Talk:Permanent Court of Arbitration

Milosevic

Milosevic is dead. The good news is that the whole "Greater Serbia" movement may be dying too. The bad news is, he dies before he recieved any sentence from The Hague. This trial was fairly unique. It's one of the first of it's kind since the Nuremberg trials. However, the Nuremberg trials reached a decisive conclusion, which in turn allowed the healing process to begin, and established the legal authority of a court like the ICC. This trial did not. Europe's lodestone has always been, and always will be, it's inability to unite over much of anything. Here was the opportunity for the ICC to justify it's existence by bringing a war criminal to justice. The ICC instead became weighed down with beuracracy and indecision, to the point where it could not frunction well enough to reach a verdict of either innocence or guilt before the defendant died in his cell. Maybe the judges thought this would relieve them of the burden of having to say something controversial, which either verdict would have been. But it just makes the Court look spineless and weak, unable to take a stand. Their inability to reach a consensus within the time needed shows the inefficiency of this court, and displays for all the world to see it's fatal flaw. War criminals need not fear the ICC. Milosevic got away with it. The signal sent out by his death is that all the other war criminals probably will, too.Wandering Star 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the wrong forum for the preceding statement since the PCA is not a criminal court. And the respective user seems to mix up the ICC and the ICTY. Too bad... Henning Blatt 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Timor-Leste must be part of this now,

Timor-Leste (East Timor) are currently facing Australia in front of this court, at the request of Timor-Leste, anyone know when they signed up? 111.92.178.246 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Income and expenses

User Sk200608 please provide your reason for persistently deleting this section. Thank you. STSC (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"There have been only 16 arbitration requests accepted (the outcome was accepted by the parties involved) in the PCA's 117 year history"

This sentence is highly ambiguous and dubious. A check at PCA websites indicates more than 30 cases of arbitration over the past decade (https://pcacases.com/web/allcases/). Even if you discount investor-states arbitration, there are more than 16 interstate arbitration cases. The PCA 2010 annual report lists all publicly available cases which mostly is inter-state case (https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2015/12/PCA-annual-report-2010.pdf)

You may argue that this is original research, so here is an article from Melbourne Journal of International Law Volume 15(1) by Kenneth Keith which cite the PCA annual report (http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1694033/Keith1.pdf):

Rather it was a secretariat with a list of possible arbitrators if states in dispute were willing to agree to use its services — as, in fact, 15 countries did in 17 cases during the PCA’s first decade.

In the first 100 years of its existence, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ("PCA") decided 35 disputes, nearly half of them before the Permanent Court of International Justice ("PCIJ") was constituted in 1922: see P Hamilton et al (eds), The Permanent Court of Arbitration: International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution — Summaries of Awards, Settlement Agreements and Reports (Kluwer Law International, 1999). See also the annual reports of the PCA: Permanent Court of Arbitration, Annual Reports (2009) <http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1069> ("PCA Annual Reports").

This clearly contradicts the statement of "There have been only 16 arbitration requests accepted (the outcome was accepted by the parties involved) in the PCA's 117 year history". Either the journalist tried to misconstrue the ICJ former judge's comment or that the former judge was wrong. While it is not possible to know the exact number of cases in which PCA had arbitrated (because not all of the cases are made public), it is most certain that there are more than sixteen. Hand15 (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

17 cases during the first decade, then 35 disputes in the 100 years, obviously the ways of counting are different. I believe if you only count state-state cases, not company-company or company-state cases, there should be only 16 cases. Toto11zi (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands right now is obvious false. A quick look at the website of the PCA shows that it has accepted more than 16 cases in its entire history. In the Annual Report that User:Hand15 provided, the first 24 cases are all inter-state (starting at p. 51). Ergo, the source that states that the PCA has only accepted 16 arbitration requests is, without any explanation to its meaning, false.

The sentence "only 16 arbitration requests have been accepted" in itself does not even warrant the conclusion that only inter-state arbitrations are meant. Indeed, taking in its ordinary meaning those words include all types of arbitration, thus also state-organization, investor-state et cetera. There is nothing in the article suggesting that those 16 arbitrations are only inter-state. On the contrary, the article seems to hint that the PCA is "merely an international mediation agency that allows arbitration for non-state entities and individuals."

Also, in the Wikipedia article, the sentence in the article the outcome was accepted by the parties involved makes absolutely no sense and is in fact not based on the source that is provided. Furthermore, it is mindboggling to me how the same person (Koroma) is first used to distance the PCA from the ICJ and explain how the two have nothing in common but sharing the same venue; and after that he is supposed to be a reliable expert on the PCA who can tell exactly how many cases they accepted.

Ergo, I agree with Hand15 that there were most certainly more than 16 arbitration cases. Without any additional sources that provide exactly which 16 cases Koroma means, and why they are included as 'cases accepted' while others are not included, the sentence should be removed. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"Arbitration requests accepted" means: When one party requests for arbitration by PCA, the other party accepts the arbitration. The Philippines vs the PRC is an example of "arbitration request not accepted". STSC (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense though. "Arbitration request" means asking a third party to arbitrate a dispute. Acceptance of that request unambiguously refers to the third party accepting the request to arbitrate, in this case the PCA. It is the PCA that accepts or rejects the request; China cannot accept the request, it can only accept/not accept the arbitration. The key is "request". Furthermore. if you read the source sentence:

"The PCA is merely an international mediation agency that allows arbitration for non-state entities and individuals. According to Koroma, only 16 arbitration requests have been accepted in its 117-year-long history."

The topic and subject of the sentence is PCA. The passive voice "have been accepted" refers to PCA as agent.Hand15 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Remove Two pro-Chinese editors here have different interpretation of the number. Toto11zi says the number is state-state cases and the outcome was accepted by the parties involved, while STSC says When one party requests for arbitration by PCA, the other party accepts the arbitration. Such an ambiguous number sould not be included in this article. In addition the original source is a Chinese propaganda organ People's Daily.

"UN Court Reaffirms Unrelated to South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal". People's Daily. July 16, 2016.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@User:STSCYour interpretation does not, however, follow mandatorily from the source. It could as well mean that the PCA did not accept the arbitration request.

However, supposing it does mean that one party does not accept the arbitration, it is still unclear what is actually meant by that quote from former Judge Koroma. Neither the 1899 nor the 1907 conventions establishing the PCA make any mention of the necessity for 'acceptance' of arbitration by the other party. Indeed, the drafters considered there to be two possibilities: either another instrument forsaw in binding arbitration when a certain dispute arose (art. 19/40) or the parties would sign a compromis (art. 31/52). The 1907 'statute' even foresaw in certain categories of unilateral arbitration (art. 53). The result of this is that where there is no 'acceptance' by the other party (to sign the compromis) there is either no arbitration, because there is no compromis or the refusal to accept is irrelevant for commencement of the arbitration.

Thus, saying that only 16 cases were accepted raises more questions. Which cases are exactly meant? It is clear that there are far more than 16 inter-state cases on the PCA case list. Are a lot of them not 'accepted' by either party? From the inter-state cases I could find, the following were 'accepted' by both parties:

1. United States v. Mexico (1902)
2. Great Britain/Germany/Italy v. Venezuela (1904)
3. Germany/France/Great Britain v. Japan (1905)
4. France v. Great Britain (1905)
5. Germany v. France (1908)
6. Norway v. Sweden (1909)
7. Great Britain v. United States (1910)
8. United States v. Venezuela (1910)
9. Great Britain v. France (1911)
10. Italy v. Peru (1912)
11. Russia v. Turkey (1912)
12. France v. Italy (Carthage incident) (1913)
13. France v. Italy (Manouba incident) (1913)
14. Netherlands v. Portugal (1914)
15. France/Great Britain/Spain v. Portugal (1920)
16. France v. Peru (1920)
17. Norway v. United States (1922)
18. Netherlands v. United States (1928)
19. France v. Great Britain (1931)
20. Sweden v. United States (1932)
21. Belgium v. Netherlands (2005)
22. Ireland v. United Kingdom mutually terminated (2008)
23. Malaysia v. Singapore (2005)
24. Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago (2006)
25. Guyana v. Suriname (2007)
26. Argentina v. Ghana mutually terminated (2013)
27. Bangladesh v. India (2014)
28. Mauritius v. United Kingdom (2015)
29. Italy v. India pending
30. Malta v. São Tomé and Príncipe pending

The list is probably not complete, in any case I've not included arbitrations that were done at the PCA but not based on the 1899 or 1907 statute, such as Radio Corporation of America v. China (1935), French Mandate v. Egypte (1940), Eritrea v. Yemen (1998), Eritrea v. Ethiopia (2002) although they are usually included in PCA case lists. I've also not included investor/state or state/organization proceedings.

As you can see that is far more than 16 inter-state cases, where both states accepted arbitration. Ergo, I find it hard to believe that "arbitration request accepted" means that "one party requests for arbitration by PCA, the other party accepts the arbitration." Because: 1) this does not follow from the wording in the news article; it is just as plausible that it is meant that the PCA did not 'accept' the arbitration (which it generally can't under the 1899 or 1907 'statutes') 2) in fact, at least thirty inter-state arbitrations have been mutually 'accepted'.

Furthermore, there are far more cogent reasons to delete the phrase. 1) Why is an ICJ judge supposed to be a reliable source on this matter, especially because the in the article he first convinces us that the PCA and the ICJ have no dealings with each other and are totally distinct 2) From the article, all we can reliable say is that "According to the Manilla Bulletin, former Judge of the ICJ Koroma said that in its history only 16 arbitration requests have been accepted'. 3) In fact, this one quote in a newspaper does not warrant the generalization to a universal truth that only 16 cases were accepted 4) it is profoundly unclear what is actually meant with accepting arbitrations: by whom (PCA, parties, international community)? How many are—not—accepted (I know of only two: Netherlands v. Russia (2015) and Philippines v. China (2016))? Why is it relevant (especially because we don't know the acceptance ratio of other inter-state arbitrations)?

In light of the foregoing considerations, I am convinced that this sentence should be removed, because it is ambigious, unverifiable and meaningless. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the former ICJ judge Abdul Koroma has better knowledge than us, I don't think we are in a position to challenge his knowledge. The best thing is to attribute that comment to him in the article. STSC (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic in your conclusion. Newspapers X claims that their were 16 accepted arbitrations requests; whatever interpretation of the phrase you take there is bound to be more than 16 accepted arbitration requests; thus, Koroma must be right because he is an ICJ judge? That is nothing but an argument from authority, which might be permissable if there weren't cogent reasons to doubt his statement. In addition, as User:Phoenix7777 pointed out, a grammatical interpretation would indicate that it is the PCA and not any of the parties that accept the arbitration request. As ICJ judge Koroma would know, there is no 'arbitration request' between parties. There is either a unilateral 'notification' to the other party or there is a 'compromis' or 'agreement' between parties. An 'arbitration request' would be send to the arbitration institution to ask if they are willing to provide their services (although awards usually use 'appoint' i.e. the PCA was appointed as registry). In addition Koroma is talking constantly about the PCA as object or subject of his thoughts, there is nothing indicating that now—suddenly—he is not talking about the PCA but about third states.

As such, his views don't warrant inclusion on Wikipedia because it would give undue weight to one guy's opinion. If his thoughts were a minority position, you would expect to find some support (and an explanation what he actually means) for this in some literature pertaining to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

According to Koroma, only 16 arbitration requests have been accepted in its 117-year-long history.

What Judge Koroma said is not "his argument", "his views" nor "his opinion", he's stating a fact. It's a simple fact but you're just trying very hard to use your own thinking to deny it. STSC (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's only a fact in the sense that "according to Koroma, a flying teapot circles the earth" is a fact. You are generalizing a statement made by one person and presenting it as a fact, see also WP:SYN. If what Koroma is stating is indeed a fact, it should be verifiable in reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. The statement made by Koroma is neither verified in reliable, published secondary sources nor is it corroberated by actual facts about the PCA case load. I have already argued in detail why this is this the case. As such, the quote is just the opinion of one guy and does not warrent inclusion in Wikipedia. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't remove a sourced content just because you cannot accept the fact; as I suggested earlier, we can always attribute the statement to Judge Koroma as the source also states "according to Koroma". STSC (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that his statement is vague, ambiguous and prone to multiple interpretations made it unsuitable to be cited. Wikipedia article should be written with clarity, specificity and as little ambiguity as possible.Hand15 (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As stated earlier, facts are verifiable. Koroma's statement is not verifiable, it has been falsified, however. As such, without any evidence to the contrary it is just his opinion. Aside from the problems cited by User:Hand15, the quote should have relevance if it is to be included on wikipedia (see also: WP:QUOTEFARM) and citing just one guy's opinion gives undue attention to guy's opinion (see WP:UNDUE). Having a source for a claim does not automatically mean the claim is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nor does it automnatically mean that it is a fact. Especially if cogent reasons have been given against the reliability of the claim (ambiguous and vague, lack of relevance, minority view, counter to other sources). As the contributor who wants to add the information, the burder of proof falls on you. Attacking contributors personally, i.e. "because you cannot accept the fact", "but you're just trying very hard to use your own thinking to deny it", is not a very good argument and does not proof you are right. As such, Koroma's opinion does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is getting more ridiculous and silly. Who falsified Judge Koroma's statement, may I ask? STSC (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sufficient evidence has been given to rebuke Koroma's opinion. Now please state your evidence why a) my argument is getting more ridiculous and silly, b) which cases are the 16 cases that Koroma is refering to, and c) how these cases add up to 'accepting' 'arbitration requests' and by whom. You might also want to have a look at syllogism to structure your argument better. An unsubstantiated ad hominem like "[y]our argument is getting more ridiculous and silly" is not an argument in itself. As such, Koroma's opinion does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please excuse me for my bluntness, here the silliness of your argument:

• Insisting Judge Koroma's statement is an "opinion"
• Telling us that a former ICJ judge's comment on the PCA is "undue"
• Implying a former ICJ judge's quote about the PCA has "no relevance"
• Telling us that Judge Koroma's statement has been "falsified"

I don't need to reply b and c of your questions. We editors of Wikipedia provide references, we don't investigate. I suggest you read more about Wikipedia ..."the readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the truthfulness". STSC (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The question was why it was silly, no what was silly. It seems you are either unwilling or unable to substantiate your opinions with evidence and a coherent argument. Where there are cogent reasons to doubt content WP:CONSENSUS applies. Hence, if you want the content included you will need to adress ad b) and c) or at least try to verify Koroma's opinion with other, reliable, published sources. Per your refusal to do so, no consensus can be reached. As such, Koroma's opinion does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note the context for the statement, since we're talking about the territorial/maritime dispute, Koroma's statement is very reliable. I've just checked the first case someone listed, it's about Pious Fund dispute between 2 countries and that's not territorial dispute or maritime dispute at all.

United States v. Mexico (1902)

This is not we're talking about. If someone wants to verify, you can list all the cases which are related to territorial/maritime dispute between 2 states.Toto11zi (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Koroma did not specifically said what kind of arbitration requests he was referring to. His statement is vague, ambiguous, and as such forces the readers to make guesses and assumptions (as what we have witnessed here. One said it is about state vs. state; another one said it is about acceptance by both parties; and now you said it is about maritime arbitration). Citation source should be specific, explicit, and non-unambiguous. Koroma's statement did not meet these criteria and thus is not a good source.Hand15 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, then how about this "The PCA has administered 12 cases initiated by States under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea since the creation of the PCA." here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toto11zi (talk • contribs) 03:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

UN statement on Seina Weibo

The [China Daily] article on the relationship between the PCA and the UN claims, as its main source, a statement by the UN on Seina Weibo. Are any Chinese-speaking editors able to find the statement in question and provide a complete translation? The China Daily itself, given that it's government-controlled, is a fairly clear case of a source with a conflict of interest. Chris Hallquist (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a further problem in the following section "Some media have incorrectly described the tribunal as "UN tribunal" or "UN-backed tribunal", the UN does not back the tribunal and the incorrect UN or UN-backed attribute confuses the PCA with the UN's ICJ."

The words 'tribunal' and 'court' are not synonymous. Court refers to the PCA, while tribunal specifically alludes to the ad hoc benches set up to hear a claim and issue an award under the auspices of the Court. Neither, the UN source not the Asianews source equal the tribunal with the court. Right now the Wikipedia article confuses the two. In any way, a general section on the organization Court is not a good place to eleborate on the intrinsicaties of one case's tribunal (Philippines v. China).

However, as far as the claims that the Court is not part of the UN, that is correct. I'm trying to find other sources for it, but I suppose for most lawyers and historians its so self-evident—the PCA being established well before the UN—that they don't mention it. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is more with the phrase "UN-backed". The term is a bit vague, and different sources may just be using the term in different ways, hence some calling it "UN-backed" and some saying it is not UN-backed. Chris Hallquist (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. UN backed may mean the UN "likes it"/"supports it" from a policy perspective (in the same way the International Criminal Court could be called US-Backed, although the US is not a party), rather than that it is part of the UN system (which it clearly is not). However "not UN Backed" suggests, they disapprove of it. I tried to rephrase ti so it is more neutral (I hope). L.tak (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It can mean a myriad of things. However, the phrase "UN backed tribunal" still refers to the ad hoc benches and not the PCA. The UN can or cannot back a tribunal, it says little abou the PCA itself. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Tribunal ≠ Permanent Court of Arbitration

This Wikipedia article seems to confuse two different concepts. Tribunal refers to ad hoc benches that are set up to hear one specific dispute. They can either be compossed of 'members of the court', constituted under the 1899 or 1907 convention, or not. The Court is a totally distinct entity. When newspaper articles refer to 'the tribunal' they are refering to the specific entity that issued an award and not the PCA. I removed the part in the Wikipedia article that was only concerned with the ad hoc tribunals. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

PCA's 106th annual report

It's not quite clear to me how the claims on this page are supported by report in question, at least not the first page. I guess there are a couple references to record numbers of cases, but it's not how significant the increase since 1990 is. Chris Hallquist (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Permanent Court of Arbitration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vredespaleis.nl/index.php?pid=67&page=Carnegie-Stichting_Instellingen
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160914184418/http://www.denhaag.nl/web/file?uuid=64275ce6-b9be-4e80-a2c1-a3224f0b8456&owner=bfadc11e-971e-465e-b613-5da689f27cd0&contentid=5982 to http://www.denhaag.nl/web/file?uuid=64275ce6-b9be-4e80-a2c1-a3224f0b8456&owner=bfadc11e-971e-465e-b613-5da689f27cd0&contentid=5982
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160324063227/https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/introduction/member-states/ to https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/introduction/member-states/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019173343/http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1155 to http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1155
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140730082657/http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1599 to http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1599
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1187%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)