Taiwan Conducts Live Fire Drills on Spratlys, Angering Vietnam

[Carlosa]

Even worse for China is that if the arbitral tribunal accept jurisdiction over the dispute, China can't be there to defend its own case. I wouldn't be surprised if China changes its mind and ask the tribunal to allow China to participate.

Chinese Spratly possessions:

1. Da Chu Thap (Fiery Cross Reef)
2. Da Chau Vien (Cuarteron Reef)
3. Da Gac Ma (Johnson Reef)
4. Da Hu-go (Hughes Reef)
5. Da Gaven (Gaven Reef)
6. Da Su-bi (Subi Reef)
7. Mischief Reef
8. McKennan reef
9. Eldad reef
10. Whitsun reef
11. Edmun reef
12. Hallet reef
13. Holiday reef
14. Empire reef
15. First Thomas Shoal
16. Half moon Shoal

 

[William Hung]

That would be nice.

What 3 islands China has? I thought they were all reefs?

Johnson South reef, First Thomas reef and Whitson reef. They have rocks still exposed during high tide.

Well it's a bit of a stretch to call them "Islands." Thats why I said the tribunal "may" reject jurisdiction over them, just to be on the safe side. The tribunal may favour the Philippines' argument and declare that the tribunal do have jurisdiction over those 3 reefs.

China knows this and is scared. Thats why they are desperately working on land reclamation to turn them into islands. But this will not legally help them.

By the way, China doesn't have just 7 locations in Spratlys, its about double that. Many sources still keep talking about the original 7, but china has been encroaching in reefs here and there and now is a lot more.

Those newer encroachments are too small and minor. The tribunal will definitely declare jurisdiction over them so most source dont even bother mentioning them. Only the PRC want to make a big deal out of it.

 

[Carlosa]

Johnson South reef, First Thomas reef and Whitson reef. They have rocks still exposed during high tide.

Well it's a bit of a stretch to call them "Islands." Thats why I said the tribunal "may" reject jurisdiction over them, just to be on the safe side. The tribunal may favour the Philippines' argument and declare that the tribunal do have jurisdiction over those 3 reefs.

China knows this and is scared. Thats why they are desperately working on land reclamation to turn them into islands. But this will not legally help them.



Those newer encroachments are too small and minor. The tribunal will definitely declare jurisdiction over them so most source dont even bother mentioning them. Only the PRC want to make a big deal out of it.

A rock will not count as an island and forget about EEZ, I think they can't even get the 12 miles territorial water.

Well, china placed itself in this position; if the tribunal goes against them, they'll lose face big time.

 

[William Hung]

A rock will not count as an island and forget about EEZ, I think they can't even get the 12 miles territorial water.

Well, china placed itself in this position; if the tribunal goes against them, they'll lose face big time.

Yes, claiming some rocks as islands sounds absurd. The tribunal may declare jurisdiction over all of China's spratly possessions.

Many PRC members here are proud of the land reclamation work. But they probably dont realise that those work are a sign of China's desperation.

If they participate in the arbitration tribunal, then it means they are admitting that the tribunal has jurisdiction over their possession.

If they refuse to participate, then they can't be there to defend their case if the tribunal decides to go a head with the Philippines.

This is a nasty position for China to be in.

If the tribunal ruled in favour of the Philippines, it will be more than losing face. The tribunal's ruling will be legally binding which means that China would officially be regarded as illegally occupying foreign territories under international law.

Their spratly possessions would no longer be legally considered as "disputed territories" but as "illegally occupied territories."

If it reaches this stage and the US decides to intervene militarily, guess who will have the higher moral ground?

 

[AgentOrange]

Yes, claiming some rocks as islands sounds absurd. The tribunal may declare jurisdiction over all of China's spratly possessions.

Many PRC members here are proud of the land reclamation work. But they probably dont realise that those work are a sign of China's desperation.

If they participate in the arbitration tribunal, then it means they are admitting that the tribunal has jurisdiction over their possession.

If they refuse to participate, then they can't be there to defend their case if the tribunal decides to go a head with the Philippines.

This is a nasty position for China to be in.

If the tribunal ruled in favour of the Philippines, it will be more than losing face. The tribunal's ruling will be legally binding which means that China would officially be regarded as illegally occupying foreign territories under international law.

Their spratly possessions would no longer be legally considered as "disputed territories" but as "illegally occupied territories."

If it reaches this stage and the US decides to intervene militarily, guess who will have the higher moral ground?

If the US decides to intervene militarily, then moral ground goes out the window and the possibility of nuclear war becomes very real. Aside from that, no matter how the rulings go, who's going to force China to abide by them? Vietnam? The Philippines? Possession is 9/10ths of the law. China's land reclamation is only re-enforcing possession. It's interesting, however, that you project your own insecurities onto the situation and try to present China as the desperate party?

The only desperation is on the part of the weaker parties who are trying to have some non-binding and unenforceable (short of Us involvement and WW3) ruling applied that China will most likely ignore.

 

[William Hung]

If the US decides to intervene militarily, then moral ground goes out the window and the possibility of nuclear war becomes very real.

I said if the Philippines wins it's case and the US intervenes militarily, then the US would have the higher moral ground. Because at that stage, China would be the one considered as illegally occupying foreign territories under international law.

Whether the US would intervene or not, or whether an intervention would lead to a nuclear war or not, I dont know and I dont care. My comments simply state that in such hypothetical scenario, the US will have the higher moral ground.

China's land reclamation is only re-enforcing possession. It's interesting, however, that you project your own insecurities onto the situation and try to present China as the desperate party?

I made that projection based on a legal analysis. If you dont agree with my projection, then go ahead and argue against my legal analysis. I would love to have a debate on it.

The only desperation is on the part of the weaker parties who are trying to have some non-binding and unenforceable (short of Us involvement and WW3) ruling applied that China will most likely ignore.

You are another guy who dont know the differences between the term "binding" and "enforcing." I've already talked about his with C-Dragon. The decisions of the arbitral tribunal will not be "enforced" but it will be "legally binding."

So if the arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of the Philippines, then it would mean that China is illegally occupying Filipino territories under international law. And what does the MDT between the US and the Philippines say?

 

[AgentOrange]

I said if the Philippines wins it's case and the US intervenes militarily, then the US would have the higher moral ground. Because at that stage, China would be the one considered as illegally occupying foreign territories under international law.

Whether the US would intervene or not, or whether an intervention would lead to a nuclear war or not, I dont know and I dont care. My comments simply state that in such hypothetical scenario, the US will have the higher moral ground.



I made that projection based on a legal analysis. If you dont agree with my projection, then go ahead and argue against my legal analysis. I would love to have a debate on it.



You are another guy who dont know the differences between the term "binding" and "enforcing." I've already talked about his with C-Dragon. The decisions of the arbitral tribunal will not be "enforced" but it will be "legally binding."

So if the arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of the Philippines, then it would mean that China is illegally occupying Filipino territories under international law. And what does the MDT between the US and the Philippines say?

So if the tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, then it would be a brilliant legal maneuver that would trigger the US Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, and thereby starting an armed conflict that would likely lead to WW3? Somehow I don't think any of the parties involved, save the Philippines would take that very seriously.

MDT or no, the US hasn't officially taken sides on the SCS dispute AFAIK, nor will they, random irrelevant tribunal ruling aside. Realpolitik rules the day and contrary to your position, the entire legal debate is the tool of the weak. China, in a position of strength, continues to tangibly reenforce its claims through land reclamation and military installations.

 

[bolo]

If the US decides to intervene militarily, then moral ground goes out the window and the possibility of nuclear war becomes very real. Aside from that, no matter how the rulings go, who's going to force China to abide by them? Vietnam? The Philippines? Possession is 9/10ths of the law. China's land reclamation is only re-enforcing possession. It's interesting, however, that you project your own insecurities onto the situation and try to present China as the desperate party?

The only desperation is on the part of the weaker parties who are trying to have some non-binding and unenforceable (short of Us involvement and WW3) ruling applied that China will most likely ignore.

These two lovebirds are jokers. Tribunal of the weaklings. Black fag has been talking too much shit. Reality nothing can be done. If he think Chinese who signed UNCLOS are dumber than him, the viet is even more delusional than i tnought.

 

[William Hung]

So if the tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, then it would be a brilliant legal maneuver that would trigger the US Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, and thereby starting an armed conflict that would likely lead to WW3? Somehow I don't think any of the parties involved, save the Philippines would take that very seriously.

I don't know whether such scenario will lead to WW3, but the Philippines can in fact trigger it's MDT with the US.

Assuming the Philippines wins its case, the tribunal would declare that China is illegally occupying Filipino territories. The tribunal can't enforce this, but their arbitration ruling would allow the Philippines to militarily confront the Chinese installations on those reefs in accordance to international law (i.e. they have the rights to defend its territory). This would most likely trigger a military response from China.

Now, this would definitely trigger the MDT between the Philippines and the US. The US will then find itself in a position where they must choose whether they will militarily intervene or to ignore it's MDT obligation.

MDT or no, the US hasn't officially taken sides on the SCS dispute AFAIK, nor will they, random irrelevant tribunal ruling aside.

The US haven't officially taken any sides because these water territories are still officially considered as "disputed territories" under international law. It also means that the MDT has not been triggered yet because the US is only obliged to defend the Philippines'territory, not territory in dispute.

But if the Philippines wins its arbitration case, then the Chinese occupied reefs would be officially declared as Filipino territory under international law, under Chinese illegal occupation.

The arbitral tribunal is not something random or irrelevant. Both China and the Philippines are signatories of UNCLOS. So while the tribunal cannot enforce its ruling, it has the authority to officially declare the legal status of the territory in dispute.

Realpolitik rules the day and contrary to your position, the entire legal debate is the tool of the weak. China, in a position of strength, continues to tangibly reenforce its claims through land reclamation and military installations.

Yes, realpolitik will come into play. If the Philippines wins its case, I have no doubt that China will ignore the arbitration. China would then lose its face as being officially declared as illegally occupying foreign territories.

But the real question is, will the US fulfil its MDT obligation or will the US ignore it?

 

[William Hung]

These two lovebirds are jokers. Tribunal of the weaklings. Black fag has been talking too much shit. Reality nothing can be done. If he think Chinese who signed UNCLOS are dumber than him, the viet is even more delusional than i tnought.

It must be hard for you to face reality. Up until now, you still can't argue against my legal analysis. Can you prove that I am wrong? or can you only resort to elementary school jokes to down play my argument?

 

[Carlosa]

It must be hard for you to face reality. Up until now, you still can't argue against my legal analysis. Can you prove that I am wrong? or can you only resort to elementary school jokes to down play my argument?

The way I see the situation possibly going, china, aggressive as usual, will do some kind of aggressive move against the Philippines that will trigger an american response and if on top of that the tribunal already ruled in favor of Philippines, then that's when USA can really take charge of the situation and use the opportunity and the legal backing of the tribunal to expel china from the Spratlys.

 

[William Hung]

The way I see the situation possibly going, china, aggressive as usual, will do some kind of aggressive move against the Philippines that will trigger an american response and if on top of that the tribunal already ruled in favor of Philippines, then that's when USA can really take charge of the situation and use the opportunity and the legal backing of the tribunal to expel china from the Spratlys.

I think that within this decade (from now until 2020), China will try to avoid military clashes with the USA.

If the Philippines wins its arbitration case, China can place an economic embargo or something similar on the Philippines and pressure the Philippines to reject any US interventions. Thus, a military conflict can be avoided.

However, the US can also pressure the Philippines to confront the occupied reefs and allow the US to intervene. And I think the Philippines will also be pressured by its people to do something about their reefs if the tribunal favoured them.

But this is assuming that the US want to militarily intervene in the SCS. If the Philippines invokes their MDT, the US can just simply ignore it but they will lose face big time.

If the US do want to intervene, then it's easy for them as they would have the higher moral ground over China. The US would have the backing of the tribunal ruling and the US-Philippines MDT.

The question is would the US intervene or not? I'm not too sure on this. A Cambridge PhD argued that the US would intervene, not for the sake of the Philippines or the MDT, but for the US's self-interest.

 

[BoQ77]

Even Poland dare opposing Russia, ... US never come alone.

 

[Carlosa]

I think that within this decade (from now until 2020), China will try to avoid military clashes with the USA.

If the Philippines wins its arbitration case, China can place an economic embargo or something similar on the Philippines and pressure the Philippines to reject any US interventions. Thus, a military conflict can be avoided.

However, the US can also pressure the Philippines to confront the occupied reefs and allow the US to intervene. And I think the Philippines will also be pressured by its people to do something about their reefs if the tribunal favoured them.

But this is assuming that the US want to militarily intervene in the SCS. If the Philippines invokes their MDT, the US can just simply ignore it but they will lose face big time.

If the US do want to intervene, then it's easy for them as they would have the higher moral ground over China. The US would have the backing of the tribunal ruling and the US-Philippines MDT.

The question is would the US intervene or not? I'm not too sure on this. A Cambridge PhD argued that the US would intervene, not for the sake of the Philippines or the MDT, but for the US's self-interest.

Just wait for Hillary!

Yes, I also read that article, absolutely for the sake of its own US interest.

 

[tonyget]

The ruling of the arbitration tribunal will be legally binding. But in 2006, China made a declaration relying on article 298 (under UNCLOS provisions) to affirm that they will not accept any arbitration.

But article 298 only applies to disputes surrounding EEZ, continental shelves and territorial water boundaries. However, most of the natural reefs or rocks that are currently in the possession of the PRC are totally submerged under water during high tide. And according to UNCLOS, such reefs cannot have any claims for any EEZs, continental shelves or any territorial water boundary. They must be fully emerged during high tide and must be able to sustain human habitation to have those water boundaries.

This means that the PRC cannot invoke article 298 to declare that they dont need to accept any arbitration.

China cited article 298 because China claims that the dispute involves "historic bays or titles"



PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Article 298

Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2

1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:

(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;

(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;

(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;

(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;

(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.

2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.

3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.

4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.

5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.

6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.