| 作者 |
 中国下令东海油田禁航 日本要求中方说明原因 |
 |
| 所跟贴 |
如果中国有把握，为什么不提交国际仲裁呢？ -- 长线投资 - (135 Byte) 2006-4-18 周二, 02:14 (529 reads) |
250
[博客]
[个人文集]
头衔: 海归中将
声望: 学员
加入时间: 2005/06/06
文章: 5263
来自: 外星
海归分: 664766
|
|
|
作者：250 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
if you could kindly provide a google link on the international arbitration over the german/scandinavian dispute. i have no knowledge of that case thus not able to reference to it and offer my comments
in absence of that case reference, i would say, just how i look at it:
in legal sense, this is a pure territorial dispute. I am sure each side can come up with certain historical references of who owned which at what time, as one. then each side may have a scientific theory on because who owned which and because of the natural extension of what thus it becomes logical the part is who's....
it is very difficult for a third party to judge over this, but it is possible, provided, the following conditions are met
1. both sides respect a nutrial party as the third party to be the recognized arbitration party and agree to respect the result (arbitrations have no binding effect)
2. there is an international convention that both countries ratified and signed as the ground
3. if it is purely technical dispute of where scientifically the line should be drawn, it may work through arbitration. i am not sure any arbitration would be meaningful over the territorial dispute, if one claims 200 miles off shore line and the other only honor 12 miles: this is where sino-u.s. mid air collission was all about too. (i have no knowledge on the legal ground of each claim, only presume they based on histroical reference and/or the 200 v.s. 12 miles)
now, even if any party is to offer arbitration, either party or both could still walk away from it.
international conventions do not really mean much, the examples are set by americans. therefore if any one try to put any american officals on trial at hagu war tribunals: u.s.a. is not a signator on many conventions, nor is former iraq or the former ugoslavia. and the americans worked out many bi-laterials with a lot of countries right before they began the invasion into iraq.
so you see, un cannot really enforce any thing unless some major power as members are motivated for their own interests
territorial dispute can only be resolved on bi-lateral level. british troops faught the argentine troops, nidia/pakistan, israel/palestine...now we have korea/russia/taiwan/china to dispute with japan on others, only no military
tensions are mounting to the point of explosive as the others just yet
i doubt any european countries within EU would still have territorial issues today. within Eu they could always solve the technical disputes....
作者：250 在 海归商务 发贴, 来自【海归网】 http://www.haiguinet.com
|
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题, 不能回复主题, 不能编辑自己的文章, 不能删除自己的文章, 不能发表投票, 您 不可以 发表活动帖子在本论坛, 不能添加附件不能下载文件, |
|
|
