South China Sea Forum

[Gijoe]

Cost China much more than $150,000 in time, fuel, and salary to stole something worth only $20. LOL.

Oh old gambit, you really a fool. Worth $20 buck here is already humiliating to the US.

 

[gambit]

Oh old gambit, you really a fool. Worth $20 buck here is already humiliating to the US.

China blew more than $150,000 to steal something that is worth $20, and left million$$$ (USNS Bowditch) alone.

 

[gambit]

hehe, you very "eloquent", you are such knowledgeable, can answer my above question I mentioned?

What is there to answer ?

No one recognizes China's claim to the entirety of the SCS, not even the fool Duterte. And this event occurred nowhere near China but China continues the lie that it did.

 

[gambit]

Who cares man, does china cares. Grow some balls and declare WW3, please fight one on one not pulling in 30 other nations. Lol, but now fighting China, USA need 1000 nation together to attack china. Lol....

Grow some balls and take the ship, not the drone. But of course, the PLA can only take on Chinese civilians, not so brave against American civilians.

 

[sweetgrape]

What is there to answer ?

No one recognizes China's claim to the entirety of the SCS, not even the fool Duterte. And this event occurred nowhere near China but China continues the lie that it did.

Haha, you are just so-so, I am happy of you are so active here, I am happy of the case too, feel so cool and good.

As to my questions, hard to review my few comments above? but in fact, I dont care, doesn't matter you answer it or not.

BTW, I said you are rogue, so I am rogue too, feel that being a rogue is very cool thing, but you are still the No.1 bad rogue, hope ASAP, we can be bad as you.

Grow some balls and take the ship, not the drone. But of course, the PLA can only take on Chinese civilians, not so brave against American civilians.

Interested in why you don't use American soldiers? funny,

 

[Gijoe]

Grow some balls and take the ship, not the drone. But of course, the PLA can only take on Chinese civilians, not so brave against American civilians.

So you saying USA is a big bully on small nations or country had no defenses? But they still need around 20 other country to help them fight? You also mean USA is big country on the outside, big little balls in the inside. Lol....

China bullied a civilian ship to get something that was built by common civilian parts. A CIVILIAN ship.

A civilian ship that make US screaming and demanding for it return? A civilian ship that US could not sleep for 4 nights? Lol.....

 

[gambit]

Interested in why you don't use American soldiers? funny,

Because the mission does not require the US military.

But that is diverting from the real issue: That China committed theft and for something that could be built by Chinese university students in their spare time.

A civilian ship that make US screaming and demanding for it return? A civilian ship that US could not sleep for 4 nights? Lol.....

Screaming ?

What we are doing is nothing but a formality, pal.

You stole from US, of course we are going to complain. But the UUV is COTS and cost only $150,000 to make, and apparently too sophisticated for your China to built so you must commit theft.

 

[sweetgrape]

Because the mission does not require the US military.

But that is diverting from the real issue: That China committed theft and for something that could be built by Chinese university students in their spare time.

You call other rogue, but you are NO.1 rogue, hahaha, we are "stealing" your the UUV, yeah, so what? bite me? we have "stolen" huge thing from you America, that's our "capability", you are so dam impotent to keep you secret, next time, when you enter our area, protecting your UUV better, that's your prior job, deploying more warships around your scout ship.

 

[Zsari]

Too bad UNLCOS also outline the rights of States other than the coastal state in question.

Article58


Rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm

Getting you equipment stolen is not part of rights and duties of other states in the EEZ, irrespective of whose it is.



It certainly is NOT Chines EEZ. And even if it were, there is not right to take equipment like this.

Yes, other nation have rights navigating inside costal state's EEZ, but unfortunately "scientific research" isn't one of them.

I don't. UNCLOS does. And where there is disagreement, UNCLOS specifies the path to be taken towards resolving disagreement. Stealing equipment isn't one of those paths.

On 12 July 2016, an arbitral tribunal in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled that China has no legal basis to claim "historic rights" within its nine-dash line in a case brought by the Philippines. The tribunal judged that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources within the Nine-Dash Line. The ruling was rejected by the Chinese government

China has not (as of 2016) filed a formal and specifically defined claim to the area within the dashes.

Its called law of the sea, not law of the land. As such UNCLOS has no jurisdiction over land territories including islands and reefs. Furthermore, the PCA purposefully misinterpret Chinese claim of historical title as historical rights, for the prior is again outside the jurisdiction of the arbitration. For that alone would make the ruling invalid, not to mention it has number of other defects.

What is there to answer ?

No one recognizes China's claim to the entirety of the SCS, not even the fool Duterte. And this event occurred nowhere near China but China continues the lie that it did.

Whether others recognize or not is not the condition for which to determine whether a nation would exercise its own right via its claim, or else much of disputed territory around the world would not be under the control of one nation or the other.

 

[Penguin]

You see it as personal attack？hehe, what's substantive arguments? so tell me which clause of UNCLOS china violating, armed military warship apply to freedom of navigation? hehe, you are idiot or I am idiot? ok, this personal attack.

Oh yea of little knowledge.
1. What armed warship? The US ship? Does the designation USNS have any meaning to you?
See http://www.msc.navy.mil/inventory/ships.asp?ship=17&type=OceanographicSurveyShip
Where's the armament?

As for violated article of UNCLOS, try these:


Article56


Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:
(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment;
(c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.

2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention.

3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.

Article58


Rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

You are not American? ok, so you don't know USA is not signatory of UNCLOS?! do you think USA have qualificaton of judging us by UNCLOS law? hehe, freedom of navigation, guy, freedom not apply in all cases, don't be misguided or misguiding others.

Man, you are thick. I have indicated China and my own country are and US isn't an UNCLOS (ratified) signatory. Irrespective of whether the US is or is not a signatory, China is therefor bound by UNCLOS.

As a normal foreigner, if you want to come to China for tour, it is very simple, and are welcome, but if you play as tourist in disguise, but to collect information related to nation security, we will confiscate your device and expel you, hard to understand?

Oceanography is necessary e.g. for the production of accurate sea maps, particularly in areas that have been hit by e.g. large storms, where shift may have occurred on the sea bed. If you (or China) claim that the USNS ship was actually spying, you should produce evidence thereof and lodge a complaint via diplomatic channels, or with the international institutions or practices indicated in UNCLOS. Up untill now China (and you) have produced NOTHING that actually supports the notion that this particular ship was spying. How hard is THAT to understand?

Hehe, first show which clause of the law we isolating, then prove so called freedom of navigation apply to military ship.

As to we are signatory of UNCLOS, but you are not, so you think you can enter into any territorial sea of China?! what a roguish and unreasonable comment, but I like that, so you want to be rogue, now we are rogue too, don't you find it is funny?

In the thread, you jump up and down, in fact, it is very funny, I feel very good that you are active here, that indicating something, the case irritate you, bad or good, I don't care, hope you have another good day here

SECTION 2. LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA

Article3 Breadth of the territorial sea

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.

Article29 Definition of warships

For the purposes of this Convention, "warship" means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.

Article30 Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

Article32 Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes

With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.

Article87 Freedom of the high seas

1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:
(a) freedom of navigation;
(b) freedom of overflight;
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;
(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;
(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.

2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.

Article89 Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.


Article95 Immunity of warships on the high seas

Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.

Article96 Immunity of ships used only on government non-commercial service

Ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.

In fact only the NATO Clan plus the few claimants plus few vassal states have been disputing the China's claims on the South China Sea.

i.e. all your neighbours.

 

[Zaem]

China is the world's third largest arms exporter. Have their own industrial capabilities and R & D capabilities.
This is the Chinese CH-4 uav in Iraq to combat terrorist organizations video.

So now I want to know. What can be made in your country?
So, a lame laugh at a long-distance runner up. Really interesting.

Be real, Chinese equipment is mostly upgraded Soviet stuff. Or worse versions of Western Equipment.
How many succesful battles Chinese aircrafts have went throught? How many ships Chinese ships have sank? How Chinese military has been able to work together in real war? Oh yeah, NONE KNOWS. China only has equipment that it claims (surprisingly) to be "high end" but none has ever seen them actually doing anything. If you believe Chinese jets and ships are worlds best just because Chinese STATE RUN media tells you, then youre idiot.

US is far more capable in every field when it comes to military technology, they have experience and can use it, China only has big dreams

 

[Penguin]

Yes, other nation have rights navigating inside costal state's EEZ, but unfortunately "scientific research" isn't one of them.

It is, see article 87 on Freedom of navigation.

Its called law of the sea, not law of the land. As such UNCLOS has no jurisdiction over land territories including islands and reefs. Furthermore, the PCA purposefully misinterpret Chinese claim of historical title as historical rights, for the prior is again outside the jurisdiction of the arbitration. For that alone would make the ruling invalid, not to mention it has number of other defects.

Sea begins where land ends. Various sea zones are defined in relation to land, including islands and reefs. Other than that, the above paragraph has no meaning. As nothing in UNCLOS says anything about having jurisdiction over land and the incident in question took polace at sea. The above is fully bogus.

Whether others recognize or not is not the condition for which to determine whether a nation would exercise its own right via its claim, or else much of disputed territory around the world would not be under the control of one nation or the other.

If it were up to China, it would claim its EEZ (i.e. not its territorial waters) run up to 3 nmi from the Philippine shore. As if there have been no Philippines in history, sailing out to sea. Reminder: EEZ lets you manage natural sea resources, it doesnt give you sovereignty over said sea area. It does not let you block out other nations ships, whether civilian or military, not does it let you steal stuff from them.

 

[Zsari]

It is, see article 87 on Freedom of navigation.

Article 87 or the entire part VII is specific to High Sea which excludes EEZ. Article 86 reads, the provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. I've even provided a map of what's defined as High Sea earlier which excludes the entire SCS.

Sea begins where land ends. Various sea zones are defined in relation to land, including islands and reefs. Other than that, the above paragraph has no meaning. As nothing in UNCLOS says anything about having jurisdiction over land and the incident in question took polace at sea. The above is fully bogus.

Funny how your statement actually supported my argument that the PCA ruling over any piece of island is but bogus.

If it were up to China, it would claim its EEZ (i.e. not its territorial waters) run up to 3 nmi from the Philippine shore. As if there have been no Philippines in history, sailing out to sea. Reminder: EEZ lets you manage natural sea resources, it doesnt give you sovereignty over said sea area. It does not let you block out other nations ships, whether civilian or military, not does it let you steal stuff from them.

EEZ allow you to exercise your law in the sea zone, where you can confiscate items from other states that violates your exclusive economic right for example to exploit the marine resources via ocean floor mapping.

 

[SBUS-CXK]

Be real, Chinese equipment is mostly upgraded Soviet stuff. Or worse versions of Western Equipment.
How many succesful battles Chinese aircrafts have went throught? How many ships Chinese ships have sank? How Chinese military has been able to work together in real war? Oh yeah, NONE KNOWS. China only has equipment that it claims (surprisingly) to be "high end" but none has ever seen them actually doing anything. If you believe Chinese jets and ships are worlds best just because Chinese STATE RUN media tells you, then youre idiot.

US is far more capable in every field when it comes to military technology, they have experience and can use it, China only has big dreams

China as the world's third largest arms exporter. Do you say Chinese weapons have not experienced real war?

http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Worlds-Top-5-arms-exporters/fp/3105/?spt=su

China is the world's largest shipbuilding and exporter, do you say how many chinese ships sank？？

http://www.sajn.or.jp/e/statistics/Shipbuilding_Statistics_Sep2016e.pdf

I saw an idiot...
Chinese arms and US and Russia there is a gap, which is recognized by the Chinese government. Do you understand?
I hope you see some kind of propaganda, with your head seriously thinking!
How many countries are the world's independent producers of aircraft, tanks, artillery, warships and ballistic missiles? And all can export!
Have you ever thought about it?
You can buy US or Russian weapons, but you can skillfully use it? How about weapons inventory?
Not worried about a military blockade in the real war?

China is a complete industrial system, an independent military manufacturing capacity. I'm not sure you're in a real war (such as the Second World War), weapons stocks depleted, how to get US and Russian weapons. But before that. I will conquer you. (or if the 1982 Argentina can produce Exocet missiles, history will not change?)
The real gap between people to buy food and plant food.

When you see some kind of propaganda, learn to think with your head.
One not think the cripple, don't laugh at a long distance runner.
Does Finland manufacture any weapons and export it?

Oh, by the way, tell you a secret... Chinese weapons begin to export to Philippines. Philippines seems to have had enough of your arrogance.

https://www.rt.com/news/369956-duterte-china-philippines-arms/

Oh, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait buy Chinese artillery.

http://www.upi.com/China-wins-key-Saudi-artillery-contract/74931218128855/

In 1988, China DF-3 ballistic missile exports Saudi arabia!

http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/de... Ballistic Missile Sale to Saudi Arabia_0.pdf

Oh, Do you know? NATO Turkey has succeeded in "Copycat" Chinese weapons.

http://www.bestchinanews.com/Military/3593.html

Oh, you hardly know anything...

 

[Penguin]

Article 87 or the entire part VII is specific to High Sea which excludes EEZ. Article 86 reads, the provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. I've even provided a map of what's defined as High Sea earlier which excludes the entire SCS.

And you are suggesting about 50 nautical miles northwest of Subic Bay off the Philippines is Chinese EEZ?

Besides:

Article86 Application of the provisions of this Part

The provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. This article does not entail any abridgement of the freedoms enjoyed by all States in the exclusive economic zone in accordance with article 58.

Article58 Rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

Funny how your statement actually supported my argument that the PCA ruling over any piece of island is but bogus.

Real islands are one thing. Artificial islands another.

EEZ allow you to exercise your law in the sea zone, where you can confiscate items from other states that violates your exclusive economic right for example to exploit the marine resources via ocean floor mapping.

And you are suggesting about 50 nautical miles northwest of Subic Bay off the Philippines is Chinese EEZ?