Japan and Vietnam vow to uphold rule of law in South China Sea

[Nan Yang]

First of all, do you understand why Chinese claim was rejected by UNCLOS in 2013?

Taiping Island or Itu Aba was ruled as a rock formation by PCS in 2016 after China and Taiwan protest. A rock formation is an isolation of rock cluster that did not connect to any continental shelf, which do not extent the of the edge of China territorial land border, in this case, it is 630 miles (or 547 nm) away in Hainan. Therefore Taiping Island was not even lies within the Chinese EEZ.

Also, Taiwan is the current administrative authority of the island, not China, hence China reclamation within 200 nm of Taiping is illegal as per both UNCLOS and PCS ruling.

It's not about ability to sustain life, that would be the terra nullis clause, which is another issue regrading land border.

Not entirely true. It's the arbitration Court which has nothing to do with the United Nations. Look up UNCLOS definition of an island. Taiping dao IS an island.

Yes. Taiping dao is controlled by Taiwan. But United Nations state that Taiwan is part of China. So it's still Chinese territories.

 

[KungFuLee]

Not entirely true. It's the arbitration Court which has nothing to do with the United Nations. Look up UNCLOS definition of an island. Taiping dao IS an island.

Yes. Taiping dao is controlled by Taiwan. But United Nations state that Taiwan is part of China. So it's still Chinese territories.

PCA is an International arbitration court for international agreement, which you go to appeal if you think the ruling of any agreement is wrong. And PCA jurisdiction include UNCLOS appeal. PCA is not a part of UN because it need to maintain its impartiality.

And also, under UNCLOS rules, Taiping Island is not an island connected to Chinese continental shelf, being an island alone does not give any country governing right, Hence China lost that case in 2013 at UNCLOS and the appeal was reaffirmed by PCA in 2016.

And finally, I don't think UN consider Taiwan being a part of China territories, Taiwan was (I am not sure if it still is as I have not check that for a while) in the disputed territories list.

 

[KAL-EL]

The sea belongs to fish. No sea belongs to any country. Be it Japan sea or China sea. Humans can only claim land.

The sea belongs to Aquaman And Atlantis

 

[Nan Yang]

PCA is an International arbitration court for international agreement, which you go to appeal if you think the ruling of any agreement is wrong. And PCA jurisdiction include UNCLOS appeal. PCA is not a part of UN because it need to maintain its impartiality.

And also, under UNCLOS rules, Taiping Island is not an island connected to Chinese continental shelf, being an island alone does not give any country governing right, Hence China lost that case in 2013 at UNCLOS and the appeal was reaffirmed by PCA in 2016.

And finally, I don't think UN consider Taiwan being a part of China territories, Taiwan was (I am not sure if it still is as I have not check that for a while) in the disputed territories list.

ROC was representing All China in the United Nation (Even United States state so) and was replaced by PRC in 1971. So PRC now represent all China from 1971 onwards. Simple case of PRC replacing ROC. Of cause people will come out with all types of interpretations to meet their POV.

Any natural features that can sustain human life by itself is an Island. Taiping Dao is the only feature in the Spratly that can be classified as an Island. Not sure what you mean by having to connect to the Chinese continental shelf. Like is Falklands connected to the UK continental shelf ?

 

[KungFuLee]

ROC was representing All China in the United Nation (Even United States state so) and was replaced by PRC in 1971. So PRC now represent all China from 1971 onwards. Simple case of PRC replacing ROC. Of cause people will come out with all types of interpretations to meet their POV.

Any natural features that can sustain human life by itself is an Island. Taiping Dao is the only feature in the Spratly that can be classified as an Island. Not sure what you mean by having to connect to the Chinese continental shelf. Like is Falklands connected to the UK continental shelf ?

ROC and PRC are two government of the same entity, hence the dispute, just because PRC replace ROC in UN, that does not mean ROC is part of PRC. That just mean the change of government, the land of Taiwan was still disputed. As I said, Taiwan island itself and Taiping Island are both belong to UN list of Disputed Territories last I check. Think about it, if what you said is correct, then PRC does not exist prior to 1971. Because back then ROC represent China and does that mean from 1949-1971, PRC is part of ROC?

Also, being an island itself have no indication of its governing right. Just because an island is self sufficient does not give one right to govern, take Norfolk Island as an example, Norfolk Island is a self sufficient island in the Pacific Ocean 2000 kms from Australia mainland, however, that does not mean Norfolk island can be self govern.

Whether or not an island can be govern by any party depends on something I said before, it's called Terra Nullius clause. And that is another issue and not related to EEZ or Territorial Water. UK claim Falkland because they were the original settler of Falkland a fact which Argentina disputed.

There are only 3 ways a country can claim land.

By Terra Nullius

Which mean settle in a land where no sign of settlement by anyone before, to claim Terra Nullius, a full and formal geographical studies have to be committed before one can claim Terra Nullius

By Cessation/Treaty

Most of US land was claimed this way, Russia sold Alaska to the US in 1867, another example is how Russia obtain Kaliningrad from annexation, based on the Potsdam Agreement.

By Sovereignty Transfer

Either from one equal entity to another (In this case, the very familiar China, the transfer from Sovereignty from ROC to PRC) or from one Super entity to a smaller entity. Such as USSR break up into 15 countries.

No where in any UN Charter can a country claim a land because it was an island. And before you say this, no, China did not show Taiping Island in Terra Nullius Clause as there were sign of settlement before Chinese settlement. And this is an acknowledge fact on UNCLOS.

 

[Nan Yang]

ROC and PRC are two government of the same entity, hence the dispute, just because PRC replace ROC in UN, that does not mean ROC is part of PRC. That just mean the change of government, the land of Taiwan was still disputed. As I said, Taiwan island itself and Taiping Island are both belong to UN list of Disputed Territories last I check. Think about it, if what you said is correct, then PRC does not exist prior to 1971. Because back then ROC represent China and does that mean from 1949-1971, PRC is part of ROC?

Also, being an island itself have no indication of its governing right. Just because an island is self sufficient does not give one right to govern, take Norfolk Island as an example, Norfolk Island is a self sufficient island in the Pacific Ocean 2000 kms from Australia mainland, however, that does not mean Norfolk island can be self govern.

Whether or not an island can be govern by any party depends on something I said before, it's called Terra Nullius clause. And that is another issue and not related to EEZ or Territorial Water. UK claim Falkland because they were the original settler of Falkland a fact which Argentina disputed.

There are only 3 ways a country can claim land.

By Terra Nullius

Which mean settle in a land where no sign of settlement by anyone before, to claim Terra Nullius, a full and formal geographical studies have to be committed before one can claim Terra Nullius

By Cessation/Treaty

Most of US land was claimed this way, Russia sold Alaska to the US in 1867, another example is how Russia obtain Kaliningrad from annexation, based on the Potsdam Agreement.

By Sovereignty Transfer

Either from one equal entity to another (In this case, the very familiar China, the transfer from Sovereignty from ROC to PRC) or from one Super entity to a smaller entity. Such as USSR break up into 15 countries.

No where in any UN Charter can a country claim a land because it was an island. And before you say this, no, China did not show Taiping Island in Terra Nullius Clause as there were sign of settlement before Chinese settlement. And this is an acknowledge fact on UNCLOS.

You are grasping at straws and ignoring these major points.
1. ROC represented ALL CHINA and replaced by PRC. Nothing changed.
2. The current constitution of both ROC and PRC is that Taiwan is part of China.
3. Taiping Dao was occupied by KMT Taiwan right after WW2. A good 20 years before the 200nmi EEZ and over 20 years before any other country lay any claims.
4. Taiping Dao is an island by UN definition thus entitled to 200nmi EEZ.

You may grasp at many straws in your argument but do not ignore these major points.

As in your argument on Wen Ho Lee. You grasped at the straw of Wen Ho Lee admitting to one minor charge and ignore the fact that over 60 FBI agents could not find him guilty of the other 58 more serious charges.

 

[KungFuLee]

You are grasping at straws and ignoring these major points.
1. ROC represented ALL CHINA and replaced by PRC. Nothing changed.
2. The current constitution of both ROC and PRC is that Taiwan is part of China.
3. Taiping Dao was occupied by KMT Taiwan right after WW2. A good 20 years before the 200nmi EEZ and over 20 years before any other country lay any claims.
4. Taiping Dao is an island by UN definition thus entitled to 200nmi EEZ.

You may grasp at many straws in your argument but do not ignore these major points.

As in your argument on Wen Ho Lee. You grasped at the straw of Wen Ho Lee admitting to one minor charge and ignore the fact that over 60 FBI agents could not find him guilty of the other 58 more serious charges.

Do you even know what does it mean by clutching the last straw? Seems to me you are the one that clutching the last straw. Because what you do is just keep repeating what you said, without any evidence or fact as back up.

1.) So you are saying before 1971, there are no such sovereignty entity exist as to what we know as China, People Republic of? Also, if and when a country got replaced by another entity, things DO changes. If nothing has changes, then Slovakia would not be a country after it was separated from Czech Republic in 1993? Hell, it along with all the former Soviet States should belong to Russia when Soviet Union was changed to Russia. If there are nothing changed.

2.) Not according to ROC constitution, they still claim Mainland China as part of ROC, you confused between country and governments. Do you even know the definition of being disputed? The reason why PRC government have no control over ROC is because the control of Taiwan was disputed, and just because you or PRC government say it belong to China doesn't necessarily mean so, if so, there will not be a dispute in the first place.

3.) Set aside whether or not ROC is a apart of PRC. The UNCLOS report said there were settlement a lot longer prior to WW2. It's goes into 1800s. Just because ROC settle in Taiping Island 20 years after WW2 does not mean there aren't anyone settle in it before.

4.) First of all, I never heard of the UN having a definition of "An Island" UNCLOS have the glossary as to what is an island. But the definition of an island have no bearing to any of the law of settlement. The UNCLOS definition of an island is simply "a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide"

Second of all, you also need to demonstrate China have claim Taiping as Terra Nullius, which is something China not able to, that is why the Chinese lost the UNCLOS court case and lost the subsequent PCA appeal. Just because you claim it is, doesn't mean it is, show me proof why's that is the case and I will believe you, but seeing a team of Lawyer form China cannot argue the case, I don't think you could. Do you even know law?

And about Lee Wen Ho, I am sorry, but did he plea guilty and went to jail? HE DID. And I don't really care if he did or did not do it, he plea guilty, BY LAW, HE IS GUILTY, that is the definition of pleading guilty on something. Whether why he plea guilty is another issue you can explore, but unless you are him, or his defence team, you will never know.

Also, just in case you are wondering, in US, there are something called Alford Plea, which is a admit to a crime but do not admit guilt in the process, that is also the same as pleading guilty to an offence, but you do not admit guilt, you just admit you will most likely lose the case had it went to court. Lee's plea was NOT an Alford Plea, that mean he know what he is getting, but you seems to think you know better than him, or his legal team.

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

Now that's clutching the last straw. But hey, what do I expect? You to know law? LOL