I didn't really want to comment, I been deleting a few of my posts after posting, but this one, I will.
First I only read third party analyst, but I don't consider the Philippines, Japan or the US to be third party, would you. But I read from them anyways.
Nothing at this point is 100%, but let's assume it is, so what.
So what? lots of things. Here's one for you:
-Assuming the Philippines win, then China will be officially declared as illegally occupying foreign territory/waters under international law. Yeah, and you still think that China will rise and draw Asian countries voluntarily under its sphere of influence when China is going to have this status of being an illegal occupying force?
But anyway, I'm not here to argue about the geopolitical implications or consequences of the tribunal. I'm only here to argue about the legal status of the tribunal and its ruling.
As a side note, judging from your tone, you have no idea what China is actually saying in the domestic media do you. You are also assuming people under 40 watch the news.
What Chinese state media say about the tribunal is pretty clear to all. As for the average PRC Joe and Jane, can you provide any discussions from Baidu Tieba or Tianya forums where people suggest something like, "wait a minute, the Philippines might have a really good legal case and the CPC might have legally shot themselves in the foot!"??? (that is, a pro- Philippines discussion or analysis that many international legal experts have been saying or like what I have summarised here a while ago)
Sure it is. We said it is, and so it is.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I assume you are saying what C-Dragon is saying below:
China has already officially stated we do not recognize it.
It's done and dusted. If Philippines wants to try again, they'll need to boost their defence spending by about 1000%.
If you're talking about the geopolitical, military or other practical consequences of the tribunal's ruling, then I don't care. What I'm here to argue is the legal status of the Tribunal's ruling.
Check my post in the China Jurisdiction position thread where I pasted my earlier summary. UNCLOS has specifically stipulated in article 288 that when two dispute parties disagree whether the tribunal has any authority over the dispute or not, the tribunal judges will decide for themselves if they have any authority or not. Their decisions will be legally binding on China. China actually cannot dictate whether the tribunal have authority or not.
Article 288 (4):
4. In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.
Bottom line, what is Aquino's end game here, all this tribunal is going to do is place more pressure on him to deliver the islands, which he can't. The next government will need to demand the islands again and maybe forced to take action for votes, which at this point is nothing but good news for us.
Your whole argument is this tribunal will magically do something to China, we are communist, asian, and many other things, yet we are still the biggest trading nation in the world, which should really tell you something about what international opinion really does.
Even if Philippines gets a Causes Beli, so what, you still need the military power to push it.
In this thread, I haven't discussed (nor am I interested in) the geopolitical or military implications of the tribunal's final ruling. My concern here is the legal status of the tribunal and the Philippines' legal case. I'm here to refute uninformed or misleading opinions (see tranquilium's comment a few post above) that say the Philippines has no legal case or that the tribunal has no legal authority over the dispute.
Since you said you follow the Chinese military development more closely than me, you don't need me to tell you what's coming up next for China.
Again, I'm not here to discuss the military implications of the tribunal so this is irrelevant for our legal discussion. (I've actually discussed about this issue in another thread a few months ago).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China Is Authorized to Release the Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines
2014/12/07
On 7 December 2014, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China is authorized to release the Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines. The Position Paper reiterates its firm standing that the Chinese Government will neither accept nor participate in the arbitration, and elaborates at length on the legal basis for its position that the Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this case.
On 22 January 2013, the Philippines unilaterally initiated compulsory arbitration proceedings with respect to the relevant issues between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea. Since then, the Philippines has obstinately pushed for the above-mentioned arbitration proceedings despite repeated objections of China.
The Position Paper states that the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Position Paper states that China and the Philippines have agreed, through bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to settle their relevant disputes through negotiation and that by unilaterally initiating the present arbitration, the Philippines has violated its obligation under international law.
The Position Paper states that the subject-matter of the arbitration constitutes an integral part of maritime delimitation between the two countries, thus falling within the scope of the declaration filed by China in 2006, which excludes, inter alia, disputes concerning maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration and other compulsory dispute settlement procedures.
The Position Paper emphasizes that the Arbitral Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction over the present arbitration and that, by virtue of the freedom of every State to choose the means of dispute settlement, China's rejection of, and non-participation in, the present arbitration stand on solid ground in international law.
The Position Paper further notes that the issue of the South China Sea involves a number of States. Its final resolution demands patience and political wisdom from all parties concerned. The parties concerned shall seek proper ways and means of settlement through consultation and negotiation on the basis of respect for history and international law. Pending its final settlement, all parties concerned should engage in dialogue and cooperation to preserve peace and stability of the South China Sea, enhance mutual trust, clear up doubts, and create conditions for the eventual resolution of the issue.
The Position Paper concludes that the unilateral initiation of the present arbitration by the Philippines will not change the history and fact of China's sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and the adjacent waters; nor will it shake China's resolve and determination to safeguard its sovereignty and relevant maritime rights and interests; nor will it affect China's policy and position of resolving the disputes in the South China Sea by direct negotiation and working together with other States in the region to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.
***
This Position Paper released by the CPC was expected and is actually pretty weak.
I had already anticipated a few months ago what kind of defense the CPC would put up and I've dissected and refuted those defenses.
Check my posts in this, where I predict the CPC's defense and refute it:
Taiwan Conducts Live Fire Drills on Spratlys, Angering Vietnam | Page 14
Actually, it's not entirely my own analysis. I've been reading and copying the analysis made by law professors and International legal experts.
