What's new

South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion

IS it ? Talk of the hypocrisy then. WHat does the rules say about NSG members that US signed ? No non NPT member can be admitted, right ? But the rules were twisted for inclusion of India. So you see US or west for that matter will keep on changing anything that suits their interests these ruling or shits have lost its total meaning now. So even if China did, is it really bound? morally ? There is no such thing as moral in International politics ? legally ? China is no Iraq to whom US can bomb out of will for non-existent WMD. It is simple China will seek to look after its interests, If there any country that can force China into submission. Then I would be more than happy to see that country carving its path to destruction

Now you are trying to talk about hypocrisy and morally? But those are still irrelevent to what I was talking about. I talking about your claim that this is “unilaterally imposed”. Stick to this please. Did China, out of its own free-will, ratified UNCLOS or not? If China did, then this is not, as I have previously explained, a case of something being unilaterally imposed on China but comes from clauses that China had originally agreed to. This was the topic I raised. Just admit it if you were wrong, dont try to beat around the bush by adding new topics.
 
.
Pack of what :rofl: ?
Taking down elephant or Dragon :what: ?

So will dare to ? Taiwan, vietnam, Philippine ? Cambodia ? who I would really love to see

Well lets see we still have a long time and history in this case do repeat themselves
 
.
The question is, can the tribunal enforce anything on China ? the rest is B.S
You misunderstand. China may not accept the tribunal's ruling as binding. However, many of the other UNCLOS signatories do. So, for example, raw materials China mines in the area may become illegal to trade, as may be Chinese products made from them: computers, cell phones, etc.
 
. .
You misunderstand. China may not accept the tribunal's ruling as binding. However, many of the other UNCLOS signatories do. So, for example, raw materials China mines in the area may become illegal to trade, as may be Chinese products made from them: computers, cell phones, etc.
That still dont matter , just like how the illegal settlers export their stuff which is also illegal but is still traded

Well lets see we still have a long time and history in this case do repeat themselves
And when is the last time a dragon was taken down ?
 
. .
The organization will exist , but one will become pariah and the other is super power with so many allies.

China is economic power not a military power, with no strategic thinking.

The way you are going soon there will be new power that will emerge and counter the threats emerging from west .Also fill the vacuum that is being left by China.

For the love of fvcking god stop saying that China will be a "Pariah" state. Everybody stop saying that! Do you even know what "Pariah" means?
pa·ri·ah
pəˈrīə/
noun
noun: pariah; plural noun: pariahs
  1. 1.
    an outcast.
    "they were treated as social pariahs"
    synonyms: outcast, persona non grata, leper, undesirable, unperson, nonperson; More
    informalblack sheep, red-headed stepchild
    "they were treated as social pariahs"
  2. 2.
    historical
    a member of a low caste in southern India. (this is added by google btw.)
By saying China is an economic power you already contradicted your first statement also China is not North Korea nobody can outcast China without suffering economic maelstrom of some sort.
Here's the thing that's gonna happen nothing will happens. China only lost the claim to the SCS, but they still have presence there & will continue to do so until circumstances change.
 
.
@nair @proud_indian @Roybot @jbgt90 @Sergi @Water Car Engineer @dadeechi @kurup @Rain Man @kaykay @Abingdonboy @SR-91 @nang2 @fsayed @anant_s @Joe Shearer @Tshering22 @Dandpatta @danger007 @Didact @Soumitra @SrNair
@TejasMk3
@jbgt90 @ranjeet @4GTejasBVR @The_Showstopper @guest11 @PARIKRAMA @egodoc222 @DesiGuy1403 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @Omega007 @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular @MilSpec @Spectre @Windjammer @Horus @Arsalan @GURU DUTT @HariPrasad @JanjaWeed @litefire @AMCA @Perpendicular
@MilSpec @Spectre
@Ryuzaki @CorporateAffairs
@GR!FF!N @migflug @Levina @randomradio @Guynextdoor2 @2800 @calmDown@all

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Sou...-Beijing-say-experts/articleshow/53180365.cms
NEW DELHI: The verdict of The Hague, rejecting China's claims to economic rights across large swathes of the South China Sea, is a damning indictment of Beijing. Its significance also lies in its stunning clarity - it leaves China with absolutely no room for re-interpretation.
For India, it was a sweet verdict, because it was recently stifled by China at the Nuclear Suppliers Group. So the verdict by the UN-appointed international court of arbitration was greeted with much satisfaction by New Delhi.

