What's new

China's Leadership increaingly worried about Military's hunger for power.

Treaty of Taipei Article 2

It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.


Good thing you brought up San Francisco Conference, and you are absolutely right that Japanese government did not designate the Islands to a SPECIFIC COUNTRY in San Francisco peace treaty. However it did not make them TERRA NULLIUS at least not for long, because on April 28, 1952 The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty commonly known as the Treaty of Taipei was signed in Taipei. In Article II of Taipei Treaty it stated clearly where those Island belongs to.

It only mentioned that Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim and nothing more.
 
Is it just me or it is for everyone, on this thread and some other threads. I have problem accessing the last page of the thread. It keeps bouncing back to the preview page.
 
Treaty of Taipei Article 2

It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.




It only mentioned that Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim and nothing more.
Claims over the Spratly Islands


By Chen Hurng-yu 陳鴻瑜



Disputes between China and Vietnam and the Philippines involving territorial claims over the Spratly Islands (南沙群島) have once more hit the headlines. My contention is that only territorial claims on the Spratlys that were established on the “critical date” when the Treaty of San Francisco came into effect are relevant.

Exactly 60 years ago, on Sept. 8, 1951, 48 nations signed the treaty in San Francisco. Article 2, Paragraph F of the treaty reads: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands (西沙群島).”

Now, the word “renounce” in the text of the treaty is confusing, because it could lead one to conclude, mistakenly, that the Spratly and Paracel Islands were therefore res nullius, a term referring to an entity — in this case a territory — to which no one has justifiable claim.

However, the international laws governing such matters cannot render the Spratlys terra nullius. In the context of international law, the term terra nullius refers specifically to a territory that belongs to no country, or to land that falls under the jurisdiction of no sovereign nation or entity, which was not the case here.

It is consequently necessary to go back further, to explore the status of the Spratly Islands prior to the signing of the treaty. We could usefully start with 1917, when the Japanese conducted a phosphate survey there, and 1919, when a company called Rasa Island Phosphate Ore obtained a license from the Japanese government to extract minerals from the islands.

In 1925, the French placed the main Spratly island under the jurisdiction of Ba Ria Province of French Cochin-China, and in 1933 announced its annexation of a further nine islands within the group. Both China and Japan objected to this move and entered into diplomatic negotiations on the issue.

In 1939, Japan occupied the Pratas Islands (東沙群島), the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands, and brought them all under the jurisdiction of Takao (Kaohsiung) Prefecture in Taiwan, which was then a Japanese colony. This was likely the first time in history that the three island groups had been brought together under one administration. It also meant that, between March 1939 and August 1945, the Spratly Islands were under the administrative jurisdiction of Taiwan.

Whether de facto or de jure, the Republic of China (ROC) took on the right to control the Spratly Islands from Japan in December 1946, incorporating them as part of the territory of the ROC from January 1947. At this point they were placed under the jurisdiction of what was then the Hainan Special Administrative Region of the ROC’s Guangdong Province. In May 1950, ROC troops were temporarily withdrawn from the area as they were required elsewhere, but at no point did the ROC declare that this constituted renouncing territorial rights over the islands or that it has any intention of doing so.

In terms of international law, the ROC had sovereignty over the Spratly Islands and did not indicate that this was no longer the case when it temporarily withdrew its troops. Neither did the exercising of these sovereign rights end when the Treaty of San Francisco came into effect on April 28, 1952, or with the signing of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Taipei, on the same day, with immediate effect. The ROC’s claim of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands was consequently intact.
The wording of the Treaty of San Francisco, in which Japan “renounced” its claim to the Spratly Islands, in no way conflicts with the ROC’s territorial and jurisdictional rights over the islands. Consequently, one cannot say that the island group could be considered terra nullius. One way to understand this is through the principle of uti possidetis juris, wherein the parties to a treaty can keep what they have seized during a war. Volume two of Hersch Lauterpacht’s Oppenheim’s International Law has this to say:

“Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the effect of a treaty of peace is that conditions remain as at the conclusion of peace. Thus, all moveable state property, such as munitions, provisions, arms, money, horses, means of transport, and the like, seized by an invading belligerent, remain his property, as likewise do the fruits of immovable property seized by him. Thus further, if nothing is stipulated regarding conquered territory, it remains in the hands of the possessor, who may annex it.”

