What's new

South China Sea Forum

Taiwan Protests Philippine Ships in Disputed Sea

PN Vessels on Routine Patrols | GulfNews.com

AFP | Published: 18:48 May 25, 2013

Taipei: Taiwan on Saturday protested to the Philippines for sending naval ships to disputed South China Sea islands in the latest diplomatic spat between the two governments.

“The foreign ministry expresses its serious concern and firm opposition over the Philippines’ dispatch of naval vessels to Renai [Second Thomas] Shoal in the Spratly Islands,” it said in a statement.

Taiwan’s government “denies all unlawful claims to sovereignty over, or occupation of, these areas by other countries” it said.The statement did not say when and how many Philippine ships were allegedly sent to the area or for how long.
 
U.S. official naval map (Nautical Charts) confirms "Spratlys belong to China"

Spratlys island and Reef named By Chinese Name

Nautical Charts 93044 93047

64979560201204222200574130080292620_001.jpg

64979560201204222200574130080292620_002.jpg





Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...-news-discussions-159.html#ixzz2UMY6n78Dnaval
 
Int’l scholars reject China’s East Sea demands


VietNamNet Bridge – International scholars have presented evidence at a recent workshop in Paris, rejecting China’s sovereignty claim in the East Sea, especially its U-shaped line.

20121022100048_go1.jpg

Da Tay is one of the islands of the Truong Sa archipelago.


About 300 delegates, including many scholars on Asia studies from France and other countries, presented reports on international law, political and economic challenges in the East Sea, and solutions to the ongoing marine dispute in the region.

The presentations concentrated on the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the matter, the possibility of bringing the case to an international tribunal, or authenticating the historical evidence given by China.

Professor Monique Chemillier Gendreau from the Paris Diderot University in France, Professor Erik Franckx from Vrije University Brussels in Belgium, and Professor David Scott from Brunel University in the UK made an in-depth analysis of China’s U-shaped line and confirmed that the Chinese map is not in line with international norms and practices.

Professor Gendreau quoted current international law saying a nation can only claim sovereignty over an island if the island has existed under its jurisdiction for a long time and an administrative system has been established there.

International law requires clear evidence while Chinese arguments are based on history books or literary works, she said, citing evidence that Vietnam established its administrative organisation to govern the Hoang Sa archipelago from the 18th to the mid 19th century under the French colonialists.

More importantly, no regional countries objected to the management until the administration of South Vietnam legally took over the group of islands, said the French professor.

Several French documents show that in the 1930s the Chinese administration was still confused about the Truong Sa archipelago, another group of disputed islands in the East Sea, and did not mention them on its national map.

Experts confirmed that China’s wording such as ‘adjacent’ or ‘historic’ waters are not used in international treaties, including the 1982 Montego Bay Declaration to which China has acceded.

They once again underlined the importance of the East Sea to global geo-politics and trade, especially regarding the exploitation of large reserves of crude oil, that have prompted a number of countries to enter the dispute.

In a panel discussion, naval experts and representatives of government officials, including Christian Lechrvy, advisor to French President Francois Hollande, all agreed that the situation in the East Sea is very complex.

However, they ruled out the possibility of a traditional military clash, reasoning that all regional countries possess modern weapons and none wants to become involved in a confrontation without a high possibility of success. They said the bottom line is finding a common voice amongst all parties concerned.

Lechervy spoke of the East Sea disputes amongst several regional countries that have been ongoing since 2008 and downplayed worries about a diplomatic impasse. He said multilateral forums will help solve the disputes peacefully.

Experts stressed that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) must be observed to define marine boundaries and common fishing grounds, and to conduct joint patrols at sea.

They called on parties concerned not to build more military bases on disputed islands, and deploy civil and police forces to maintain security instead.

They held that all parties concerned and other countries like the US and France need to take a constructive attitude and make positive contributions to negotiations in order to ease the situation in the East Sea, which is a common international issue.

Professor Gendreau even recommended turning the East Sea into an international sea area subject to international law which could benefit all countries concerned and ensure peace throughout the entire region.

VietNamNet/VOV
 
Int’l scholars reject China’s East Sea demands


VietNamNet Bridge – International scholars have presented evidence at a recent workshop in Paris, rejecting China’s sovereignty claim in the East Sea, especially its U-shaped line.

20121022100048_go1.jpg

Da Tay is one of the islands of the Truong Sa archipelago.


About 300 delegates, including many scholars on Asia studies from France and other countries, presented reports on international law, political and economic challenges in the East Sea, and solutions to the ongoing marine dispute in the region.

The presentations concentrated on the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the matter, the possibility of bringing the case to an international tribunal, or authenticating the historical evidence given by China.

Professor Monique Chemillier Gendreau from the Paris Diderot University in France, Professor Erik Franckx from Vrije University Brussels in Belgium, and Professor David Scott from Brunel University in the UK made an in-depth analysis of China’s U-shaped line and confirmed that the Chinese map is not in line with international norms and practices.

Professor Gendreau quoted current international law saying a nation can only claim sovereignty over an island if the island has existed under its jurisdiction for a long time and an administrative system has been established there.

International law requires clear evidence while Chinese arguments are based on history books or literary works, she said, citing evidence that Vietnam established its administrative organisation to govern the Hoang Sa archipelago from the 18th to the mid 19th century under the French colonialists.

More importantly, no regional countries objected to the management until the administration of South Vietnam legally took over the group of islands, said the French professor.

Several French documents show that in the 1930s the Chinese administration was still confused about the Truong Sa archipelago, another group of disputed islands in the East Sea, and did not mention them on its national map.

Experts confirmed that China’s wording such as ‘adjacent’ or ‘historic’ waters are not used in international treaties, including the 1982 Montego Bay Declaration to which China has acceded.

They once again underlined the importance of the East Sea to global geo-politics and trade, especially regarding the exploitation of large reserves of crude oil, that have prompted a number of countries to enter the dispute.

In a panel discussion, naval experts and representatives of government officials, including Christian Lechrvy, advisor to French President Francois Hollande, all agreed that the situation in the East Sea is very complex.

However, they ruled out the possibility of a traditional military clash, reasoning that all regional countries possess modern weapons and none wants to become involved in a confrontation without a high possibility of success. They said the bottom line is finding a common voice amongst all parties concerned.

Lechervy spoke of the East Sea disputes amongst several regional countries that have been ongoing since 2008 and downplayed worries about a diplomatic impasse. He said multilateral forums will help solve the disputes peacefully.

Experts stressed that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) must be observed to define marine boundaries and common fishing grounds, and to conduct joint patrols at sea.

They called on parties concerned not to build more military bases on disputed islands, and deploy civil and police forces to maintain security instead.

They held that all parties concerned and other countries like the US and France need to take a constructive attitude and make positive contributions to negotiations in order to ease the situation in the East Sea, which is a common international issue.

Professor Gendreau even recommended turning the East Sea into an international sea area subject to international law which could benefit all countries concerned and ensure peace throughout the entire region.

VietNamNet/VOV

Nansha Qundao, Nansha Islands, Spratly Islands (中国南沙群岛)
Xi Jiao, West Reef or West London Reef (西礁)

2120X1670

64979560201305261108583028750421448_000.jpg
 
Chinese 1948 South China Sea map predates 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii

Can you sue the United States in any U.N. court to challenge the American annexation of Hawaii in 1959? Obviously, no.

Therefore, can you sue China in any U.N. court to challenge the 1948 Chinese territorial map (which reflects 2,000 years of sovereignty over the South China Sea since its discovery by the Han Dynasty)?

The answer is also clearly "no." The United States will tell you to go frack off if you try to question U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii. Similarly, China is telling the Philippines (and UNCLOS if necessary) to frack off over 2,000-year-old Chinese islands in the South China Sea as reflected in the 1948 nine-dash-line map.

AeCKNy1.gif


Reference for 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii: Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Chinese 1948 South China Sea map predates 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii

Can you sue the United States in any U.N. court to challenge the American annexation of Hawaii in 1959? Obviously, no.

Therefore, can you sue China in any U.N. court to challenge the 1948 Chinese territorial map (which reflects 2,000 years of sovereignty over the South China Sea since its discovery by the Han Dynasty)?

The answer is also clearly "no." The United States will tell you to go frack off if you try to question U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii. Similarly, China is telling the Philippines (and UNCLOS if necessary) to frack off over 2,000-year-old Chinese islands in the South China Sea as reflected in the 1948 nine-dash-line map.

AeCKNy1.gif


Reference for 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii: Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

umm......Hawai'i (By the way, no places were EVER called Hawaii) is not annexed in 1959, US annexed Hawai'i in 1898. Strongly recommend that you get your fact right first.

Hawai'i joined the Federation in 1959, by no mean they were just annexed in 1959.....

Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He met with three annexationists from Hawaii: Lorrin Thurston, Francis March Hatch and William Ansel Kinney. After negotiations, in June 1897, Secretary of State John Sherman agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii

LMFAO :lol:
 
umm......Hawai'i (By the way, no places were EVER called Hawaii) is not annexed in 1959, US annexed Hawai'i in 1898. Strongly recommend that you get your fact right first.

Hawai'i joined the Federation in 1959, by no mean they were just annexed in 1959.....

Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LMFAO :lol:

Try reading English:

"In 1900, Hawaii was granted self-governance and retained ʻIolani Palace as the territorial capitol building. Despite several attempts to become a state, Hawaii remained a territory for sixty years."
 
Try reading English:

"In 1900, Hawaii was granted self-governance and retained ʻIolani Palace as the territorial capitol building. Despite several attempts to become a state, Hawaii remained a territory for sixty years."

He met with three annexationists from Hawaii: Lorrin Thurston, Francis March Hatch and William Ansel Kinney. After negotiations, in June 1897, Secretary of State John Sherman agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...a-sea-news-discussions-159.html#ixzz2UN6IvjAP

Read the above post, THANK YOU

AGAIN, ANNEXATION AND FEDERATION ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS.........

many US territories were Annexed BUT NEVER federated into US States. I say again, US Annexed Hawai'i in 1897/1898. Hawai'i become the 50th States in 1959, that does not mean US start owning Hawai'i in 1959. If English for you is a problem, I strongly recommend that you pop down to your nearest co-op store and get a book called "DICTIONARY"
 
Read the above post, THANK YOU

Events that come later negate earlier events. Duh!

You're annoying. Does 1900 come after 1897?

1897 - some treaty or other

1900 - self-governance <== This is controlling, because it comes later in chronological time. Idiot.

----------

Use your brain

Think about it. If Hawaii had already been annexed in 1897, why did the United States have to annex Hawaii in 1959?

The obvious answer is that Hawaii was a self-governing territory and Hawaiians had to vote/accept in becoming an U.S. state.

Hawaii

"In March 1959, Congress passed the Hawaii Admission Act and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed it into law.[58] (The act excluded Palmyra Atoll, part of the Kingdom and Territory of Hawaii, from the new state.) On June 27 of that year, a referendum asked residents of Hawaii to vote on the statehood bill. Hawaii voted 17 to 1 to accept. The choices were to accept the Act or to remain a territory, without the option of independence.[59][60] The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization later removed Hawaii from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories."
 
Events that come later negate earlier events. Duh!

You're annoying. Does 1900 come after 1897?

1897 - some treaty or other

1900 - self-governance <== This is controlling, because it comes later in chronological time. Idiot.

----------

Use your brain

Think about it. If Hawaii had already been annexed in 1897, why did the United States have to annex Hawaii in 1959?

lol, you want to say US start controlling Hawai'i in 1900 or in 1959? Please make up your mind first, moron
 
How many times do I have to say this?

The United States annexed Hawaii in 1959.

How many time do I have to say this, the TREATY of ANNEXATION was signed in 1897.

Granted Self Governance is the act of Unincorporated territories of the United States. Does that mean US do not control such territories? NO

In act, many US territories are GRANTED SELF-GOVERNANCE by the US federal government.

Guam, US Virgin Island and American Samoa for an example

So, do US need to Annex them again to claim ownership AGAIN??

OMG, you are beyond help....You need High School level US history, Stats
 
How many time do I have to say this, the TREATY of ANNEXATION was signed in 1897.

Granted Self Governance is the act of Unincorporated territories of the United States. Does that mean US do not control such territories? NO

In act, many US territories are GRANTED SELF-GOVERNANCE by the US federal government.

Guam, US Virgin Island and American Samoa for an example

So, do US need to Annex them again to claim ownership AGAIN??

OMG, you are beyond help....You need High School level US history, Stats

Lesson in simple English for the illiterate

How can the U.S. be in control when Hawaii was granted self-governance in 1900?

Do you know what self-governance means? It's plain English, but you don't seem to comprehend.

Let me break it down for you.

SELF: Hawaiians
Governing: ruling yourself

SELF-GOVERNING: Hawaiians ruling Hawaiians

Do you understand now?

----------

The rest of you should ignore the crazy person and just read my original post (see below).

Chinese 1948 South China Sea map predates 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii

Can you sue the United States in any U.N. court to challenge the American annexation of Hawaii in 1959? Obviously, no.

Therefore, can you sue China in any U.N. court to challenge the 1948 Chinese territorial map (which reflects 2,000 years of sovereignty over the South China Sea since its discovery by the Han Dynasty)?

The answer is also clearly "no." The United States will tell you to go frack off if you try to question U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii. Similarly, China is telling the Philippines (and UNCLOS if necessary) to frack off over 2,000-year-old Chinese islands in the South China Sea as reflected in the 1948 nine-dash-line map.

AeCKNy1.gif


Reference for 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii: Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Lesson in simple English for the illiterate

How can the U.S. be in control when Hawaii was granted self-governance in 1900?

Do you know what self-governance means? It's plain English, but you don't seem to comprehend.

Let me break it down for you.

SELF: Hawaiians
Governing: ruling yourself

SELF-GOVERNING: Hawaiians ruling Hawaiians

Do you understand now?

----------

The rest of you should ignore the crazy person and just read my original post (see below).

Chinese 1948 South China Sea map predates 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii

Can you sue the United States in any U.N. court to challenge the American annexation of Hawaii in 1959? Obviously, no.

Therefore, can you sue China in any U.N. court to challenge the 1948 Chinese territorial map (which reflects 2,000 years of sovereignty over the South China Sea since its discovery by the Han Dynasty)?

The answer is also clearly "no." The United States will tell you to go frack off if you try to question U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii. Similarly, China is telling the Philippines (and UNCLOS if necessary) to frack off over 2,000-year-old Chinese islands in the South China Sea as reflected in the 1948 nine-dash-line map.

AeCKNy1.gif


Reference for 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii: Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why I said you are a moron

In the 1950s the power of the plantation owners was finally broken by descendants of immigrant laborers. Because they were born in a U.S. territory, they were legal U.S. citizens. The Hawaii Republican Party, strongly supported by plantation owners, was voted out of office. The Democratic Party of Hawaii dominated politics for 40 years. Expecting to gain full voting rights, Hawaii's residents actively campaigned for statehood.

This parts mean the resident Born in Hawai'i BEFORE US Become 50th US States ARE US Citizens. How does Hawai'ian gain US Citizenship if they are not already annexed into US territories then is beyond me.

In March 1959, Congress passed the Hawaii Admission Act and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed it into law.[58] (The act excluded Palmyra Atoll, part of the Kingdom and Territory of Hawaii, from the new state.) On June 27 of that year, a referendum asked residents of Hawaii to vote on the statehood bill. Hawaii voted 17 to 1 to accept. The choices were to accept the Act or to remain a territory, without the option of independence.[59][60] The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization later removed Hawaii from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

this paragraph states that UN recognise Hawai'i as a NON-SELF-GOVERNING Territories. Do you even know what this mean??

Hawai'i were self governing during 1897 (or 1900 as you said) to 1959, that does not mean it DOES NOT BELONG TO THE US.

Sir, these 2 paragraph proved you wrong.

Plus you obiviously do not know what is Self Governing.

Hong Kong was self Govern from the UK before 1997 turn over, does that mean HK is NOT an UK Colony before 1997?? Many US territories are self govern. That does not mean they do not belong to the US. This is very simple English, I don't really know why you do not understand

Self - Hawai'ian but they are also American and Legal US citizens
SELF-GOVERNING: Hawaiians ruling Hawaiians both US citizens So........what's your point??
 
Back
Top Bottom