South China Sea Forum

[yusheng]

Same as US claiming Guam, Puerto, Hawaii and other external territories.....

If Chinese claim baselines have to work, China need to show proof that they own the island (The whole things) in the first place.

Since you are so erudite, could you tell us how US show proof these islands are US territories in the first place, and also please tell us how US shows the proof the American is US territories in the first place?

Maybe we can learn how to do for us, you know we have territories disputes on the seas and on the lands. and could you tell me what if some countries don't join in some international laws or keep reservations on some items. is there any super police there, the God?

And if possible, could you give us a more whole pictures how this human being world runs? you act as lawyer, lawyer earns more in US and lots of them in US, but crimes has not reduced yet there, why?

 

[EastSea]

We can just add 4 stars on each of all the paintings and the territories are ours. Thank you vietnam for the paintjobs!

When Tibetan, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria are independence states. China flag is only one star in corner. I's Corner Guo, not Centre Guo.

 

[Zero_wing]

Well its china what can i say its still an Empire

 

[Maxtini]

Maybe you misread the Chinese claim.......

No. Chinese claim based on the Archipelagic waters. It's based on Sovereignty Island ownership like Cooks island and Christmas island owned by Australia Hence their baseline and territories water, not EEZ, extended from the outermost point of the 9 dotted line. The catch is, China purpose all those island chain are part of their whole Archipelagic baselines. (IE 1 island instead of 500)

Yes~ China claim the islands, but you cannot connect those islands with mainland to form a contigous baseline (U-shaped claim). In Australian example, McDonald Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Norfolk Island and Macquarie Island do not connect to Mainland Australia. They are to be their own regime.

Also, Natuna island chain is a collective islands Archipelago itself unchallenged by Indonesian authority. The Chinese are claiming the Water over NE part (Which touching the claimant Spartly Islands EEZ). You have mistaken the Natuna and the water near the Natuna.

I'm not mistaken, I say "Natuna Sea". The Chinese claim the water North East of Natuna, which is outside the range of 200 nm from spratly. Spratly Islands EEZ won't touch Natuna's EEZ. (sigh~ I wish I can post image to show that)

I do not assume 9 dash line defines the EEZ. 9 dotted line define the Line of control. China did not claim 9 dotted line as their EEZ, China claim all within 9 dotted line are to be their territorial water as they are the part of Archipelagic baselines the once own.

Archipelagic baseline are drawn by connecting islands, what Islands did China connect to get the shape of 9-dotted line? There aren't any. Do you know the extend and location of paracel and spratlys? It's not that they spread all over chinese U-shaped claim.

Rock does not count as Archipelago, this point you are right, but a collective of island (including rock) counted as a Archipelagic baselines. This is as defines as Part IV of UNCLOS.

The British Rockfall rock does not have any island that related to, it's very much extremely different than the SCS as you have a lot of island some habitable and some uninhabitable some even have functioning airfield in it. The problem is, under UNCLOS, if you count the Archipelagic baselines, you have to includes both rock and island. as their extended Baseline.

Please read the article more carefully:
"An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1."

In the case of SCS, I don't think there are so called "Main Island" on Chinese side, furthermore, it requires the ratio of water/land equal to 1 to 1 or 9 to 1. The Main Island in this case is unfortunately Phillipines' Palawan Island, but even when Philippines try to draw its baseline encompassing Spratly, the ratio of water/land are more than 9 to 1, which is not compliant to UNCLOS. In the end, Philippines choose not to draw its baseline on Spratlys.

I think you misunderstood what I said.

If China want to claim the EEZ to 400nm off their baseline, they need to talk to UNCLOS about it.

Yes! they are claiming more than 200 nm! And even more no baseline are provided, that's why Chinese claim is not compliant with UNCLOS.

However, if it stayed 200nm but they claim the land mass over some island. The ownership of those land have nothing to do with UNCLOS. If they can claim owner ship of those island, they do not even need to talk to UNCLOS to explain their EEZ, as they are given.