China said it neither accepts nor recognizes the tribunal's verdict
India's comment after the verdict was measured, but it was chiding China, for sure.
Experience life with the stars
Ad Sky City By Oberoi Realty
"Sea lanes of communication passing through the South China Sea are critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development. As a State Party to the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), India urges all parties to show utmost respect for the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal order of the seas and oceans" the external affairs ministry said in a statement.
Simultaneously, India's statement was also a reminder that India took an adverse UNCLOS ruling on the chin to resolve a maritime boundary issue with Bangladesh two years ago.
The MEA stated, "India supports freedom of navigation and over flight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS. India believes that States should resolve disputes through peaceful means without threat or use of force and exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability."
It was a strong criticism of China's decision to disregard the award and continue as before. As expected, when China rejected the ruling it cited 2,000 years of history.
"China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards."
Shyam Saran, former foreign secretary said, "It's a damning indictment. Of course they can up the ante. But what does it do to them? They would appear as a rogue state if they fail to abide by international law."
Former NSA, Shivshankar Menon said he expects China to continue its aggressive expansionism in the South China Sea in the near future. "They cannot be seen to be backing down."

Victory not just for Philippines
Dr Mohan Malik, professor of Asian security in Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies Hawaii, said the verdict would be beneficial for India, too, not just for the Philippines.
"The verdict is a welcome development for India's economic (especially oil exploration in the South China Sea off Vietnam) and strategic interests. It provides legal and diplomatic cover for increased Indian naval engagement with other south-east Asian countries," he said.
The Hague's verdict could be a shot in the arm for other claimants like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam etc. But Indian strategists believe the ASEAN would become more polarised than ever. This could give India greater acceptability as a balancing power.
Malik said the award would be beneficial for India in other ways too. "It will bolster India's case for NSG membership and weaken China's opposition and efforts to rally countries like South Africa, Brazil, Ireland and New Zealand against India in the next plenary meeting."
The most important part of the tribunal's award is the unequivocal quashing of Chinese claims of its territory on the famed 'nine-dash line.'
"Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention....
The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the 'nine-dash line'.
The tribunal ruled China-occupied Spratly Islands could not "generate extended maritime zones" quashing China's claim that possession of these islands would give Beijing 200 nautical mile EEZ.
The court rapped China for violating "Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone" adding "Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels."
China, the court ruled, "had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species."
In a damning conclusion, it said "China's recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines' exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties' dispute."
 
.
That still dont matter , just like how the illegal settlers export their stuff which is also illegal but is still traded


And when is the last time a dragon was taken down ?

Let see the we took them down in the Korean war at battle of Yultong and Japan at world war 2, Sino Japanese War the world superpowers of the 19th century at the boxer rebellion, the UK in opium wars and France oh the Mongol Empire that formed the Yuan dynasty etc
 
.
...just like how the illegal settlers export their stuff which is also illegal but is still traded.
The difference is that "illegal settlers" is merely what Jews are called - a legally unsupportable label - whereas here it's the real thing.
 
.
And i care why? as long as you dont interfere with our interest your floating bathtub is safe
Wow, what is to "interfere" ? we are always there, now we are busy building military infrastructures, what are you gonna do about it?
 
.
The difference is that "illegal settlers" is merely what Jews are called - a legally unsupportable label - whereas here it's the real thing.
No, sir it clearly recognized in international law, hence thats why theyre known as illegal settlements

Let see the we took them down in the Korean war at battle
Exactly who we ? aliens ?
 
.
Wow, what is to "interfere" ? we are always there, now we are busy building military infrastructures, what are you gonna do about it?

we be enforce our laws if you attack our ship or interfere with our interest your country screwed
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom