Vietnam should sue China, say scholars (VOV) - Vietnam should sue China for misinterpreting and misusing the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), using force to possess another country’s territory, and violating the legitimate rights and interests of Vietnam. By stationing its floating drilling rig Haiyang Shiyou-981 deep inside Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, China even states that the operation of the rig is normal as the structure lies inside the territorial waters close to China’s Xisha islands (called Hoang Sa [Parace] archipelago in Vietnam). China intentionally misinterpreted and misused the 1982 UNCLOS in forming the baseline of the Paracel – an archipelago of Vietnam, which is not an archipelagic state, to identify the EEZ and continental shelf of the archipelago, intentionally creating a contiguous area, and turning the undisputed into disputed area so as to ‘break with the dispute and exploit the area altogether’.
This action runs counter to international law and norm, blatantly violates In the face of International scholars wonder if the Paracel meets the UNCLOS criteria to enable a sovereign nation to expand the scope of the EEZ and continental shelf of this archipelago. After using force to control this archipelago in 1974, They cite Article 121 of the 1982 UNCLOS, saying the Paracel does have no EEZ and continental shelf and it cannot be considered an archipelagic state based on which a country makes a claim about the continental shelf. Dr Tran Cong Truc, former head of the Government Committee on Border Affairs, says
Dr Truc says the Paracel is not an archipelagic state, and therefore baselines cannot be drawn to identify the waters and continental shelf of this archipelago. “They use the convention [UNCLOS] in a wrong way. The 1982 convention stipulates that an archipelagic state has the right to form the baseline surrounding the entire archipelago and islands of the archipelagic state joined by the outermost points of the waters, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. There are no provisions that say archipelagos of coastal nations are allowed to form the baselines around these archipelagos.” Professor Carlyle Thayer from the Dr Nguyen Thi Lan Anh, deputy dean of the International Law Department under the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, cites Articles 57 and 74 of the convention, positing that the location where Article 57 stipulates that the exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Article 76 also stipulates that the continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance. Andrew Billo, assistant director for Policy Programme of the Asia Society, affirms that Annex V of the 1982 UNCLOS suggests the establishment of a conciliation commission to examine parties’ opinions, claims and arguments, and make recommendations in the hope that the parties concerned will reach an acceptable solution. Organisations that have jurisdiction include the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, an international court, and a normal or special arbitration court. Article 296 of the convention says any decision rendered by a court or tribunal having jurisdiction shall be final and shall be complied with by all the parties to the dispute. Any such decision shall have no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular dispute. It’s worth noting that the aforementioned regulations apply disputes relating to the interpretation and use of the 1982 UNCLOS. In a similar class action lawsuit, the
Murray Hiebert, deputy director of the Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), says the best choice in the long run is to bring the case to the International Court of Justice where both sides have the chance to present their evidence, and the court examines documentations and reaches a verdict. Dr Nguyen Ba Dien, director of the Centre for the Sea and International Marine Law under the Hanoi-based “We have faith in justice, alongside international support. We have sufficient historical evidence and legal foundations to prove our sovereignty over the Paracel,” he says. “Obviously, Addressing the recent 24th ASEAN Summit in Yet, The Paracel is an undisputable part of VOV |
↧
Article 0
↧