19 - 11 - 2017 | 13:54
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Publications Vietnamese Publications One confrontation, three legal questions

One confrontation, three legal questions

E-mail Print PDF

“Is Vietnam or China legally right in this confrontation?”: According to UNCLOS as has been interpreted by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the answer is definitely Vietnam, regardless of the answers to the first two questions.

alt

(Distances from the two deployment locations of HY-981. Created by Phan Van Song using Google Earth.)

After two and a half months of confrontation with Vietnam, on 15/7/2014 China withdrew the billion-dollar oil rig HY-981 that it had deployed near the Paracel Islands, the subject of a territorial dispute between the two countries since the early 20th century. The withdrawal of the oil rig has lowered tensions in the South China Sea, which had risen to the highest levels since China’s seizure of Johnson South Reef in the Spratly Islands in 1988, in which over 70 Vietnamese personels were killed.

The simmering territorial and maritime disputes in the region mean that similar incidents are likely to occur again. It is therefore worth trying to see what international law has to say about the rights and wrongs in this incident. It will be seen that a clear cut answer can be found, even if some underlying questions remain unresolved.

Sovereignty over the Paracels

The most obvious question is“Does sovereignty over the Paracels belong to China or Vietnam?”, even if, as will be shown later, this question does not determine who was right or wrong in the confrontation.

This question is in fact more difficult to answer than partisans on both sides would like to believe. China’s arguments which allude to distant history such as the Northern Song Dynasty might sound impressive to the layman, but they are unlikely to satisfy the requirement of international law that the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory is based on declarations and acts of sovereignty by the state, not by individuals. Vietnam’s arguments based on the activities of the Nguyen Dynasty and French assertions of sovereignty are, on the other hand, much more likely to satisfy this requirement.

However, Vietnam’s sovereignty claim may be affected by a note that North Vietnam’s Prime Minister Pham Van Dong sent to Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1958, in which he recognised China’s Declaration of the Territorial Sea of the same year. In that declaration, China claimed a 12-nautical mile territorial for its territories, which it said to include the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands. Vietnam’s counter argument seems to be based on the view that during the Vietnam War sovereignty over the Paracels and Spratlys was being maintained by South Vietnam, and that North Vietnam’s 1958 note which Pham sent to Zhou only addressed China’s claim to a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles, not the question of sovereignty to these islands. In any case, this is a topic that requires further research, and only an international court or tribunal’s answer to the question “Does sovereignty over the Paracels belong to China or Vietnam?” could be guaranteed to be objective and authoritative.

In whose waters?

The second question is “Was HY-981 deployed in waters belonging to Vietnam or China?” Naively one might think that the answer to this question depends on that to the first question. However, that is only true if HY-981 deployed in waters belonging the Paracels, and closer examination shows that this is unlikely to be the case.

The two deployment locations of the oil rig, between the Paracels and the Vietnamese coast and closer to that coast than to Hainan Island, means that if the Paracels belonged to Vietnam then the waters in the area would belong to Vietnam.If, on the other hand, the Paracels belonged to China then those waters would belong to China only if the Paracels were allocated an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) that extends to or beyond HY-981’s deployment locations. However, according to rulings by the international courts (such as the ICJ’s ruling in the Colombia-Nicaragua dispute) and international practice in maritime delimitations (such as China and Vietnam’s delimitation agreement in the Gulf of Tonkin), small islands such as Woody Island and Pattle Island in the Paracels are unlikely to be allocated an EEZ that extends more than a quarter of the distance to continental coasts. China's drilling location is 153 nautical miles from Vietnam's mainland, 190 nautical miles from China’s Hainan Island, 88 nautical miles from Woody Island and 58 nautical miles from Pattle Island. It is therefore most unlikely that if a court or tribunal is ask to rule on the matter it will agree that the Paracels’ EEZ can extend far enough to cover HY-981’s deployment location.

Thus, regardless of who owns the Paracels, the answer to the question “Do the waters around the oil rig belong to Vietnam or China?” is most likely to be Vietnam.

Obviously China does not accept this answer, as demonstrated by its actions. Unfortunately, given that it has rejected to the maximum possible extent the dispute settlement procedures specified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), no court or tribunal has the jurisdiction to uphold what is most likely to be right, and so the issue remains undetermined.

Given this regrettable state of affairs, which is brought about by China’s avoidance of international law of maritime delimitation, the third question is “Which country was legally right in this confrontation?” The answer to this question can be found in UNCLOS, which both Vietnam and China have ratified.

UNCLOS rules on disputes

Since there is no agreement between Vietnam and China on the question “Do the waters around the oil rig belong to Vietnam or China?” and both side have potentially valid answer from the legal point of view (even if, as shown earlier, Vietnam's case is much stronger), the waters around the oil rig is by definition disputed. This is where UNCLOS comes in.

Article 74(3) of the Convention stipulates that where there are unresolved conflicting EEZ claims,“the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.” In the 2007 judgement on the Guyana-Suriname dispute, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that unilateral drilling in a disputed area is a violation of this Article. It is thus clear and undeniable that China’s deployment of a giant drilling rig is a violation of this Article, and Vietnam was legally correct in opposing this act.

Unfortunately, China’s rejection of UNCLOS’s dispute settlement procedures to the maximum possible extent again means that no court or tribunal has the jurisdiction to uphold what is certainly right. However, if Vietnam unilaterally pursued these procedures, there is a possibility that an UNCLOS Annex VII tribunal will find that China’s refusal to negotiate the waters around the Paracels with Vietnam is a violation of Article 279, which requires the two countries to “settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by peaceful means in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations”.

Conclusion

In any case, the answers to the three legal questions raised about the most recent bout of confrontation between Vietnam and China are as follows.

1. “Does sovereignty over the Paracels belong to China or Vietnam?”: Inconclusive, but this question is not a determinant for the confrontation over the deployment of HY-981.

2.“Was HY-981 deployed in waters belonging to Vietnam or China?”: According to jurisprudence and international practice in delimitation, the answer is most likely to be Vietnam, regardless of the answer to the first question.

3. “Is Vietnam or China legally right in this confrontation?”: According to UNCLOS as has been interpreted by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the answer is definitely Vietnam, regardless of the answers to the first two questions.

By Duong Danh Huy


Newer news items:
Older news items:

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

China's 2017 fishing ban a threat to maritime rule-based order

China's 2017 fishing ban a threat to maritime rule-based order

China's 2017 fishing moratorium constitutes a severe violation of UNCLOS, which accords all the countries sovereign rights and jurisdiction over their Exclusive Economic Zones. 

Read more...

Law of the Sea Ruling Reveals Dangerous Chinese Nationalism

Law of the Sea Ruling Reveals Dangerous Chinese Nationalism

The recent ruling by a United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Arbitration Tribunal of the on a case brought by the Philippines against China has been welcomed by many governments that are concerned about rising tensions in the South China Sea. However, within China it has provoked outpourings of defiance.

Read more...

A fair and effective code of conduct for the South China Sea

A fair and effective code of conduct for the South China Sea

Some people could blame on the DOC's weaknesses when they look at current picture of the South China Sea which is painted with distrust and tensions. The region is in need of having an effective documnent, so-called COC. Yet, what are elements that should be included?

Read more...

US analysis of China’s nine-dash line is correct

US analysis of China’s nine-dash line is correct

Historic fishing activities by the peoples around the South China Sea in what was at that time international waters cannot give China the right to fish in other countries’ EEZs today.

Read more...

South China Sea Disputes: Facts or Fiction?

South China Sea Disputes: Facts or Fiction?

If a country cites international law to justify its position while avoiding having that position tested in court, such use of international law is just rhetoric, and does not deserve support from scholars.

Read more...

Chinese Offshore Oil Company Fuels South China Sea Tension

Chinese Offshore Oil Company Fuels South China Sea Tension

CNOOC is using Western technology to further Chinese territorial claims.

Read more...

South China Sea disputes: Chinese historical evidence found wanting

South China Sea disputes: Chinese historical evidence found wanting

“Historical evidences” of some Chinese scholars are vague, erroneous or blatantly false, relying as they do on uncorroborated evidence, faulty logic, misquotes, misinterpretations and outright inventions.

Read more...

One confrontation, three legal questions

One confrontation, three legal questions

“Is Vietnam or China legally right in this confrontation?”: According to UNCLOS as has been interpreted by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the answer is definitely Vietnam, regardless of the answers to the first two questions.

Read more...

New ten-dashed line map revealed China’s ambition

New ten-dashed line map revealed China’s ambition

Deliberately and desperately applying irrelevant concepts and provisions of UNCLOS will not create the legal basis for the nine dashed line claim.

Read more...

South China Sea: Rightness is mightness, not vice versa

South China Sea: Rightness is mightness, not vice versa

The oil-rig incident is a reminder to China that mightiness does not bring rightness, it is the other way around.

Read more...

Exposing China’s Artificial Islands Plan in the Spratly’s

Exposing China’s Artificial Islands Plan in the Spratly’s

Rather than dismissing the concerns of its neighbors as part of a political conspiracy, China should come to understand how its own actions contribute to the perception of a Chinese threat, as evident in its plan to construct artificial islands in the Spratly Archipelago.

Read more...

New tensions in the South China Sea

New tensions in the South China Sea

China is not conducting the activities of oil rig within its right and its illegal aggressive action is affecting stability and peaceful environment in the whole region.

Read more...

South China Sea & China's Grand Chessboard

South China Sea & China's Grand Chessboard

China has thrown a ball in to the U.S. court, and it is up to the U.S. to respond firmly.

Read more...

The Paracels: Forty Years On

The Paracels: Forty Years On

China’s act of locating its oil rig in contested waters in the Paracels is more than a dispute over sovereignty. It is also a dispute about international law of the sea.

Read more...

The Paracels: Does China have ‘undisputed sovereignty’?

The Paracels: Does China have ‘undisputed sovereignty’?

China should admit that sovereignty over the Paracels is disputed and withdraw its oil rig from its current location because any drilling that causes permanent change to the seabed in the disputed water is not allowed under international law.

Read more...

The danger of convoluting everything into sovereignty disputes

The danger of convoluting everything into sovereignty disputes

Much of the tensions in the South China Sea could be resolved by applying UNCLOS’s dispute settlement procedure to matters relating to maritime delimitation and cooperation in disputed areas.

Read more...

Sovereignty over Paracels: Article Lets Off Beijing Lightly

Sovereignty over Paracels: Article Lets Off Beijing Lightly

Bateman states that "a negotiated maritime boundary in this area would likely place the rig within China’s EEZ even if reduced weight was given to China’s claimed insular features". A careful analysis suggests just the opposite.

Read more...

Dark cloud caused by China’s oil rig may have a silver lining

Dark cloud caused by China’s oil rig may have a silver lining

A legally binding end to China’s nebulous and maritime claims in these areas would bring enormous clarity, stability and security to at least two thirds of the area that is currently covered by China’s ominous U-shaped line, and could also have positive effects on the Paracels area.

Read more...

Haiyang 981: From Water Cannons to Court?

Haiyang 981: From Water Cannons to Court?

A dangerous clash has flared up between Vietnam and China over the latter’s deployment of an oil rig near the disputed Paracels. One option for Vietnam is to submit the dispute to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’s (UNCLOS) compulsory dispute settlement procedure.

Read more...

Reassurance needed, unlikely over the Nine-Dash Line

Reassurance needed, unlikely over the Nine-Dash Line

What would reassure neighbouring nations is for China to bring their claims into the realm of international law and reasonableness. China should be prepared to negotiate in good faith the limits of the disputed area.

Read more...
More:

Language

South China Sea Studies

Joomla Slide Menu by DART Creations

Special Publication

 

Search

Login Form

Subscribe form

Top Photo Galleries

Web Links

VIETNAM MOFA SPOKESPERSON

 

NATIONAL BOUNDARIES