It follows that the ROC, as a victor nation, can, without the need for clarification within a treaty and in accordance with the principle of uti possidetis juris, legally claim the territory of the Spratly Islands, which was renounced by Japan, the defeated nation.

We can look at this from another angle, too. The Treaty of San Francisco stated that Japan renounced the Spratlys, and this particular stipulation concerning the renunciation of territorial claim led to a departure from international order, precipitating many more disputes, which was clearly not the intention of the nations involved in the treaty negotiations. Consequently, the principle of uti possidetis juris can be invoked with regard to the renunciation statement to resolve the situation and reinstate international order. Whichever way one looks at it, the ROC government’s seizure of the Spratly Islands renounced by Japan constituted its occupation of them.

Another way to look at this is from the perspective of the critical date in international law, which in this case we can take to be April 28, 1952, when the Treaty of San Francisco came into force and the Treaty of Taipei was signed. It is then possible to say that only those disputes that existed up until that date should be counted, and any disputes that appeared subsequent to that date should not count.

In other words, no country has the right to make a fresh claim after that date.

After the Treaty of San Francisco came into effect, France abandoned the Spratlys, no longer having a presence on any one of them, which gave rise to the question of whether they now belonged to Vietnam. France announced in September 1953 that the Spratlys still belonged to France, and not to Vietnam, reflecting the situation as it stood prior to the critical date. From this one can infer that Vietnam cannot claim that it had inherited the rights to the islands formerly owned by France.

By the same rationale, neither the Philippines, which occupied some of the Spratlys in the 1970s, nor Malaysia, who did so in the 1980s, has any territorial claim, as neither was a contesting nation prior to the critical date, defined as the day on which the Treaty of San Francisco came into force.

Chen Hurng-yu is a professor at Tamkang University’s Graduate Institute of Asian Studies.

Translated by Paul Cooper
Claims over the Spratly Islands - Taipei Times
Again the question is left for ROC government to answer.
 
I think the gov't of the Philippines would be very happy if the ROC/Taiwan gov't would agree for international arbitration. A lost of ROC in international arbitration would mean a lost of PROC. PROC claim would weaken considerably.

That is unlikely to happen, ROC's determination to keep those claim are as strong as China if not more.
BBC News - Taiwan to boost forces in disputed Spratly Islands

In the end, people could argue this all day long and this is still going to be a dispute among those states. No one outside is siding with anyone except concerns over the stability of South China Sea. I don't agree with PRC or ROC's position of claiming all of those islands nor do I agree with anyone else who claim those islands out of conviniences. I think this matter is to be solved by bilaterial agreement that have a compromise that both parties can be agreed upon.
 

This is exactly why I've been saying that the statements made by the US State Department serves no purpose and will only help cement the power of the hardliners in China.

If the US and its allies (Philippines, Japan, etc) wishes to see a more aggressive China, by all means, keep pushing this territorial issue.

I guarantee you will see a more aggressive state in a couple of years. The mood inside China now is that the Central leadership isn't doing enough to protect China's sovereignty and the US is criticizing China unfairly.

This latest push in the South China Seas was like a gift from heaven for the Militant Hardliners in China. Thank you, Mr. Think tanks in Washington who advocated the policy of containment. You've just made the world a little more dangerous for America.
 
Red text my comments:

That is unlikely to happen, ROC's determination to keep those claim are as strong as China if not more.
BBC News - Taiwan to boost forces in disputed Spratly Islands

In the end, people could argue this all day long and this is still going to be a dispute among those states. No one outside is siding with anyone ( Our position in solving this dispute is thru international arbitration. Our president, Pnoy, already said that their are countries who already expressed confidentially their support to us. ) except concerns over the stability of South China Sea. I don't agree with PRC or ROC's position of claiming all of those islands nor do I agree with anyone else who claim those islands out of conviniences. I think this matter is to be solved by bilaterial agreement ( Bilateral talks would only be acceptable between the ASEAN states because they all use international law as against China who wouldn't submit itself before an international court because she know that she has no legal basis for her claim. )that have a compromise that both parties can be agreed upon.

