11 China’s Theory and Practice on Maritime Dispute Resolution
219
Therefore, whether the obligation of exchange views has been performed depends
on whether parties to a dispute are in good faith. The obligation to exchange views
must preclude unjustified breaking off from the discussions, disregard of the agreed
procedures and other malicious acts in violation of the principle of good faith, and
ensure fairness and equality of the dispute settlement mechanism.
In light of these requirements, the Philippines has not fulfilled its obligation to
exchange views in the South China Sea Arbitration. It was also analyzed in the “Position Paper”, “The Tribunal’s Award in the ‘South China Sea Arbitration’ initiated by
the Philippines is Null and Void” and “The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A
Critical Study”.
72
11.4 Conclusion
As a State party to the UNCLOS, China has consistently performed provisions of the
Convention in accordance with pacta sunt servanda, putting stress on negotiation
to resolve disputes. In no case would China participate in or accept compulsory
procedures entailing binding decisions when conditions under the UNCLOS are not
met.
References
Adede, A. O. (1982). The basic structure of the disputes settlement part of the Law of the Sea
Convention. Ocean Development and International Law, 11(1–2), 125–148.
Anderson, D. (2007) Article 283 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In Ndiaye,
T. M. and Wolfrum, R. (Eds.), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes:
Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (p. 865). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Boyle, A. E. (1997). Dispute settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of
fragmentation and jurisdiction. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46, 37–54.
Charney, J. I. (1996). The implications of expanding international dispute settlement systems: The
1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. American Journal of International Law 90, 69–74.
Charney, J. I., & Alexander, L. M. (1993a). International maritime boundaries, Volume I (pp. 1019–
1037, 1049–1056, 1091–1097). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Charney, J. I., & Alexander, L. M. (1993b). International maritime boundaries, Volume II (pp. 1443–
1472). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Charney, J. I., & Smith, R. W. (2002). International maritime boundaries, Volume IV (pp. 2683–
2694). Haque: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Chinese Society of International Law. (2016). The Tribunal’s Award in the “South China Sea
Arbitration” initiated by the Philippines is null and void (pp. 1–110). Beijing: Law Press.
Chinese Society of International Law. (2018). The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A critical
study (pp. 1–654). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
72 “Position Paper”, paras. 47–50. “The Tribunal’s Award in the ‘South China Sea Arbitration’
initiated by the Philippines is Null and Void”, pp. 86–90. “The South China Sea Arbitration Awards:
A Critical Study”, paras. 331–352.
219
Therefore, whether the obligation of exchange views has been performed depends
on whether parties to a dispute are in good faith. The obligation to exchange views
must preclude unjustified breaking off from the discussions, disregard of the agreed
procedures and other malicious acts in violation of the principle of good faith, and
ensure fairness and equality of the dispute settlement mechanism.
In light of these requirements, the Philippines has not fulfilled its obligation to
exchange views in the South China Sea Arbitration. It was also analyzed in the “Position Paper”, “The Tribunal’s Award in the ‘South China Sea Arbitration’ initiated by
the Philippines is Null and Void” and “The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A
Critical Study”.
72
11.4 Conclusion
As a State party to the UNCLOS, China has consistently performed provisions of the
Convention in accordance with pacta sunt servanda, putting stress on negotiation
to resolve disputes. In no case would China participate in or accept compulsory
procedures entailing binding decisions when conditions under the UNCLOS are not
met.
References
Adede, A. O. (1982). The basic structure of the disputes settlement part of the Law of the Sea
Convention. Ocean Development and International Law, 11(1–2), 125–148.
Anderson, D. (2007) Article 283 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In Ndiaye,
T. M. and Wolfrum, R. (Eds.), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes:
Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (p. 865). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Boyle, A. E. (1997). Dispute settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of
fragmentation and jurisdiction. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46, 37–54.
Charney, J. I. (1996). The implications of expanding international dispute settlement systems: The
1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. American Journal of International Law 90, 69–74.
Charney, J. I., & Alexander, L. M. (1993a). International maritime boundaries, Volume I (pp. 1019–
1037, 1049–1056, 1091–1097). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Charney, J. I., & Alexander, L. M. (1993b). International maritime boundaries, Volume II (pp. 1443–
1472). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Charney, J. I., & Smith, R. W. (2002). International maritime boundaries, Volume IV (pp. 2683–
2694). Haque: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Chinese Society of International Law. (2016). The Tribunal’s Award in the “South China Sea
Arbitration” initiated by the Philippines is null and void (pp. 1–110). Beijing: Law Press.
Chinese Society of International Law. (2018). The South China Sea Arbitration Awards: A critical
study (pp. 1–654). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
72 “Position Paper”, paras. 47–50. “The Tribunal’s Award in the ‘South China Sea Arbitration’
initiated by the Philippines is Null and Void”, pp. 86–90. “The South China Sea Arbitration Awards:
A Critical Study”, paras. 331–352.