South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion

[Jlaw]

haha, just you say so? or maybe india only enjoy an errand boy status in UN so nobody bothers to inform you.

 

[salarsikander]

Then you were complaining that i was mocking you as cheerleader...How do you know the ruling is biased?? Do you even have an idea what ICJ is?? Here read about it
http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1

b/w FYI - there are many times Pakistan has also dragged India into the same court and vice versa...also like ICJ another UN body did actually did this to you..
http://www.dawn.com/news/1170986/pakistan-seabed-territory-grows-by-50000-square-kilometres?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dawn-news+(Dawn+News)

Now suddenly UN bodies are biased ?? Anyways just for argument sake what is your take on china claim of almost whole of south china sea??

Ofc They are biased ! ignoring Palestinians struggle, letting US bomb the shit out of Iraq OFC they are

 

[deckingraj]

Ofc They are biased ! ignoring Palestinians struggle, letting US bomb the shit out of Iraq OFC they are

U know that UN never backed USA on her iraq misadventure??

 

[salarsikander]

U know that UN never backed USA on her iraq misadventure??

And what of the Palestinian resolutions ?

 

[deckingraj]

And what of the Palestinian resolutions ?

What about it?? You may have liking for one side however there are two sides to every conflict...but still what is that you expect out of UN there....also mind it in the end UN is a paper tiger

 

[salarsikander]

What about it?? You may have liking for one side however there are two sides to every conflict...but still what is that you expect out of UN there....also mind it in the end UN is a paper tiger

 

[lcloo]

In an arbitration, both parties in dispute have to agree to be bound by the final rulings before it can proceeds. Note that arbitration is NOT litigation, and generally is NOT BINDING if one party does not agree to send the dispute case for arbitration . Thus if only a single party agree to proceed with the arbitration, it is not only non-binding, it is also illegal.

Similar to Law of Contracts, both parties must first agreed to the terms and conditions of the case.

Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts. The parties to a dispute refer it to arbitration by one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), and agree to be bound by the arbitration decision (the "award"). A third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts.[1]

 

[Genesis]

That is not what I said. I was questioning your statement that there is some hostility you feel towards China on the part of India, and pointing out to you that this was an ironic thing for an Indian to hear given the history of India striving to bring China into the comity of nations. In case you are not aware, China, as a Communist power and as a perceived aggressive power which had just opposed the UN, and the US within the UN, and was blacklisted in every international gathering, was isolated. Chinese analysts and Chinese opinion makers have forgotten how it was for your country, when only Russia was (grudgingly) on your side, and have forgotten the jokes about the Albanians, the lone supporters of China, proclaiming that they and the Chinese were 600 million strong.

Your feeling of hostility is strange, considering that your collective memory is so short.

There is no hostility as I said. There is interests. Ego as well, as you have said. Any hostility displayed on this forum, well you been here since 09.

However you must take into account, China's main and possibly only real ally is Pakistan. Their interest in South Asia will always mean more to us than anyone else. Same deal with the US and Japan. We may be their biggest trading partner, but Japan is infinitely more important to them.

We welcomed China in with open arms. That is the difference. And it had nothing to do with Nehru's feeling about India being a leader. It had to do with morality. I am sorry to use a strange word and almost a dirty word, but there was such an element. Nothing else that anyone puts forward explains the behaviour of India towards China. And nothing explains China's behaviour towards India.

We can debate why Nehru did what he did, but there won't be any facts in this discussion, simply opinions, so I want to leave it. Just for the record, getting us into things makes him look extremely important, not saying that's the entire reason, but his actions suggests as much. My opinion.

We were successful enough, and we persuaded a lot of people to talk to China. As far as Nehru feeling India was the leading man, that was his individual ego; for China to build her entire state policy around envy of an individual makes very strange reading. It would appear that Chinese policy, right from the inception of the PRC, has been one of undiluted envy of others. We belong far in the forgotten past; the current Chinese envy and nation desired to be overtaken is the US. Where does it end? Or does it never end?

The notion of envy, is not a Chinese characteristic. All functional humans feel it.

Consider this thread, do India really cares what happens in SCS? You have no global obligations nor the alliance networks, you have no prestige to be lost and certainly no interests to speak of in the region that would be impacted. Wars are waging across the world, ME, Africa, and eastern Europe, yet not one place has the reaction been so strong. If anything you are closer to ME and Africa than SCS.

The only thing that is different here is China. If that isn't ego, I don't know what is. Whenever people say China India comparison is apple and oranges, or long term. It's as clear as day what they actually mean.

There is no end, that's what I love about humanity, if there is an end, well the last time that happened, India became a colony and Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau were taken from us, also parts of Shandong province and parts of Shanghai.


Regarding the other matter, I speak for myself, that's all anyone can do. if you don't like some poster's attitude or way of posting, just ignore. That's what I do.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Will this ruling added to the woe of other nations including USA and Britain now that all the islands in the South China Sea are declared as ROCK with a single stroke of a pen?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-foreign-minister-sparks-fresh-row-Rock.html

 

[Joe Shearer]

093A cruise missile SSN passes Strait of Malacca at the end of June-2016, final warning to Indonesian Navy.

We let them seen what we have sent to there!

We also heard about that nearly 90 Fishing ships from India been destoryed and captured by Sri-lanka alone in 2015 !

what have India done to that situation???

Nothing!

And do you know what these fishing boats were about, and why India did nothing? Do you care, or were you scoring a point?

 

[Solomon2]

In an arbitration, both parties in dispute have to agree to be bound by the final rulings before it can proceed...

That's what happened here. China did indeed attach letters of reservation to UNCLOS, but the tribunal determined these exceptions don't apply since China bases its arguments upon "historic rights" rather than "historic title" - i.e., sovereignty.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

This thread will for a couple of more days. In a couple of day the new Philppine government issue a statement that would be everything to every man...and then the real business of getting on with business start.. i.e. Chinese investments in Philppines... some bargaining here and there. And this mess was for nothing.

In the end China won.

 

[Solomon2]

In the end China won.

​

Aquino: Ruling a victory for all
July 13, 2016 10:32 pm
by FELIPE F. SALVOSA II, MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO AND JOMAR CANLAS

FORMER President Benigno Aquino 3rd on Wednesday hailed the international tribunal ruling favoring the Philippines’ claims to the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea) as a “victory for all,” as his former Foreign Affairs chief said it was now time for the country to be “magnanimous.”

“Instead of viewing this decision as a victory of one party over another, the best way to look at this judgment is that it is a victory for all. I say this because the clarity rendered now establishes better conditions that enable countries to engage each other, bearing in mind their duties and rights within a context that espouses equality and amity,” Aquino said in a statement.

Tributes to the previous Aquino administration poured on social media on Wednesday, with netizens crediting the former president for initiating the victorious legal case before the United Nations’ Permanent Court of Arbitration that settles international maritime disputes.

Aquino thanked the tribunal, based in The Hague in The Netherlands, for the “fair judgment,” saying he was “quite elated particularly since all the points we had raised were affirmed.”

“Where there is conflict over claims and opinions, cooperation cannot exist. Now that the rules are even clearer, we can all move forward as a global community. Without doubt, this long-running dispute is now closer to having a permanent solution,” he said.

His former Foreign Affairs secretary, Albert del Rosario, said the ruling will have wide-ranging implications on maritime conduct in the South China Sea and should be used as leverage in diplomatic channels.

“If you take a look at the [decision], it has ruled on many aspects which affect not only the Philippines, but other nations of the world that will benefit from the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea,” del Rosario said in a television interview.

“This is a victory for all because it benefits the whole world and people will, of course, enjoy these benefits,” he added.

On Wednesday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza and former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, who were part of the Philippine legal team at The Hague, admitted that China will not face sanctions, but risks harming its international reputation.

They agreed that the next steps should be diplomatic rather than confrontational.

“Having a legal right is different from enforcement. Enforcement is a different matter,” Hilbay pointed out.

But “China is bound by the decision, so everyday of violation is a non-compliance with the decision,” he said.

Hilbay particularly referred to the structures China built on areas of the West Philippine Sea.

While China is occupying the disputed territories, the Philippines has the legal title to such areas.

“In layman’s terms, China occupies the land but we have the title to it,” Hilbay said.

Jardeleza said the government should resort to peaceful means to resolve the dispute.

“It has been the consistent view of the legal team that this Award will be a potent legal platform as our country moves forward to the political and diplomatic phase of our goal of effectively asserting our maritime entitlements under Unclos [United nations Convention on the Law of the Sea],” Jardeleza said.

But China own and manage SCS islands not begenning at modern world, we have historical rights. -

The tribunal says any claim to "historic rights" was "extinguished" when China signed UNCLOS, as it agreed to subject such a matter to the treaty text and binding arbitration.

The tribunal pointed out that it was previously decided that "historic rights" - like fishing - are "private rights" and that deeming them state's rights was a "western legal fiction" the tribunal refused to endorse (Eritrea v. Yemen, 1999). (Paragraph 798).

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

​

Aquino: Ruling a victory for all
July 13, 2016 10:32 pm
by FELIPE F. SALVOSA II, MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO AND JOMAR CANLAS

FORMER President Benigno Aquino 3rd on Wednesday hailed the international tribunal ruling favoring the Philippines’ claims to the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea) as a “victory for all,” as his former Foreign Affairs chief said it was now time for the country to be “magnanimous.”

“Instead of viewing this decision as a victory of one party over another, the best way to look at this judgment is that it is a victory for all. I say this because the clarity rendered now establishes better conditions that enable countries to engage each other, bearing in mind their duties and rights within a context that espouses equality and amity,” Aquino said in a statement.

Tributes to the previous Aquino administration poured on social media on Wednesday, with netizens crediting the former president for initiating the victorious legal case before the United Nations’ Permanent Court of Arbitration that settles international maritime disputes.

Aquino thanked the tribunal, based in The Hague in The Netherlands, for the “fair judgment,” saying he was “quite elated particularly since all the points we had raised were affirmed.”

“Where there is conflict over claims and opinions, cooperation cannot exist. Now that the rules are even clearer, we can all move forward as a global community. Without doubt, this long-running dispute is now closer to having a permanent solution,” he said.

His former Foreign Affairs secretary, Albert del Rosario, said the ruling will have wide-ranging implications on maritime conduct in the South China Sea and should be used as leverage in diplomatic channels.

“If you take a look at the [decision], it has ruled on many aspects which affect not only the Philippines, but other nations of the world that will benefit from the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea,” del Rosario said in a television interview.

“This is a victory for all because it benefits the whole world and people will, of course, enjoy these benefits,” he added.

On Wednesday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza and former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, who were part of the Philippine legal team at The Hague, admitted that China will not face sanctions, but risks harming its international reputation.

They agreed that the next steps should be diplomatic rather than confrontational.

“Having a legal right is different from enforcement. Enforcement is a different matter,” Hilbay pointed out.

But “China is bound by the decision, so everyday of violation is a non-compliance with the decision,” he said.

Hilbay particularly referred to the structures China built on areas of the West Philippine Sea.

While China is occupying the disputed territories, the Philippines has the legal title to such areas.

“In layman’s terms, China occupies the land but we have the title to it,” Hilbay said.

Jardeleza said the government should resort to peaceful means to resolve the dispute.

“It has been the consistent view of the legal team that this Award will be a potent legal platform as our country moves forward to the political and diplomatic phase of our goal of effectively asserting our maritime entitlements under Unclos [United nations Convention on the Law of the Sea],” Jardeleza said.

The tribunal says any claim to "historic rights" was "extinguished" when China signed UNCLOS, as it agreed to subject such a matter to the treaty text and binding arbitration.

The tribunal pointed out that it was previously decided that "historic rights" - like fishing - are "private rights" and that deeming them state's rights was a "western legal fiction" the tribunal refused to endorse (Eritrea v. Yemen, 1999). (Paragraph 798).

Thanks Solomon for sharing. When all this emotional baiting, counter baiting dies down... things will move like clock work. That is how states, at least mature, conduct their business.

Only G2, Sino-US, tango this is. All are their to clap and cheer.

 

[Solomon2]

Thanks Solomon for sharing. When all this emotional baiting, counter baiting dies down... things will move like clock work. That is how states, at least mature, conduct their business...

I'm recalling a war ancient China once fought with one of its neighbors. The neighbor won but immediately apologized to the Chinese emperor and sent him gifts. Chinese face was saved but China didn't try to invade this neighbor again: everything went back to normal.