Obama demands halt to South China Sea island building

[Wolfwind]

But this thread is talking about the area in the SCS where China is claiming sovereignty over. Obama is talking about this area. China has never officially said they are building in the high seas. So there is no point talking about rights in the high seas when China does not even use this excuse for the SCS.



This is your own interpretation, not the official PRC declaration. Can you even given reference to official PRC statements that align with your interpretation? China has never dared to officially declare what those dash lines mean in legal terms. China has only said “we have indisputable sovereignty over it” but never dared to clarify the meaning of the dash lines. Even Indonesia is now asking China to clarify it but China keep ignoring that question.

What Taiwan say is not the official line of the PRC unless the PRC also officially endorses it. The PRC dont even recognise the ROC govt as being a legal representative of the PRC.



You do not understand the UNCLOS. Any reefs that are submerged under water during high tide are considered as part of the seabed. You can not claim sovereignty over seabeds, which include those submerged reefs. The seabed/reefs will be considered as the continental shelf of the coastal state. And guess what? Mischief reef is one of those reefs that are submerged during high tide and within the EEZ of the Philippines. That is why your govt dont dare to use the high-sea rights excuse, because that would mean Mischief reefs and the water around it belong to the Philippines’ EEZ. Your govt excuse is just to say “we have indisputable sovereignty” but dont dare to clarify it in legal terms.



@Zsari , what you say seem to contradict with your countryman Wolfwind. One says China is exercising its right to build in the high seas while the other says China sees it as building within its territory.

Can you clarify?

I think Zsari has more knowledge than me so you should believe him over me. But I was under the impression China sees it as building within its own territory.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Only one thing matters.

Are you going to bring your army to stop us?

If not, then it's just whining as usual.

In fact, it IS just whining as usual. Or lip service for your pawns to get excited over.

 

[William Hung]

I think Zsari has more knowledge than me so you should believe him over me. But I was under the impression China sees it as building within its own territory.

China has never clarified what the nine dash lines mean and what justification it has to build those artificial islands. China has only officially said “we have indisputable sovereignty”. Like I said, China will face legal problem if it claims territory rights, but also other legal problem too if it claims high seas rights. Thats why, up until now, China will not clarify it.

 

[Wolfwind]

China has never clarified what the nine dash lines mean and what justification it has to build those artificial islands. China has only officially said “we have indisputable sovereignty”. Like I said, China will face legal problem if it claims territory rights, but also other legal problem too if it claims high seas rights. Thats why, up until now, China will not clarify it.

Well there's going to be legal problems because the area is disputed. There are many overlapping claims from multiple countries. But my interpretation of the current events is that China considers it her own territory that's why they are building there. They really don't see it as that area belonging to any other country.

 

[Zsari]

But this thread is talking about the area in the SCS where China is claiming sovereignty over. Obama is talking about this area. China has never officially said they are building in the high seas. So there is no point talking about rights in the high seas when China does not even use this excuse for the SCS.

This is your own interpretation, not the official PRC declaration. Can you even given reference to official PRC statements that align with your interpretation? China has never dared to officially declare what those dash lines mean in legal terms. China has only said “we have indisputable sovereignty over it” but never dared to clarify the meaning of the dash lines. Even Indonesia is now asking China to clarify it but China keep ignoring that question.

What Taiwan say is not the official line of the PRC unless the PRC also officially endorses it. The PRC dont even recognise the ROC govt as being a legal representative of the PRC.

You do not understand the UNCLOS. Any reefs that are submerged under water during high tide are considered as part of the seabed. You can not claim sovereignty over seabeds, which include those submerged reefs. The seabed/reefs will be considered as the continental shelf of the coastal state. And guess what? Mischief reef is one of those reefs that are submerged during high tide and within the EEZ of the Philippines. That is why your govt dont dare to use the high-sea rights excuse, because that would mean Mischief reefs and the water around it belong to the Philippines’ EEZ. Your govt excuse is just to say “we have indisputable sovereignty” but dont dare to clarify it in legal terms.

Please tell me which article in UNCLOS stated that reef that's submerged under high tide are not consider as territory? Like I said before, many states claims completely submerged rocks as territory let along half submerged reefs.

