What's new

China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration

(Reuters) – Vietnam has helped ensure peace in the South China Sea dispute with Beijing by following the Philippines in seeking U.N. arbitration, Manila said, despite the fact that Beijing has refused to take part.

Beijing claims almost the entire energy-rich South China Sea but Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan also have claims. Only Brunei has not occupied and garrisoned territory in the potential flashpoint in the region.

Vietnam, the Philippines and other nations have objected to China’s claims of ownership in the South China Sea and China’s almost constant armed presence among the contested islands in the South China Sea.

Vietnam on Thursday submitted its position to a UN arbitration tribunal initiated by the Philippines over the festering dispute. China called on Vietnam to respect its sovereignty and has refused UN arbitration.

“The Vietnamese position is helpful in terms of promoting the rule of law and in finding peaceful and nonviolent solutions to the South China Sea claims based on international law,” the Philippine Foreign Ministry said.

“…This promotes peace and stability in our region.”

China, Vietnam and the Philippines are signatories to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, an international agreement that grants the right to explore and exploit resources within 200 nautical miles of a state’s shore. Both Hanoi and Manila say Beijing is extending beyond the limit.

In May, China placed its largest mobile oil rig close to Vietnam’s coast in the Paracel islands that prompted angry protests in Hanoi against Chinese business interests. At the same time, Beijing began reclamation in the Spratly islands and appeared to be building airstrips in the area.

Beijing has also seized control of Scarborough Shoal near the Philippines’ main island of Luzon and chased civilian ships delivering supplies to Philippine-held Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratlys.

The Philippines and Vietnam appear to be ending decades of distrust. Last year, the two sides held a first-ever navy-to-navy talks and last month, Hanoi displayed its two most powerful missile-guided stealth frigates in Manila during a port call. The two states will hold the first strategic defense dialogue early next year.


“Vietnam’s legal opinion puts political weight on the Philippine legal case,” Professor Rommel Banlaoi, a security analyst, said on television.


“What Vietnam did was in fact supporting, reaffirming and even rallying behind the Philippine legal action and that’s good for our national interest.”
 
So why did China bothered releasing the position paper? it wants to reply to "pieces of shxt"?

BTW, no "international law" has ever sanctioned Iran, NK and Russia. Countries get together and sanctioned them, not the law.
We do what we like, that's all.
 
As Beijing has refused to take part in the arbitration proceedings, is there any point for the pinoys and viets in wasting time and money in continuing?

Afterall, to begin with, they were the ones who illegally occupy the Spratlys and provoking the Chinese dragon.
 
Last edited:
We do what we like, that's all.

So why did the CPC bothered releasing the position note to try to prove that they are not breaking international law?

As Beijing has refused to take part in the arbitration proceedings, is there any point for the pinoys and viets in wasting time and money in continuing?

If the Philippines wins, it will show that the PRC is illegally occupying foreign territories under international law.

If there is no point or if this arbitration case is not important, then why did the CPC even bothered releasing a big position report to defend itself?
 
So why did the CPC bothered releasing the position note to try to prove that they are not breaking international law?



If the Philippines wins, it will show that the PRC is illegally occupying foreign territories under international law.

If there is no point or if this arbitration case is not important, then why did the CPC even bothered releasing a big position report to defend itself?
We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like.
 
We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like.

I think no need to repeat so much.
 
We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like,We do what we like.

Are you saying the CPC is confused? on one hand, you said China don't care about any international laws. But on the other hand, China had to send a position report to the arbitration tribunal to defend itself?

So is the CPC scared of the Arbitral tribunal or not?
 
Are you saying the CPC is confused? on one hand, you said China don't care about any international laws. But on the other hand, China had to send a position report to the arbitration tribunal to defend itself?

So is the CPC scared of the Arbitral tribunal or not?
No. We release this report is to tell the world arbitration has no authorities on this case.
 
No. We release this report is to tell the world arbitration has no authorities on this case.

But my friend @sword1947 said international law is "a piece of shxt" and China do not care about it. So why bother sending a report to the tribunal if international law is "shxt" and China do not care?
 
But my friend @sword1947 said international law is "a piece of shxt" and China do not care about it. So why bother sending a report to the tribunal if international law is "shxt" and China do not care?

Does one individual opinion represent whole China? Can you be more creative in your cherry picking context?

But china has signed in to UNCLOS.

UNCLOS does not included the spat between Philippines and China dispute. This is clearly reported in the first page.
 
Does one individual opinion represent whole China? Can you be more creative in your cherry picking context?



UNCLOS does not included the spat between Philippines and China dispute. This is clearly reported in the first page.

why not ? can you provide the proof for that ?
 
why not ? can you provide the proof for that ?

In case you have poor interpretation of english. Let me help you.

Third, the dispute settlement clauses of the Convention itself. Even if the subject-matter of the Philippines’ claims could be considered in part as concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, it constitutes an integral part of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. However, China has already excluded, through a declaration made in 2006 pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention, disputes concerning maritime delimitation, inter alia, from the application of arbitration and other compulsory procedures.
 
Does one individual opinion represent whole China? Can you be more creative in your cherry picking context?

All my questions are directed to him only, I wasn't talking to the whole population of China.

UNCLOS does not included the spat between Philippines and China dispute. This is clearly reported in the first page.

Whether UNCLOS include this dispute or not will be up to the tribunal to decide. The Philippines and China both cannot decide whether the dispute is under UNCLOS or not. This is clearly written in UNCLOS law.

In case you have poor interpretation of english. Let me help you.

Third, the dispute settlement clauses of the Convention itself. Even if the subject-matter of the Philippines’ claims could be considered in part as concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, it constitutes an integral part of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. However, China has already excluded, through a declaration made in 2006 pursuant to Article 298 of the Convention, disputes concerning maritime delimitation, inter alia, from the application of arbitration and other compulsory procedures.

I'm sorry but it is up to the tribunal to decide whether this 2006 declaration can protect China or not.

If the tribunal decides that the 2006 declaration does not apply, then UNCLOS will judge and give orders for the dispute.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom