Taiwan group insists UN court has no jurisdiction over PHL case vs. China

With the final ruling of the Philippines' case against China over disputed territories South China Sea expected this month, a Taiwanese group issued a statement condemning the Hague Court's pushing of the arbitration case.

"As a national academic organization in the law of the sea field, we have been deeply shocked by the Arbitral Tribunal's acts of pushing forward the arbitration and making the award," the Taiwan-based Chinese Society of the Law of Sea (CSLOS) said in a statement.

The group, which intervened in the arbitral case early May, said it is concerned about the negative impact that the award may have on the international maritime rule of law.

On October 29, 2015, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that it has jurisdiction over seven of the 15 issues raised by the Philippines against China over its excessive claims in the disputed areas of the South China Sea.

The case was filed in January 2013.

"The Philippines initiated the compulsory arbitration procedures by invoking the provisions of Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)," CSLOS said.

With its disapproval of the Hague Court's proceeding of the Philippines' case, the Taiwanese group argued the following:

• The Arbitral Tribunal disregarded basic facts and lopsidedly accepted the Philippines' evidence
• The Arbitral Tribunal obviously erred in its interpretation and application of law, which erodes the authority and integrity of UNCLOS
• The Arbitral Tribunal deprived the parties to the disputes of their right to settle the disputes over maritime delimitation through agreement

The group stressed that the high court disregarded China's historical claims on territorial sovereignty on the disputed waters.

"Without conducting due investigation and verification, the Arbitral Tribunal accepted the one-sided statements and evidence of the Philippines, which led to substantive errors in its determination of facts," the society said.

It asserted that any final award made on the said basis "will be neither convincing nor impartial or valid."

With the Philippines' submissions are in essence on territorial sovereignty, it argued that The Hague court has no jurisdiction over the case.

"The Philippines' submissions are either premised on territorial sovereignty or may have major effects on territorial sovereignty," it noted.

"They are essentially disputes over territorial sovereignty, which are neither regulated by UNCLOS nor applicable to its compulsory arbitration procedures," the society added.

It said islands and reefs shall have no maritime rights when isolated from state sovereignty.

"But the Arbitral Tribunal misinterpreted 'disputes related to maritime delimitation' as 'disputes of maritime delimitation itself,' which greatly narrows the range of excluded matters and runs counter to the meaning of Article 298 of UNCLOS," the CSLOS stressed.

It said that because China and Philippines have overlapping 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zones and continental shelves, a maritime delimitation is necessary.

It argued that Articles 15, 74, and 83 of UNCLOS note that parties with dispute over boundary delimitation should first settle it by agreement.

"Only when the parties cannot settle the dispute themselves and have not excluded third-party mechanisms can they resort to the compulsory dispute settlement procedures," CSLOS said.

China had earlier warned of negative consequences if the Philippines wins the arbitration case in The Hague.

"The arbitration is not by an international court, it's arbitration brought unilaterally by the Philippine government against China but China took the decision not to participate in proceedings," said Chinese vice foreign minister Liu Zhenmin. —John Ted Cordero/ALG, GMA News