Continental shelf are defined in UNCLOS as a prolongation of the land mass of the costal state, the slope and the rise. It doesn't include deep ocean floor. In case of SCS, none of the coastal state's continental shelf extend into any of the disputed island, especially in the case of Philippine if you take a look at the sea floor map, the descent of the slope is very rapid. That's why none of the claimant states are using continental shelf to establish their claim, whereas by UNCLOS continental shelf can be extended further than EEZ.

Yes PRC has never officially clarify it's nine dash line, but ROC did, and they are the originator of the lines. I'm not a spokesman for PRC, and I'll state that claiming the SCS as sovereign territory is infeasible. When you do listen to the spokesman from Chinese foreign ministry, you'll hear the term Nansha not Nanhai when claiming sovereignty. And do also remember that it is a dash line not a solid line for a purpose, that is it not claiming the entire area within.

When I'm talking about the US demand, I'm speaking purely from the US perspecctive, that the principle to conduct FONOP on the high sea is based on the exact same article as the freedom of island building. As such, it cannot exercise its right while at the same time demand another state to relegate that same right.

 

[Wolfwind]

Let the sand piling, opulent structure building, tropical resort planning, military base constructing commence!

 

[William Hung]

Please tell me which article in UNCLOS stated that reef that's submerged under high tide are not consider as territory? Like I said before, many states claims completely submerged rocks as territory let along half submerged reefs.

You are probably thinking I was making my own interpretation. So lets cut to the chase and look at an interpretation and judgment of the international court: go to this link of the ICJ website, download the 2012 summary of a judgement for the Nicaragua vs. Colombia case (which is quite similar to the LTE dispute between PHL vs CN case:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=124&code=nicol&p3=5

Download the last (september 2012) summary. Then read the bottom of the first page where it clearly says this:


“1. Whether the maritime features in dispute are capable of appropriation. Before addressing the question of sovereignty, the Court must determine whether the maritime features in dispute are capable of appropriation. It is well established in international law that islands, however small, are capable of appropriation. By contrast, low-tide elevations (features which are above water at low tide but submerged at high tide) cannot be appropriated, although a coastal State has sovereignty over low-tide elevations which are situated within its territorial sea, and these low-tide elevations may be taken into account for the purpose of measuring the breadth of the territorial sea.”

In case you don’t know, “appropriation” in this legal context means acquiring ownership of lands/islands that was previously either unclaimed or claimed by another party.

And like I said, UNCLOS only allows sovereignty claim over LTE if they are within the territorial sea of the coastal state.

Continental shelf are defined in UNCLOS as a prolongation of the land mass of the costal state, the slope and the rise. It doesn't include deep ocean floor. In case of SCS, none of the coastal state's continental shelf extend into any of the disputed island, especially in the case of Philippine if you take a look at the sea floor map, the descent of the slope is very rapid. That's why none of the claimant states are using continental shelf to establish their claim, whereas by UNCLOS continental shelf can be extended further than EEZ.

Looks like you are not informed about the PHL vs. CN arbitration case. The Phil is claiming that reefs like Mischief and some other are on their continental shelf. Please read the those PHil vs CN court documents, they are available on the net.

Yes PRC has never officially clarify it's nine dash line, but ROC did, and they are the originator of the lines. I'm not a spokesman for PRC, and I'll state that claiming the SCS as sovereign territory is infeasible. When you do listen to the spokesman from Chinese foreign ministry, you'll hear the term Nansha not Nanhai when claiming sovereignty. And do also remember that it is a dash line not a solid line for a purpose, that is it not claiming the entire area within.

Forget what the ROC says, what they say have no legal implication for China unless China officially condones it.

And no, Chinese official don’t just talk about sovereignty for the Paracels, they also talk about sovereignty when talking about the Spratlys. Latest example is their statements for the latest FONOP argument (you can search the PRC foreign ministry website for many example of China claimimg sovereignty over the whole 9 dash lines area).

When I'm talking about the US demand, I'm speaking purely from the US perspecctive, that the principle to conduct FONOP on the high sea is based on the exact same article as the freedom of island building. As such, it cannot exercise its right while at the same time demand another state to relegate that same right.

First of all, FON can happen anywhere, not just in the high seas. Everyone has FON rights through any seas, including EEZ or even territorial sea. So FONOP principle do not only depend on that article about high seas, all the other provisions about EEZ, etc. give everyone FON rights.

Again, we are talking about the SCS, Obama was talking about the SCS, and we all know that China is not claiming “high seas right” to justify their island building. Never have and probably never will. Why? because that same article has a clause saying that high seas does not fall under the sovereignty of anyone. And China has already officially claimed sovereignty over the 9 dash lines anyway (but never clarify what kind of sovereignty, and exactly what area, because they can’t prove it).

So in “US perspective”, China is not claiming “high sea rights” but sovereignty rights, so its no problem for them to troll you and tell you to stop building and at the same time claiming that they are sailing across international water. Simply because they know China won’t appeal to high seas rights and that China does not have the legal support to appeal to sovereignty rights either.

Well there's going to be legal problems because the area is disputed. There are many overlapping claims from multiple countries. But my interpretation of the current events is that China considers it her own territory that's why they are building there. They really don't see it as that area belonging to any other country.

No, just because there is a dispute does not mean that everyone will have legal problems. Just like in real life for individuals, people will only have “legal problems” if what they are doing does not comply with the law. If what they are doing is legal, then they won’t have any “legal problems”, even if someone try to dispute it.

This is just simple logic bro.

 

[Wolfwind]

William Hung thanks for your research and input. I think China gives zero shits though and will keep building because no matter what anybody says China considers it her own territory. Oh well. Time to enjoy the beautiful sand piled islands!

No, just because there is a dispute does not mean that everyone will have legal problems. Just like in real life for individuals, people will only have “legal problems” if what they are doing does not comply with the law. If what they are doing is legal, then they won’t have any “legal problems”, even if someone try to dispute it.

This is just simple logic bro.

No that analogy doesn't work. There's only legal problems here because other countries are claiming it. Even if someone does something "legal" in real life and someone disputes it then you will still get legal problems because it will get taken to court. But in this case the court here has ulterior motives because they don't want the accused to benefit so what we get is a circle jerk of argumentum ad populum pandering to US interests

 

[William Hung]

William Hung thanks for your research and input. I think China gives zero shits though and will keep building because no matter what anybody says China considers it her own territory. Oh well. Time to enjoy the beautiful sand piled islands!

Please don’t cuss. Let’s stay calm and have a civil discussion.

What China decides to do in the future and how she reacts is up to her. I’m only giving some comments on the ongoing legal case. That is all.

No that analogy doesn't work. There's only legal problems here because other countries are claiming it. Even if someone does something "legal" in real life and someone disputes it then you will still get legal problems because it will get taken to court.

If what that person did was legal, then he won’t have legal problems even if he goes to court. We were talking about “legal” problems, not “convienient” problems of having have to attend court hearing.

If you are a legal owner of your house, I can try to bring you to court to dispute it, but as long as you are the rightful “legal” owner, you won’t have any legal problems because the law is on your side.

But in this case the court here has ulterior motives because they don't want the accused to benefit so what we get is a circle jerk of argumentum ad populum pandering to the US interests

This is your own interpretation and excuse...that the court has ulterior motives. I want to discuss things based on laws and facts, not excuses or conspiracy theories.

 

[Wolfwind]

Please don’t cuss. Let’s stay calm and have a civil discussion.

William Hung, we are adults, I'm surprised that you're uncomfortable with the term "zero shits". I wasn't aware that many children frequent this forum, but I only joined recently so I'm not sure what to expect.

What China decides to do in the future and how she reacts is up to her. I’m only giving some comments on the ongoing legal case. That is all.

Thanks because I wasn't aware of the examples you showed.

If what that person did was legal, then he won’t have legal problems even if he goes to court. We were talking about “legal” problems, not “convienient” problems of having have to attend court hearing.

If you are a legal owner of your house, I can try to bring you to court to dispute it, but as long as you are the rightful “legal” owner, you won’t have any legal problems because the law is on your side.

Well your choice of wording wasn't very accurate. You should have used legal repercussions or legal consequences. Because legal problems sounds like you're talking about going to court or not. It's too ambiguous.

So do we know the legal consequences that China is going to face for piling sands on reefs that it believes are hers?

This is your own interpretation and excuse...that the court has ulterior motives. I want to discuss things based on laws and facts, not excuses or conspiracy theories.

First, this so pretentious that I'm literally cringing. No matter how "factual, logic-minded, analytical" someone claims to be, they are ultimately and subconsciously biased. Second, if you mean my "opinions" then that's rich because many, many ICJ cases were decided over "opinion on merits".

List of International Court of Justice cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[William Hung]

William Hung, we are adults, I'm surprised that you're uncomfortable with the term "zero shits". I wasn't aware that many children frequent this forum, but I only joined recently so I'm not sure what to expect.

Calm down friend, lets keep this civil. I believe usimg profanity is against forum rules.

First, this so pretentious that I'm literally cringing. No matter how "factual, logic-minded, analytical" someone claims to be, they are ultimately and subconsciously biased. Second, if you mean my "opinions" then that's rich because many, many ICJ cases were decided over "opinion on merits".

Is this your excuse now? That every single humans are ultimately subconsciously biased therefore the the IC is biased because they are run by humans? I can only chuckle at this reasoning my friend.

I used the word “excuse” in the sense that you are using reasonings to explain away things and doing it without basing it on facts. I doubt you know the background profiles of all the judges and the court itself has not issued any final rulings yet but you have already cried foul about those ulterior motives conspiracy. Can you at least wait until the final decisions are made before acussing it of being biased lol? It speaks volume about your intention and honesty in this discussion.

 

[Wolfwind]

Calm down friend, lets keep this civil. I believe usimg profanity is against forum rules.

William Hung I had a look at the rules and it seems to suggest that there is a profanity filter in place. And yet swear words still appear. That's really odd, perhaps the actual word I used isn't considered a prohibited word? Or is the profanity filter broken? And you might be reading my posts in a non-calm way but I am actually responding to you in the nicest way possible, so I'm quite baffled with your "calm down" responses. This is just how I type.

Is this your excuse now? That every single humans are ultimately subconsciously biased therefore the the IC is biased because they are run by humans? I can only chuckle at this reasoning my friend.

I used the word “excuse” in the sense that you are using reasonings to explain away things and doing it without basing it on facts. I doubt you know the background profiles of all the judges and the court itself has not issued any final rulings yet but you have already cried foul about those ulterior motives conspiracy. Can you at least wait until the final decisions are made before acussing it of being biased lol? It speaks volume about your intention and honesty in this discussion.

No William Hung you didnt read my post properly. I was talking about you. You said you want to discuss based on laws and facts which was pretentious given that laws and facts is what's expected, thus it seemed like you were trying to give off the impression you're some analytical unbiased neutral arbiter and that we should all listen to you. I'm saying everyone is ultimately and subconsciously biased even if they think they are not, it was directed at you but you can apply it to the ICJ if you want.

Also I think you missed my question, but do you know what kind of legal consequences China might face for piling sand / building in islands on territory it believes are hers?

 

[William Hung]

No William Hung you didnt read my post properly. I was talking about you. You said you want to discuss based on laws and facts which was pretentious given that laws and facts is what's expected, thus it seemed like you were trying to give off the impression you're some analytical unbiased neutral arbiter and that we should all listen to you. I'm saying everyone is ultimately and subconsciously biased even if they think they are not, it was directed at you but you can apply it to the ICJ if you want.

If you were talking about me, about my comments being biased, then prove how my comments are wrong. Don’t just say all humans are biased and opinionated and since I am a human therefore my comments are biased.

So you are welcome to show me how my comments are biased or wrong, like how Zsari has previously tried to do. For example, I made a comment something about non-coastal state not being allowed to appropriate LTEs. Zsari challenged me to provide sources so I gave him a reference direct from the ICJ website.

Thats what I mean by discussing based on laws and facts. Giving proper reference to legal sources that are reputable, etc. I never made a claim about me being analytical or whatever so not sure why accuse me of that.

So, now, can you provide your own sources and references to show how the judges on PHL vs CN legal case are/will be biased, how they have ulterior motives, how they dont want the acussed to benefit, etc? Please provide some sources or references for this claim of yours. I would expect something like a reference to the judge’s profiles, how those judges have been biased or how they will be biased, have ulterior motives, etc.

Please, back up what you said with sources and references. It is exactly from those claims of yours where I criticised you of not arguing based on laws and facts. So prove me wrong by showing how you can validate your claims with sources and facts. Go ahead, do it.

Also I think you missed my question, but do you know what kind of legal consequences China might face for piling sand / building on islands on territory it believes are hers?

Obviously the legal consequences will depend on the final rulings of the court that will be made next year. Basic logic.

But since you have already cried foul over the bias ulterior motives of the judges/court, I want you to prove this with sources and references.

 

[Wolfwind]

If you were talking about me, about my comments being biased, then prove how my comments are wrong. Don’t just say all humans are biased and opinionated and since I am a human therefore my comments are biased.

So you are welcome to show me how my comments are biased or wrong, like how Zsari has previously tried to do. For example, I made a comment something about non-coastal state not being allowed to appropriate LTEs. Zsari challenged me to provide sources so I gave him a reference direct from the ICJ website.

Thats what I mean by discussing based on laws and facts. Giving proper reference to legal sources that are reputable, etc. I never made a claim about me being analytical or whatever so not sure why accuse me of that.

So, now, can you provide your own sources and references to show how the judges on PHL vs CN legal case are/will be biased, how they have ulterior motives, how they dont want the acussed to benefit, etc? Please provide some sources or references for this claim of yours. I would expect something like a reference to the judge’s profiles, how those judges have been biased or how they will be biased, have ulterior motives, etc.

Please, back up what you said with sources and references. It is exactly from those claims of yours where I criticised you of not arguing based on laws and facts. So prove me wrong by showing how you can validate your claims with sources and facts. Go ahead, do it.

Excuse me William Hung but it is a fundamental truth that no matter how unbiased someone thinks they are, they are subconsciously biased and that's not their fault. That's why there's no point pretending that you're a neutral analyst while acting like a voice of reason, when you're not.

Further, I am not the first one to cite impartiality issues of the ICJ; this has been given serious academic discussion. And no, it is not my job to do any independent research for you. Research it yourself. I will however provide you with some links and papers to get you started.

Nothing is in black and white, but more levels of grey; this paper discusses bias at the ICJ:
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/11627/1/11627.pdf

ICJ reform has been academically proposed
Judicial Independence and Impartiality in International Courts: ingentaconnect

Discussion on international judges and experts' impartiality
International Judges and Experts’ Impartiality and the Problem of Past Declarations » Brill Online

Attorney accuses ICJ of bias:
'ICJ treatment of Israel biased, as seen in Syria' | The Times of Israel

I also suggest reading works by Martti Koskenniemi, who provides interesting insight into international law.
The Politics of International Law - Martti Koskenniemi - Google Books

That aside, there is a massive conflict of interest on your part because you are Vietnamese. Since you love real life analogies, it's sort of like you should not be involved in the investigation of your own family (if they were involved in some sort of crime with another family), because there is a huge conlifct of interest which would corrupt any proceedings. I hope that makes sense. So I think you should drop the pretentious "I'm neutral and you should all listen to me" act, which I find rather repulsive if I'm going to be quite honest.

Obviously the legal consequences will depend on the final rulings of the court that will be made next year. Basic logic.

William Hung I am asking you what we might expect. Do you know what we might expect, yes or no.

 

[Jlaw]

William Hung I had a look at the rules and it seems to suggest that there is a profanity filter in place. And yet swear words still appear. That's really odd, perhaps the actual word I used isn't considered a prohibited word? Or is the profanity filter broken? And you might be reading my posts in a non-calm way but I am actually responding to you in the nicest way possible, so I'm quite baffled with your "calm down" responses. This is just how I type.



No William Hung you didnt read my post properly. I was talking about you. You said you want to discuss based on laws and facts which was pretentious given that laws and facts is what's expected, thus it seemed like you were trying to give off the impression you're some analytical unbiased neutral arbiter and that we should all listen to you. I'm saying everyone is ultimately and subconsciously biased even if they think they are not, it was directed at you but you can apply it to the ICJ if you want.

Also I think you missed my question, but do you know what kind of legal consequences China might face for piling sand / building in islands on territory it believes are hers?

He is too sensitive. By the way, even a recent HK series I watched the actress said, "BULL SHIT!" William Hung/ Black Flag/ will cry if he watched the pg 13 series