Exploitation

Beckman, Ericka

doi:10.5749/minnesota/9780816679195.003.0005

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…167 The UNCLOS leaves no historic residual rights 'that China could rely upon to support a claim to jurisdiction over natural resources in and under water inside the nine-dash line'. 168 As said before, China jettisons colonial treaties as bad sources and considers customary law to be inferior to treaty law. Building on that, Chinese publicists today argue for a de novo void in postcolonial treaties, like the UNCLOS, which they think constitutes an 'open invitation for customary law to fill' gaps that favour China.…”

Section: Third Party Arbitration Of Sino-indian Disputes and Courts Amentioning

confidence: 93%

Sino–Indian Attitudes to International Law: of Nations, States and Colonial Hangovers

Singh¹

2015

Chin J Comp Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behind China's and India's different attitudes to international law lie China's semicolonial and India's colonial past. Indeed, Asia's colonial past is central to the many cartographic hangovers that have remained between China and India and China and its neighbours in the South China Sea. While India has adhered to the British colonial position since 1947, China has denounced colonial treaties since 1920. However, China and its publicists' acceptance of even post-colonial treaties, such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), is selective and political. 1 Such an attitude strategically suspends international law's primary sources. Contrarily, India and its courts have not just adhered to these colonial treaties, but the Indian courts have also upheld customary laws as common law. The 1954 Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet Region of China and India (Panchsheel Treaty) is often said to embody the Sino-Indian post-colonial engagement. 2 The functional role of this 1954 Sino-Indian treaty, however, remains overstated, although, recently, a Sino-Indian joint statement acknowledged the positive role of bilateral agreements since 1954. This article compares the attitudes to international law in China and India based on (i) their construction of sovereignty since 1947-9; (ii) their mutual engagement via the 1954 Panchsheel Treaty's bilateralism and the politics of colonial maps; and (iii) Sino-Indian approaches to the sources of international law.

show abstract

Section: Third Party Arbitration Of Sino-indian Disputes and Courts Amentioning

confidence: 93%

Sino–Indian Attitudes to International Law: of Nations, States and Colonial Hangovers

Singh¹

2015

Chin J Comp Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Exploitation

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Sino–Indian Attitudes to International Law: of Nations, States and Colonial Hangovers

Sino–Indian Attitudes to International Law: of Nations, States and Colonial Hangovers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About