Critical Analytical Note

Home » Uncategorized » SOUTH CHINA SEA DECISION #2


posts by email.

Critical Analytical Note: Critical Analytical Note

Legality of Hyperlinks

Legality of Hyperlinks

I, for one, while writing, picture the intended audience and the beneficiaries (wishful thinking). This article talks about the legality of hyperlinks, taking a leap from trademarks we jump to the next but a slightly tangled trajectory of Intellectual property Law. Copyrights are about ideas, they say ideas are bullet proof but with all my […]

Preliminary decree in partition suit and role of Commissioner

Preliminary decree in partition suit and role of Commissioner

In a partition suit, preliminary decree is passed. An execution petition is filed by the plaintiff before the court. Court allows for it and appoints a commissioner in furtherance of the same. However, objections are filed against the execution of the decree and for the recall of preliminary decree, by the defendant. Court allows for […]

Filing for trademark in India

Filing for trademark in India

In today’s materialistic world where intangible standards of quality such as the goodwill and the brand value of a certain product matter than the tangible quality of the product itself, when the common folk, the youth, dances to the tunes of wakhra swag shunning the idea of running after the brand tags but savagely contradicting […]

Material alterations to a Cheque

Material alterations to a Cheque

We received multiple requests to consider doing a post on material alterations to a Cheque than confining ourselves to just alterations in the signature. In this post we look at various issues that arise out of altering a Cheque…let’s get started! What constitutes material alteration of a Cheque once it has been signed? What changes […]

Cheque bounce Case (Altered presumption of acquittal by sessions court)

Cheque bounce Case (Altered presumption of acquittal by sessions court)

Now let’s alter the presumption. Presumption here is that Sessions court has acquitted the individual after he was convicted by the trial court. In case of acquittal by session court, section 378 of CrPC will come into play. Under sub-section 4, a private individual may by an application made to HC ask for grants special leave […]


This article is second in series of articles that analyse the recent decision of Permanent Court of Arbitration in the matter of Philippines v. China. In this part I will analyse arguments advanced by Chinese side with respect to the jurisdiction of Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague and consideration of the same by the Court of Arbitration while deliberating upon its jurisdiction.
Chines side simply produced the argument that it was unilateral Arbitration proceedings initiated by the Philippines. Under such circumstances, China stated that it will not be bound either to participate in the proceedings or by the outcome of such proceedings. Further, China has also made clear—through the publication of a Position Paper in December 2014 and in other official statements—that, in its view, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in this matter.


However, two provisions of the Convention address the situation of a party that objects to the jurisdiction of a tribunal and declines to participate in the proceedings:

(a) Article 288 of the Convention provides that:

“In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.”

(b) Article 9 of Annex VII to the Convention provides that:

“If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its case, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to make its award. Absence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. Before making its award, the arbitral tribunal must satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law.”


When these two provisions are read together, it becomes clear that the Court had jurisdiction in the stated issue and China being a signatory to the convention, is bound by the decisions of this court. The Tribunal has addressed the scope of its jurisdiction to consider the Philippines’ claims both in its Award on Jurisdiction, to the extent that issues of jurisdiction could be decided as a preliminary matter, and in its Award of 12 July 2016, to the extent that issues of jurisdiction were intertwined with the merits of the Philippines’ claims. The Tribunal’s Award of 12 July 2016 also incorporates and reaffirms the decisions on jurisdiction taken in the Award on Jurisdiction.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: