Use international law, call out China’s violations

Contact Counsellor

Last Updated22/02/2022

India’s External Affairs Minister: India-China Line of Actual Control (LAC) has arisen due to the “disregard” by China of written agreements.
China’s doing at LAC is not a mere “disregard” but blatant violation of international law as part of a larger game of Chinese expansionism.

Guided by a series of bilateral agreements over the years.
All these agreements is complete proscription on the threat or use of force.
1993 agreement: provides neither side shall use or threaten to use force against the other by any means.
Boundary questions to be resolved through peaceful and friendly consultations.

1996 agreement(Article I): prohibits the use of military capability against the other side.
2005(Article I) and 2013(Article III) agreements: prohibition on the use of force.
United Nations (UN) Charter[Article 2(4)]: States being forbidden from using force in international relations.
UN Charter recognises two exceptions:

June, 2020 military scuffle between India and China in Galwan: a clear case of China using military force against India.
It violates all the bilateral treaties between India-China but also the UN Charter.
China continued unabated through multiple transgressions at the LAC.
China implemented a new border law that renames several places in Arunachal Pradesh.
Also aims to set up boundary markers on all its land borders.
LAC transgressions and the new border law violate Article IX of the 2005 agreement.
There are reports of a huge military build-up by China in the Eastern Ladakh Sector.
This breaches another key tenet of both the 1993 and the 1996 agreements.
1996 agreement(Article III): requires the two sides to reduce armaments such as combat tanks and vehicles, missiles, and mortars and big mortar guns.

China portrays it as a socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics.
China views law as an instrument in the service of the state[Chinese Communist Party (CCP)].
This oppose the rule of law theory in liberal democracies where law’s function is to constrain unbridled state power.
China’s bellicosity towards India: complete violation of international law.

China denounced a 2016 ruling in favor of the Philippines: a maritime dispute between the two sides in the South China Sea.
By an arbitration tribunal(in aegis of UNCLOS).
China has ingeniously exploited the system to pursue its policy of mercantilism.
China is accused of providing illegal subsidies, manipulating currency to make exports competitive, stealing intellectual property, and forcing companies to transfer technology.
China signed NPT obligations but secretly violated these obligations by providing nuclear technology to its allies through proxies.

China uses the sovereignty argument to cover up its barefaced illegalities.
Chinese unethical legal warfare or lawfare is aimed at hamstringing the opponents without actually fighting a war.
The practice of weaponizing international law sours relations between countries & generates an atmosphere of distrust.

India should make a strong legal case by painstakingly marshaling all the international treaties.
It includes the UN Charter and customary international law.
An unequivocal proclamation should be made at all international platforms.
India has the right to act in self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter to counter any Chinese misadventure.
The purpose of India’s lawfare should be to demonstrate to the world that China’s international law violations pose a threat to the entire international community, not just India.

India needs to mainstream global law lexicon into its diplomatic toolkit to respond to Beijing’s direct challenges.
Chinese exceptionalism that strikes at the heart of cherished liberal democratic values is no lesser evil than a liberal global order dominated by American exceptionalism.