Filippinlar Xitoyga qarshi - Philippines v. China

Filippin Respublikasi va Xitoy Xalq Respublikasiga qarshi
Permanent Court of Arbitration - Cour permanente d'arbitrage.svg
SudAn arbitraj sudi 1982 yil VII ilova asosida tuzilgan Birlashgan Millatlar Tashkilotining Dengiz huquqi to'g'risidagi konvensiyasi (UNCLOS)
To'liq ish nomiFilippin Respublikasi va Xitoy Xalq Respublikasi o'rtasidagi Birlashgan Millatlar Tashkilotining 1982 yilgi dengiz huquqi to'g'risidagi konvensiyasiga VII ilovaga muvofiq tuzilgan hakamlik sudi oldidagi arbitraj
Qaror qilindi2016 yil 12-iyul
Sitat (lar)PCA Ish № 2013-19
Transkript (lar)https://pcacases.com/web/view/7
Hukm
  • Xitoyning "to'qqiz chiziq" ga kiradigan dengiz sohilidagi resurslarga tarixiy huquqlarini talab qilishi uchun qonuniy asos yo'q edi.
  • UNCLOS dengiz zonalarini birgalikda birlik sifatida yaratish uchun Spratli orollari kabi bir guruh orollarni nazarda tutmaydi.
  • Xitoy konvensiyadagi majburiyatlarini buzgan edi Dengizdagi to'qnashuvlarning oldini olish bo'yicha xalqaro qoidalar va dengiz xavfsizligi bilan bog'liq UNCLOS-ning 94-moddasi
  • Xitoy kelishuv jarayoni davom etar ekan, nizolarni og'irlashtirmaslik yoki kengaytirmaslik bo'yicha majburiyatlarini buzdi
Sudga a'zolik
O'tirgan sudyalarSud raisi:[1]
Gana Tomas A. Mensah
A'zolar:
Frantsiya Jan-Per Kot
Germaniya Rudiger Volfrum
Gollandiya Alfred H. Soons
Polsha Stanislav Pavlak

Filippinlar Xitoyga qarshi (PCA ish raqami 2013-19), shuningdek Janubiy Xitoy dengizi hakamligi, tomonidan olib borilgan hakamlik ishi edi Filippin Respublikasi qarshi Xitoy Xalq Respublikasi ga VII ilova bo'yicha Birlashgan Millatlar Tashkilotining Dengiz huquqi to'g'risidagi konvensiyasi (UNCLOS) ba'zi masalalarga tegishli Janubiy Xitoy dengizi shu jumladan Xitoyning da'vo qilingan qonuniyligi To'qqiz chiziqli chiziq.[2]

2013 yil 19 fevralda Xitoy hakamlik sudida ishtirok etmasligini e'lon qildi.[3]2014 yil 7 dekabrda, a oq qog'oz o'z pozitsiyasini ishlab chiqish uchun Xitoy tomonidan nashr etilgan.[4][5] 2015 yil 29 oktyabrda arbitraj sudi ish bo'yicha yurisdiksiyaga ega ekanligiga qaror qildi,[6] Filippin tomonidan taqdim etilgan 15 ta taqdimotning ettitasini olib.[7]

2016 yil 12-iyul kuni Doimiy Arbitraj sudi Filippin foydasiga qaror qildi. Unda aniqlik kiritilishicha, u "... quruqlik hududi ustidan suverenitet to'g'risidagi har qanday masalada hukm chiqarmaydi va Tomonlar o'rtasidagi dengiz chegaralarini belgilamaydi".[8][9] Shuningdek, tribunal Xitoyni "to'qqiz chiziq" xaritasi asosida "tarixiy huquqlarga ega emas" deb qaror qildi.[8][9] Xitoy bu kabi qarorni rad etdi Tayvan.[10][11]

Fon

Hududiy da'volar ichida Janubiy Xitoy dengizi
Asosiy maqola: Janubiy Xitoy dengizidagi hududiy nizolar
Shuningdek qarang: To'qqiz chiziqli chiziq

Bahsga bundan keyin ta'sir ko'rsatdi Yaponiya ga bo'lgan barcha da'volardan voz kechdi Spratli orollari va boshqa bosib olingan orollar va hududlar San-Frantsisko shartnomasi va bilan tinchlik shartnomasi Xitoy Respublikasi (Tayvan) 1951 yil 8 sentyabrda imzolangan bo'lib, unda voris davlatlar ko'rsatilmagan[12] chunki San-Frantsiskoda bo'lib o'tgan shartnoma muzokaralariga Xitoy taklif qilinmagan. Bunga javoban, 15 avgust kuni Xitoy hukumati Yaponiya bilan AQSh va Buyuk Britaniyaning tinchlik shartnomasi loyihasi to'g'risida va o'sha paytdagi tashqi ishlar vaziri Chjou Enlayning San-Frantsisko konferentsiyasi to'g'risida deklaratsiyasini e'lon qildi va Xitoyning arxipelaglar ustidan suverenitetini takrorladi. Janubiy Xitoy dengizi, shu jumladan Spratli orollari va loyihada Janubiy Xitoy dengizi orollarini kim egallashi to'g'risida Yaponiyaning ularga bo'lgan barcha huquqlaridan, unvonlaridan va da'vosidan voz kechganidan keyin hech qanday qoidalar yo'qligiga norozilik bildirmoqda. Bu erda "o'sha orollarni Xitoy hukumati egallab olgani" va XXRning qonuniy suvereniteti "buzilmasligini" takrorladi.[13]

1952 yil 28 aprelda AQSh imzolashga raislik qildi Yaponiya va Xitoy Respublikasi o'rtasida tinchlik shartnomasi. Hujjatning 2-moddasida "Yaponiya 1951 yil 8 sentyabrda San-Frantsisko shahrida imzolagan Tinchlik Shartnomasining 2-moddasiga binoan (bundan buyon matnda San-Frantsisko shartnomasi deb yuritiladi) Yaponiya barcha huquqlardan voz kechganligi, unvoni va Tayvanga da'vo (Formosa) va Pengxu (Peskadorlar), shuningdek, Spratli orollari va Parasel orollari. "[13]

The Filippinlar o'z da'vosini Spratli orollariga geografik yaqinligiga asoslaydi.[14]

1956 yil may oyida nizo shundan keyin avj oldi Filippin milliy Tomas Kloma va uning izdoshlari orollarga joylashdilar va bu hududni "Ozodlik" deb e'lon qildilar, endi ular nomi bilan tanilgan Kalayaan o'zi uchun va keyinchalik hududni Filippin protektoratiga aylantirishni so'ragan.[15] Tomas Kloma hatto Taypin orolidan Xitoyning (ROC) davlat bayrog'ini o'g'irlagan. 1956 yil iyul oyida u qilmishi uchun rasman uzr so'radi va u o'g'irlagan bayroqni Xitoyning Maniladagi elchixonasiga topshirdi. 1956 yil 2-oktabrda u xat yozdi va Xitoyning (ROC) hududiy suvlarida qo'shimcha mashg'ulot safarlariga yoki qo'nishlariga yo'l qo'ymasligini ta'minladi.[16]

Filippin qo'shinlari uchta orolga 1968 yilda yuborilgan,[15] Filippin Prezident davrida bo'lganida Ferdinand Markos. 70-yillarda ba'zi davlatlar Spratliyadagi orollar va riflarni bosib olib, egallab olishni boshladilar.[17][18] Spratlys 1978 yilda Palavan provinsiyasining yurisdiksiyasiga berilgan.[15]

The Xitoy Xalq Respublikasi (XXR) Paratsel va Spratli orollariga egalik qilish huquqiga ega ekanligini da'vo qilmoqda, chunki ular Min sulolasi.[14] Xitoy va Tayvan bir xil hududiy da'volarga ega.[14] The Xitoy Respublikasi (Tayvan) eng katta orolni o'z nazoratiga oldi - Taypin oroli - 1946 yildan beri guruhda.[15]

Vetnam dalillar sifatida mulkchilikning tarixiy hujjatlaridan foydalanib, orollar XVII asrdan beri unga tegishli ekanligini ta'kidlamoqda.[14] Xanoy bu davrda eng g'arbiy orollarni egallay boshladi.[14]

1970-yillarning boshlarida, Malayziya eng yaqin orollarni da'vo qilish orqali nizoga qo'shildi.[19]

Bruney shuningdek, uni kengaytirdi eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zona, da'vo qilish Louisa rifi.[19]

Majburiy protsedurani qo'llash uchun ixtiyoriy istisnolar

Konventsiyaning XV qismining 3-bo'limining 298-moddasida 2-bo'limda keltirilgan majburiy protseduralarning tatbiq etilishi bo'yicha ixtiyoriy istisnolar berilgan, Xitoy 2006 yilda Konventsiyaning ushbu qoidasiga binoan deklaratsiyani qabul qildi, unda ko'zda tutilgan protseduralardan birortasini qabul qilmaslik kerak. anjumanning XV qismining 2-qismi. Ko'pgina mamlakatlar, shu jumladan Buyuk Britaniya, Avstraliya, Italiya, Frantsiya, Kanada va Ispaniya shu kabi deklaratsiyalarni turli toifadagi nizolarga nisbatan konventsiyaning XV qismining 2-bo'limlarida ko'zda tutilgan tartiblardan birini rad etish to'g'risida e'lon qilishgan.[20][21] Biroq, Tribunal ushbu nizo 298-moddada nazarda tutilgan istisnolar doirasiga kirmagan deb hisoblaydi va shu sababli qabul qilinadi.[22]