Unfortunately, their claim exceed what the UNCLOS entitled, and that's why China are not UNCLOS compliant. To my knowledge, China has not been submitting it's baseline regarding its claim on paracel and spratlys. It just draw the U-shaped line arbitrarily, in contrast with what Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei did. And that's why I'm stressing that China have not been compliant with UNCLOS.

My point being, people focus on China violate the UNCLOS. But if China can indeed proof the island belong to their in the first place, while they need to see if the claim of external territories are justified first. Which is NOT The matter of UNCLOS.

Because their claim are not base on declared baseline and UNCLOS. Ownership of Island is different matter, but the sea around it is matter of UNCLOS. But the fact that China made their claim not based on UNCLOS despite its ratification is enough to show Chinese intention not to abide by UNCLOS.

UNCLOS have not authority in this case, they are claiming the island, NOT the EEZ.

In the case of Malaysia, Brunei, and Philippines, of course UNCLOS did not have authority to settle the dispute, because their claim has been UNCLOS compliant.
But, i'm stressing,
Chinese claim is not UNCLOS compliant, which is of course the matter of UNCLOS.

No matter how you drawn the baseline, you cannot get Chinese 9-dotted line. That's what I'm stressing. If you insist that Chinese 9-dash line is UNCLOS compliant, please enlighten me what are the coordinates the Chinese has declared as their baseline (required by UNCLOS), how they are drawns, and what is the distance the extension of their claim based on the baseline!

 

[jhungary]

Since you are so erudite, could you tell us how US show proof these islands are US territories in the first place, and also please tell us how US shows the proof the American is US territories in the first place?

Maybe we can learn how to do for us, you know we have territories disputes on the seas and on the lands. and could you tell me what if some countries don't join in some international laws or keep reservations on some items. is there any super police there, the God?

And if possible, could you give us a more whole pictures how this human being world runs? you act as lawyer, lawyer earns more in US and lots of them in US, but crimes has not reduced yet there, why?

Dude.

Each and every Territories US claim is undisputed. If you want, I can list them one by one to you

Overall US territories today

Guam - First discovered in 2000 BC by Indonesian. First civilization established on 1565 by Spanish Garrison, same year they build an outpost on Guam. Same year Guam was colonised by the Spanish.

US took control of Guam after 1898 Spanish-American war in which Guam was ceded to the United States as well as Philippine, Puerto Rico, Cuba and Jamaica as part of Treaty of Paris.

US lost Guam during WW2 by an act of war with the Japanese, recapture Guam in 1945. Have been administrating Guam ever since.

Commonwealth of Northern Marianna Island (CMNI) - First discovered by Asutro-Indonesian by 2000 BC, first settled civilisation (recorded) in 1521 by Spanish explorer of Ferdinand Magellan. First colonised with Guam in 1565 by Miguel López de Legazpi and established Crowned colony of Spain.

Ceded to the US as per treaty of Paris after 1898 Spanish-American War alongside Philippine, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico and Jamaica. US lost control briefly by act of war during 1941-1945. US recapture the Marianas in 1945, administering the island ever since.

Puerto Rico - Discovered by Columbus in 1493. Colonised and established Spanish settlement on 1508. US Invaded Puerto Rico as part of Spanish-American War in 1896 as per treaty of Paris. US have since been administering Puerto Rico ever since.

US Virgin Island - Discovered by Columbus in 1490s. Named by him at second voyage. First settled by Danish on 1672, France bought the settlement on 1733, again became a Danish colony in 1755, bought by United States on 1917 from Danish via Treaty of the Danish West Indies.

Territories of Hawai'i - Established into Kingdom of Hawai'i after uniting all of the Hawaiian island. The kingdom was overthrown by the British and established a briefly Republic of Hawai'i by a Pro-UK and Pro-US government. Republic of Hawai'i was annexed by the United States in 1898 by the US military. The territories ceased to exist after 1959 when territories of Hawai'i joined the Union of United States

Territories of Alaska - Formed as Russian America by Russian in 1648 by Semyon Dezhnev. Russian began to settle in the island by 1740, settler from Russian Siberia region settle in Alaska in the 1700s and establish local community around the same time. Russian America was sold to United States by 1867 with 2 cents per acre as part of the sell off of Russian American company. US Army administrating the Department of Alaska after the civilian government was formed and District of Alaska was born. Incorporated into Territories of Alaska in 1912, becoming a State on 1959.

Palmyra Atoll - Sighted by the American on 1798, first claimed by American in 1859, was annexed by Kingdom of Hawai'i in 1862. British Claimed the atoll in 1889, but ownership return to Kingdom of Hawai'i, in 1898, Palmyra was annexed alongside with Hawai'i into US territories.

Below is a brief history of brief US territories

American Samoa - First discovered by French during 1800. By 1830, British Missionary settle on the island. Island ownership transferred to Germany and US after Tripartite Convention or Treaty of Berlin in 1899, and US colonised the American Part of Samoa the same year. Remain a colony since.

Wake Island - First discovered by Spanish in 1568, explorer by the US in 1840 found the island uninhabited. US Annex the uninhabited island in 1899


Midway Island - First sighted by the US Captain N.C. Middlebrooks, US conducted survey and found no settlement and annexed the island for Guano Production. Administrated by the US Navy since.

Johnston Atoll - First sighted by American in 1796, named by British on Dec 14 1807. Both Kingdom of Hawai'i and US claim the Island. Transfer to US control via Reciprocity Treaty of 1875. Been under US Control since.

Baker and Howland Island - Discovered by the American on 1818, American Guano company acquire the island in 1857. Procession controlled by US since. Colonisation by the US between 1933-1935. Currently uninhibited.

Jarvis Island - Discovered by the British in August 21 1821. Annexed to the US in February 27 1858.

Kingsman Reef - Discovered by American in June 14, 1798, claimed by the US on 1856 for guano mining. Uninhibited ever since.

US Also claim the current disputed island, none occupied by the US

Bajo Nuevo Bank - US claim the island on November 22 1869 with Guano Island Act, currently Columbian Administrating the island
Serranilla Bank - US claim the island on 19th century with Guano Island act, currently administered by Columbian
Navassa Island - US claim the island on August 18, 1856, no functioning government present in Navassa Island at this moment. Also claimed by Haiti

United States of America - First sighted by the and landed by Spain 1513, colonised by the French, British and Spanish during 1600-1700. Government of United States was formed in 1725 from the original 13 British Colony. We kick all their arse since.

So, ignorant one. If you want US to teach you how to claim Island. You better go make some war now. All our overseas territories (except Alaska) was claimed either by Fighting or Annexation. Start a war in SCS and you may be able to claim the SCS, but then you may also go home empty handed. Your call

 

[jhungary]

Yes~ China claim the islands, but you cannot connect those islands with mainland to form a contigous baseline (U-shaped claim). In Australian example, McDonald Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Norfolk Island and Macquarie Island do not connect to Mainland Australia. They are to be their own regime.

Dude, I only said claim, I did not say the Chinese legally own the Island.

When you are a judge on ITOC, you can judge if Chinese claim is legit.

The Australian Overseas Territories are all incorporated into Mainland Australia. It's the same (Same tax, same lax, same restriction) if you are in one of those place or with the mainland Australia. Except for Norfolk Island. They are not connected to Australia, but they are part of Australia.

I'm not mistaken, I say "Natuna Sea". The Chinese claim the water North East of Natuna, which is outside the range of 200 nm from spratly. Spratly Islands EEZ won't touch Natuna's EEZ. (sigh~ I wish I can post image to show that)

Actually it does. Let me show you on the google map.

The north-eastern part of Natuna is only 350 nm (less than 400nm that separate 2 EEZ) form the southern-most tip of Spratly Island

This is a linear distant from Google map it show 350 nm

Google Maps Distance Calculator

Archipelagic baseline are drawn by connecting islands, what Islands did China connect to get the shape of 9-dotted line? There aren't any. Do you know the extend and location of paracel and spratlys? It's not that they spread all over chinese U-shaped claim.

Chinese claim are not Based on Archipelagic baseline...........AS I said, it's a line of control (Like the one in Indian-Pakistan-Chinese border)

So, again, let me reuse the Australian example. Which island or mainland Christmas Island are close to Australian Mainland?? No. They are 1000 mile away, does that mean we should give Indonesian back the Christmas Island as we are also "Illegally" occupied the Christmas island??

Please read the article more carefully:
"An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1."

In the case of SCS, I don't think there are so called "Main Island" on Chinese side, furthermore, it requires the ratio of water/land equal to 1 to 1 or 9 to 1. The Main Island in this case is unfortunately Phillipines' Palawan Island, but even when Philippines try to draw its baseline encompassing Spratly, the ratio of water/land are more than 9 to 1, which is not compliant to UNCLOS. In the end, Philippines choose not to draw its baseline on Spratlys.

Again, China does not claim the 9 Dotted Line via the archipelagic State claim. That's where you got it wrong at first.

Chinese 9 dotted line is not a EEZ or archipelagic baseline. It's an actual line of control. Do I need to tell you what is a line of Control??

Yes! they are claiming more than 200 nm! And even more no baseline are provided, that's why Chinese claim is not compliant with UNCLOS.


Unfortunately, their claim exceed what the UNCLOS entitled, and that's why China are not UNCLOS compliant. To my knowledge, China has not been submitting it's baseline regarding its claim on paracel and spratlys. It just draw the U-shaped line arbitrarily, in contrast with what Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei did. And that's why I'm stressing that China have not been compliant with UNCLOS.

Because their claim are not base on declared baseline and UNCLOS. Ownership of Island is different matter, but the sea around it is matter of UNCLOS. But the fact that China made their claim not based on UNCLOS despite its ratification is enough to show Chinese intention not to abide by UNCLOS.

In the case of Malaysia, Brunei, and Philippines, of course UNCLOS did not have authority to settle the dispute, because their claim has been UNCLOS compliant.
But, i'm stressing,
Chinese claim is not UNCLOS compliant, which is of course the matter of UNCLOS.

No matter how you drawn the baseline, you cannot get Chinese 9-dotted line. That's what I'm stressing. If you insist that Chinese 9-dash line is UNCLOS compliant, please enlighten me what are the coordinates the Chinese has declared as their baseline (required by UNCLOS), how they are drawns, and what is the distance the extension of their claim based on the baseline!

No, they are not claiming their EEZ, they are claiming the land. Claiming the land is differnet than claiming the EEZ, how do you not understand the different.

You keep talking about the EEZ, you also admitted yourselves China is claiming the island in the first paragraph, How hard is it to understand, IF THEY CAN CLAIM THE LAND, THE EEZ WILL COME WITH THE LAND BORDER. Thus you don't stop on their EEZ, you stop them from claiming their land. EEZ always goes with a land-mass. It's automatically given. If China do not have the land, they cannot claim the EEZ, and if they still do, then it's the matter of UNCLOS. Not before the claim of the land is settled...



China Claim IS NOT ABOUT UNCLOS. You have some sort of fixation on UNCLOS. Dude. you want to give them the land but you don't want to give up the EEZ? IT's not possible.......

 

[shuttler]

When Tibetan, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria are independence states. China flag is only one star in corner. I's Corner Guo, not Centre Guo.

You can bring with those in your sleep and hope that is going to happen in you snooze

show me your "historic sovereign title"!

go back to a million thread about the our sovereignty claims, MORON!

such a retard and stupid comment from a Chinese, as usual.

I am not anticipating retards can understand intellectual comments esp from vietcongs

 

[shuttler]

Wouldn't that be graffiti since you are just adding 4 more stars. Pretty much everyone in Vietnam would rage

vietcongs have done the hard works, and we just add 4 little stars on every one of the original vietcong's graffiti which they call flags for vietcongs

well if the vietcongs feel angry, be our guests:

 

[Viet]

Chinese Marines Show How It Is Done

Chinese designed Jingsah II class LCACs (Landing Craft Air Cushion or hovercraft) are being used on Chinas Type 071 amphibious ships. These 70 ton hovercraft can carry 15 tons of cargo, personnel, or vehicles. The first Jingsah IIs entered service in the 1980s, but it was two decades before a lot of them appeared. That was done in order to equip the Type 071 ships.

A hit of Yakhont antiship missile will turn this vessel into scrap metal.

 

[Maxtini]

Dude, I only said claim, I did not say the Chinese legally own the Island.

When you are a judge on ITOC, you can judge if Chinese claim is legit.

The Australian Overseas Territories are all incorporated into Mainland Australia. It's the same (Same tax, same lax, same restriction) if you are in one of those place or with the mainland Australia. Except for Norfolk Island. They are not connected to Australia, but they are part of Australia.

Sigh~ I'm talking "connection" in term of physical claim. The sea between Christmas Island and Mainland Australia do not take into the form of U shaped as what China did.

Actually it does. Let me show you on the google map.

The north-eastern part of Natuna is only 350 nm (less than 400nm that separate 2 EEZ) form the southern-most tip of Spratly Island

This is a linear distant from Google map it show 350 nm

I don't know which reefs/banks have you been pointing, but from the calculation drawn according to UNCLOS, it is impossible to touch Natuna EEZ:
Go to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baselines_of_Eastern_Asia_English.png

Chinese claim are not Based on Archipelagic baseline...........AS I said, it's a line of control (Like the one in Indian-Pakistan-Chinese border)

There is nothing called "line of control" in UNCLOS, except China unilaterally decided so against UNCLOS it ratified. (which is why I've argued it has become worse than US)

The only control a state might have on the sea is through territorial water entitled by extending 12 nm from coastline or baseline.

So, again, let me reuse the Australian example. Which island or mainland Christmas Island are close to Australian Mainland?? No. They are 1000 mile away, does that mean we should give Indonesian back the Christmas Island as we are also "Illegally" occupied the Christmas island??

I don't see the relevancy here. Christmas Island are Australian territory, but the sea between Christmas Island and Mainland Australia is not Australian territorial/Internal Water. Australian do not demarcate "line of control" between Mainland Australia and Christmas Island. The Australia only has 12 nm territorial water "control" surrounding christmas Island. This is of course comply with UNCLOS

In contrast, the Chinese claim internal/territorial water by its U-shaped claim, which I said does not comply with UNCLOS.

Again, China does not claim the 9 Dotted Line via the archipelagic State claim. That's where you got it wrong at first.

And hence its non-compliance with UNCLOS. UNCLOS states that territorial water as well as EEZ are drawn base on coastal line or baseline connecting outermost islands. If a non-archipelagic states have archipelagoes, its archipelagoes will be treated seperately and be drawn baseline separately from Mainland, as in the case of Australian Christmas Island, which territorial sea are drawn separately from Mainland.

Chinese 9 dotted line is not a EEZ or archipelagic baseline. It's an actual line of control. Do I need to tell you what is a line of Control??

As I said, UNCLOS don't recognize arbitrary line of control on the sea. The actual line of control is the territorial water drawn 12 nm from the baseline either from mainland coatal line or archipelagic baseline.

No, they are not claiming their EEZ, they are claiming the land. Claiming the land is differnet than claiming the EEZ, how do you not understand the different.

So why did the Chinese not compliant with UNCLOS in drawing their U-shaped claim? Claiming and Island is different matter as I said, drawing EEZ is different. The fact is, China claim SCS as its internal water (you said it) even before it has asserted its ownership, and thus non-compliance with UNCLOS

You keep talking about the EEZ, you also admitted yourselves China is claiming the island in the first paragraph, How hard is it to understand, IF THEY CAN CLAIM THE LAND, THE EEZ WILL COME WITH THE LAND BORDER. Thus you don't stop on their EEZ, you stop them from claiming their land. EEZ always goes with a land-mass. It's automatically given. If China do not have the land, they cannot claim the EEZ, and if they still do, then it's the matter of UNCLOS. Not before the claim of the land is settled...

I don't say the SCS island ownership dispute can be solved through UNCLOS. I just merely assert that China did not comply with UNCLOS, please read my first post regarding this matter. Claiming an Island also means claiming the EEZ surrounding it, at least when you're claiming an island, the EEZ drawn must be compliant with UNCLOS, which Malaysia, Philippines, and Brunei did. But, in the case of China, even if, I stressed "if", China own the islands, it has chose not to comply with UNCLOS by drawing the 9-dashed line as internal water, an hence arrogant to ignore UNCLOS it ratified.

This is different from Philippines, Brunei, and Malaysia claim. They claim the islands, but they comply with UNCLOS in laying their claim of EEZ if they own the island.

The U-shaped claim as I said is not compliance with UNCLOS. A countries might claim an island with its EEZ defined just like Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. In Australian example, it claim portion of Antarctic (which no other countries recognize) and the sea surrounding it based on UNCLOS. In this case Australia comply with UNCLOS even if the ownership of Antarctic is disputed.

China didn't even bother to comply to UNCLOS, which is why I said it has become arrogant like US and the point of this lengthy debate.

 

[shuttler]

A hit of Yakhont antiship missile will turn this vessel into scrap metal.

As a matter of greatly improved diplomatic, strategic and trade relationship, Russia has promised us to insert a tiny chip into each of these missiles which will cause the rocket engines to veer off from their paths and fall into SCS!

 

[yusheng]

Dude.

Each and every Territories US claim is undisputed. If you want, I can list them one by one to you

Overall US territories today

Guam - First discovered in 2000 BC by Indonesian. First civilization established on 1565 by Spanish Garrison, same year they build an outpost on Guam. Same year Guam was colonised by the Spanish.

US took control of Guam after 1898 Spanish-American war in which Guam was ceded to the United States as well as Philippine, Puerto Rico, Cuba and Jamaica as part of Treaty of Paris.

Please don't make personal attack, i am not dude, you are not either.

yes, some undisputed now, all the disputes will be solved sooner or later by any means, i don't see US made it undisputed by negotiation.

i agree with you too that war is the only way. so please shut up about internaional laws here and be integrate.

want to act as God , be God first, fortunately fake and selfish God is going down.

 

[EastSea]

As a matter of greatly improved diplomatic, strategic and trade relationship, Russia has promised us to insert a tiny chip into each of these missiles which will cause the rocket engines to veer off from their paths and fall into SCS!

O, kid. Russian known well about betrayal mentality of Chinese. You attacked Russia 1969.
Russia is trusted nation, don't like traitor Chinese.

 

[shuttler]

O, kid. Russian known well about betrayal mentality of Chinese. You attacked Russia 1969.
Russia is trusted nation, don't like traitor Chinese.

infant! It will take you 40 years to learn basic geopolitics 101!

 

[EastSea]

You can bring with those in your sleep and hope that is going to happen in you snooze



go back to a million thread about the our sovereignty claims, MORON!



I am not anticipating retards can understand intellectual comments esp from vietcongs

Tibet people burn themselves to protest against China occoupation, It's evidence for that Tibet will be independence State.