The contravention of rules outlined in the Law of Armed Conflict has created an environment of exploitative exceptions in the understanding, and applicability of human rights and security in theatres of modern warfare. As these exceptions pave way for the proliferation of national might in the name of national security, and combatant safety, the human suffering for non-combatants also witnesses a proportionally massive upsurge. The changing (mis)understanding of these regulations calls for a review on the accountability and necessity of jus in bello, and its weakened importance under the ambit of the law of armed conflict, and the greater International Humanitarian Law.
More than often, man-made conflicts have been responsible for the decimation of life and property around the globe. Even though human casualty stands divided between conventional and non-conventional threats in a modern world, the protraction of man-made conflict is mainly responsible for loosening up tides after tides of bloodshed for physical or territorial gains. However, with the advent of the prospect of domestic/international accountability, and a fool-proof system of checks and balances, mankind’s warfare is held by tighter strings of transparency and justifiability, adorned by rules and regulations. Nonetheless, it is very important to analyse and understand if its techniques of armed conflicts and subsequent regulation are stringed by laws of conduct to create a policy of accountability and fairness equally amongst participating parties or are riddled with discriminatory practices, apropos to an obscure understanding of who is sacred and who is profane. Rather unsettling, the horrors of war have time and again been governed with a rather small yet informative account of jus in bello (justice in war) or the law which governs how warfare is conducted, centred in the Law of Armed Conflict.
Jus in bello falls within the ambit of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and as the semantics suggest, it indeed is purely humanitarian in its objective to limit human suffering in modern warfare through a strict set of pre-decided rules. Jus in bello is independent of the questions about the reason for war, or its basic rules, which in turn is explained by jus ad bellum(the law of waging war). Jus in bello, if we analyse through its literary content, consists of two parts. The first part explains principle determinants for a proper quantum of force required in armed warfare if limiting warfare is ever the case in humanitarian laws. The second part guides us through limitations and prohibitions in warfare if not complete cessation, which reminds of the old age tradition of centripetal discussions around international peace and security, albeit to no practical effect. In contrast to the humanitarian nature of the IHL, the first part of jus in bello aims to indulge the parties in conflict with a categorised, and diverse set of paradigms for use of violence. In a dubious exception, it can also encourage the parties to use toolkits of violence on adversaries, if it is justified with international/domestic military necessity, regardless of the means of interpretation, e.g. Turkey’s raid over Syria. Nonetheless, the rule of active distinction in IHL between combatants and non-combatants aims to impose limits on destruction and suffering in armed conflicts. However, the interpretation of the exceptional military necessity, proportionality, and distinction (MNPD) principles in IHL makes the death and injury of non-combatants casual, by emphasising on the miscued understanding that any unintentional attack with extreme unaccountability on non-combatants can, and will be classified as “collateral damage”. It ends up giving a sense of irresponsibility, justifiability, and immunity to the unprejudiced actions of the armed combatants since their actions are no longer a criminal or civil liability.
Fortunately, the second part of jus in bello adheres to the responsibilities in humanitarian law and imposes strict, absolute limits on certain instruments and modes of violence which can most certainly, if given a free hand, increase human casualty and suffering. These rules are extremely significant and cannot be exploited for potential military advantages. It is extremely altruistic to non-combatants. Nevertheless, a major limitation of the second part, as a general exception concerns the legality of warfare in the treatment and torture of prisoners of war by nation-states, regardless of the combatant and non-combatant status. One such example of that exploited limitation is the question on the authorization of torture, and indignation by US Personnel in the infamous Abu Ghraib prisons, which is backed by a textbook excuse that under US military commissions, information acquired through torture, generally inadmissible in domestic US civil/military courts will be considered as evidence for the sake of its internal security, and can ignore international laws and declarations. Fundamentally, even though this rule is in contrast with The Military Commission Act of 2006 section 6 (c)(1), the international organisations, honouring their commitment to the UN Charter Chapter 1, Article 2(7), limit their intervention in the matter. This is even though the US has ratified UNCAT Convention against Torture, and stands in clear violation of international decrees.
Moreover, the penumbra veiling the opacity of scores of military commissions, omissions and laws in this particular matter by different nation-states has threatened to unsettle various humanitarian provisions in jus in Bello, to evolve with the growing needs of armed conflict, primarily after the US’s war on terrorism. Major western nation-states like the UK and the US have called for a case by case approach into evidence gained from torture, taking a cue from Churchill’s “supreme emergency” dictum, henceforth, threatening to make torture a tool of plausible military necessity, which is unproportioned and discriminatory towards non-combatants.
Articulating the terminology change in IHL over due course of time, and an itemization of new crimes post-World War II, it is to be brought into notice the alarming plethora of provisions that have changed course in jus in bello. Regardless of the differentiation between combatants/prisoners of war, and non-combatants in Article 37(1) of Additional Protocol I and Article 44 of Protocol I of Geneva Convention, the lack of trust among state actors over doubtful logic and morality due to the inclusion of irregular fighters, non-state actors, and foreign fighters in modern warfare leads to unprecedented failure to comply with the second part prohibitions. This has resulted in the loss of a great majority of non-combatants in the conflicts of the 21st Century.
Furthermore, with the increasing reliance on tech-based warfare to minimise combatant casualty among state actors, WMDs have been the instrument of choice against the belligerent party. Unfortunately, the volatile firepower of such weapons, as well as its unprejudiced understanding between combatants, and civilians are judged under MNPD principles. Regardless of its clear military, and political danger over misuse, it is still accepted frivolously in the international community, and among state actors as a weapon of choice. The existence of nuclear weapons even after strengthened efforts towards non-proliferation, and its evolving doctrines of use among various nation-states, is an example of this effort to sham jus in bello, which is acting towards effective distinction in conflicts. The concept of the use of WMDs as a possible deterrent or a method of national self-defence is heavily prejudiced and debated in the international legal community, which openly admits that it cannot regulate the legality or illegality of such weapons by a nation-state in cases of self-defence, whatever the interpretation may be. Instead, they added this responsibility on MNPD principles, and un-verified claims of user assessment for self-defence, which technically does nothing to put a halt on the proliferation of WMD usage as an instrument of fear-mongering, e.g. the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
In the end, the lack of political will, and international compliance, marred by selfish national interests have worked more to change the law of armed conflicts, rather than strictly implementing it. The increasing reliance on the first part of jus in bello threatens to omit the second part from IHL, resulting in warfare and conflicts in modern times without a leash to save civilians from the unavoidable line of fire. It is high time that the international community takes a stand to promote and propagate the relevance of IHL to preserve the purity of conventions in place years ago, without pressure from major nation-states. These conventions find their relevance even now until mankind in its very nature of gaining more power decides to uproot it once and for all.
Refugees In The Outbreak Of The Pandemic
The COVID-19 today is having an adverse impact on our lives although it has brought exceptional changes in climate and human behavior. The increasing number of refugees and internally displaced persons in the 21st century explains the intensified global scenario. The refugee crisis is the greatest humanitarian crisis the world has ever seen where most of them are internally displaced persons. Yet, they are humans with unique life experiences; they had dreams, children who are dwelling hopes of normal life, and a better tomorrow. The mothers are longing to return home, fathers yearning to work again, and an identity. Leaving behind their homes, being prosecuted from the country, and losing their loved ones; refugees had gone through the worst of time. Refugees are the worst sufferers in this 21st century. Around 80 million homeless people in the world most of them are from Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar, and Somalia. The Syrian crisis reported being the greatest refugee crisis in the world. The United Nations also estimated the women and children to be the worst sufferers.
The refugees were tormented by years of poverty, poor health, and lack of basic infrastructures like education, food, health care, sanitation, social security, and etc. Humanitarian organizations have stretched beyond their capacity to help millions of refugees over the years. The WHO and UN Refugee Agency have signed new agreements to provide health services and benefits to the displaced and vulnerable population around the world. Among the 79.5 million forcibly displaced individuals lacks access to clean water or soap. Despite social and economic setbacks due to the pandemic, health is still the paramount factor affecting the poor and homeless. During the COVID-19 situation around the world food, medicine or sanitary products and even clean water have become inaccessible for many refugees. Social distancing has become a major concern in the refugee camps.
The COVID -19 is severely affecting the education of the children in the refugee camps. In the refugee camps only 63% of refugees are enrolled in primary school and 24% in secondary education where most of the children are left out. The limit in pursuing education continues potentially in the refugee camps and its worsening due to the pandemic. There is a growing possibility of discrimination and xenophobia is affecting the process of socialization in their host country. Nevertheless, an unequal world with challenges to achieve education and skill training for self-development must be ceased.
In Yemen, more than 3 million people have been displaced and approximately 17 million require food. Yemen’s health facilities have either been destroyed or damaged in the conflict and with the unbridled transmission of COVID‑19 in Aden; Yemenis are living through the worst humanitarian crisis. Only a few health centers are operational in Yemen where the numbers of patients suffering from malnutrition, cholera, dengue fever, and injuries of war are very high.
In India almost 18,000 Rohingya refugees are taking shelter where thousands of them live in densely populated settlements in preposterous conditions; a third world country with the second-highest population in the world. India can hardly feed its population and especially it hosts a huge number of Refugees. Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees have access to certain rights as assisted by the government, while the Rohingyas are still struggling for it. But, in Bangladesh, the WHO is working with governments to secure the health of nearly one million Rohingya refugees against the multiple threats of the pandemic and including natural disasters in the upcoming monsoon season.
The COVID-19 is increasing the needs and vulnerabilities of the Refugees. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is concerned about the collateral effects of the pandemic among the Refugees. According to the UNHCR’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, due to the degrading socio-economic plight of the forcibly displaced people and poverty among them has made them a target to several traffickers that are immorally exploiting and profiteering from their culpability. The adolescent girls and children have become the victims of sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, and organ removal, forced recruitment into armed groups, forced marriages, or forced begging. The COVID-19-related impacts on restricted movements, closures, or availability of proper help, support services are put to constrain. The pandemic has limited the opportunity for the refugees, particularly women to seek legal support for sexual and gender-based violence.
On the World Day against Trafficking, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNHCR proposed for support in the prevention of trafficking and response efforts globally. The Governments and humanitarian actors together must ensure and assist the victims of trafficking
mostly among the displaced people where they are in immediate need of protection. A major initiative was taken by the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (EMRO) to monitor the events and trend of COVID-19 among displaced populations in camps and non-camps settings for their safety.
Resources are available in scanty, refugee camps and settlements are becoming overcrowded and many are being forced to sleep outside in freezing temperatures during the winters. For those living in refugee camps or camp-like situations, they also face an increased risk of COVID-19. In refugee camps, it is difficult to practice public health measures like frequent hand washing or social distancing. Therefore, it is also the responsibility of the host government to provide aid and essentials to the refugees living in their country. But in many cases, the host governments don’t have enough financial capability but can arrange testing services in certain regions, regardless of whether an individual is a national or a refugee. Secondly, even though high-income countries are currently most affected, they need to assist low- and middle-income countries because those countries don’t have the means to deal with COVID-19. The outbreak of the pandemic in populous and poor countries will put the rest of the world at continued risk.
It’s true of the fact that the world was not prepared for a pandemic and COVID-19 does not respect any boundaries. But, the governments should not use pandemic as an excuse for applying repressive policies. Efforts should be made spread information in every camp that have limited source to reliable information about COVID-19 and measures of protection.
How India’s Current Digital Strike Against China Is well-Protected Under article 14 Of Gats
As the military tensions between India and China were steadily increasing due to Chinese intrusion into India territory at the Galwan valley, India on 29th June, 2020 launched a digital strike against China to counter its unwarranted territorial aggression. In a press release as issued by the Indian government, it was stated that 59 applications were decided to block as such applications are “prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order”.
Certainly, the digital strike has been hailed by many countries that were aware of the rising accusations of Chinese surveillance on sensitive communications. China has often been blamed for the act of stealing foreign intellectual property for its military advancement. The Chinese government has been using these applications as a medium to institutionalize a system that legally and illegally acquires the foreign technology for its domestic advantage and strategic development.
Although, as this Indian geo-political move has much significance in the ongoing debate of protecting the sovereignty of India, China, on the other hand, has threatened to sue India at WTO dispute resolution forum for potentially violating the multilateral WTO agreements. China has termed this Indian app-banning move as an abuse to national security exception. It has stated that this move is ‘selective and discriminatory’ and against ‘fair and transparent procedure requirements’ thus, violating the trade-liberalizing agreements. However, India has squared-off all the Chinese claims by terming them frivolous because India’s WTO sovereignty and national security defence argument in this incident is much stronger and infallible.
Therefore, in this article, I would be discussing that how India’s recent measure is protected under the provisions of Article XIV (a), XIV (c) (2), and XIV Bis of GATS and thus how it raises a strong stance in favour of India that can rebut the baseless Chinese WTO threat.
Article xiv and xiv bis of the gats
GATS is a multilateral agreement that is established to provide rules for trade in services with a view to the expansion of such trade while ensuring transparency and progressive liberalization in order to promote the economic growth. Although this agreement desires to achieve a higher level of liberalization, it still recognizes the right of Member-state to regulate, and to introduce new regulation, on the supply of services within their territories to meet national policy objectives.
Article XIV is one such provision articulated in the agreement that provides the Member-state to accommodate other policy goals and choices made in accordance with domestic laws and societal values. This article expresses the scope of particular matters related to national importance including privacy and public order. Moreover, Article XIV bis is another such provision that accommodates security exceptions that provide the room for implementing those actions which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests.
India’s move of blocking applications is well-based on these provisions that provide the sovereign country like India to take all policy measures which protects the security of its state and thus, its recent measures are protected under these Articles.
Measure protected under Article XIV (A) of GATS
Article XIV (a) gives the liberty to the member-state for adopting or enforcing any measures that are necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order. According to the Panel Report in dispute of United States –Gambling, public order has been defined as “the preservation of the fundamental interests of a society, as reflected in public policy and law.”
In the same WTO dispute, two-tier analysis of justifying the member-state measure under this specific provision has been provided. The panel states that member-state has to satisfy two elements that are firstly the measure must be one designed to “maintain public order”; and secondly the measure for which justification is claimed must be “necessary” to maintain public order.
In the present scenario, India’s measure to ban the 59 Chinese apps was necessary to maintain the public order. As India provides the primary market of digital space, there is a higher risk of exploitation of fundamental interests of the society and its citizens. According to the Ministry of Information Technology, many complaints were filed with them which summarily reports about misusing of these applications to steal and underhandedly transmitting users’ data in an illegal manner to data servers that are located outside the territory of India. Therefore, it was important for India to protect the fundamental interest and values of its citizens and thus, a necessity which is an objective standard has been evolved for India to take such WTO-consistent repressive measure which was reasonably available to protect the public order of its country after following the test of weighing and balancing a series of factors as determined by Appellate Body in WTO dispute of Korea-Beef.
Moreover, as this measure promotes the maintenance of public order, it was found by the appellate body in the dispute of US-Gambling that the member-state is not obliged to explore and exhaust all other reasonably available alternatives and there is no need for prior consultations with the counter-part before implementing such measure and thus, this measure is WTO-consistent and protected under Article XIV (a) of GATS.
Measure protected under Article XIV (C) (2) of GATS
This Article provides the liberty to the member-state like India to adopt or enforce such measure that is necessary to secure compliance with such laws and regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of GATS. Further, this provision provides a non-exhaustive list of those laws or regulations that are not inconsistent with WTO and clause (2)specifically provides a WTO-consistent provision that relates to “protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data and the protection.” In the WTO dispute of Mexico-Soft Drinks, the Appellate Body explained the meaning of law or regulations and held that such term is used to denote the rules including international agreements that form part of the domestic legal system of a WTO member-state.
Under this provision, it is necessary to show that the measure which is enforced was necessary and was further designed to secure compliance with the WTO-consistent law. Undeniably, the current measure which banned the Chinese apps was particularly designed to secure compliance with the Indian Constitution (WTO-consistent law) as well as other Indian legislations that accounts for protecting the privacy of its citizens as these apps were threatening and violating the privacy of its users. This measure is said to be securing the compliance as its design reveals that the certain measure protecting the right to privacy of its citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of India in its landmark decision held that right to privacy including the aspect of information privacy is a facet of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and thus it is a fundamental right guaranteed to everyone. Therefore, when the Indian government was satisfied that there was a reasonable apprehension regarding the security of data and breach of privacy of its citizens due to operation of such certain apps, it became indispensably necessary for the Indian government to enforce such WTO-consistent measure to ban these applications to protect the privacy and sensitive data of its citizens from being harmed and intruded. Moreover, the Appellate Body in dispute of Dominican Republic-Import and Sale of Cigarettes held that the member-state has the whole right to determine for themselves the level of enforcement of their WTO-consistent law, thus this measure was necessarily implemented to secure compliance with the Constitutional principles of India and hence, this measure is protected under Article XIV (c) (2).
Measure protected under Article XIV BIS of GATS
This article provides for the security exceptions that allow the member-state to take any actions that are required to preserve the sovereignty and national security interests of its state in times of war or any emergency in international relations. The recent ban of these 59 apps was in regard to terminate their usage as it was reported that these apps were being engaged in activities which were prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India and have been acting hostile to national security and defence of India. Such threats to the pillars of democracy required emergency measures and therefore, India’s measure to disallow the usage of these applications was a result to ensure safety and sovereignty of Indian cyberspace.
Moreover, this action of India cannot be seen in isolation and there is a need to appreciate the geo-political evidence revolving around India that aggravated the situation. There was a weather of emergency created in India due to the repeated aggression shown by the Chinese government at the Line of Actual Control. Even 20 Indian soldiers were martyred during the violent face-off with the Chinese counterpart. Such incident potentially raises a situation of emergency in international relations and that further allows India to take the defence of Article XIV Bis to eclipse its digital strike under the ambit of necessary and strategic action taken to protect the security and sovereignty of India.
For China, the doors of WTO are ajar to try its last fling to protect its shameful diplomacy of unfair practices; however, approaching to this organization will do more harm than good for China as the case of India is strong and firm. India’s current diplomatic measure is clearly WTO-consistent and squarely falls under the Security and General exceptions provided under GATS, therefore, there is no instance of trade violation. Instead of giving a baseless threat, China should try to mediate and consult the issue with the Indian government to protect the trade market that it used to enjoy before the ban. It should also try to introduce reformative measures that ensure accountability and transparency amongst the links between the Chinese government and the Chinese economic players. The world is now aware of the dirty economic strategies that China is implementing to build a Chinese century and this time, the world would rebut back with stronger measures just like India declared a digital war against China.
Understanding the Case of the Philippines and China in the South China Sea Dispute
Authors: Dhruv Yadav and Ankit Malhotra
It is common knowledge; when stakes are high and stakeholders are many, disputes are bound to happen. Hence, the creation of an overarching dispute mechanism forum thus becomes the need of the hour. International law and more specifically United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (Convention) an attempt on the international regime at ensuring peaceful dispute resolution. The Tribunal for the Law of the Sea created as per the provisions of Convention underpins the “importance and obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and part of customary international law, this obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means and ruling out forceful means as a particular course for dispute settlement.”Dispute settlement is based on the principle of consent. The Convention is one such dispute settlement body. Furthermore, Part XV allows states to choose between previously agreed between the parties for different law of the sea disputes. If, and, like China, “a party does not arrive at a settlement then one state may refer the dispute to compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions, allowing for either arbitration or adjudication, per Section 2 of Part XV.”The resort to arbitration is restricted by Section 3 of Part XV, which excludes the compulsory procedures for a particular set of disputes allows States with the option of excluding certain categories of following Article 298 of Convention. Hence, “the Convention dispute settlement regime is not comprehensive as a result, because not every law of the sea dispute that concerns the interpretation or application of Convention can be referred to compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions. Yet it provides states with important flexibility in how disputes are settled and this flexibility ensures the ongoing feasibility of the dispute settlement regime.”Which, as China has, completely denied any means of dispute settlement which furthermore increased tensions in the region resulting in a deadlock and power struggle in the region?
The Philippines issued proceedings against China under Part XV of the Convention on January 22, 2013. The Philippine’s made multiple claims. Firstly, they requested the halt of the Chinese’s expansive ‘nine-dash line’. Before moving any forward it is important to explain the relationship between a state’s historic rights and Convention since historic waters and its roots are historic reality. States throughout the ages asserted and maintained power over oceanic zones which they considered essential to them without giving careful consideration to different and changing sentiments about what general universal law may recommend as for the delimitation of the regional ocean. Historic waters’ have their roots and inheritance in history. Countries through the ages claimed and maintained sovereignty over maritime masses which they considered of supreme importance to themselves without noticing the divergent and changing opinions of the International Law. Thus, the case at hand provides a good example of the importance of Customs with regards to International Law. This fact had to be taken into consideration when attempts were made to codify the rules of International Law in this field, i.e., to reduce the obscure and contested rules of customary law to clear and generally acceptable written rules. Lawmakers, at the time, rightly felt, the State will not feel obliged to obey such rules and it might be construed as them being deprived of their rights, which they very much enjoyed throughout history.
The Philippines argued that “such a line is in contravention of the provisions of Convention in the allocation of maritime space, including a territorial sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ).”Secondly, the Philippines expressed their concern towards the Spratly Islands and the Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines did not question the sovereignty but sought clarification of the nature of the Islands. This was done to determine their status in a legal paradigm and to determine the boundaries, literally and figuratively.
Thirdly, The Philippines claimed that China was unlawfully occupying the Philippine “Territorial Sea”thereby denying the Philippines Rights to Explore and Exploit living and non-living resources in maritime areas over which the Philippines claims exclusive sovereign rights as well as its rights of navigation in the contested area. Illegally exploiting resources of another’s land isa clear violation of the International Law of the Sea.
China, on the other hand, refused to participate but issued a “position paper”  arguing that, the Philippines may not unilaterally commence arbitral proceedings against China because there is a binding obligation on the two countries to settle disputes relating to the South China Sea through negotiations. China points to a series of joint statements, as well as a “2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea” which binds signatories to settle disputes through negotiations; “such an obligation would prevent jurisdiction for compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions from arising, according to China.”China strongly affirms that irrespective of the arbitration ‘farce’ that continues to play out, China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands “brooks no denial.”In addition to that, the Chinese added that, the Arbitration initiated by the Philippines has disguised the dispute into an ‘interpretation and application of the Convention’s and that once the disguise is removed, all will know the provocation under the cloak of law. In other words, according to the Chinese, the ulterior motive of the Philippines is to snatch China’s territory through a farce.
In protest, the Chinese are adamant to negate any claims against China’s sovereignty, rights and interests through a so-called “arbitration-award because that will be nothing but wishful thinking, just like flowers in a mirror and reflection of the moon in the water. By going back on its own words and confusing the concepts for territorial expansion, the Philippines will only end up bringing disgrace on itself.”
With regards to the international law and its adherence, international disputes are politicized at domestic levels nation-states do not want to compromise or appear to have compromised to another party’s contentions. One of the mainstream criticisms of international law which talks about the question of conflicting sovereignty can be observed in the South China Sea conflict. It has been contended by legal theorist like John Austin who shamed international law and based higher value on ethics and morality in comparison to legal principles. According to Austin, in cases of conflict between states, international law tries to suppress the use of military might by the superior state. However, the refusal of one of the parties to abide by the said laws does not or cannot have serious repercussions. The sovereignty of a nation remains intact so long as it is not forced to abide by laws from a foreign authority.This, According to Austin, creates a conflict or a paradox in International Law.
Inspired, motivated and in consonance with Austin’s writings, China has raised her contentions along such lines of reasoning where it claimed “historic rights” over the South China Sea and put forward the view that the Philippines had consented to dispute resolution employing negotiation in a series of joint statements which had been bilaterally accepted by both the parties and that Article 281 cannot be attracted in such cases. Thus, from the very start, China went against the initiation of the Tribunal arbitration under Annex VII. Thereby creating a lacuna and highlighting the problems with International Law. Neither the Convention nor the UN Charter specifies what “peaceful means” of dispute resolution are. International Laws are based on consent and a contention overlap of principles of sovereignty. Thus, manifesting and personifying the dispute into realms beyond and purely of law.
In disputes such as the South China Sea conflict, China has raised its contentions along such lines of reasoning where it claimed “historic rights” over South China Sea. Furthermore, China put forward the view that the Philippines had consented to dispute resolution employing negotiation in a series of joint statements which had been bilaterally accepted by both the parties and that Article 281 cannot be attracted in such cases. Hence, rendering the use of the Law of the Sea Tribunal as inconsequential and against the agreed terms. Although, the employment of historical claims in the South China Sea has become increasingly relevant to the debate over sovereignty and the occupation of uninhabitable islands in the region. The lack of legally legitimate historical claims to South China Sea islands (beyond the trade routes argument) leaves the Chinese perspective with no legal standing under international law. With each state using its narrative to support their claims, there is little chance for historical and factual reconciliation – making the historical realities and claims of China crucial to the understanding of the current status of the region.
In conclusion, it can be said that all international disputes are politicized at domestic levels and the nation-states, generally speaking, do not want to compromise or appear to have compromised to another party’s contentions. One of the mainstream criticisms of International Law discusses as is also discussed in the essay is, the question of conflicting sovereignty claims in the South China Sea conflicted region. It has been contended by certain writers on legal theory like Austin that international law is based more on ethics or morality than on legal principles. In cases of conflict between states, international law tries to suppress the use of military might by the superior state. However, the refusal of one of the parties to abide by the said laws does not or cannot have serious repercussions. The sovereignty of a nation remains intact so long as it is not forced to abide by laws from a foreign authority. This creates a conflict or a paradox in International law consequentially leading to the total disregard of the Law itself.
Klein, Natalie, The Limitations of ConventionPart XV Dispute Settlement in Resolving South China Sea Disputes: The South China Sea – An International Law Perspective Conference (March 9, 2015). International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, June 2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2730411
Convention(n 1), art 286. States have a choice of procedure as between arbitral tribunals, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Arbitration is the default procedure subject to the choices made by states. See Convention(n 1), art 287.
 Pt. 2
Derived from a 1947 map drawn by Yang Huairen, a geographer for the Nationalist Government that fell in 1949. Yang’s work consisted of 11 dashes that were located in slightly altered locations.
Convention(n 1), Annex VII, art 9.
 Part 2 of the Convention
 Notification and Statement of Claim on West Philippines Sea, 22 January 2013, available at file:///D:/Users/mq20046045/Downloads/Notification%20and%20Statement%20of%20Claim%20on %20West%20Philippine%20Sea%20(1).pdf
 ‘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’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, December 7, 2014; available at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml
 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, Adopted by the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN and the People’s Republic of China at the 8th ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 4 November 2002; available at http://www.aseansec.org/13163.htm
 Ibid pt 2
 People’s Daily: China’s sovereignty over South China Sea islands brooks no denial, http://ca.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/cpot/t1327098.htm Accessed on 25 Ocotber 2019.
 Ibid pt 16
UN ‘actively assisting’ in response to huge explosions at Beirut port
The United Nations has said that it is “actively assisting” in the response to the horrific explosions that ripped through...
Franklin Roosevelt has rightly put it, ‘In politics, nothing happens accidentally. If anything happens, it’s palpable that it planned this...
The political inertia of the EU in the South Caucasus becoming a serious problem for the West
The geopolitical panorama in the South Caucasus, which has strategic importance for Europe, has changed dramatically in recent years. Different...
China Replacing Russia as the Boogeyman in the U.S. Presidential Campaign
During the 2016 U.S. Presidential bid, Russia was picked as a scapegoat to justify the loss endured by the Democratic...
Armed Bandits: The Novel Security Threat in Nigeria
The shrinking of Lake Chad which has led to competition between farmers and herders over scarce resources coupled with Boko...
AfDB presents findings of the Angola Green Mini-Grid Market Assessment
The African Development Bank hosted a webinar to present the findings and recommendations of the Angola Green Mini-Grid Market Assessment...
Ten Years to Midnight: Four urgent global crises and their strategic solutions
The world has 10 years to solve its urgent challenges or it will be too late. In his new book, TEN...
Intelligence2 days ago
ISIS and the Militant Jihad on Instagram
South Asia3 days ago
One year Siege of Kashmir
Southeast Asia2 days ago
What Indonesia Can Do to Prevent Nuclear Arms Race in Asia Pacific?
Eastern Europe2 days ago
The long-term threat of Armenian nationalism
Africa2 days ago
Somalia: An American Media Pundit, Exaggerates and Weaponizes International Aid
EU Politics3 days ago
EU-Vietnam trade agreement enters into force
Newsdesk3 days ago
Amid COVID-19 Pandemic, Liberia Has a Chance for a Robust Recovery
Russia3 days ago
Russia marks 15 years of its membership in OIC