Ishtirokchilar

Hakamlik sudi Filippin va Xitoyni jalb qildi.[23]

Filippin pozitsiyasi

Pedro Murillo Velarde xaritasi, 1774 yil

Filippinlar Xitoyning "to'qqiz nuqta" da'vosi haqiqiy emas deb da'vo qildilar, chunki bu UNCLOS to'g'risidagi shartnomalarni buzmoqda. eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonalar va hududiy dengizlar.[24] Unda aytilishicha, Janubiy Xitoy dengizidagi aksariyat xususiyatlar, masalan, Spratli orollarining aksariyati hayotni saqlab qololmaydi, ularga o'zlarini berish mumkin emas. kontinental tokcha anjumanda belgilanganidek.[25]

Xitoy pozitsiyasi

Map of the South East China
Xitoy to'qqiz nuqta chiziqli da'vo Janubiy Xitoy dengizi ustida, 1947 yil

Xitoy hakamlik sudida ishtirok etishdan bosh tortdi va Filippin bilan tuzilgan bir necha shartnomalarda ikki tomonlama muzokaralardan foydalanib, chegara mojarolarini hal qilish kerakligini ta'kidladi. Shuningdek, u Filippinlarni 2002 yilda Janubiy Xitoy dengizida tomonlarning xulq-atvori to'g'risidagi deklaratsiyasini buzganlikda ayblamoqda. ASEAN va Xitoy, shuningdek, ikki tomonlama muzokaralarni chegara va boshqa nizolarni hal qilish vositasi sifatida belgilagan.[26][27][28] Xitoy 2014 yil dekabr oyida pozitsiya qog'ozini chiqardi, chunki nizo hakamlik sudiga tegishli emas edi, chunki bu oxir-oqibat ekspluatatsiya huquqiga emas, suverenitetga bog'liq edi.[29] Uning rad etilishi PCA sudining ishni ko'rib chiqishiga to'sqinlik qilmadi.[30] Qaror chiqarilgandan so'ng, XXR uni "bekor" deb rad etib, hakamlik sudining qaroriga rioya qilmaslikka qaror qilib, "qarorni e'tiborsiz qoldirishini" aytdi.[31]

Janubiy Xitoy dengizining da'vogarlari

Tayvanning pozitsiyasi

Hakamlik sudi Tayvanni hakamlik sudiga qo'shilishga taklif qilmagan va Tayvan haqida hech qanday fikr olinmagan.[32] Filippinlar buni da'vo qilishdi Taypin oroli toshdir. Bunga javoban,[33] Ma Ying-Tsyu, Xitoy Respublikasi Prezidenti (Tayvan), Filippinning da'vosini "ochiqdan-ochiq yolg'on" deb rad etdi.[34] Tayvan Filippinlarni va beshta hakamni Taypin oroliga tashrif buyurishga taklif qildi; Filippinlar bu taklifni rad etishdi va PCA tribunalidan javob yo'q edi.[35]

Vetnam pozitsiyasi

2014 yil 11 dekabrda Vetnam tribunalga uchta bandni ilgari surgan bayonot berdi: 1) Vetnam ushbu ishning Filippin tomonidan ko'rib chiqilishini qo'llab-quvvatlaydi, 2) Xitoyning "to'qqizta chiziq" ini rad etadi va 3) PCAdan so'raydi. sudi Vetnamning ba'zi orollarga nisbatan da'volarini e'tiborga olish Paratsellar.[36]

Boshqa pozitsiyalar

Bruney o'zining UNCLOS da'vosini hakamlik sudidan oldin oldindan taqdim etish orqali yubordi.[37] 2009 yil may oyida Malayziya va Vetnam, shuningdek, faqatgina Vetnam tomonidan da'vo arizalari berildi Dengiz huquqi bo'yicha xalqaro sud orollarga nisbatan[tushuntirish kerak ]. Bu ularning da'vo qilingan kontinental javonlarini va eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonalarini kengaytirish bilan bog'liq edi. Xitoy Xalq Respublikasi bu da'volarni rad etdi, chunki da'volar "to'qqiz nuqta" ni buzmoqda. Filippinlar Malayziya da'vosiga qarshi da'volar bilan bir-biriga mos kelishini ta'kidladilar Shimoliy Borneo munozarasi.[38]

Indoneziya Xitoyning da'vosiga bu xususiyatlar toshlar va hayotni ta'minlay olmasligini aytib, sharh berdi va xitoyliklarning da'vosini haqiqiy emas deb atadi. Filippinlar Indoneziyaning da'volarini qo'llab-quvvatladilar, shuningdek, orollar geografik yaqinlik orqali ularga tegishli ekanligini ta'kidladilar.[38][39]

Arbitraj

Tribunal 2015 yil 7-dan 13-iyulga qadar yurisdiktsiya va qabul qilinish to'g'risida eshitish chaqirdi, 2015-yil 29-oktabrda yurisdiktsiya va maqbullik to'g'risida mukofot berdi, 2015 yil 24-dan 30-noyabrgacha mohiyat bo'yicha sud majlisini o'tkazdi va 2016-yil 12-iyulda jonsiz mukofot chiqardi. .[40]

Tinglashlar

2015 yil 7-iyulda sud muhokamalari Filippinlar sudidan Xitoyning da'volarini bekor qilishni so'rash bilan boshlandi. Tinglovlarda kuzatuvchilar ham ishtirok etishdi Indoneziya, Yaponiya, Malayziya, Tailand va Vetnam.[6] Ish bilan solishtirildi Nikaragua va Qo'shma Shtatlar ishtirok etgan tomonlarning o'xshashliklari tufayli, a rivojlanayotgan mamlakat qiyin doimiy a'zo ning Birlashgan Millatlar Tashkilotining Xavfsizlik Kengashi hakamlik sudida.[41]

2015 yil 29 oktyabrda PCA sudi ishni ko'rib chiqish huquqiga ega ekanligi to'g'risida qaror chiqardi. Manila tomonidan taqdim etilgan 15 ta taqdimotning ettitasini, xususan, Scarborough Shoal va Mischief Reef kabi past to'lqinli joylarni orol deb hisoblash mumkinmi, deb kelishib olindi. Unda yana yettita da'vo bekor qilindi, asosan Pekni sudning mohiyati bo'yicha keyingi sud majlisida ko'rib chiqilishi uchun qonunga xilof ravishda ish yuritishda ayblashmoqda. Shuningdek, u Manilaga sudyalarning "Xitoy keyingi noqonuniy da'volar va faoliyatdan voz kechishi kerak" degan buyrug'i bo'yicha so'nggi so'rov doirasini qisqartirishni buyurdi.[7]

Hakamlik sudi ishning mohiyati bo'yicha sud majlisini 2015 yil 24-30 noyabr kunlari belgilagan.[42]

Yurisdiktsiya va qabul qilish bo'yicha mukofot

2015 yil 29-oktabrda PCA yurisdiktsiya va maqbullik masalalari bo'yicha tribunal tomonidan mukofotni e'lon qildi[43] ish uchun. Tribunal quyidagi yettita Filippinning arizalarini ko'rib chiqish vakolatiga ega ekanligini aniqladi. (Har bir raqam Filippinlarning taqdim etgan raqamidir.) Sud o'z vakolatlarini ko'rib chiqib, 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12 va 14-sonlarga hukm chiqarishi kerak.

  • №3 Filippinlarning 121-moddasi 3-bandiga binoan Skarboro Shoalni tosh ekanligi haqidagi pozitsiyasi.
  • №4 Filippinning pozitsiya rifi, Ikkinchi Tomas Shoal va Subi rifi dengiz sathidan foydalanish huquqini keltirib chiqarmaydigan balandliklar.
  • №6. Gaven rifi va McKennan rifi (shu jumladan Xyuz rifi) balandliklar "o'zlari uchun dengiz huquqlarini yaratmaydigan" balandliklar.
  • №7 Jonson rifi, Kuarteron rifi va Fiery Cross rifi eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonaga yoki kontinental shelfga huquq yaratadimi yoki yo'qmi.
  • №10 "Xitoy Filippin baliqchilariga noqonuniy ravishda Scarborough Shoal hududiy dengizida an'anaviy baliq ovlash faoliyatini amalga oshirishga to'sqinlik qilganligi sababli".
  • №11 "Xitoyning ushbu ikkita sholda dengiz muhitini himoya qilish va saqlashda muvaffaqiyatsizligi [Skarboro Shoal va Ikkinchi Tomas Shoal]".
  • 13-sonli Filippinlarning Xitoyning "dengizda to'qnashuvlarning oldini olish bo'yicha xalqaro qoidalar to'g'risidagi konvensiyani buzganligi va shuningdek UNCLOS-ni buzganligi" kabi Xitoyning "huquqni muhofaza qilish faoliyatiga" qarshi noroziligi.