International Reaction

Australia urged claimant nations to conform to international conventions and law for resolution. "We don't take a side on the various claims over the South China Sea. But we do, given our interest in the South China Sea, and given the fact that a large proportion of our trade travels through it, we do call on governments to clarify and pursue those claims and accompanying maritime rights in accordance with international law including the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention,"” Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr said on May 12, who was in Shanghai to hold meetings primarily with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi


Malaysia – Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak stated that his country supports the Philippines' call for a “peaceful resolution” through a "multilateral solution" to the Scarborough shoal conflict


Russia – Russian Ambassador to Manila, Nikolay Kudashev reiterate that Russia supports bilateral solution among claimant countries and opposed the involvement of other nations in the South China Sea disputes. Kudashev also noted that Russia is not a party to the Scarborough shoal dispute and that his country wants to ensure freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Kudashev also stated that,“The UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) would provide a good and solid basis


Vietnam – Vietnamese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Luong Thanh Nghi said that Vietnam is "deeply concerned" over the Scarborough shoal incident. He stressed that "concerned parties need to practise restraint and peacefully resolve the disputes based on international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 and the Declaration on Conduct of the Parties in the East Sea (DOC), to maintain peace, stability, security and maritime safety in the East Sea and region,

ASEAN
Leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) have agreed that the regional Code of Conduct in the South China Sea should integrate provisions of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (Unclos),
a treaty that the Philippines cites in its claim to disputed
Scarborough Shoal and other islands.

[EUROPEAN UNION
EU-Asia Center director Fraser
Cameron said during a forum in Manila that the EU supports a rules-based
international system and liberty of navigation. The EU believes that territorial disputes should be
resolved “in accordance with international law
through peaceful and cooperative solutions.”

[NEW ZEALAND
New Zealand backs Philippine position on Spratlys
New Zealand supports the position of the Philippines and other allies
that claimants to the Spratly chain of islands must heed the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)


JAPAN
President Benigno Aquino III on Tuesday night secured Japanese Prime
Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s support for a peaceful resolution of the
six-nation dispute
over the potentially oil-rich Spratly islands.
Following the meeting, the President and Noda “confirmed that freedom of
navigation, unimpeded commerce, and compliance with established
international law including the UNCLOS and the peaceful settlement of
disputes serve the interests of the two countries and the whole region.”
UNCLOS refers to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

USA
International Law Should be Used.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday pledged to
support the Philippines amid growing tensions between China and its
neighbors in disputed areas of the South China Sea (or West Philippine
Sea).

NO COUNTRY SUPPORTS CHINA'S 9-DASH CLAIM!!!!!
 
Red text my comments:



International Reaction

Australia urged claimant nations to conform to international conventions and law for resolution. "We don't take a side on the various claims over the South China Sea. But we do, given our interest in the South China Sea, and given the fact that a large proportion of our trade travels through it, we do call on governments to clarify and pursue those claims and accompanying maritime rights in accordance with international law including the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention,"” Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr said on May 12, who was in Shanghai to hold meetings primarily with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi


Malaysia – Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak stated that his country supports the Philippines' call for a “peaceful resolution” through a "multilateral solution" to the Scarborough shoal conflict


Russia – Russian Ambassador to Manila, Nikolay Kudashev reiterate that Russia supports bilateral solution among claimant countries and opposed the involvement of other nations in the South China Sea disputes. Kudashev also noted that Russia is not a party to the Scarborough shoal dispute and that his country wants to ensure freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Kudashev also stated that,“The UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) would provide a good and solid basis


Vietnam – Vietnamese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Luong Thanh Nghi said that Vietnam is "deeply concerned" over the Scarborough shoal incident. He stressed that "concerned parties need to practise restraint and peacefully resolve the disputes based on international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 and the Declaration on Conduct of the Parties in the East Sea (DOC), to maintain peace, stability, security and maritime safety in the East Sea and region,

ASEAN
Leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) have agreed that the regional Code of Conduct in the South China Sea should integrate provisions of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (Unclos),
a treaty that the Philippines cites in its claim to disputed
Scarborough Shoal and other islands.

[EUROPEAN UNION
EU-Asia Center director Fraser
Cameron said during a forum in Manila that the EU supports a rules-based
international system and liberty of navigation. The EU believes that territorial disputes should be
resolved “in accordance with international law
through peaceful and cooperative solutions.”

[NEW ZEALAND
New Zealand backs Philippine position on Spratlys
New Zealand supports the position of the Philippines and other allies
that claimants to the Spratly chain of islands must heed the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)


JAPAN
President Benigno Aquino III on Tuesday night secured Japanese Prime
Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s support for a peaceful resolution of the
six-nation dispute
over the potentially oil-rich Spratly islands.
Following the meeting, the President and Noda “confirmed that freedom of
navigation, unimpeded commerce, and compliance with established
international law including the UNCLOS and the peaceful settlement of
disputes serve the interests of the two countries and the whole region.”
UNCLOS refers to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

USA
International Law Should be Used.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday pledged to
support the Philippines amid growing tensions between China and its
neighbors in disputed areas of the South China Sea (or West Philippine
Sea).

NO COUNTRY SUPPORTS CHINA'S 9-DASH CLAIM!!!!!

The matter here is not whether anyone support China's claim, but it is if anyone's claim are supported. Other countries says nothing besides citing UNCLOS. You said that Philippines and Vietnam is solving their problems but based by your claim it seem bit strange as you claim spratly are rightfully yours while Vietnam actually controls most of the islands and reefs. By your argument the distance between those islands and Vietnam is not any short than China's, so why the double standard. China's unwillingness to go to third party abitration is not because its claims are baseless, it is the same reason that USA refused to ratify many international laws regarding "law of war", and refusing having anything to do with international court for war criminals. It is something that small countries wouldn't understand. By going to international court, the most likely result is the dispute will end up being decided on who actually has the defacto control of those islands which is not a favourable outcome for China, since it is not nor even among the top of those nations who controls the most islands.

PS
Reply as a normal person would do, stop putting words in my quote.
 
I think the gov't of the Philippines would be very happy if the ROC/Taiwan gov't would agree for international arbitration. A lost of ROC in international arbitration would mean a lost of PROC. PROC claim would weaken considerably.

Philipines may have more house servants and happiness-from-sex workers in foreign countries than any other country in the world, but in a fair play does the Pinoys have any chance to survive a conflict against RoC?
 
Red text my comments:



International Reaction

Australia urged claimant nations to conform to international conventions and law for resolution. "We don't take a side on the various claims over the South China Sea. But we do, given our interest in the South China Sea, and given the fact that a large proportion of our trade travels through it, we do call on governments to clarify and pursue those claims and accompanying maritime rights in accordance with international law including the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention,"” Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr said on May 12, who was in Shanghai to hold meetings primarily with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi


Malaysia – Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak stated that his country supports the Philippines' call for a “peaceful resolution” through a "multilateral solution" to the Scarborough shoal conflict


Russia – Russian Ambassador to Manila, Nikolay Kudashev reiterate that Russia supports bilateral solution among claimant countries and opposed the involvement of other nations in the South China Sea disputes. Kudashev also noted that Russia is not a party to the Scarborough shoal dispute and that his country wants to ensure freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Kudashev also stated that,“The UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) would provide a good and solid basis


Vietnam – Vietnamese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Luong Thanh Nghi said that Vietnam is "deeply concerned" over the Scarborough shoal incident. He stressed that "concerned parties need to practise restraint and peacefully resolve the disputes based on international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 and the Declaration on Conduct of the Parties in the East Sea (DOC), to maintain peace, stability, security and maritime safety in the East Sea and region,

ASEAN
Leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) have agreed that the regional Code of Conduct in the South China Sea should integrate provisions of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (Unclos),
a treaty that the Philippines cites in its claim to disputed
Scarborough Shoal and other islands.

[EUROPEAN UNION
EU-Asia Center director Fraser
Cameron said during a forum in Manila that the EU supports a rules-based
international system and liberty of navigation. The EU believes that territorial disputes should be
resolved “in accordance with international law
through peaceful and cooperative solutions.”

[NEW ZEALAND
New Zealand backs Philippine position on Spratlys
New Zealand supports the position of the Philippines and other allies
that claimants to the Spratly chain of islands must heed the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)


JAPAN
President Benigno Aquino III on Tuesday night secured Japanese Prime
Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s support for a peaceful resolution of the
six-nation dispute
over the potentially oil-rich Spratly islands.
Following the meeting, the President and Noda “confirmed that freedom of
navigation, unimpeded commerce, and compliance with established
international law including the UNCLOS and the peaceful settlement of
disputes serve the interests of the two countries and the whole region.”
UNCLOS refers to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

USA
International Law Should be Used.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday pledged to
support the Philippines amid growing tensions between China and its
neighbors in disputed areas of the South China Sea (or West Philippine
Sea).

NO COUNTRY SUPPORTS CHINA'S 9-DASH CLAIM!!!!!

the list is stupid! they all like to see a weaker China because they could grapple a lot deeper into the loot or gain profit from collateral interests!
 
The matter here is not whether anyone support China's claim, but it is if anyone's claim are supported. Other countries says nothing besides citing UNCLOS. You said that Philippines and Vietnam is solving their problems but based by your claim it seem bit strange as you claim spratly are rightfully yours while Vietnam actually controls most of the islands and reefs. By your argument the distance between those islands and Vietnam is not any short than China's, so why the double standard. China's unwillingness to go to third party abitration is not because its claims are baseless, it is the same reason that USA refused to ratify many international laws regarding "law of war", and refusing having anything to do with international court for war criminals. It is something that small countries wouldn't understand. By going to international court, the most likely result is the dispute will end up being decided on who actually has the defacto control of those islands which is not a favourable outcome for China, since it is not nor even among the top of those nations who controls the most islands.

PS
Reply as a normal person would do, stop putting words in my quote.


Don't take him serious when he doesn't provide a link. Aside from having a habit of changing a quote there is a high probability he might change the text of a source without a link. Sometimes he also mixes his writing with a source and you really can't it's his or belong to someone else. I'm not saying there's malice intent on his part but it's confusing.
 
NO COUNTRY SUPPORTS CHINA'S 9-DASH CLAIM!!!!!

1) Source??? Is this from a Filipino newspaper?

What are you smoking, Russia unequivocally supports China on SCS by supporting a bilateral solution.

Which of the powers listed, will actually grab the islands for the Philippines? When push comes to shove, the world would just watch and the US will just dump you, to make a deal with China.

The Americans left you for the Japanese to murder and rape during WWII, even though they were legally binded to protect the Philippines.

International support is great, but the US won't shed blood for the Philippines, especially not against China over uninhabited islands.
 
Don't take him serious when he doesn't provide a link. Aside from having a habit of changing a quote there is a high probability he might change the text of a source without a link. Sometimes he also mixes his writing with a source and you really can't it's his or belong to someone else. I'm not saying there's malice intent on his part but it's confusing.

I have a question for you though. When I was in Boston studying my roommate was from Singapore and he went to the army before he attended college. He told me that when he was in the Singaporean army, they were actually mainly trained to fight Vietnamese Army. Here I am wondering whether it is true and what is the reason behind it though. Also that was more than 10 years ago when he told me.
 
I have a question for you though. When I was in Boston studying my roommate was from Singapore and he went to the army before he attended college. He told me that when he was in the Singaporean army, they were actually mainly trained to fight Vietnamese Army. Here I am wondering whether it is true and what is the reason behind it though. Also that was more than 10 years ago when he told me.


It's just a part of any military training where you prepare for the inevitable and in this case your neighbors who have the potentials to do you harm. It more to do with preparing the career officers then the foot soldiers that come and go. Again that's war scenario kind of things.

BTW I also have last page problems occasionally. It used to be if I clear my history from the TOOL>OPTION it work again but not the past 2 weeks.
 
Don't take him serious when he doesn't provide a link. .

You want links because you think we Filipinos are like you(Chinese) who fabricate facts???

Aside from having a habit of changing a quote

That's your opinion. To me, I'm not changing other's quote, I'm simply adding my comments because I think it's more clearer to understand. I have no malice intent. Why do you think that my comments are inside the parentheses and text colored??? Duh???
 
Back
Top Bottom