It's Time to Ignore China's Nine-Dash Line

[Beidou2020]

One of the most absurd claim ever. This beats every claim I ever know.

China needs to listen to the world and respect its laws, if it wants to be taken seriously as a global power.

Did you criticise the US when they illegally invaded dozens of countries and slaughtered millions of innocent lives in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Latin American countries, African countries?

Did you criticise when the US used agent orange against innocent Vietnamese people? Or Depleted Uranium against Iraqis where new born Iraqi children are born with grotesque birth defects?

What about when Britain invaded and looted countries (which they still do to this day) and used the natives of as slaves?

Your mind has been trained to believe the West is always right and everyone else is wrong. When US, UK, France break international law when it doesn't fit its interests, nobody say anything.

What happened to international rules then?

Wake up son!

 

[terranMarine]

One of the most absurd claim ever. This beats every claim I ever know.

China needs to listen to the world and respect its laws, if it wants to be taken seriously as a global power.

What did you say about respecting international law by a global power again?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0213/p05s01-woeu.html

If we didn't know better i believe Bush threatened The International Court should it prosecute US soldiers for committing war crimes.

 

[jerry_tan]

Did you criticise the US when they illegally invaded dozens of countries and slaughtered millions of innocent lives in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Latin American countries, African countries?

Did you criticise when the US used agent orange against innocent Vietnamese people? Or Depleted Uranium against Iraqis where new born Iraqi children are born with grotesque birth defects?

What about when Britain invaded and looted countries (which they still do to this day) and used the natives of as slaves?

Your mind has been trained to believe the West is always right and everyone else is wrong. When US, UK, France break international law when it doesn't fit its interests, nobody say anything.

What happened to international rules then?

Wake up son!

What with the US , US is not part of UNCLOS

Heck, excuses excuses ...to commit evil to its neighbors

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

What INTERNATIONAL LAW? Has the Tribunal the necessary jurisdiction to handle such cases?


From wikipedia:
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states, international organizations, or private parties. It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations, while the PCA is not a UN agency.
…
1899
The court was established in 1899 by the first Hague Peace Conference. The Peace Palace was built for the Court in 1913 with funds from American steel magnate Andrew Carnegie.
…
Unlike the judges from the International Court of Justice who are paid by the UN, members of the PCA are paid from that same income the PCA earns.

One of the most absurd claim ever. This beats every claim I ever know.

China needs to listen to the world and respect its laws, if it wants to be taken seriously as a global power.

The question is who's law?

If one really bothers or attempt to understand International Law, one would agree that China is in fact fully in compliance, forget about all those dishonest comments and opinions coming from the self interest Western initiated or Philippines paid medias .
Its 2006 statement effectively served as a “reservation” against any binding outcome of UNCLOS’s grievance procedure in the future.


The threshold question really is whether the PRC can be bound by UNCLOS courts and tribunals, including its arbitral panels. The PRC ratified UNCLOS in 1996, but in 2006 the Chinese government filed a statement with UNCLOS saying that it “does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.” These provisions of the Convention refer to “Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions” issued by at least four venues: the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an “arbitral tribunal” which may refer to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), and a “special arbitral tribunal.”

While there are venues available for the resolutions of disputes under the UNCLOS regime, the PRC does not wish to be bound by its compulsory processes — the ICJ and PCA included.

 

[boomslang]

It is a joke. What is the law when Sam uncle attack Iraq, Panama....

The 'joke' is China looking at the SCS and saying,'Yeah, we own that'. Have they claimed the moon, yet ?

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

The 'joke' is China looking at the SCS and saying,'Yeah, we own that'. Have they claimed the moon, yet ?

Well! The truth is Many in the US believed that they owned the MOON and even MARS but today USA can't do anything about it including SCS.

LACK of funds, NASA says. Hence they wanted to borrow more money from rival China. Don't STOP buying our bonds, Presidential hope Hilliary Clintons plead with China and in the meantime she continues with her anti-China rhetorics.

AND that is the real JOKE!

 

[Nilgiri]

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states, international organizations, or private parties. It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations, while the PCA is not a UN agency.
…
1899
The court was established in 1899 by the first Hague Peace Conference. The Peace Palace was built for the Court in 1913 with funds from American steel magnate Andrew Carnegie.
…
Unlike the judges from the International Court of Justice who are paid by the UN, members of the PCA are paid from that same income the PCA earns.

Yet China remains a member of the PCA even though it got slapped in front of everyone by tiny Philippines.

Why doesn't China withdraw from PCA if it feels PCA has no relevance or authority?

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

China remains a member of PCA?

Not unless the European PCA is an agency of the UN.

 

[Nilgiri]

China remains a member of PCA?

Not unless the European PCA is an agency of the UN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Read the year, mate, 1904.

The Republic of China is NOT even established yet not to mentioned People Republic of China (1949).

 

[Nilgiri]

Read the year, mate, 1904.

The Republic of China is NOT even established yet not to mentioned People Republic of China (1949).

PRC has always acceded to the previous political dispensations that it seeks to base its own legitimacy on/from. This counts ROC (through Sun Yat Sen legitimacy) and even Qing dynasty documents. Its why for example PRC recognised the legitimacy of the treaties signed by Qing dynasty with say UK over Hong Kong.

Ask @Genesis about it.

Besides PRC could always have withdrawn its acceded membership from PCA and hague conventions.

Thus PRC is covered under the "China" membership category unless it specifically says it does not consider itself to be covered under such.....which has not happened.

You cannot be selective over using earlier political structure in China for certain claims from before (incl SCS) and not use it for others (PCA membership). That is inconsistent and hypocritical.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

PRC has always acceded to the previous political dispensations that it seeks to base its own legitimacy on/from. This counts ROC (through Sun Yat Sen legitimacy) and even Qing dynasty documents. Its why for example PRC recognised the legitimacy of the treaties signed by Qing dynasty with say UK over Hong Kong.

Ask @Genesis about it.

Besides PRC could always have withdrawn its acceded membership from PCA and hague conventions.

Thus PRC is covered under the "China" membership category unless it specifically says it does not consider itself to be covered under such.....which has not happened.

You cannot be selective over using earlier political structure in China for certain claims from before (incl SCS) and not use it for others (PCA membership). That is inconsistent and hypocritical.

Is China really a member of the PCA in the first place?

Do you understand International law in the first place?

If China wanted membership in the PCA she must applied for it like what some countries did e.g. Canada in 1960, etc

Anyway Indians always argue to their convenience.

STOP WASTING MY TIME! Go and learn more first.

Do not confuse HISTORICAL FACTS and evidence from a club membership.

When ROC fled to Taiwan, ROC (Taiwan) occupied the UN seat until she was ousted and only then China (PRC) reclaimed its legitimacy of the seat.

So why can't Taiwan be a member of the UN today? Of course it may be too complex for you to understand based on your reasoning.

 

[S10]

When China signed the Hague Convention, it was ruled by the Qing Empire. The Qing Dynasty was overthrown in 1911, replaced by Republic of China. ROC itself was replaced by PRC on mainland in 1949, which is now the official government. China has not participated in this kangaroo court for over a 100 years. Trying to say PCA's decision is binding on China because the Qing Empire signed the convention more than a century ago is like saying British laws is still binding in United States today.

PRC explicitly said it would not recognize any unequal treaty at its founding in 1949. It did not "recognize" British rule in Hong Kong, but did not raising the issue when its military and economic strength were still weak. Britain was still one of the top world powers at the time, and it would be stupid for a newborn PRC to challenge it. Britain could bombard China's coast line into ruins and there wouldn't be a thing China could do at that time. That changed in the 1980's, and the British had to accept the new reality.

The PCA itself it outdated and unaffiliated with any UN organization. The UN has its own tribunals to arbitrate matters related to UNCLOS, which are the ICJ and ITLOS. The PCA rents the same building complex as ICJ, but otherwise is unrelated. Trying to paint it as "international tribunal" and "Hague court" is a laughable attempt to mislead the average Joe into thinking it has the authority to apply and rule on laws it has no jurisdiction over UN.

 

[Nilgiri]

Is China really a member of the PCA in the first place?

Do you understand International law in the first place?

If China wanted membership in the PCA she must applied for it like what some countries did e.g. Canada in 1960, etc

Anyway Indians always argue to their convenience.

STOP WASTING MY TIME! Go and learn more first.

Do not confuse HISTORICAL FACTS and evidence from a club membership.

When ROC fled to Taiwan, ROC (Taiwan) occupied the UN seat until she was ousted and only then China (PRC) reclaimed its legitimacy of the seat.

So why can't Taiwan be a member of the UN today? Of course it may be too complex for you to understand based on your reasoning.

OK time to finish you off.

https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/structure/members-of-the-court/

MEMBERS OF THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION

https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uplo.../Current-List-Annex-1-MC-updated-20160719.pdf

Membership established conclusively

+

Still have not withdrawn membership in light of the ruling

= Major egg on face + butthurt

When China signed the Hague Convention, it was ruled by the Qing Empire. The Qing Dynasty was overthrown in 1911, replaced by Republic of China. ROC itself was replaced by PRC on mainland in 1949, which is now the official government. China has not participated in this kangaroo court for over a 100 years. Trying to say PCA's decision is binding on China because the Qing Empire signed the convention more than a century ago is like saying British laws is still binding in United States today.

PRC explicitly said it would not recognize any unequal treaty at its founding in 1949. It did not "recognize" British rule in Hong Kong, but did not raising the issue when its military and economic strength were still weak. Britain was still one of the top world powers at the time, and it would be stupid for a newborn PRC to challenge it. Britain could bombard China's coast line into ruins and there wouldn't be a thing China could do at that time. That changed in the 1980's, and the British had to accept the new reality.

The PCA itself it outdated and unaffiliated with any UN organization. The UN has its own tribunals to arbitrate matters related to UNCLOS, which are the ICJ and ITLOS. The PCA rents the same building complex as ICJ, but otherwise is unrelated. Trying to paint it as "international tribunal" and "Hague court" is a laughable attempt to mislead the average Joe into thinking it has the authority to apply and rule on laws it has no jurisdiction over UN.

So where has the PRC established PCA is an unequal treaty/agreement/signing etc etc in any official statement or withdrawal of its representatives...in light of what I just posted above.

More:

https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/01/2015-Annex-1-MC.pdf

 

[Genesis]

When China signed the Hague Convention, it was ruled by the Qing Empire. The Qing Dynasty was overthrown in 1911, replaced by Republic of China. ROC itself was replaced by PRC on mainland in 1949, which is now the official government. China has not participated in this kangaroo court for over a 100 years. Trying to say PCA's decision is binding on China because the Qing Empire signed the convention more than a century ago is like saying British laws is still binding in United States today.

PRC explicitly said it would not recognize any unequal treaty at its founding in 1949. It did not "recognize" British rule in Hong Kong, but did not raising the issue when its military and economic strength were still weak. Britain was still one of the top world powers at the time, and it would be stupid for a newborn PRC to challenge it. Britain could bombard China's coast line into ruins and there wouldn't be a thing China could do at that time. That changed in the 1980's, and the British had to accept the new reality.

The PCA itself it outdated and unaffiliated with any UN organization. The UN has its own tribunals to arbitrate matters related to UNCLOS, which are the ICJ and ITLOS. The PCA rents the same building complex as ICJ, but otherwise is unrelated. Trying to paint it as "international tribunal" and "Hague court" is a laughable attempt to mislead the average Joe into thinking it has the authority to apply and rule on laws it has no jurisdiction over UN.

Well, PRC is actually a continuation of ROC and ROC itself is a continuation of Qing. The Qing emperor abdicated to the ROC, and PRC claims that Chiang violated Sun's three policies and thus PRC is not so much replacing Sun's China but replacing the illegitimate government of Chiang and thus a continuation.

If that were not the case China would have no claim on Tibet or xinjiang, to some degree north east China. No claim is wrong, it would be like Austro Hungary, the only thing that makes Austria, Austria is the Habsburgs, no one knows exactly what Austria should look like. So if PRC claims no precedent, then it won't know what the border is, since the last legitimate Han dynasty was Ming, yet PRC officially recognize 56 ethnicity, it's all very messy.


Another point, Mao can easily take HK, HK is not Taiwan, you can swim there, the battle hardened PRC troops can take HK with no more than a regiment if it came to it. Mao decided that if things turned to shit, he needed to be able to reach the West. Taiwan was obviously no go, so HK, being Chinese but not Chinese is the perfect location.


Whether China should listen to any organization was never the point. What was on trial wasn't SCS, it was China's ability to be a world power. That means being an Ahole when the situation calls for it.

OK time to finish you off.

https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/structure/members-of-the-court/

MEMBERS OF THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION

https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uplo.../Current-List-Annex-1-MC-updated-20160719.pdf

Membership established conclusively

+

Still have not withdrawn membership in light of the ruling

= Major egg on face + butthurt



So where has the PRC established PCA is an unequal treaty/agreement/signing etc etc in any official statement or withdrawal of its representatives...in light of what I just posted above.

More:

https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/01/2015-Annex-1-MC.pdf

Not the point of it all. I just seen a thread in Indian section about American decision on ISRO rockets, you will find if you actually manage to make something of India, Americans would be far less willing to help.

Keep in mind, 1989, may be what it is, but it isn't the worst in history nor has it not been surpassed. Yet the embargo is essentially only on us.

In 1989, Americans had our plane in their hands, it wasn't great, but they wanted to know what it was. They told us they were going to upgraded, instead they stripped it down and shipped it back to us. what's worse, they not only didn't upgrade it, they charged us for the shipping.

Did you know Americans also put tracking chips in all the blackhawks they sold to us.

Point is, come back to us in 10-20 years, and see if you still feel the same about international courts and their backers.