and Wuhan University China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies.

 

[Blackstone]

My problem isn't with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or any other international governing bodies that nations freely and voluntarily sign up, because while they were mostly setup by Western states, they have evolved to be more or less inclusive and relatively just.

However, in Philippines' case before the PCA, I believe the court overreached and China has grounds to ignore any ruling by saying it legally exercised its right to opt out.

 

[ahojunk]

China is making her displeasure known...

--------

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Source: Xinhua 2016-04-20 23:56:46


China is strongly dissatisfied with senior British official Hugo Swire's comment on the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said on Wednesday. (Xinhuanet file photo)


BEIJING, April 20 (Xinhua) -- China is strongly dissatisfied with senior British official Hugo Swire's comment on the South China Sea, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said on Wednesday.

Hugo Swire, British minister of state for the foreign office, said on Monday that growing tensions in the South China Sea are driven by China's assertive actions.

He said Britain will stand alongside the U.S. in supporting an upcoming ruling by an international tribunal on a complaint lodged by the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and that any ruling "should be binding on both parties."

"Mr. Swire's comment neglects facts and is full of bias. It breaks Britain's commitment that it does not take sides on issues involving territorial disputes. China is strongly dissatisfied with this," Hua said at a regular news briefing.

Hua said the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and the Philippines colluded to create an illusion of tension on the sea, while what people see is "more than 100,000 vessels passing safely through the region every year as usual."

The only difference is the more frequent and high-profile appearance of U.S. military ships and planes in the region. The U.S. ambassador to the Philippines said recently the U.S. will give Manila an observation blimp and military equipment worth 42 million U.S. dollars, Hua said.

"Facts show that the U.S. is the biggest driver behind tension on the South China Sea. The U.S. is calling white black by blaming China," Hua said.

Manila unilaterally initiated an arbitration case against China over the maritime disputes at an international tribunal in The Hague in early 2013 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

"The Philippines' attempt to deny China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands is obviously a result of instigation behind the scene and political manipulation," Hua said, calling the Philippine move "an abuse of international law".

China has repeatedly said it will not accept nor participate in the process.

The South China Sea disputes between China and the Philippines lies in territorial and maritime demarcation. China declared in 2006 that arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures do not apply to issues like maritime delimitation, which was outlined in Article 298 of the UNCLOS.

 

[confusion]

Ah, the hypocrisy coming from the UK is rich indeed.

He said Britain will stand alongside the U.S. in supporting an upcoming ruling by an international tribunal on a complaint lodged by the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and that any ruling "should be binding on both
parties."

"Mr. Swire's comment neglects facts and is full of bias. It breaks Britain's commitment that it does not take sides on issues involving territorial disputes. China is strongly dissatisfied with this," Hua said at a regular news briefing.

Not just hypocrisy, but a strong bias toward the US as well. The example below highlights both:

Let's look at Mauritius vs UK, a suit brought by Mauritius against the UK in UNCLOS in the dispute over the Chagos Archipelago (and Diego Garcia). The UK refused to arbitrate and said that arbitration was not binding (the same position as China's in the Philippines vs China):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The UK had argued that those undertakings were not binding and had no status in international law.

The Tribunal at UNCLOS rules that:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It found that the UK's commitments towards Mauritius in relation to fishing rights and oil and mineral rights in the Chagos Archipelago are legally binding.

The Tribunal also found that the United Kingdom's undertaking to return the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes is legally binding. This establishes that, in international law, Mauritius has real, firm and binding rights over the Chagos Archipelago, and that the United Kingdom must respect those rights.

The Tribunal went on to hold that the United Kingdom had not respected Mauritius' binding legal rights over the Chagos Archipelago.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Britain acted illegally in the way it has exercised territorial control over the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, a UN tribunal has ruled, raising questions over the UK’s claim to sovereignty and offering hope of return to hundreds of evicted islanders.

In

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, the UK is accused of creating a marine protected area (MPA) to suit its electoral timetable, snubbing the rights of its former colony Mauritius and cosying up to the United States, which has a key military base – allegedly used for the rendition of terrorist suspects – on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

The ruling effectively throws into doubt the UK’s assertion of absolute ownership, restricts the Americans’ ability to expand their facility without Mauritian compliance and boosts the chances of exiled Chagossians being able to return to their homeland.

A partly dissenting opinion from two of the five judges on the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague is even more scathing, stating that “British and American defence interests were put above Mauritius’s rights” both in 1965 when the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was established and in 2010 when the marine zone, which involves a ban on fishing, was set up.

The ruling, which was made under the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea to which the UK is a signatory, is binding. It torpedoes the status of the MPA and orders the UK and Mauritius to renegotiate. By coincidence, the government this week declared

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the southern Pacific.

...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from Mauritius in 1965 – before the country was given its independence – contrary to UN general assembly resolution 1514, which specifically banned the breakup of colonies prior to independence.

The judgment declares: “The United Kingdom’s undertaking to return the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius gives Mauritius an interest in significant decisions that bear upon the possible future uses of the archipelago. Mauritius’ interest is not simply in the eventual return of Chagos archipelago, but also in the condition in which the archipelago will be returned.”

...

The judgment refers to a disputed US telegram that records a meeting with British officials in 2009 in which one is alleged to have said: “BIOT’s former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos archipelago were a marine reserve”.

The ruling also confirms that in an exchange of notes between Washington and London during 1966 “kept secret at the time, the United States agreed to contribute £5m to the costs of establishing the BIOT, to be paid by waiving United Kingdom payments in respect of joint missile development programmes”.

Prof Philippe Sands QC, of Matrix Chambers, who was lead external counsel for Mauritius, said: “This is a historic and far-reaching judgment: for Mauritius, for Africa, for the international rule of law. It offers hope that Mauritius and Britain will be able to move forward to bring to an end an unhappy legacy of colonialism in the Chagos archipelago and Diego Garcia. It opens the door to a return to legality, in relation to matters of sovereignty and the conservation of a remarkable environmental space.”

...

Two of the judges, James Kateka and Rüdiger Wolfrum, go further, referring to “language of intimidation” used by the then colonial secretary in the 1960s.

The two judges observe that: “The 1965 excision of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius shows a complete disregard for the territorial integrity of Mauritius by the United Kingdom, which was the colonial power.

“British and American defence interests were put above Mauritius’ rights. Fast forward to 2010 and one finds a similar disregard of Mauritius’ rights, such as the total ban on fishing in the MPA. These are not accidental happenings.”

In effect, they find that the UK does not have sovereignty because the archipelago should never have been separated from Mauritius. The other three judges say the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to resolve this aspect of the issue.

Not only does the UK not care about the ruling, the went ahead and declared another MPA around Pitcairn Island!

Of course, this is the UK's response post-ruling, which is not surprising:

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the tribunal found there was no improper motive in the creation of the MPA. There is no question about UK sovereignty in the British Indian Ocean Territory; as the legitimate power, the UK is committed to working with neighbouring states, including Mauritius, to ensure proper conservation management of the marine protected area.”

If UNCLOS rules against China, China should just copy the UK and post a similar response:
"“We are pleased that the tribunal found there was no improper motive in the creation of the artificial islands in the SCS. There is no question about Chinese sovereignty in the South China Sea; as the legitimate power, China is committed to working with neighbouring states, including the Philippines, to ensure peace in the South China Sea.”

Until they have returned the Chagos Archipelago (and Diego Garcia) to Mauritius, the UK has no right to talk about following international law.