PH๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐.๐. ๐๐๐๐๐
A Tiktoker lawyer named Bernice Piรฑol-Rodriguez released a 90-second video on the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal decision, which are full of unsophisticated reading of the decision and outright lies on its interpretation. We have dissected her statements last night. But here I will emphasise one of her totally FALSE statement, which reveals her level of familiarity with international relations.
She said that it was the UNITED NATIONS who made the pronouncements she was claiming in her video. This is INCORRECT.
FIRST, the Permanent Court of Arbitration is NOT a United Nations Court. The PCA was established through a treaty in 1899. It predated the United Nations, which was only established in 1945 through a treaty signed in San Francisco.
SECOND, the Permanent Court of Arbitration served only as a REGISTRY to the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal. The role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration is VERY CLEAR in Article 5 of the rules of procedure of the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal:
"The International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague shall serve as the Registry for the proceedings (the โRegistryโ). It shall maintain an archive of the arbitral proceedings and provide appropriate registry services as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal." (see: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).
THIRD, the United Nations has only one court, it is the International Court of Justice. This is clearly stated in Article 92 of the UN Charter: "The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations." (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).
The UN Security Council can also establish ad hoc criminal tribunals. It has done so several times in the past, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
The South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal was NOT established by the UN Security Council nor it is a UN court.
FOURTH, UNCLOS has only one court established and that is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
Arbitration is one of the dispute mechanisms under UNCLOS. The South China Sea Arbitration tribunal was an ad hoc tribunal established under Annex VII of UNCLOS. However, this does not make it a UN court, nor its decisions can be considered UN decision.
The South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal was established under the sole expenses of the Philippines, as it ฯรกรญd even the share of China, without even requesting the tribunal to make it pay its share. If the Philippines wouldn't pay it, the proceedings would have been suspended or terminated as provided by Article 33(3) of the Rules of Procedure (see: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).
Ergo, Atty. Bernice Piรฑol-Rodriguez made false claims about a very simple issue. What else she isn't getting right? Let's hope that her students in Public International Law in Cor Jesu College in Digos City have their own initiative to study deeper international relations, which is the foundation of international law.
Source:
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
A Tiktoker lawyer named Bernice Piรฑol-Rodriguez released a 90-second video on the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal decision, which are full of unsophisticated reading of the decision and outright lies on its interpretation. We have dissected her statements last night. But here I will emphasise one of her totally FALSE statement, which reveals her level of familiarity with international relations.
She said that it was the UNITED NATIONS who made the pronouncements she was claiming in her video. This is INCORRECT.
FIRST, the Permanent Court of Arbitration is NOT a United Nations Court. The PCA was established through a treaty in 1899. It predated the United Nations, which was only established in 1945 through a treaty signed in San Francisco.
SECOND, the Permanent Court of Arbitration served only as a REGISTRY to the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal. The role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration is VERY CLEAR in Article 5 of the rules of procedure of the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal:
"The International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague shall serve as the Registry for the proceedings (the โRegistryโ). It shall maintain an archive of the arbitral proceedings and provide appropriate registry services as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal." (see: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).
THIRD, the United Nations has only one court, it is the International Court of Justice. This is clearly stated in Article 92 of the UN Charter: "The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations." (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).
The UN Security Council can also establish ad hoc criminal tribunals. It has done so several times in the past, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
The South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal was NOT established by the UN Security Council nor it is a UN court.
FOURTH, UNCLOS has only one court established and that is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
Arbitration is one of the dispute mechanisms under UNCLOS. The South China Sea Arbitration tribunal was an ad hoc tribunal established under Annex VII of UNCLOS. However, this does not make it a UN court, nor its decisions can be considered UN decision.
The South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal was established under the sole expenses of the Philippines, as it ฯรกรญd even the share of China, without even requesting the tribunal to make it pay its share. If the Philippines wouldn't pay it, the proceedings would have been suspended or terminated as provided by Article 33(3) of the Rules of Procedure (see: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).
Ergo, Atty. Bernice Piรฑol-Rodriguez made false claims about a very simple issue. What else she isn't getting right? Let's hope that her students in Public International Law in Cor Jesu College in Digos City have their own initiative to study deeper international relations, which is the foundation of international law.
Source:
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.