China's Island Building and International Law

[William Hung]

LOL the Philippines, we already took the Scarborough shoal in 2012.

You guys can cry as much as you want, but nobody else in the world even cares. Ask any random person in the world what happened to Scarborough shoal, they won't know or care.

You haven't answered my questions. Were you trying to say that China don't care about international law nor will China need to adhere to international law? That China can ignore it and other countries can only cry about it?

If the Philippines succeed in its arbitration case, what will China's response be? accept the ruling of the international tribunal or say "We don't care about your international law"?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You haven't answered my questions. Were you trying to say that China don't care about international law nor will China need to adhere to international law? That China can ignore it and other countries can only cry about it?

If the Philippines succeed in its arbitration case, what will China's response be? accept the ruling of the international tribunal or say "We don't care about your international law"?

I did answer your question.

Look at Scarborough shoal or Xisha islands. We already took them, and it follows Chinese domestic law, that is all that matters.

No major power allows international law to supersede their own domestic laws, check out the recent actions of Russia and America for obvious examples.

If the Philippines succeed in its arbitration case, what will China's response be? accept the ruling of the international tribunal or say "We don't care about your international law"?

That is a joke right?

We are not even participating in this so called "arbitration". International law is done by consent, it does not supersede state sovereignty, and we have made it clear we do not consent.

If you want something that is actually legally binding, then try the UNSC. Oops we have veto power there.

 

[William Hung]

I did answer your question.

Look at Scarborough shoal or Xisha islands. We already took them, and it follows Chinese domestic law, that is all that matters.

No major power allows international law to supersede their own domestic laws, check out the recent actions of Russia and America

No you haven't answered my questions.

I did not ask when or how China took the Scarborough shoal nor did I ask whether China would return them or not.

I simply asked you to clarify your posts that you've made earlier. Did you say that China don't follow International law? yes or no?

Are you saying that China's legal basis for its sovereignty claims are not based on international law but only based on China's own domestic law?

That is a joke right?

We are not even participating in this so called "arbitration". International law is done by consent, it does not supersede state sovereignty, and we have made it clear we do not consent.

If you want something that is actually legally binding, then try the UNSC. Oops we have veto power there.

The Philippines are taking their case to the International Arbitral Tribunal. This tribunal was established under a provisions in the UNCLOS, in which China is a signatory. So even if China refused to participate in this arbitral case, the tribunal can still issue a ruling against China because China is signatory to the UNCLOS.

So in a hypothetical situation where the Philippines win it's case, will China accept the tribunal's ruling? or will China simply ignore the ruling of the tribunal of the UNCLOS that China had voluntarily binded itself to?

p.s. The decisions and ruling of the International Arbitral Tribunal is legally binding. Simply because that tribunal was established under UNCLOS and China has legally binded itself to the UNCLOS from the 80s. No one has veto power in the UNCLOS. What China can only do is to ignore that ruling because there are no mechanism to enforce the ruling.

In other words, China would ignore an international convention that it has binded itself to. It's like Obama saying "I will legally bind myself to the US constitution.... but Im going to reject it."

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

So in a hypothetical situation where the Philippines win it's case, will China accept the tribunal's ruling? or will China simply ignore the ruling of the tribunal of the UNCLOS that China had voluntarily binded itself to?

No, because it is not legally binding. And we did not consent to it, nor are we a party in it.

It's a joke. We refused to even participate in it.

I simply asked you to clarify your posts that you've made earlier. Did you say that China don't follow International law? yes or no?

For the last time, China's domestic law supersedes International law in our own territory.

Even legally binding International law, such as that from the UNSC. State sovereignty supersedes it in every scenario.

So non-binding "arbitration" is an absolute joke.

 

[terranMarine]

No, because it is not legally binding. And we did not consent to it, nor are we a party in it.

It's a joke. We refused to even participate in it.



For the last time, China's domestic law supersedes International law in our own territory.

Even legally binding International law, such as that from the UNSC. State sovereignty supersedes it in every scenario.

So non-binding "arbitration" is an absolute joke.

International law is the only argument these Vietcongs can cling on to. No country gives a f*ck when our pet is whining about international law. If the jungle and the Pinoys have the guts, grab the islands with force or else keep dreaming about the law.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

International law is the only argument these Vietcongs can cling on to. No country gives a f*ck when our pet is whining about international law. If the jungle and the Pinoys have the guts, grab the islands with force or else keep dreaming about the law.

They don't know that most International law is based on consent. And we do not consent.

There is no way it could ever supersede State sovereignty.

Even legally-binding International laws from the UNSC are not strong enough to supersede State sovereignty.

So things that are not legally-binding, like some "arbitration", are nothing more than a joke.

 

[William Hung]

No, because it is not legally binding. And we did not consent to it, nor are we a party in it.

It's a joke. We refused to even participate in it.

You do not understand the legal definition of "legally binding". You're confused with the idea of "a legally binding ruling" with "mechanism to enforce that ruling." The tribunal's ruling will be legally binding, but the tribunal has no mechanism to enforce that ruling. Here I'll paste what I said above:

The decisions and ruling of the International Arbitral Tribunal is legally binding. Simply because that tribunal was established under UNCLOS and China has legally binded itself to the UNCLOS from the 80s. No one has veto power in the UNCLOS. What China can only do is to ignore that ruling because there are no mechanism to enforce the ruling.

In other words, China would ignore an international convention that it has binded itself to. It's like Obama saying "I will legally bind myself to the US constitution.... but Im going to reject it."

For the last time, China's domestic law supersedes International law in our own territory.

So you are admitting that China's sovereignty claims are not based on international law but only based on its domestic law?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You do not understand the legal definition of "legally binding". You're confused with the idea of "a legally binding ruling" with "mechanism to enforce that ruling." The tribunal's ruling will be legally binding, but the tribunal has no mechanism to enforce that ruling. Here I'll paste what I said above:

The decisions and ruling of the International Arbitral Tribunal is legally binding. Simply because that tribunal was established under UNCLOS and China has legally binded itself to the UNCLOS from the 80s. No one has veto power in the UNCLOS. What China can only do is to ignore that ruling because there are no mechanism to enforce the ruling.

In other words, China would ignore an international convention that it has binded itself to. It's like Obama saying "I will legally bind myself to the US constitution.... but Im going to reject it."



So you are admitting that China's sovereignty claims are not based on international law but only based on its domestic law?

You keep going around in circles.

China has already taken Scarborough, China has already taken Xisha islands, none of your crying will do anything.

Nor will any "arbitration"... which is nothing more than a joke.

Like I said, international law is based on consent. And we are not even participating in this so-called "arbitration", it means nothing to us. It is not binding in any way.

 

[William Hung]

They don't know that most International law is based on consent. And we do not consent.

Nor will any "arbitration"... which is nothing more than a joke.

Like I said, international law is based on consent. And we are not even participating in this so-called "arbitration", it means nothing to us.

Like I said, you do not know the legal aspects of the International Arbitral Tribunal and the UNCLOS.

China did consent to the UNCLOS. And the International Arbitral Tribunal was established under UNCLOS, meaning it runs under UNCLOS. So China is legally binded to the tribunal's ruling. Enforcing that ruling is another subject.

International law is the only argument these Vietcongs can cling on to. No country gives a f*ck when our pet is whining about international law. If the jungle and the Pinoys have the guts, grab the islands with force or else keep dreaming about the law.

So you're another Chinese admitting that China's claims are not based on international law?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Like I said, you do not know the legal aspects of the International Arbitral Tribunal and the UNCLOS.

China did consent to the UNCLOS. And the International Arbitral Tribunal was established under UNCLOS, meaning it runs under UNCLOS. So China are legally binded to the tribunal's ruling. Enforcing that ruling is another subject.



So you're another Chinese admitting that China's claims are not based on international law?

Show me how it is binding.

If it is binding, maybe you think you can get Scarborough and Xisha back?

I'll tell you what, come to China with a bag full of drugs. When you are sentenced for execution under Chinese domestic law, you can claim that you can't be executed due to International law.

This British national tried it a while back, claiming that he was mentally disabled and thus could not be executed according to International law. Even the British Prime Minister flew to China to plead for his life.

Guess what happened? He was executed right on schedule.

Domestic law supersedes International law.

 

[terranMarine]

Show me how it is binding.

If it is binding, maybe you think you can get Scarborough and Xisha back?

I'll tell you what, come to China with a bag full of drugs. When you are sentenced for execution under Chinese domestic law, you can claim that you can't be executed due to International law.

This British national tried it a while back, claiming that he was mentally disabled and thus could not be executed according to International law. Even the British Prime Minister flew to China to plead for his life.

Guess what happened? He was executed right on schedule.

Domestic law supersedes International law.

So much for British influence lol. We are still waiting for the international community taking interest in our pet's whining to make a case against China

 

[William Hung]

Show me how it is binding.

If it is binding, maybe you think you can get Scarborough and Xisha back?

Again I'll have to repeat myself. You do not understand the legal definition of "binding." Please do some research on it.

It's like when you agreed to take up citizenship of a country. You are then subject to the laws of that country. In other words, you are binded to that country's laws. If you break any of that law, you can be prosecuted by their court. You can refuse to participate and defend yourself, but you are still legally binded by the court's ruling.

You can reject and ignore the court's ruling, but the court will have a mechanism to enforce that ruling (policemen will come and drag you into prison).

This is similar to China and the Arbitration case. China has legally agreed to bind itself to the UNCLOS. The International Arbitral Tribunal is a part of it and runs under the UNCLOS. So China can refuse to participate in the case but the tribunal's ruling would still be binding.

The only difference is that when China ignores the ruling, the tribunal does not have any mechanism to enforce the ruling. But it still mean that China has binded itself to a convention, but then turn around and rejects that convention (i.e. flip flop).

 

[kyle Chiang]

America still doesn't sigh the International Law of sea.
And China sighed the law with clear clause:The law can't decide Chinese territory authority problem.
Viets and PH start land reclamations for a long time.Nowadays they pretend to be a poor fish and smear China.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Again I'll have to repeat myself. You do not understand the legal definition of "binding." Please do some research on it.

It's like when you agreed to take up citizenship of a country. You are then subject to the laws of that country. In other words, you are binded to that country's laws. If you break any of that law, you can be prosecuted by their court. You can refuse to participate and defend yourself, but you are still legally binded by the court's ruling.

You can reject and ignore the court's ruling, but the court will have a mechanism to enforce that ruling (policemen will come and drag you into prison).

This is similar to China and the Arbitration case. China has legally agreed to bind itself to the UNCLOS. The International Arbitral Tribunal is a part of it and runs under the UNCLOS. So China can refuse to participate in the case but the tribunal's ruling would still be binding.

The only difference is that when China ignores the ruling, the tribunal does not have any mechanism to enforce the ruling. But it still mean that China has binded itself to a convention, but then turn around and rejects that convention (i.e. flip flop).

Give me a source that shows that this "arbitration" is legally binding.

And if there is no enforcement, then it means nothing anyway.

 

[William Hung]

America still doesn't sigh the International Law of sea.

Joining UNCLOS is entirely voluntary. Both China and the US has the free choice to join it or not. US didnt join, China did.

If you legally joined a convention, then you are legally subject to its law and ruling.

And China sighed the law with clear clause:The law can't decide Chinese territory authority problem.

I'm not too sure what you are saying here. Your spelling and grammar made it unclear. Can you link to the UNCLOS document with that clause?