So when a logical analogy is thrown your way, you dodge it by hiding under a convenient excuse.
Nah, just doing what you yourself attempted to do earlier. Don't cry.
Not to mention you act completely ignorant to the fact that these SAM's have been placed after clear violations of territorial space by the US.
Oh? When did the US sail or fly within 12nmi of Woody Island, or any of the other Paracels?
Since you are so "accustomed" with International Relations do enlighten us all that which law prohibits states from weaponizing territory under their control?
UN Charter:
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:
- The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
- All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
- All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
- All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
- All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
- The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
- Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
1 > Just because it is bigger, China is not more equal than any of the nation-states surrounding SCS
3 > international disputes including those over boundaries, sovereignty to be settled by peacefull means (i.e. not by military might), in a manner that does not endanger international peace (militarization brings one closer to military 'solutions' and conflict than demilitarization), security (SLOCs for Japan, South Korea) and justice (not unfair to one or another memberstate)
4> Refrain from the threat of use of force (e.g. by militarizing), or use of force (by shooting) against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (in this case, any of the nations with conflicing sovereignty claims)
OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE UN
The Purposes of the United Nations are
- To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
- To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
- To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
- To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
International law recognizes a right of self-defence. See article 51 of the UN Charter:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Has China reported anything to the UNSC about radars, aircraft, SAMs?
Some commentators believe that the effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defence are banned by article 2(4). A more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right of self-defense, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted. It is also to be noted that not every act of violence will constitute an armed attack.
The ICJ has tried to clarify, in the Nicaragua case, what level of force is necessary to qualify as an armed attack.
So, let's be clear. Woody islands e.g. is disputed territory, which China took by force in the 1970s from Vietnam.
Battle of the Paracel Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Territory under your control is not necessarily your sovereign territory. And if it is not, then you have no right to put your military and weapons there whatsoever (unless so invited by whomever else's sovereign territory it is).
After all, according to Max Weber's definition of a state (which is the most commonly used definition), a state is as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of legitimate use of force within a certain territory. Emphasis on the word legitimate.
You are trying to speak about things which clearly are beyond under understanding.
Obviously.
(myohmy, another personal attack. such a weak proposition)
The fact that China maintains control over these Islands is the verification enough that they are Chinese and they would seize to be when they will go in some one else's control, but we don't see that happening.
Because others don't believe in 'might makes right', that doesn't validate de facto Chinese control of Woody Island, somehow making it legitimate.
It's amusing to see how you in your petty efforts are trying to prove that "These Islands don't belong to China and shouldn't be weaponized" Whereas in the real world China has weaponized them to the teeth and have it's antagonists up in jitters.
I'm glad you find it amusing. And again you resort to attacking the messenger rather than the message. Personally, that's what I find amusing. That, and the fact that you again let loose of even the pretense of giving one damn about international relations and -law and good neighbourship in the SCS.
Now, since you keep coming back for more, why don't you name the law(s) that allows states to weaponize territory under their control, when this is not necessarily part of their internationally recognized sovereign territory, while not putting their territorial issues with another nation/state or states before the UN and international court system.
