You need complete data and curves to prove your points, not just a single case. China is a huge country. Everyday some companies rise while some go bankrupt. Some industries report strong growth while some go south. Just this quarter, Apple reported a sales increase in China by 99% while all other regions flat. Huawei also reported 87% increase in smartphone sales this year. More than 70 US companies mentioned strong revenue growth in China in Q3 2015 compared to only 20 mentions in Q3 2014. That's why GDP is designed to measure the full scale of economy. In dollar terms, GDP per capita for China will increase from $7,494 in 2014 to $8,280 in 2015 while Vietnam only can increase from $2,052 to $2,171 and Japan drops from $36,194 to $32,481.
GDP Per Capita Growth of China and its main hostile rivals
1. China took back SCS from Japan after WWII and drew the dotted line for sovereignty. None of your masters, French or United States disagreed because this was the award for the sacrifice of 30 million Chinese.
2. When China Joined UNCLOS, China applied the exception rule that UNCLOS couldn't applied to sovereignty issues.
3. Whether Tribunal courts decide if those are islands or rocks do not affect Chinese sovereignty on SCS, or EEZ.
4. Vietnam and Philippines thought that your colonial masters didn't represent your interests well and took Chinese islands by military forces. This has formed aggression on China and also gives China rights to take back those islands by force.
5. Any ruling that those rocks cannot be given EEZ is based on the assumption that the court doesn't recognize Chinese sovereignty claim on SCS. Therefore meanless.
6. Vietnam and Philippines think that they can apply forces or court ruling at their will. China will show them that this is completely wrong.
7. In US set constitution for Philippines, the sovereignty for Philippines was outside the dotted line. Philippines amend constitution in 1973 and took Chinese islands by forces. This was the aggression. Aggression would pay the price. Time for China to let Vietnam and Philippines pay the price.
8. Japan's Okinawa, Vietnam and Philippines's SCS all do not solid sovereignty. Even by now, United States only gave Japan administrative rights over Okinawa, no sovereignty rights. China and United States still have the rights to determine the borders of Japan according to the surrender terms in WWII. Japan is simply using its term as the Chairman of the court to strengthen its empty sovereignty by abusing the court. Will China accept this kind of abusement? Forget about it.
Japan and China are clearly on the way for a war. All of these started with Japan's gamble in 2001. Japan thought that US would start to take on China at that time and was so eager to jump out. This ruined 30 years' Sino-Japan friendship and made China-Japan conciliation impossible. But unfortunately Bin Laden changed the course and gave China 10 more precious years and forced United States to change its policy on China. Currently Japan behaves like a gambler loosing its shirt. It is going crazily to stop the rise of the China, proposing Diamond Alliance for containment, wishing ASEAN to weaken Chinese manufacturing power and making hostile bids for Chinese projects worldwide. Philippine decided to stand on Japanese side by rejecting Chinese offer of joint development. China respects the decision of Philippine, but Philippine should prepare for any outcome of this great power game.
its long crap you made anyhow you do realized that Americans have nothing to do with constitution of the Philippines 1973 it was created by President Marcos which is a filipino creation therefore your whole premise is bull because constitution creation is job of Sovereign people not other country and plus you have no evidence as always with all imperial dbag 50cent troopers here plus our claim is based on PD 1596 1978 and Republic Act 9522 of 2009 and to add to that claim is based on international law base on the following merits
Archipelagic waters
The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines how the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are designated
Archipelagic Waters. The state has full sovereignty over these waters (like internal waters), but foreign vessels have right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters).
Contiguous zone
Beyond the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) limit, there is a further 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the territorial sea
baseline limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state can continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution, if the infringement started within the state's territory or territorial waters, or if this infringement is about to occur within the state's territory or territorial waters. This makes the contiguous zone a
hot pursuit area.
Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)
These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the
baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although
oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore
oil platform in the
Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.
Continental shelf
The continental shelf is defined as the
natural prolongation of the land territory to the
continental margin's outer edge, or 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastal state's baseline, whichever is greater. A state's continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles (370 km) until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles (650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190 kilometres; 120 miles) beyond the 2,500 meter
isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.
(Taken from UNCLOS) Which china signed making it binding agreement that china must honor
second point is No country on earth has claim wholes bodies of water it's just simply impossible so your a claims that china controls area is other bull.
So all of your tantrum typing is irrelevant and full of errors but this more humane than most of your fellow chinese imperials here all full of military saber rattling and yet not base on reality created by wrap minds but all the same still stupid arrogant purely made up by people with no understanding or directed created for propaganda
You're in for a big surprise if that's your way of thinking. I don't think your government thinks the way you do. These red texts will define what those rocks/reefs (where the structures are made) on the SCS really are. If the UN Tribunal decides that those are just rock/reefs that cannot be given EEZ and or territorial water, it would make those structures illegal.
It's not like China would back out if the UN Tribunal branded these as illegal. PH knew all along that China won't follow it's decision. But why the heck did PH push for this case? Think mate.
Thinking is not thier strong suit my friend why do you think they got themselves in this mess
