|
EDITOR S NOTE: On May 14, The Globe And Mail, Canadian NationalNewspaper, published an editorial titled Overreach on Reefs ,which took sides and made untenable argument over the disputedHuangyan Islet on behalf of The Philippines. Our Ottawa-based chiefcorrespondent, Xuejiang Li sent a rebuttal commentary to the editorof Op-Ed page of the Globe and Mail in order for the Canadianreaders to have the opportunity to read about both side of theissue and gain balanced understanding of the situation. But to hisregret, his commentary was declined to be published by thenewspaper. The following is the full text of Mr. Xuejiang Li srebuttal commentary to the Globe And Mail editorial. I was greatly surprised by the editorial of THE GLOBAL AND MAILtitled CHINA: OVERREACH ON REEFS (Editorial Page of May 14,2012) by its ignorance of the international law on the issue ofterritorial sovereignty. It is known to all, and the editorial itself admits that, "ThePhilippines and Vietnam's territorial claim of the South China SeaIslands is mainly on the basis of the system of exclusive economiczone and continental shelf regulated by the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This is a very feebleargument because the UNCLOS only allows the coastal countries toestablish a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone; but there isno provision stipulating that the coastal countries can demandsovereignty over territories that have already been determinedbefore the UNCLOS came into effect in 1994. In other words, theUNCLOS cannot replace, retroactively, other established norms ofInternational Law. The UNCLOS states that the signatory countriesof the UNCLOS should act according to the rules and principles ofthe general International Law when facing with issues not includedin the UNCLOS. When the editorial mentions the "Scarborough shoal"(China named it Huangyan Islet ), it says, which is five timescloser to the Filipino coast than to China s. This argument ispatently untenable. The Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Islands are onlya dozens of miles away from the Newfoundland coast and thousandsmiles away from France. Can Canada make any territorial claims onthem based on the UNCLOS provisions? Applying the Editorial logicof proximity or putting forward arguments based only on the UNCLOS,then you should support Argentina s claim on the Falklands whichare more than 10 times closer to Argentina than to the UnitedKingdom. The principles of historical rights and International Law are themost effective principles to determine the ownership of theterritories, namely, the principles of first discovery, firstoccupation and first exercise of jurisdiction. China has hadjurisdiction over the South China Sea islands since the Song andYuan dynasties (nearly 1000 years ago). Even in modern times, theRepublic of China's taking over of the South China Sea Islands,according to the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation afterthe defeat of Japan, was internationally recognized. Theadministrative regions map of the Republic of China had clearlymarked the national boundary line in the South China Sea in 1947including Huangyan Islet. The People s Republic of China alsore-declared its territorial sovereignty over the South China SeaIslands including Huangyan Islet in the Declaration of theGovernment of the People's Republic of China on the Territorial Seain 1958. 1 2. I am an expert from goodhlx.com, while we provides the quality product, such as Digital Alcohol Tester , China Reading Glasses With LED Light, Digital Alcohol Tester,and more.
Related Articles -
Digital Alcohol Tester, China Reading Glasses With LED Light,
|
