gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
No one is 'kicking' China out of the SCS. We are just saying the SCS is not yours.
South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion
- Thread starter shah1398
- Start date
帅的一匹
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 12,820
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
They can't win in 1950, not to mention now. It is not me looking down on Yankees, they can't play serious. DF21D been deployed in Hai nan province according to latest Video clips. It's time for something real.
NirmalKrish
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,686
- Reaction score
- -30
- Country
- Location
Your point being? state some facts or stop with the one liners! its pretty cheap tacit to increase your post count...
Max
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2014
- Messages
- 8,411
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
let us see if US send ships at first place..
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Our sailors are going to swim in open waters and within sight of those islands. And there is not going to be a damn thing China can do about it.
We have been sailing thru the SCS. You keep up with the news ?
Dawood Ibrahim
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 3,475
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
After this the image US will go down because China will not bow
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
Full text of statement of China's Foreign Ministry on award of South China Sea arbitration initiated by Philippines
Following is the full text of the Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines issued on Tuesday.
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines.
With regard to the award rendered on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the unilateral request of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Tribunal"), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it.
1. On 22 January 2013, the then government of the Republic of the Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration on the relevant disputes in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines. On 19 February 2013, the Chinese government solemnly declared that it neither accepts nor participates in that arbitration and has since repeatedly reiterated that position. On 7 December 2014, the Chinese government released 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, pointing out that the Philippines' initiation of arbitration breaches the agreement between the two states, violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and goes against the general practice of international arbitration, and that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction. On 29 October 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered an award on jurisdiction and admissibility. The Chinese government immediately stated that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China's positions are clear and consistent.
2. The unilateral initiation of arbitration by the Philippines is out of bad faith. It aims not to resolve the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines, or to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea, but to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. The initiation of this arbitration violates international law. First, the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is in essence an issue of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao (the Nansha Islands), and inevitably concerns and cannot be separated from maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. Fully aware that territorial issues are not subject to UNCLOS, and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines deliberately packaged the relevant disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Second, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration infringes upon China's right as a state party to UNCLOS to choose on its own will the procedures and means for dispute settlement. As early as in 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China excluded from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of UNCLOS disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. Third, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration violates the bilateral agreement reached between China and the Philippines, and repeatedly reaffirmed over the years, to resolve relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations. Fourth, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration violates the commitment made by China and ASEAN Member States, including the Philippines, in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) to resolve the relevant disputes through negotiations by states directly concerned. By unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines violates UNCLOS and its provisions on the application of dispute settlement procedures, the principle of "pacta sunt servanda" and other rules and principles of international law.
3. The Arbitral Tribunal disregards the fact that the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, erroneously interprets the common choice of means of dispute settlement already made jointly by China and the Philippines, erroneously construes the legal effect of the relevant commitment in the DOC, deliberately circumvents the optional exceptions declaration made by China under Article 298 of UNCLOS, selectively takes relevant islands and reefs out of the macro-geographical framework of Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea Islands), subjectively and speculatively interprets and applies UNCLOS, and obviously errs in ascertaining fact and applying the law. The conduct of the Arbitral Tribunal and its awards seriously contravene the general practice of international arbitration, completely deviate from the object and purpose of UNCLOS to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, substantially impair the integrity and authority of UNCLOS, gravely infringe upon China's legitimate rights as a sovereign state and state party to UNCLOS, and are unjust and unlawful.
4. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards. China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on those awards.
5. The Chinese government reiterates that, regarding territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes, China does not accept any means of third party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on China. The Chinese government will continue to abide by international law and basic norms governing international relations as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the principles of respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity and peaceful settlement of disputes, and continue to work with states directly concerned to resolve the relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations and consultations on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law, so as to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.
Following is the full text of the Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines issued on Tuesday.
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines.
With regard to the award rendered on 12 July 2016 by the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the unilateral request of the Republic of the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitral Tribunal"), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it.
1. On 22 January 2013, the then government of the Republic of the Philippines unilaterally initiated arbitration on the relevant disputes in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines. On 19 February 2013, the Chinese government solemnly declared that it neither accepts nor participates in that arbitration and has since repeatedly reiterated that position. On 7 December 2014, the Chinese government released 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, pointing out that the Philippines' initiation of arbitration breaches the agreement between the two states, violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and goes against the general practice of international arbitration, and that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction. On 29 October 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered an award on jurisdiction and admissibility. The Chinese government immediately stated that the award is null and void and has no binding force. China's positions are clear and consistent.
2. The unilateral initiation of arbitration by the Philippines is out of bad faith. It aims not to resolve the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines, or to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea, but to deny China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. The initiation of this arbitration violates international law. First, the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is in essence an issue of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao (the Nansha Islands), and inevitably concerns and cannot be separated from maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. Fully aware that territorial issues are not subject to UNCLOS, and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China's 2006 declaration, the Philippines deliberately packaged the relevant disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Second, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration infringes upon China's right as a state party to UNCLOS to choose on its own will the procedures and means for dispute settlement. As early as in 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China excluded from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of UNCLOS disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. Third, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration violates the bilateral agreement reached between China and the Philippines, and repeatedly reaffirmed over the years, to resolve relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations. Fourth, the Philippines' unilateral initiation of arbitration violates the commitment made by China and ASEAN Member States, including the Philippines, in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) to resolve the relevant disputes through negotiations by states directly concerned. By unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines violates UNCLOS and its provisions on the application of dispute settlement procedures, the principle of "pacta sunt servanda" and other rules and principles of international law.
3. The Arbitral Tribunal disregards the fact that the essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation, erroneously interprets the common choice of means of dispute settlement already made jointly by China and the Philippines, erroneously construes the legal effect of the relevant commitment in the DOC, deliberately circumvents the optional exceptions declaration made by China under Article 298 of UNCLOS, selectively takes relevant islands and reefs out of the macro-geographical framework of Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea Islands), subjectively and speculatively interprets and applies UNCLOS, and obviously errs in ascertaining fact and applying the law. The conduct of the Arbitral Tribunal and its awards seriously contravene the general practice of international arbitration, completely deviate from the object and purpose of UNCLOS to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, substantially impair the integrity and authority of UNCLOS, gravely infringe upon China's legitimate rights as a sovereign state and state party to UNCLOS, and are unjust and unlawful.
4. China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards. China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on those awards.
5. The Chinese government reiterates that, regarding territorial issues and maritime delimitation disputes, China does not accept any means of third party dispute settlement or any solution imposed on China. The Chinese government will continue to abide by international law and basic norms governing international relations as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the principles of respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity and peaceful settlement of disputes, and continue to work with states directly concerned to resolve the relevant disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations and consultations on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law, so as to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.
帅的一匹
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 12,820
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Shooting ships? Why? Are you ok? That shows you are a war monger, actually you are a coward. Bully Iraq,Lybia, Yugoslavia. Sorry you can't do shit about China. Why you still type here if you are such a war monger, go back join the US marine.
anant_s
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2012
- Messages
- 5,600
- Reaction score
- 92
- Country
- Location
South China Sea ruling will affect India's economic interests
India will be watching the ruling carefully, because it would have implications for India's security and economic interests. Vice Admiral Pradeep Chauhan said India has a range of interests in this region like "creation of a 'blue' ocean economy including protection of offshore infrastructure and maritime resources, safety of trade and sea lanes of communication and a regionally favourable geostrategic maritime-position."
The reason for the bated breath anticipation is this: if the ruling goes against China, as many have speculated, what will China do ? How will India and US respond? What does it mean for the balance of power in Asia and the world?
The case:
Tiny Philippines in 2013 challenged China's claims on 15 counts, saying China's actions were against international law. This came after China became increasingly belligerent over Scarborough Shoal, which Philippines claims . If the court rules even partially in Philippines' favour, it would be a blow to China's massive reclamation activities in the South China Sea.
Philippines has questioned the validity of China's '9-DashLine' through which China claims almost 90% of the South China Sea. It has also challenged China's constructions on so me of the rocks and land features in the sea, asking the court to define them as "low tide elevations", "rocks" or "islands" each of which have different implications in terms of EEZ.
China has flailed about, first refusing to accept the jurisdiction, then threatening other countries, invoking an opt-out clause. In recent weeks, China has been on a PR binge securing thumbs up votes from countries like Serbia and Lesotho. It has also warned US from "meddling" blaming it for the tensions. In a Peoples Daily commentary last week, China drew a "bottom line". "The South China Sea was not an issue between China and the US to begin with. However, ... US, as an outsider, uses the South China Sea as a lever to realise its own strategic objectives. The US will have to assume full responsibility for the further ten sions in the South China Sea that may arise. ... for China, safeguarding its national sovereignty and territorial integrity is unshakable."
Philippines' new President, Rodrigo Duterte has been more conciliatory, offering to "share" South China Sea.
What happens after:
It is likely the ruling will be a mixed one filled with technical jargon, so everybody can go back with some victories and potential conflict will be averted. But if it goes against China, It could declare an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) on South China Sea which would be provocative. It could forcefully occupy Scarborough Shoal, which might invite US involvement. Or it could accept the verdict, as India did vis-a-vis Bangladesh, but that seems unlikely if its unfavourable.
Then the bets would be off.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...s-economic-interests/articleshow/53166108.cms
Its good to see, that most nations are urging restraint after the ruling and there is no chest thumping.
It's rare that a judicial technical ruling on esoteric maritime claims holds such global geo-political significance. The International Court of Arbitration "award" (verdict) on Philippines' case against China's claims in the South China Sea could have consequences far beyond the two countries.
India will be watching the ruling carefully, because it would have implications for India's security and economic interests. Vice Admiral Pradeep Chauhan said India has a range of interests in this region like "creation of a 'blue' ocean economy including protection of offshore infrastructure and maritime resources, safety of trade and sea lanes of communication and a regionally favourable geostrategic maritime-position."
The reason for the bated breath anticipation is this: if the ruling goes against China, as many have speculated, what will China do ? How will India and US respond? What does it mean for the balance of power in Asia and the world?
The case:
Tiny Philippines in 2013 challenged China's claims on 15 counts, saying China's actions were against international law. This came after China became increasingly belligerent over Scarborough Shoal, which Philippines claims . If the court rules even partially in Philippines' favour, it would be a blow to China's massive reclamation activities in the South China Sea.
Philippines has questioned the validity of China's '9-DashLine' through which China claims almost 90% of the South China Sea. It has also challenged China's constructions on so me of the rocks and land features in the sea, asking the court to define them as "low tide elevations", "rocks" or "islands" each of which have different implications in terms of EEZ.
China has flailed about, first refusing to accept the jurisdiction, then threatening other countries, invoking an opt-out clause. In recent weeks, China has been on a PR binge securing thumbs up votes from countries like Serbia and Lesotho. It has also warned US from "meddling" blaming it for the tensions. In a Peoples Daily commentary last week, China drew a "bottom line". "The South China Sea was not an issue between China and the US to begin with. However, ... US, as an outsider, uses the South China Sea as a lever to realise its own strategic objectives. The US will have to assume full responsibility for the further ten sions in the South China Sea that may arise. ... for China, safeguarding its national sovereignty and territorial integrity is unshakable."
Philippines' new President, Rodrigo Duterte has been more conciliatory, offering to "share" South China Sea.
What happens after:
It is likely the ruling will be a mixed one filled with technical jargon, so everybody can go back with some victories and potential conflict will be averted. But if it goes against China, It could declare an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) on South China Sea which would be provocative. It could forcefully occupy Scarborough Shoal, which might invite US involvement. Or it could accept the verdict, as India did vis-a-vis Bangladesh, but that seems unlikely if its unfavourable.
Then the bets would be off.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...s-economic-interests/articleshow/53166108.cms
Its good to see, that most nations are urging restraint after the ruling and there is no chest thumping.
SmilingBuddha
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
And you were the cheerleader with the pink top and pompoms...dancing in the sewer
cerberus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2014
- Messages
- 3,361
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
Well they Rejected this time It will be Considered in future
We go support of 38 countries including both Russia and US
Pakistan Appeal is not Even considered to be for discussions that's the difference
cloud_9
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,921
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
It's isn't binding but it set's a precedent!
Wait for the 50-cent army to flood the internet with "How they don't care and the court is illegal". Interesting times fosho!
oprih
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Messages
- 2,836
- Reaction score
- -29
- Country
- Location
And that swimming or sailing won't stop China's constructions in the area.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
At least I once served and that give me the freedom to talk. What about you ?
Similar threads
