Xinhua News Agency:

My question is for Mr. Liu. We noticed that in 2006 China made a declaration on optional exceptions in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, the tribunal said that the declaration wouldn't affect its jurisdiction. What impact will this claim make on other countries that also made similar optional exception declarations?

Liu Zhenmin:

During the negotiation and preparation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) before 1982, those who participated in the issue made a very wise decision to write a clause saying that when a member state signs, ratifies or accedes to the UNCLOS, it can declare under Article 298 that it does not accept compulsory procedures relating to disputes over sea boundary delimitations, military activities, law enforcement activities and many other issues. Why did they write the clause? Because the aim of the UNCLOS is maintaining international sea order. How to maintain the order? In international law, there is no such idea as a "world police." It's not like a country where there are legislative organs, law enforcement organs and government organs. In the field of international law, there is no "world police," so many issues have to be addressed through negotiation on the basis of mutual respect. It has been accepted that disputes over sea boundary delimitations should be settled by a common consensus reached by the countries concerned. Therefore, Article 298 was created for the purpose of maintaining a stable international sea order and maintaining stable relations between various countries. This is a requirement of both the global reality and international laws.

After the UNCLOS entered into force in 1994, more than 30 countries have issued such declarations, including four permanent members of the Security Council, namely Russia, France, Britain and China. The only exception is the United States, which has never verified the UNCLOS. It has remained outside the UNCLOS while at the same time trying to dictate what other people should do.

The 30 plus countries that have joined in the UNCLOS are also very concerned about the arbitration award because the award not only infringes on China's rights but also the effectiveness of Articles 298 and，to some extent, on the integrity of the UNCLOS and the rules for applying dispute settlement procedures established by the UNCLOS. I advise you to read chapter 15 of the UNCLOS carefully. Those articles should not be viewed separately or individually. No one should make decisions based on one paragraph or article alone. It is an integral system. This ruling is an injustice in that it has been decided according to only one article. It thinks it has the authority, however, to forget that the UNCLOS is systematic. In my opinion, the ruling has not just violated China's rights but has undermined the authority and integrity of the UNCLOS and the system the Articles 298 established. I believe there will be more countries in the future who support the proper settlement of the problem. Thank you.