decoding China’s occupation

There are three reasons why India is particularly concerned about China’s construction activities on Pangong Tso. One, India’s war with China in 1962 exposed its diplomatic miscalculations and inadequacies in defense preparedness. China surprised India in 1957 with an announcement that it had built a road connecting Tibet and Xinjiang via Aksai Chin. India formally opposed the move in 1958. There is still trauma in India about that war. Second, China does not support the idea of ​​entering into treaties with its neighbors to settle territorial disputes and maritime disputes. Recently, China began construction of a bridge over a part of Pangong Tso, which India claims is its international border and is in its territory. A part of the region has been under Chinese control since 1958. Pangong Tso saw military action between Indian and Chinese armies in 1962. In 2017 there was a confrontation between the armies of the two countries and in 2020 the violent clashes resulted in casualties. , Third, most worryingly, China does not comply with the general rules of international law; Rather, it seeks to base its claims on historical rights to the detriment of the rights of its neighbors, as in the case of its claims in the South China Sea.

illegality in international law

Under China’s belligerent action and military strategy, Pangong Tso has been kept in the category of occupied and disputed territory. In the eyes of international law, business is a temporary phenomenon. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the case of Palmas Islands held that only the continuous and peaceful demonstration of territorial sovereignty (peaceful in relation to other states) is as good a title; The title based on embodiment has no place in international law. India has neither accepted China’s unjustified claims on that part nor its construction activities. Therefore, China cannot take the argument that India has rejected; that by conduct or inaction by India is an expression of consent. In contemporary international law, the most realistic approach to settling a boundary agreement is to create each other’s shared expectations of mutual obligation. What is important is a signal to the other party that the final commitment has been made.

Perhaps the best provisions in contemporary international law to understand regional questions are Article 2(3) and Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. All members are required under Article 2(4) to refrain in their relations with each other from threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations . All the members have to settle their disputes peacefully.

ICJ verdict

China can argue that it is building the bridge in peace; That it is not causing harm to human or property. To clarify the situation in Pangong Tso there are several decisions by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relating to non-violent construction activities of the state in the disputed and occupied area. In ‘Legal Consequences of Building a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory’, the ICJ examined the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. The Court took the position that the construction of a wall in the case of the Occupied Palestinian Territories strongly indicated a violation of Article 2(4). The court observed that the construction of the wall created a “fit compli” on the ground which may well be permanent, and is therefore similar to a really Annex Therefore, it appears that the ICJ has decided in this case that the construction of the wall amounts to the acquisition of area by force.

The ICJ’s decision on ‘certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the border area’ is also important in understanding China’s moves. Court. described the construction of Canosy (pipeline) and Nicaragua’s deployment of troops to Costa Rica as a violation of Costa Rica’s territorial sovereignty. It added that Nicaragua’s view that its activities are within its own territory does not exclude the possibility of outlawing the activities.

Thus, the fact that China is building a bridge over the lake without using armed force or without using fire or causing injury to humans, does not legitimize the activity. In the case of certain activities, Judge Robinson described Nicaragua’s construction activities in Costa Rica as a “non-violent use of force.” The message of these decisions of the ICJ is that if a state, with the help of its military presence, tries to peacefully change the status quo in the disputed and occupied area, such a move is considered unlawful.

Anwar Sadat is Senior Assistant Professor in International Law at the Indian Society of International Law, New Delhi. Email: Sadatshazia@gmail.com