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

[Zero_wing]

US, UK have been doing that for years. (Eg. They invaded Iraq over the manufactured WMD issue). Their image were damaged in the short term, over the longer term nobody really gives a damn.

So give us reason to enforce our laws in the long run this china we are talking about not US or UK i mean only those countries can pull it off unlike china cant they try that with norway but china is too far or and too insignificant to matter well in in our stiutation they are too little to matter to us in terms of economy it will hurt us am not saying it will not but in the long run it will be the right course of action in terms of economy and diplomatic terms

 

[Solomon2]

...As pointed out in the Position Paper, through negotiation China has settled its land boundary with almost all of its neighbours and has delimited its maritime boundary in Beibu Bay with Vietnam -

"Vietnam refuses to recognize China’s claim over the Paracels, but at least Vietnam recognizes that China is making what it sees as an invalid claim. China, on the other hand, doesn’t even recognize that Vietnam has an invalid claim, making peaceful resolution all but impossible." link

 

[WuMaoCleverbot]

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 believe you. Here's a fine example:

China's Crazy claim that Macclesfield Bank is an Island

And its claim to the Macclesfield Bank as an island borders on the ridiculous. The submerged bank at its shallowest is covered by some 30 feet of water.

China’s Maritime Machinations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly | The Diplomat

 

[sword1947]

I believe you. Here's a fine example:

China's Crazy claim that Macclesfield Bank is an Island

And its claim to the Macclesfield Bank as an island borders on the ridiculous. The submerged bank at its shallowest is covered by some 30 feet of water.

China’s Maritime Machinations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly | The Diplomat

impossible is nothing. God create the world, Chinese create the rest.

 

[TaiShang]

impossible is nothing. God create the world, Chinese create the rest.

If China says something is an island, it is an island.

Tons of pictures have been shared how small reefs transform into runways.

Just because the Philippines denies science and technology does not mean that they do not exist.

 

[William Hung]

I get the feeling that China will use its special privilege (if there are any) as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

No one has veto power under UNCLOS. China has veto power in the UN Security Council but this Arbitral Tribunal does not involve the UNSC at all.

US, UK have been doing that for years. (Eg. They invaded Iraq over the manufactured WMD issue). Their image were damaged in the short term, over the longer term nobody really gives a damn.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The UNSC has never officially issued any ruling against the US/UK for the invasion of Iraq. People have debated and disagreed in the UNSC but the council itself has never issued any ruling against the US/UK.

This will be different with the Arbitral Tribunal. The tribunal will issue a ruling under the provision of UNCLOS. If the ruling is in favour of the Philippines, then it means that China will be officially regarded as an illegal occupier under UNCLOS.

Currently, the US/UK are not officially considered as law breakers under international law because the UNSC haven't issue any ruling about the invasion of Iraq.

impossible is nothing. God create the world, Chinese create the rest.

If China says something is an island, it is an island.

Tons of pictures have been shared how small reefs transform into runways.

Just because the Philippines denies science and technology does not mean that they do not exist.

China can do those land reclamation but under UNCLOS, it will not be considered as an island. They are irrelevant under international law.

China's island building and international law - The Nation

First, will the reclamation works strengthen China's sovereignty claim to the Spratlys under international law? The answer is no. Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan also claim sovereignty over the islands/features occupied by China. Once there is a dispute over sovereignty, the state that occupies and controls the territory in question cannot strengthen its claim by undertaking reclamation or building installations and structures.

Second, can China use reclamation to convert submerged reefs into islands capable of supporting human habitation or economic life that are thus entitled to maritime zones of their own? Again, the answer is no. This is because an "island" is defined as a "naturally formed" area of land surrounded by and above water at high tide. If a feature is above water at high tide because of reclamation work, it is an "artificial island". Under UNCLOS, an artificial island is not entitled to any maritime zones of its own. Therefore, the reclamation works on features that are submerged at high tide will not change their legal status.

 

[TaiShang]

China's "islands" growing bigger.

 

[sword1947]

No one has veto power under UNCLOS. China has veto power in the UN Security Council but this Arbitral Tribunal does not involve the UNSC at all.



You are comparing apples and oranges here. The UNSC has never officially issued any ruling against the US/UK for the invasion of Iraq. People have debated and disagreed in the UNSC but the council itself has never issued any ruling against the US/UK.

This will be different with the Arbitral Tribunal. The tribunal will issue a ruling under the provision of UNCLOS. If the ruling is in favour of the Philippines, then it means that China will be officially regarded as an illegal occupier under UNCLOS.

Currently, the US/UK are not officially considered as law breakers under international law because the UNSC haven't issue any ruling about the invasion of Iraq.





China can do those land reclamation but under UNCLOS, it will not be considered as an island. They are irrelevant under international law.

China's island building and international law - The Nation

It doesn't matter. we build a land, people can live, ship can anchor, plane can take off, business can be done. that is what we want. don't care about that convention

 

[ahojunk]

The tribunal will issue a ruling under the provision of UNCLOS. If the ruling is in favour of the Philippines, then it means that China will be officially regarded as an illegal occupier under UNCLOS

The Philippines asked UNCLOS for a ruling that 4 of of Nansha features occupied by China are not islands. This is not related to sovereignty, i.e. who owns what.

Whenever the ruling is issued (if at all), it doesn't matter. China will already have an airbase and multiple naval/fishing bases. She will also have a few thousand personnel (civilian and military) located on these islands. To confirm, just look at the massive building on Johnson South. As they say, possession is nine-tenths of the law.

 

[William Hung]

The Philippines asked UNCLOS for a ruling that 4 of of Nansha features occupied by China are not islands. This is not related to sovereignty, i.e. who owns what.

Exactly, those 4 features are not islands since they are totally submerged during high tide.

Under UNCLOS, no one can claim sovereignty over submerged reefs that are in someone's EEZ. If it is an island, then yes, you can make a sovereignty dispute over it, but those 4 features are not legally islands. And even if China build an artificial "island" over it, UNCLOS will still not regard it as an Island.

That's why I said if the tribunal give a favourable ruling to the Philippines, then the tribunal will declare China as illegally occupying those "features."

 

[bolo]

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.

You know Bien dong, Vietminh...it is really


BoQ77

Why waste time with the same viet troll?

 

[sword1947]

If the CPC had a brain, the CPC wouldn't have signed the convention back in 1995.

Don't you think the CPC is stupid for signing UNCLOS when they have a dispute in the SCS? No UNCLOS means no Tribunal. Why did they sign it?

It's like signing a marriage agreement with a woman who you know will divorce and take half of your wealth.. hahahah CPC is funny and stupid. hahahaha

all for state interest. we do ignore that convention, come and take half of our wealth now, please.

 

[Cossack25A1]

No one has veto power under UNCLOS. China has veto power in the UN Security Council but this Arbitral Tribunal does not involve the UNSC at all.

But it is an accolade for China and while it won't affect the UNCLOS, China could do something such as imposing sanctions against us even though it would be vetoed by US, UK and France.

 

[William Hung]

But it is an accolade for China and while it won't affect the UNCLOS, China could do something such as imposing sanctions against us even though it would be vetoed by US, UK and France.

Yea, probably a sanction from China to pressure the Philippines to pull out if the judges decide that they have jurisdiction. Because once they decide that they have jurisdiction and move on with the case, it will then be hard for China to make a defence (cos China won't be in court to give one).

 

[Zero_wing]

Yea, probably a sanction from China to pressure the Philippines to pull out if the judges decide that they have jurisdiction. Because once they decide that they have jurisdiction and move on with the case, it will then be hard for China to make a defence (cos China won't be in court to give one).

If they can our invest in china is alot bigger than theirs so it would be more on them than us but am not saying it will not hurt business it will but in the long run we can manage to stay aflot if America or Japan or Korea pulls out that could be problem but if china pulls out it hurt but its kinda like a taking out your tonsils it may hurt and make things compicated but in the end its far more better especially for the local industries and the legal business and tourism too.