Sud sud mukofotida Filippindan kelgan 15 ta taqdimotning barchasida tortishuvlar davom etayotganini aytdi,[43] ammo №3, №4, №6 va №7 kabi arizalar uchun ushbu hakamlik sudi boshlanishidan oldin Filippindan hech qanday ma'lum da'volar mavjud emas va Xitoy bundan xabardor emas (bundan oldin ham qarshi bo'lmagan) hakamlik muhokamasi boshlanishidan oldin da'volar. 8-sondan 14-gacha bo'lgan arizalar uchun tribunal Xitoyning Janubiy Xitoy dengizidagi dengizchilik faoliyatining qonuniyligi suverenitet bilan bog'liq emas degan fikrda edi.

Mukofot

2016 yil 12 iyulda Doimiy arbitraj sudi an hakamlik qarori Konvensiyada ko'rsatilgan yakuniy va majburiy bo'lgan sud tomonidan belgilangan.[31][44] Mukofotda ko'rsatilgan xulosalar quyidagilarni o'z ichiga olgan:

"To'qqiz chiziqli chiziq" va Xitoyning Janubiy Xitoy dengizidagi dengiz sohalaridagi da'vosi haqida[45]
  • [UNCLOS] Konvensiyasi Janubiy Xitoy dengizidagi dengiz huquqlari doirasini belgilaydi, bu ular ichida belgilangan chegaralardan tashqariga chiqmasligi mumkin.[46]
  • Xitoyning Janubiy Xitoy dengizining "to'qqiz chiziq" ning tegishli qismi bilan qoplangan dengiz sohillariga nisbatan tarixiy huquqlarga yoki boshqa suveren huquqlarga yoki yurisdiktsiyaga bo'lgan da'volari Konvensiyaga zid va shu darajada qonuniy ta'sir ko'rsatmasdan. ular Konvensiyaga muvofiq Xitoyning dengiz huquqlarining geografik va moddiy chegaralaridan oshib ketadi. Konventsiya har qanday tarixiy huquqlarni yoki boshqa suveren huquqlarni yoki yurisdiksiyani ularda belgilangan chegaralardan oshib ketdi.[47]
Yuqori to'lqinda suvning yuqorisida / pastida bo'lgan holatlarning holati to'g'risida (4 va 6-sonli taqdimotlar)
  • Yuqori oqim xususiyatlari: (a) Scarborough Shoal, (b) Cuarteron rifi, (c) Olovli xoch rifi, (d) Jonson rifi, (e) McKennan rifi va (f) Gaven rifi (Shimoliy).[48]
  • Past darajadagi balandliklar: (a) Xyuz Rifi, (b) Gaven rifi (Janubiy), (c) Subi rifi, (d) Buzuqlik rifi, (e) Ikkinchi Tomas Shoal.[49]
  • Xyuz Rifi McKennan rifi va Sin Cowe orolidagi yuqori to'lqin xususiyatlaridan 12 dengiz milida, Gaven rifi (Janubiy) Gaven rifi (Shimoliy) va Namyit orolida va Subi orolidagi baland dengiz xususiyatlaridan 12 dengiz milida joylashgan. Rif Titi shahrining g'arbiy qismidagi riflardagi Sendi Keyning yuqori oqim xususiyatidan 12 dengiz milida joylashgan.[50]
Xususiyatlarning tog 'jinslari / orollar holati to'g'risida (3, 5 va 7-sonli taqdimotlar)
  • Skarboro Shoal, Konventsiyaning 121-moddasi 1-qismiga binoan, tabiiy ravishda shakllangan erlarni, suv bilan o'ralgan va suv sathidan yuqori bo'lgan joylarni o'z ichiga oladi. Biroq, Konventsiyaning 121-moddasi 3-qismiga binoan, Skarboro Shoalidagi yuqori to'lqinli xususiyatlar odamlarning yashash joylarini yoki o'zlarining iqtisodiy hayotlarini ta'minlay olmaydigan jinslardir va shunga muvofiq eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonaga yoki qit'a tokchasiga ega bo'lmaydi.[51]
  • Jonson rifi, Kuarteron rifi va Olovli xoch rifi Konventsiyaning 121-moddasi 1-qismiga binoan tabiiy ravishda shakllangan quruqlik maydonlarini o'z ichiga oladi, ular suv bilan o'ralgan bo'lib, ular suv oqimining yuqori qismida joylashgan. Shu bilan birga, Konventsiyaning 121-moddasi 3-bandi uchun Jonson rifi, Kuarteron rifi va Olovli xoch rifidagi yuqori to'lqinli xususiyatlar - bu odamlar yashaydigan joyni yoki o'zlarining iqtisodiy hayotini ta'minlay olmaydigan toshlardir va shunga muvofiq eksklyuziv iqtisodiy xususiyatlarga ega bo'lmaydi. zona yoki kontinental tokcha.[52]
  • Gaven rifi (Shimoliy) va McKennan rifidagi baland to'lqin xususiyatlari - bu odamlar yashaydigan joyni yoki o'zlarining iqtisodiy hayotini ta'minlay olmaydigan jinslardir va shunga ko'ra eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zona yoki qit'a shelfiga ega bo'lmaydi.[53]
  • Musibat rifi va Ikkinchi Tomas Shoal - bu dengiz oqimining balandligi, ular dengiz zonalarini yaratmaydilar [va] Spratli orollaridagi baland oqim xususiyatlarining hech biri odam yashaydigan joyni yoki o'zlarining iqtisodiy hayotini saqlab turishga qodir emas. Konventsiyaning 121-moddasi 3-qismidagi ushbu atamalarning ma'nosi. Shuning uchun Spratli orollaridagi barcha to'lqinli xususiyatlar 121 (3) -modda uchun qonuniy jinslardir va eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonaga yoki kontinental shelfga huquq yaratmaydi. Shunga ko'ra, Xitoy tomonidan Mischief rifi yoki Second Tomas Shoal hududidagi biron bir dengiz zonasiga kirish huquqi mavjud emas va tribunal tomonidan Filippinning 5-sonli taqdimnomasini ko'rib chiqish uchun yurisdiktsion to'siq yo'q.[54]
  • Mischief rifi va Second Tomas Shoal Filippinning Palawan orolidagi qirg'og'idan 200 dengiz milida joylashgan bo'lib, Xitoy tomonidan da'vo qilingan har qanday dengiz xususiyati tomonidan yaratilgan huquqlar bilan qoplanmagan joyda joylashgan. Demak, Filippin va Xitoy o'rtasida bo'lgani kabi, Mischief Rif va Second Tomas Shoal ham Filippinning eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonasi va kontinental shelfining bir qismini tashkil qiladi.[55]
Filippinlarning EEZ va kontinental shelfdagi suveren huquqlariga da'vo qilingan aralashuvi to'g'risida (Taqdimot raqami 8).
  • Xitoy 2011 yil 1 - 2 mart kunlari M / V Veritas Voyagerga nisbatan dengiz kuzatuv kemalarini ekspluatatsiya qilish orqali Konvensiyaning 77-moddasini Filippinning o'zining kontinental shelfidagi tirik bo'lmagan resurslarga nisbatan suveren huquqlariga nisbatan buzdi. Reid Bank (va) Xitoyning 2012 yil Janubiy Xitoy dengizida baliq ovlashga moratoriy e'lon qilishi bilan, Janubiy Xitoy dengizining Filippinning eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonasiga kiradigan hududlari bundan mustasno va xitoyliklarga moratoriyni cheklamagan holda. Filippinlarning eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonasining yashash resurslariga nisbatan suveren huquqlariga nisbatan Konvensiyaning 56-moddasini buzgan bayroqli kemalar.[56]
Xitoyliklarning Filippinning hayotiy resurslaridan foydalanishiga to'sqinlik qilmaganligi to'g'risida (9-topshiriq).
  • Xitoy 2013 yil may oyida Mischief Reef va Second Tomas Shoal-da Xitoy bayrog'li kemalari tomonidan baliq ovlanishiga yo'l qo'ymaslik uchun toqat qilish va kerakli harakatlarni bajarmaslik kabi dengiz kuzatuv kemalarining ishlashi natijasida Filippinning suveren huquqlariga hurmat bilan munosabatda bo'lmadi. uning eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonasida baliqchilikka. Shunga ko'ra, Xitoy Konvensiyaning 58-moddasi 3-qismiga binoan o'z majburiyatlarini buzdi.[57]
Xitoyning Skarboro Shoalda an'anaviy baliq ovlash bo'yicha harakatlari to'g'risida (Taqdimot raqami 10).
  • 2012 yil may oyidan boshlab Xitoy o'zining rasmiy kemalarini Skarboro Shoalida ekspluatatsiya qilish orqali Filippin baliqchilarining Skarboro Shoalida an'anaviy baliq ovi bilan shug'ullanishini noqonuniy ravishda oldini oldi.[58]
Dengiz muhitini muhofaza qilish va saqlashda ayblanmagan muvaffaqiyatsizlikka oid (11 va 12 (B)-sonli taqdimotlar)
  • Xitoy Skarboro Shoal, Ikkinchi Tomas Shoal va Spratli orollaridagi boshqa xususiyatlarga ega bo'lgan xavf ostida bo'lgan baliqlarni yig'ib olish bilan shug'ullanadigan xitoylik baliq ovlash kemalariga toqat qilish va ularni muhofaza qilish va oldini olish orqali, 192 va 194 (5) moddalarini buzgan. Konventsiya.[59]
  • Xitoy Kuarteron rifida, Olovli xoch rifida, Gaven rifida (Shimoliy), Jonson rifida, Xyuz rifida, Subi rifida va yaramaslik rifida orollarni qurish faoliyati bilan 192, 194 (1), 194 (5), 197 moddalarini buzgan. Konventsiyaning 123 va 206-moddalari.[60]
Mischief Reef-dagi kasb-hunar va qurilish ishlari to'g'risida (12-sonli taqdimot)
  • Xitoy Filippinning ruxsatisiz Mischief rifidagi inshootlar va sun'iy orollarni qurish orqali Filippinning o'z eksklyuziv iqtisodiy zonasi va kontinental shelfidagi suveren huquqlariga nisbatan Konvensiyaning 60 va 80-moddalarini buzgan [va], Balandlik balandligi, Mischief Reef o'zlashtirishga qodir emas.[61]
Huquqni muhofaza qilish kemalarining xavfli usulda ishlashi to'g'risida (13-sonli taqdimot)
  • Xitoy, huquqni muhofaza qilish kemalarining Skarboro Shoal atrofida yurishi tufayli Filippin kemalari va shaxsiy tarkibiga jiddiy to'qnashuv va xavf tug'dirdi. Tribunal Xitoyni COLREGSning 2, 6, 7, 8, 15 va 16 qoidalarini buzgan deb topadi va natijada Konvensiyaning 94-moddasini buzgan deb hisoblaydi.[62]
Tomonlar o'rtasidagi kelishmovchilikning kuchayishi yoki uzaytirilishi to'g'risida (taqdimnoma № 14)
  • Xitoy ushbu protsesslar jarayonida Tomonlar o'rtasidagi nizolarni chuqurlashtirish, sun'iy orol qurish va qurilish faoliyati orqali [mukofotda ko'rsatilgan bir necha jihatlarga ko'ra] og'irlashtirdi va kengaytirdi.[63]
Tomonlarning kelajakdagi xatti-harakatlari to'g'risida (15-sonli taqdimot)
  • Ikkala Tomon ham Konventsiyaga, shu jumladan nizolarni hal etishga oid qoidalariga rioya qilishlari va boshqa davlatlarning Konventsiyaga muvofiq huquqlari va erkinliklarini hurmat qilishlari shart. Ikkala tomon ham bunga qarshi chiqmaydi.[64]

Xronologiya

  • 2013 yil 22 yanvar - Filippinlar Xitoyga xabarnoma va da'vo arizasi bilan xizmat qilishdi[65]
  • 2013 yil 19 fevral - Xitoy Filippinning xabarnomasini rad etdi
  • 2013 yil 11-iyul - Hakamlik sudining Gaagadagi birinchi yig'ilishi
  • 2013 yil 31 iyul - Filippinlar Tribunal protsedura qoidalari loyihasini sharhlab berishdi
  • 2013 yil 1-avgust - Xitoy "Filippinlar tomonidan boshlangan hakamlik sudini qabul qilmasligini" ta'kidladi
  • 2013 yil 27 avgust - hakamlik sudi nomidan PCA Press-relizi orqali chiqarilgan 1-sonli protsessual buyruq[66]
  • 2014 yil 30 mart - Filippin yodgorligini topshirish
  • 2014 yilning 14-15 may kunlari - Hakamlik sudining Gaagadagi ikkinchi yig'ilishi
  • 2014 yil 21 may - Xitoy 2-sonli protsessual buyruq loyihasini sharhlab, "u Filippin tomonidan boshlangan hakamlik sudini qabul qilmasligini" ta'kidlamoqda.
  • 2014 yil 29-may - Filippinlar 2-sonli protsessual buyruq loyihasiga izoh berishdi
  • 2014 yil 3 iyun - hakamlik sudi nomidan PCA Press-relizi orqali chiqarilgan 2-sonli protsessual buyruq[67]
  • 2014 yil 15-dekabr - Xitoy Counter-Memorial-ni taqdim etmadi[68]
  • 2014 yil 17 dekabr - hakamlik sudi nomidan PCA Press-relizi orqali chiqarilgan 3-sonli protsessual buyruq[68]
  • 2015 yil 16 mart - Filippinlar Arbitraj sudiga qo'shimcha yozma ariza taqdim etishdi[69]
  • 2015 yil 20-21 aprel - Hakamlik sudining Gaagadagi uchinchi yig'ilishi[69]
  • 2015 yil 22 aprel - hakamlik sudi nomidan PCA Press-relizi orqali chiqarilgan 4-sonli protsessual buyruq[69]
  • 2015 yil 7-13 iyul - Gaagadagi hakamlik sudining eshituvi[70][71]
  • 2015 yil 29 oktyabr - PCA yurisdiktsiya va qabul qilish bo'yicha mukofot berdi[43]
  • 2016 yil 12 iyul - PCA tribunali Xitoyning qonuniy asoslari yoki tarixiy da'volari yo'qligi to'g'risida hukm chiqardi. To'qqiz chiziqli chiziq. Shunga qaramay, Xitoy sud qarorini rad etdi barchasi millatlar "xalqaro qonunlarni hurmat qilishlari" kerak.[10]

Xalqaro reaktsiyalar

Qarordan oldin

Filippinning Janubiy Xitoy dengizi bilan bog'liq mojaroni Doimiy Arbitraj sudiga etkazish harakatini qo'llab-quvvatlashi yoki qarshi chiqishini bildirgan mamlakatlar va ko'p millatli tashkilotlar mavjud. Biroq, ushbu sub'ektlar sud tomonidan ta'sirlangan bahsli maydonga egalik qilish to'g'risida gap ketganda, har ikki tomonni ham qo'llab-quvvatlamasligi mumkin.

Milliy hukumatlar

Arbitrajni qo'llab-quvvatlash / XXR da'vosini rad etish
Arbitrajga qarshi
Arbitrajga nisbatan pozitsiyani ommaviy tasdiqlash yo'q

ASEAN

Janubiy Xitoy dengizida hududiy da'volarga ega bo'lgan Malayziya va Vetnam, shuningdek Avstraliya, Indoneziya, Yaponiya, Singapur va Tailand sud jarayoniga kuzatuvchilarni yuborishdi.[95][96]

2016 yil iyun oyida, sud o'z qarorini chiqarishidan oldin, Malayziya tashqi ishlar vazirligi ASEANning Janubiy Xitoy dengizidagi meliorativ ishlar bo'yicha "jiddiy tashvish" bildirgan qo'shma bayonoti deb e'lon qildi. Bayonot chiqarilgandan bir necha soat o'tgach, Malayziya ASEAN ushbu bayonotni "shoshilinch tuzatishlar" uchun qaytarib olishni xohlashini e'lon qildi. Keyinchalik Malayziya Tashqi ishlar vazirligi bosh kotibi Usmon Xoshim ASEAN tashqi ishlar vazirlari yig'ilishda ushbu bayonotga "bir ovozdan rozi" bo'lganligini va "OAV bayonotiga oid keyingi o'zgarishlar ASEAN tashqi ishlar vazirlari ketganidan keyin sodir bo'lgan" deb da'vo qildi.[97]

Keyinchalik Kambodja Bosh vaziri Xun Sen nutq so'zlab, Kambodjaning Xitoyni xursand qilish uchun bu bayonotni qaytarib olganligi haqidagi xabarlarni qoraladi va "Kambodja Janubiy Xitoy dengizi masalasida hech kimning qo'g'irchog'iga aylanmaydi" deb aytdi.[98] Hun Sen bu ishni "siyosiy fitna" ekanligini va "adolatli bo'lmaydi" degan hukmni ilgari surdi,[99] shuningdek, "Kambodja bu masalada faqat betaraf bo'lishni tanlaydi", dedi.[98] Hun Sen nutqidan bir necha kun o'tib, Xun Sen boshchiligidagi Kambodja Xalq partiyasi uni qo'llab-quvvatlovchi bayonot berdi. Bayonotga ko'ra, "KXDR Kambodjada yaqinda Kunmingda ham, 2012 yilda ham Janubiy Xitoy dengizi masalasi bo'yicha Aseanning qo'shma bayonotini chiqarganligi haqidagi adolatsiz ayblovlarni rad etishni istaydi".[100]

9 iyul kuni, tribunal o'z hukmini chiqarishidan sal oldin, Kambodja tashqi ishlar vazirligi Kambodja sud hukmi bo'yicha biron bir ASEAN bayonotiga qo'shilmasligini yana bir bor e'lon qildi.[101]

Avstraliya

Avstraliya bu masala bo'yicha tribunalning qaroriga hurmat ko'rsatilishi kerakligini aytishdan boshqa jamoat pozitsiyasini olishga intilmagan.[102][103] Ammo Avstraliya Filippinning hakamlik sudiga murojaat qilish huquqini tan oldi.[75]

Yevropa Ittifoqi

Evropa Ittifoqi barcha tomonlarni xalqaro huquqqa, xususan BMTning Dengiz huquqi to'g'risidagi konventsiyasiga muvofiq, dialog va hamkorlik orqali tinch echimlarni izlashga undaydi.[104] Evropa Ittifoqining tashqi aloqalari "Da'volar bo'yicha pozitsiyani egallamasligimiz bilan, Evropa Ittifoqi xalqaro huquq tamoyillariga, xususan Birlashgan Millatlar Tashkilotining dengiz huquqi to'g'risidagi konvensiyasida aks ettirilgan dengiz tartibiga sodiqdir. (UNCLOS), ".[105] Keyinchalik Evropa Ittifoqi Xitoy Gaaga qarorini hurmat qilishi kerakligini ta'kidladi.[106]

Etti guruh

7-guruh (Kanada, Frantsiya, Germaniya, Italiya, Yaponiya, Buyuk Britaniya va Qo'shma Shtatlar hamda Evropa Ittifoqining vakolatxonasi) blok Xitoyning bir-birini takrorlab turgan da'volariga "aniq signal" berishi kerakligi to'g'risida bayonot berdi. .[107]Evropa Kengashi Prezidenti Donald Tusk Ise-Shima sammiti chog'ida blok Xitoyning bahsli dengiz da'volariga nisbatan "aniq va qat'iy pozitsiyani" olishi kerakligini aytdi.[108]

Hindiston

2015 yil avgust oyida kichik Davlat vaziri Hindiston, V K Singh, hududiy kelishmovchiliklar Hindiston va Bangladesh tomonidan UNCLOS tomonidan taqdim etilgan mexanizmlardan foydalangan holda tinch yo'llar bilan hal etilishi va tomonlar Janubiy Xitoy dengizidagi Tomonlarning xulq-atvor deklaratsiyasiga rioya qilishlari kerakligini aytdi.[109] 2015 yil oktyabr oyida Hindiston tashqi ishlar vaziri Sushma Svaraj qo'shma bayonotida Hindiston nizoni tinch yo'l bilan hal qilishni qo'llab-quvvatlashini ta'kidladi. Tinchlik vositalaridan xalqaro huquq, shu jumladan UNCLOS printsiplariga muvofiq foydalanish kerak. 2016 yil aprel oyida tashqi ishlar vaziri Sushma Svaraj kommyunikedagi bayonotida Rossiya, Hindiston va Xitoy xalqaro huquqqa, shu jumladan UNCLOSga asoslangan dengizlarning huquqiy tartibini saqlashga kelishib olganini va barcha tegishli nizolar manfaatdor tomonlar o'rtasidagi muzokaralar va kelishuvlar orqali hal qilinishi kerakligini aytdi.[110]

Yangi Zelandiya

Yangi Zelandiya tashqi ishlar kotibi nutqida Yangi Zelandiya Janubiy Xitoy dengizidagi nizolar bo'yicha hakamlik sudiga murojaat qilish huquqini qo'llab-quvvatlashini ta'kidladi.[87]

Shimoliy Atlantika Shartnomasi Tashkiloti

NATO generali Petr Pavelning aytishicha, NATOning Janubiy Xitoy dengizidagi hududiy nizolarga harbiy aralashish uchun "qonuniy platformasi yo'q" va NATO boshqa mintaqadagi masalalarga aralashmaydi. NATO siyosiy va diplomatik muzokaralar, "qoidalarga asoslangan xalqaro tizim" va kelishmovchiliklarni hal qilishning tinch yo'llariga asoslangan har qanday mintaqaviy echimlarni qo'llab-quvvatlaydi.[111][79]

Xitoy Xalq Respublikasi

2016 yil may oyida Xitoy Tashqi ishlar vazirligi vakili Xua Chunying Xitoyning pozitsiyasini qo'llab-quvvatlashini bildirgan 40 dan ortiq davlat borligini aytdi.[112] 2016 yil iyun oyida 60 ga yaqin davlat Xitoyning pozitsiyasini qo'llab-quvvatlaganligi haqida xabar berilgan edi. 2016 yil iyul oyida 70 dan ortiq mamlakat Xitoyning pozitsiyasini qo'llab-quvvatlashini bildirgani haqida xabar berilgan edi.[113][114] Xitoy 7 yoki 8 mamlakat xalqaro jamiyatni namoyish eta olmasligini ta'kidladi.[115]

2016 yil 13-aprel kuni Xitoy tashqi ishlar vazirining qo'shma press-relizi Vang Yi va Fijian tashqi ishlar vaziri Inoke Kubuabola nashr etildi. Press-relizda aytilishicha, Fidji Xitoyning taklifini qo'llab-quvvatlagan, ikkala davlat ham suverenitet va dengiz huquqlari uchun tomonlar tinchlik yo'lida qaror topishi va konvensiyaning ixtiyoriy istisnolariga rioya qilinishi kerak.[116] Ertasi kuni Fijiya hukumati bayonot chiqarib, qo'shma press-relizda Fijiya siyosati noto'g'ri tasvirlangan va Fijiya hukumati Xitoyning taklifini qo'llab-quvvatlamaydi.[117]

Shanxay hamkorlik tashkiloti

Ning bayonotida Shanxay hamkorlik tashkiloti Bosh kotib Rashid Olimov Janubiy Xitoy dengizi masalasida, ShHTning barcha davlatlari rozi bo'lishdi va Xitoyning Janubiy Xitoy dengizida tinchlik va barqarorlikni saqlashga qaratilgan sa'y-harakatlarini qo'llab-quvvatladilar. To'g'ridan-to'g'ri manfaatdor davlatlar kelishmovchiliklarni barcha ikki tomonlama shartnomalar va Janubiy Xitoy dengizida tomonlarning xulq-atvori to'g'risidagi deklaratsiyaga (DOC) muvofiq muzokaralar va maslahatlashuvlar yo'li bilan hal qilishlari kerak. U har bir suveren davlatning nizolarni hal qilish usullarini o'zi hal qilish huquqini hurmat qilishga chaqirdi va Janubiy Xitoy dengizi muammosiga begonalarning aralashishiga hamda nizoni xalqaro miqyosda olib borishga urinishlariga qat'iy qarshi chiqdi.[118]

Janubiy Koreya

2015 yil davomida Sharqiy Osiyo sammiti, Janubiy Koreya Prezidenti Park Kin Xe manfaatdor tomonlar Janubiy Xitoy dengizida Tomonlarning xulq-atvori to'g'risidagi deklaratsiyaga rioya qilishlari va kelishmovchiliklar xalqaro qonunchilikka muvofiq hal qilinishi kerakligini ta'kidladilar. "Koreya doimiy ravishda nizo xalqaro kelishuvlar va odob-axloq qoidalariga muvofiq tinch yo'l bilan hal qilinishi kerakligini ta'kidladi" va "Xitoy erkin navigatsiya va parvoz huquqini kafolatlashi kerak.[119][120] The Asaxi Shimbun Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari sud qaroridan oldin hakamlik ishi bo'yicha o'z pozitsiyasini bildirish uchun Janubiy Koreyaga norasmiy ravishda murojaat qilgan, ammo xabarlarga ko'ra Janubiy Koreya sud qaroridan oldin o'z pozitsiyasini qiyinlashtirganini aytib, rad javobini bergan.[121]

Qarordan keyin

Milliy hukumatlar

Qo'llab-quvvatlanadigan qarorga rioya qilish talab qilinmasdan qarorni hurmat qilish yoki ijobiy tan olish
Neytral pozitsiya
Qarama-qarshi qaror

Milliy hukumatlarning bayonotlari

  •  Avstraliya: 2016 yil 15-iyul kuni avstraliyalik Mudofaa vaziri, Maris Peyn va Tashqi ishlar vaziri, Julie Bishop, qarorni "yakuniy va majburiy" deb hisoblashlarini ta'kidladilar va nizoga aloqador barcha tomonlarni "ajrimga rioya qilishga" chaqirdi. Vazirlar, shuningdek, sud qarorini Avstraliyaning bu boradagi pozitsiyasiga "mos" deb ta'rifladilar.[144]
  •  Kanada: 2016 yil 21 iyulda kanadalik Tashqi ishlar vaziri, Stefan Dion "Qarorga rozi bo'lgan yoki kelmaganidan qat'i nazar, Kanada taraflar unga rioya qilishlari kerak, deb hisoblaydi. Barcha tomonlar ushbu imkoniyatdan xalqaro qonunchilikka binoan o'z nizolarini tinch yo'l bilan boshqarish va hal qilish bo'yicha yangi sa'y-harakatlar uchun qadam sifatida foydalanishlari kerak.[125] Dion Kanadaning "xalqaro huquqni saqlash va xalqaro qoidalarga asoslangan tartib okeanlar va dengizlar uchun "nizoni hal qilish uchun.[145] Shuningdek, u qo'shimcha qildi: "Biz bir necha yildan buyon kuchayib borayotgan va tinchlik va barqarorlikka putur etkazishi mumkin bo'lgan mintaqaviy ziddiyatlardan qattiq xavotirdamiz. Mintaqadagi barcha davlatlar o'zlarini tutib, majburlash va keskinlashadigan harakatlardan saqlanishlari shart. kuchlanish ".[145]
  •  Xitoy: 2016 yil 12 iyulda Xitoy qarorni qabul qilmasligini bildirdi.[10] According to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it states "With regard to the award rendered on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the unilateral request of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Tribunal"), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognises it."[139] Si Tszinpin, birinchi darajali rahbar of China stated that China's "territorial sovereignty and marine rights" in the seas would not be affected by the ruling.[10] As well, he stated that China was still committed to resolving the dispute with its neighbours.[10]
  •  Hindiston: On 12 July 2016, Indian ministry of external affairs stated that the country supports freedom of navigation, and urged all parties to demonstrate an utmost respect for the UNCLOS.[146]
  •  Indoneziya: On 13 July 2016, Indonesia called on all parties involved in the territorial dispute to exercise self-restraint and to respect applicable international laws.[147]
  •  Yaponiya: On 16 July 2016, Japan stated that the arbitration court's ruling "is legally binding and must be respected by all parties," thus urged Beijing to respect and comply the ruling.[148]
  •  Malayziya: On 13 July 2016, Malaysia called for parties involved to exercise self-restraint to avoid escalating tension. The country Foreign Ministry said in a statement that "It is important to maintain peace, security and stability through the exercise of self-restraint in the conduct of activities that may further complicate disputes or escalate tension and avoid the threat or use of force in the South China Sea".[149]
  •  Singapur: On 12 July 2016, Singapore urged that all parties involved in the South China Sea dispute to respect the legal and diplomatic processes.[150]
  •  Janubiy Koreya: On 13 July 2016, South Korea stated that the country supports freedom of navigation and overflight in South China Sea, and support the peaceful means in resolving dispute according to international law.[151]
  •  Vetnam: On 12 July 2016, Vietnam immediately welcomed the arbitration tribunal ruling, thus announced that the country supports peace and order, also freedom of navigation and overflight in the region.[152]

Birlashgan Millatlar

The United Nations says it has no position regarding either legal merits or procedural merits of the case.[153][154]The UN's Xalqaro sud says it has no involvement in the case either.[155]

ASEAN

On 25 July 2016, in Vientiane, Laos, ASEAN issued the joint statement regarding the South China Sea disputeː ensure and promote the peace, stability, and security in the region.[135]

The 36th ASEAN Summit was held virtually on 26 June 2020. Vietnam, as the Chairman of the Summit, released the Chairman's Statement. The Statement said the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is “the basis for determining maritime entitlements, sovereign rights, jurisdiction and legitimate interests over maritime zones, and the 1982 UNCLOS sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out.”[156]

Other reactions

The ruling was followed on 29 July by derogatory messages against the Philippines and Vietnam posted on Vietnamese computer systems by self-proclaimed Chinese hackers.[157]

In August 2016 hackers linked to the Chinese government infiltrated and extracted confidential information from the Philippines' Department of Justice and the international legal firm which had represented the Philippines at the Hague. Related attacks also occurred in July 2016.[158]

The Asia correspondent of Globe and Mail feels that the Filippinlar have not enforced the international court judgment over the South China Sea because of massive investment and aid from China into the Philippines after the judgment was released.[159] It was remarked by Jastin Tryudo a 2019 election leadership debate that the pacification was accomplished through the Chinese-led Osiyo infratuzilmasi investitsiya banki.[160]

On 22 September 2020, in UN Speech, the Philippine President, Rodrigo Duterte reaffirmed the Hague ruling rejecting most of China's claims to disputed waters, and said “The award is now part of international law, beyond compromise and beyond the reach of passing governments to dilute, diminish, or abandon.” [161]

Shuningdek qarang

Adabiyotlar

  1. ^ "The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China". Permanent Court of Arbitration. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 26 April 2016.
  2. ^ "Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China". Permanent Court of Arbitration. 2015 yil 15 oktyabr. Olingan 13 yanvar 2017.
  3. ^ "PHL PRC China Note Verbale".
  4. ^ Chinese Society of International Law. The Tribunal's Award in the "South China Sea Arbitration" Initiated by the Philippines Is Null and Void (Hisobot).
  5. ^ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines (Hisobot).
  6. ^ a b "Philippines asks tribunal to invalidate China's sea claims". Filippin yulduzi. Associated Press. 2015. Arxivlangan asl nusxasi 2016 yil 12 oktyabrda. Olingan 17 iyul 2016.CS1 maint: ref = harv (havola)
  7. ^ a b "World tribunal to hear South China Sea case". Bangkok Post. 30 October 2015.
  8. ^ a b "PCA Press Release: The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China) | PCA-CPA". pca-cpa.org. Olingan 12 iyul 2016.
  9. ^ a b Perlez, Jane (12 July 2016). "Tribunal Rejects Beijing's Claims in South China Sea". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331. Olingan 12 iyul 2016.
  10. ^ a b v d e Phillips, Tom; Holmes, Oliver; Bowcott, Owen (12 July 2016). "Beijing rejects tribunal's ruling in South China Sea case". The Guardian. Olingan 26 iyul 2016.
  11. ^ Zannia, Neyla (14 July 2016). "Taiwan rejects ruling on South China Sea with Taiping Island defined as 'rocks'". The Online Citizen. Olingan 26 iyul 2016.
  12. ^ "Treaty of Peace with Japan". Taiwan Documents Project. 2013 yil. Olingan 19 noyabr 2013.CS1 maint: ref = harv (havola) See also: United Nations Treaty Series 1952 (reg. no. 1832), vol. 136, pp. 45–164.
  13. ^ a b Ying, Fu; Wu, Shicun (2016). "South China Sea: How We Got to This Stage".
  14. ^ a b v d e "Q&A: South China Sea dispute". BBC Yangiliklar. 15 May 2013. Olingan 19 noyabr 2013.
  15. ^ a b v d "Spratly Islands Conflicting Claims". Global Security. 2013 yil. Olingan 19 noyabr 2013.CS1 maint: ref = harv (havola)
  16. ^ Fu, Kuen-Chen. South China Sea: Conflict Or Cooperation?.[time needed ]
  17. ^ "China Voice: South China Sea arbitration lacks legal basis". Sinxua.
  18. ^ "Wang Yi on the South China Sea Issue at the ASEAN Regional Forum".
  19. ^ a b Valencia, Mark J.; Van Dyke, Jon M.; Ludwig, Noel A. (1999). Sharing the Resources of the South China Sea. Gavayi universiteti matbuoti. 36-38 betlar. ISBN  9780824818814.
  20. ^ "Declarations or Statements upon UNCLOS ratification".
  21. ^ "Stop meddling in South China Sea dispute, Chinese diplomat demands". Sinxua.
  22. ^ "Press release: The South China Sea Arbitration" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi (PDF) on 12 July 2016. Olingan 14 iyun 2020. The Tribunal concluded that Article 298 did not pose an obstacle to its jurisdiction.
  23. ^ "Culture and Human Rights: Why the Tribunal Dealing with the South China Sea Dispute Should Step Aside to Make Way for a Negotiated Settlement". 15 May 2016.
  24. ^ "The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China". Doimiy Arbitraj sudi. Olingan 24 oktyabr 2013.
  25. ^ Del Cappar, Michaela (25 April 2013). "ITLOS completes five-man tribunal that will hear PHL case vs. China". GMA News One. Olingan 24 oktyabr 2013.
  26. ^ Torode, Greg (27 September 2013). "Philippines South China Sea legal case against China gathers pace". Reuters. Olingan 24 oktyabr 2013.
  27. ^ "China rejects arbitration on disputed islands in S.China Sea CCTV News – CNTV English". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2013 yil 29 oktyabrda. Olingan 24 oktyabr 2013.
  28. ^ "DECLARATION ON THE CONDUCT OF PARTIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA". Janubi-Sharqiy Osiyo xalqlari assotsiatsiyasi. 14 May 2012. Olingan 14 fevral 2016.
  29. ^ Ben Blanchard (24 July 2015),China also says U.S. is trying to influence Philippines' sea case Reuters.
  30. ^ Peterson, Luke Eric (28 August 2013). "Philippines-China UNCLOS arbitration moving forward without Chinese participation". Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Olingan 24 oktyabr 2013.
  31. ^ a b Harvey, Adam (13 July 2016). "Philippines celebrates victory in South China Sea case, despite China's refusal to accept result". ABC News. Olingan 13 iyul 2016.
  32. ^ hueviet (13 April 2016). "Water source crucial in determining status of Itu Aba".
  33. ^ "PH leaves 'Taiping Island' issue to UN". Manila byulleteni.
  34. ^ "Taiping Island deserves exclusive economic zone: president – Politics – FOCUS TAIWAN – CNA ENGLISH NEWS".
  35. ^ "Philippines rejects invitation to Taiping: Foreign Ministry".
  36. ^ a b "South China Sea Tensions Flare as Vietnam Files Stance to Court". Bloomberg. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 13 December 2014.
  37. ^ "Brunei Darussalam's Preliminary Submission concerning the Outer Limits of its Continental Shelf" (PDF). Birlashgan Millatlar. Olingan 19 noyabr 2013.
  38. ^ a b "Submissions to the Commission: Joint submission by Malaysia and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam". Birlashgan Millatlar Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. 2011 yil 3-may. Olingan 19 noyabr 2013.
  39. ^ "CLCS submissions and claims in the South China Sea, by Robert C. Beckman & Tara Davenport". SouthChinaSeaStudies.org. 11 August 2011. Archived from asl nusxasi 2016 yil 6 martda. Olingan 19 noyabr 2013.
  40. ^ "PRESS RELEASE : THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION (THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)" (PDF) (Matbuot xabari). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 12 July 2017.
  41. ^ Esmaquel, Paterno II (11 July 2015). "PH lawyer vs China: 'Giant slayer' who defeated US". Rappler. Olingan 12 iyul 2015.
  42. ^ "Tribunal schedules hearing on merits of PH arbitration case against China". Update.PH. 10 November 2015.
  43. ^ a b v "Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility 29102015". Permanent Court of Arbitration. 29 October 2015. pp. 54–57. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 16 July 2016. Olingan 8 iyun 2016.
  44. ^ "Press release: The South China Sea Arbitration" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi (PDF) on 12 July 2016. Olingan 24 iyul 2016. The Award is final and binding, as set out in Article 296 of the Convention and Article 11 of Annex VII.
  45. ^ a b v d e f g h men j k l m n o p q r s t "Award" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 12 July 2016.
  46. ^ PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(277), p.116.[45]
  47. ^ PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(278), p. 117.[45]
  48. ^ PCA Award, Section VI(B)(5)(d)(382), p.174.[45]
  49. ^ PCA Award, Section VI(B)(5)(d)(383), p. 174.[45]
  50. ^ PCA Award, Section VI(B)(5)(d)(384), p. 174.[45]
  51. ^ PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(643), p. 259.[45]
  52. ^ PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(644), p. 259.[45]
  53. ^ PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(645), p.259.[45]
  54. ^ PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(646), p.259-260.[45]
  55. ^ PCA Award, Section VI(C)(5)(f)(647), p. 260.[45]
  56. ^ PCA Award, Section VII(A)(5)(c)(716), p. 286.[45]
  57. ^ PCA Award, Section VII(B)(5)(d)(757), p.297.[45]
  58. ^ PCA Award, Section VII(C)(5)(c)(814), p. 318.[45]
  59. ^ PCA Award, Section VII(D)(5)(e)(992), p. 397.[45]
  60. ^ PCA Award, Section VII(D)(5)(e)(993), p. 397.[45]
  61. ^ PCA Award, Section VII(E)(5)(c)(1043), p. 415.[45]
  62. ^ PCA Award, Section VII(F)(5)(d)(1109), p. 435.[45]
  63. ^ PCA Award, Section VIII(E)(4)(1181), p. 464.[45]
  64. ^ PCA Award, Section IX(D)(1201), p. 469.[45]
  65. ^ Rothwell, Donald R. (30 January 2015). "The Arbitration between the People's Republic of China and the Philippines Over the Dispute in the South China Sea". ANU College of Law Research Paper (14–48). SSRN  2557871.
  66. ^ "Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China: Arbitral Tribunal Establishes Rules of Procedure and Initial Timetable" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 27 August 2013. Archived from asl nusxasi (PDF) on 18 October 2015.
  67. ^ "Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 3 June 2014. Archived from [pca-cpa.org/PH-CN%20-%2020140603%20-%20Press_Release_2%20(ENG)a70e.pdf?fil_id=2638 the original] Tekshiring | url = qiymati (Yordam bering) (PDF) on 19 October 2015.
  68. ^ a b "Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 17 December 2014. Archived from asl nusxasi (PDF) on 26 June 2016.
  69. ^ a b v "Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 22 April 2015. Archived from asl nusxasi (PDF) on 19 October 2015.
  70. ^ name=PCA20150707>"Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 7 Iyul 2015. Arxivlangan asl nusxasi (PDF) on 19 October 2015.
  71. ^ "Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. 13 July 2015. Archived from asl nusxasi (PDF) on 26 June 2016.
  72. ^ a b v d e f g h men j k l m n o p q r s t siz v w x y z aa "Declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on Recent Developments in the South China Sea" (Matbuot xabari). Foreign affairs & international relations, Council of the EU. 11 March 2016. Olingan 28 iyun 2016. the EU urges all claimants [...] to pursue them in accordance with international law including UNCLOS and its arbitration procedures
  73. ^ a b v d e f g h men j k l m n o p q r s t siz v w x y z aa ab ak reklama ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar kabi da au av aw bolta ay az ba bb mil bd bo'lishi bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx tomonidan bz taxminan cb cc CD ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl sm cn ko CP kv kr CS ct kub Rezyume cw cx cy cz da db DC dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn qil dp "Arbitration Support Tracker". Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. 16 iyun 2016 yil. Olingan 28 yanvar 2018.
  74. ^ Flitton, Daniel (12 July 2016). "High stakes on the high seas: Philippines v China at The Hague". SMH. SMH.
  75. ^ a b Ben Blanchard; Tim Kelly (16 February 2016). "China raps Australia foreign minister ahead of Beijing trip". Reuters. Olingan 28 iyun 2016.
  76. ^ "South China Sea" (PDF) (Matbuot xabari). Gaborone, Botswana: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Republic of Botswana. 2016 yil 17-fevral. Olingan 28 iyun 2016.[doimiy o'lik havola ]
  77. ^ a b "G7 Foreign Ministers' Statement on Maritime Security April 11, 2016 Hiroshima, Japan" (PDF). Arxivlandi asl nusxasi (PDF) on 28 January 2018. Olingan 28 yanvar 2018.
  78. ^ "G7's intent to send 'signal' on maritime claims rankles China". CBC News. 26 May 2016. Olingan 28 yanvar 2018.
  79. ^ a b "NATO General Says China Should Respect Tribunal on Maritime Claim". 3 June 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 23 June 2016. Olingan 7 iyun 2016.
  80. ^ Panda, Ankit. "French Defense Minister to Urge EU South China Sea Patrols". The Diplomat. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 28 January 2018. Olingan 28 yanvar 2018.
  81. ^ "Germany backs Philippines' position to settle territorial disputes peacefully". Manila Times. Philippine News Agency. 20 September 2014. Archived from asl nusxasi on 1 December 2014. Olingan 29 may 2016.
  82. ^ Tiezzi, Shannon. "In China, Germany's Merkel Talks Trade, Syria, and South China Sea". Diplomat. Olingan 30 may 2016. She [German Chancellor, Angela Merkel] called the disputes "a serious conflict" and gently offered her support for a legal solution: "I am always a bit surprised why in this case multinational courts should not be an option for a solution". Merkel also emphasized Germany's "wish that the sea trade routes stay free and safe, because they are important for all".
  83. ^ a b v d e "7 countries send observers to monitor PH case vs China". Filippin Daily Enquirer. 2015 yil 26-noyabr. Olingan 28 iyun 2016.
  84. ^ Romero, Alexis (4 December 2016). "Italy backs Philippines on UN arbitration over sea dispute". Filippin yulduzi. Olingan 26 may 2016.
  85. ^ a b "G7 Ise-Shima Leaders' Declaration: G7 Ise-Shima Summit, 26–27 May 2016" (PDF). Minister of Foreign Affairs Japan. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi (PDF) on 28 January 2018. Olingan 28 yanvar 2018.
  86. ^ Diola, Camille (1 April 2014). "Japan backs Philippines' legal move vs. China". Filippin yulduzi. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 11 January 2017. Olingan 29 may 2016.
  87. ^ a b Murray McCully (New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs) (9 March 2016). Address to Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (Nutq). Singapur. Olingan 28 iyun 2016. We also support the role arbitration can play in resolving complex disputes and we support states' rights to access dispute settlement mechanisms. [...] We expect all parties to respect the result of the Tribunal's ruling.
  88. ^ "China Caucus Blog". House.gov. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 1 August 2016. Olingan 28 yanvar 2018.
  89. ^ "Spain to support PH in sea row". Filippin Daily Enquirer. 16 sentyabr 2014 yil. Olingan 28 iyun 2016.
  90. ^ "David Cameron: China must abide by ruling on South China Sea". The Guardian. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 28 January 2018. Olingan 28 yanvar 2018.
  91. ^ Barak Obama (16 February 2016). Remarks by President Obama at U.S.-ASEAN Press Conference (Nutq). California, USA. Olingan 28 iyun 2016. And we discussed how any disputes between claimants in the region must be resolved peacefully, through legal means, such as the upcoming arbitration ruling under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Seas, which the parties are obligated to respect and abide by.
  92. ^ "VN backs peaceful solutions to disputes in East Sea". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 28 January 2018. Olingan 28 yanvar 2018.
  93. ^ "Kenya Backs China's Approach to South China Sea Disputes".
  94. ^ "Taiwan rejects arbitration on South China Sea: Foreign ministry". Radio Taiwan International.
  95. ^ Mina Pollmann; The Diplomat. "Amid South China Sea Tensions, Japan Strengthens Ties With Philippines, Vietnam". Diplomat.
  96. ^ Calleja, Niña P. "7 countries send observers to monitor PH case vs China". Filippin Daily Enquirer.
  97. ^ "Login – Kyodo News".
  98. ^ a b "Login – Kyodo News".
  99. ^ "Hun Sen denies Cambodia caved in to Chinese pressure on Asean statement".
  100. ^ "CPP Backs PM on South China Sea".
  101. ^ "Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation on Cambodia's Position over South China Sea".
  102. ^ "Australia and the South China Sea arbitration case – The Strategist". 2015 yil 17-dekabr. Olingan 29 iyun 2016.
  103. ^ "Australia: Nations will respect tribunal on S China Sea". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2016 yil 3 fevralda. Olingan 29 iyun 2016.
  104. ^ "Philippines, EU show common stance on China". Rappler.
  105. ^ "European Union sides with United States on South China Sea incident". Reuters. 31 October 2015.
  106. ^ "South China Sea: Britain says court of arbitration ruling must be binding". Reuters. 2016 yil 19 aprel.
  107. ^ "G7 sees need to send strong message on South, East China Sea disputes". 26 May 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi 2016 yil 27 mayda.
  108. ^ "Chinese state media warns G7 against South China Sea 'meddling'".
  109. ^ "India once again ticks of China over South China Sea issue". Birinchi post. 8 August 2015.
  110. ^ "Joint Communiqué of the 14th Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China".
  111. ^ "Nato has 'no legal platforms' to intervene militarily in South China Sea". 3 June 2016.
  112. ^ "China says more than 40 countries support its stance on South China Sea dispute". Reuters. 2016 yil 20-may.
  113. ^ "[Reporter's notebook] How S. Korea squandered its diplomatic goodwill with China".
  114. ^ "Who Supports China in the South China Sea and Why". Olingan 27 iyul 2016.
  115. ^ "Sudan urges peaceful solution to conflicts in South China Sea". Sinxua. 2016 yil 28-may. Olingan 29 may 2016.
  116. ^ "Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei's Regular Press Conference on May 19, 2016".
  117. ^ "Fiji doesn't support China in maritime dispute". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2016 yil 10-avgustda. Olingan 29 iyun 2016.
  118. ^ 李珅. "SCO supports peace and stability in South China Sea".
  119. ^ "South Korea and the South China Sea: A Domestic and International Balancing Act".
  120. ^ "Where does South Korea Stand on the South China Sea Dispute?". 2 July 2014.
  121. ^ Asahi: US Asked Seoul to Express Support for Ruling on Beijing-Manila Sea Dispute
  122. ^ "Australia supports peaceful dispute resolution in the South China Sea". Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  123. ^ a b v d e f g h men j k l m n o p q r s t siz v w x y z "Declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on the Award rendered in the Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China". European Council-Council of the European Union. 15 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 9 February 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  124. ^ "Stav Bosne i Hercegovine o sporu u Južnom kineskom moru" (bosniya tilida). Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bosnia and Herzegovina. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  125. ^ a b "Canadian statement on South China Sea Arbitration". Minister of Foreign Affairs. 21 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 27 January 2018. Olingan 27 yanvar 2018.
  126. ^ "Closing Remarks by Minister of State for External Affairs Dr. V.K. Singh at the 14th ASEAN-India Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Vientiane (July 25, 2016)". Ministry of External Affairs. 25 July 2016. Arxivlandi from the original on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  127. ^ "Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China regarding the South China Sea (Final Award by the Arbitral Tribunal) (Statement by Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida)". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  128. ^ "PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ON THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ISSUE". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  129. ^ "Myanmar's Statement on the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea under Annexure VII of UNCLOS" (PDF). Tashqi Ishlar Vazirligi. 13 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi (PDF) 2017 yil 28-avgustda. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  130. ^ "NZ comment on South China Sea Tribunal ruling". New Zealand Government. 13 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  131. ^ "Information Note on the Significance of the 2016 ASEAN Joint Communiqué in Relation to the Arbitral Tribunal Ruling". Department of Foreign Affairs. 1 August 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi 2016 yil 6-avgustda. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  132. ^ "Decision in the Philippines-China Arbitration". US Department of State. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 12 July 2016. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  133. ^ "Remarks of the Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam on Viet Nam's reaction to the issuance of the Award by the Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the arbitration between the Philippines and China". Vietnam Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  134. ^ "Mer de Chine méridionale: l'Algérie appelle à une solution "sur la base du droit international" (MAE)" (frantsuz tilida). Ministre des Affaires Étrangères. 16 Iyul 2016. Arxivlangan asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  135. ^ a b v d e f "Joint Statement of the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN Member States on the Maintenance of Peace, Security, and Stability in the Region". 25 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 14 avgust 2016.
  136. ^ "Indonesia Calls On All Parties To Respect International Law Including UNCLOS 1982". Ministry of Foreign Affairs Indonesia. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  137. ^ "Serbia advocates a peaceful resolution of the South China Sea issue". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  138. ^ "Press Releases : Statement of Thailand on Peace, Stability and Sustainable Development in the South China Sea 12 July 2016". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  139. ^ a b "Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 27 January 2018. Olingan 27 yanvar 2018.
  140. ^ "Saopštenje povodom objavljivanja presude Stalnog arbitražnog suda u Hagu o sporu između Kine i Filipina" (Chernogoriyada). Chernogoriya hukumati. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  141. ^ "Pakistan reiterates its support to Beijing on 'South China Sea'". Tashqi Ishlar Vazirligi. 12 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  142. ^ "Syria supports China's sovereignty over its territory in South China Sea". Syrian Arab News Agency. 20 July 2016. Archived from asl nusxasi on 15 November 2018. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  143. ^ "ROC position on the South China Sea Arbitration". Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of China (Taiwan). 2016 yil 12-iyul. Olingan 15 noyabr 2018.
  144. ^ Gareth Hutchens (15 July 2016). "South China Sea: Marise Payne says Julie Bishop right to warn Beijing". The Guardian.
  145. ^ a b Blanchfield, Mike (21 July 2016). "Canada calls on 'parties' in South China Sea dispute to comply with ruling". Toronto Star. Olingan 27 yanvar 2018.
  146. ^ Indrani Bagchi (12 July 2016). "South China Sea ruling a shot in the arm for India, a damning indictment of Beijing, say experts". The Times of India.
  147. ^ Liza Yosephine (13 July 2016). "Indonesia's statement on South China Sea dissatisfying: China's experts". Jakarta Post. Jakarta.
  148. ^ Koya Jibiki (16 July 2016). "Abe calls on Li to abide by South China Sea ruling". Nikkei, Asian Review. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 19 November 2016. Olingan 25 iyul 2016.
  149. ^ "Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia react to S. China Sea ruling". ABS-CBN yangiliklari. 13 July 2016.
  150. ^ "Singapore urges respect for court ruling on South China Sea". Today online. 12 July 2016.
  151. ^ "[Analysis] Response on South China Sea ruling shows S. Korea's fragile position". The Hankyoreh. 14 July 2016.
  152. ^ "Vietnam welcomes Hague ruling on East Vietnam Sea disputes: foreign ministry". Tuoi Tre yangiliklari. 13 July 2016.
  153. ^ "Arbitral court not a UN agency". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 16 July 2016. Olingan 24 iyul 2016. The United Nations said on Wednesday it has nothing to do with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which set up a tribunal that handled the South China Sea arbitration case the Philippines filed unilaterally in 2013.
  154. ^ "Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General". Olingan 20 iyul 2016. the UN doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims.
  155. ^ "International Court of Justice". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2016 yil 14-iyulda. Olingan 24 iyul 2016. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA's website (www.pca-cpa.org). The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case
  156. ^ B Pitlo III, Lucio. "ASEAN stops pulling punches over South China Sea". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 16 August 2020. Olingan 16 avgust 2020.
  157. ^ "Vietnam airports hacked over S China Sea". 2016 yil 29-iyul. Olingan 27 mart 2019.
  158. ^ Manantan, Mark (September 2019). "The Cyber Dimension of the South China Sea Clashes" (58). The Diplomat. Diplomat. Olingan 5 sentyabr 2019.
  159. ^ "The Globe's Nathan VanderKlippe in conversation about working as a journalist in China". Globe and Mail. November 2017.
  160. ^ ""Face-à-Face": les chefs ont tout donné". TVA Nouvelles. 2 oktyabr 2019.
  161. ^ Strangio, Sebastian. "In UN Speech, Duterte Stiffens Philippines' Stance on the South China Sea". Diplomat. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 27 September 2020. Olingan 27 sentyabr 2020.

Qo'shimcha o'qish

Tashqi havolalar