My reasons why SCS islands belong to China

[jandk]

I thought Chinese were supposed to have high IQ. Well they are not living up to that, at least on this forum.

 

[Viet]

You asked too many questions. He has no responsibility to teach you elementary knowledge. I can give you an evidence.

During the Sino-Japan war, Japanese occupied some islands in SCS. Meanwhile Japan was not having war with France or other western countries. The only country they were fighting against was China. Without doubt Japanese believed they took these islands from China, not others.

your biased history seems to begin with the foundation of CCP.

No, you fool, Japan took the islands from France. prior that, France took from Vietnam.
when Japan surrendered, it returned the islands to the French. When France was defeated by Vietnam, the islands return to Vietnam.

Get it?

I ask the questions to show you are a liar.

I thought Chinese were supposed to have high IQ. Well they are not living up to that, at least on this forum.

they have a high IQ, but they wrongly assume other have lower IQ.

 

[kankan326]

your biased history seems to begin with the foundation of CCP.

No, you fool, Japan took the islands from France. prior that, France took from Vietnam.
when Japan surrendered, it returned the islands to the French. When France was defeated by Vietnam, the islands return to Vietnam.

Get it?

I ask the questions to show you are a liar.

Go check your history book. It's China who accepted Japanese surrender in Hanoi, not France. Japan took these islands in 1938, when Japan had not declared war with western countries.

 

[Viet]

Go check your history book. It's China who accepted Japanese surrender in Hanoi, not France. Japan took these islands in 1938, when Japan had not declared war with western countries.

you are just a pawn.

Chiang Kai-shek sent the army to North Vietnam under the command of the Alllied Forces.
The British occupied South Vietnam. The Japanese surrendered to the British.

The japanese invasion of indochina occured in 1940. how could Japan have controlled the islands in 1938, 2 years ago?

 

[Maxtini]

The logic don't add up well, unfortunately for you my friend. The migration and colonized of the relevant territories were done through non-state civilization. It is the same as bird migration. It has no permanent establishment route and the people of those migration are not uniformly one people. On matter of objective and legal, it is important to understand that state and non-state migration play a big role in shaping historical boundary.

Yeah~ and that all leaves to legal perspective.

From legal perspective, sovereignty is generated from actual exercise of sovereign acts, including the garrisonning of troops and perpetual occupation by citizens. Sovereignty could be lost if the states ceased to exercise its jurisdiction and act of sovereignty.

That is the case with China~even if China used to control South China Sea Islands, the period of Haijin where Ming China declared total abandonment of sea voyage and travel was tantamount to relinquishing any actual sovereignty of the islands~ rendering them terra nullius (open to be grab by any sovereigns)

The subsequent Qing also never actually garissoned any troops nor asserting any sovereignty to the islands themselves. It is only after the republican era that suddenly the Kuomintang government claim the islands, and that's without any actual occupation of the islands until 1950s!

The one who occupied the islands effectively were Japan during WWII. But since Japan relinquished the sovereignty over the islands without naming any successor, it renders the islands terra nullius again.

The occupation of the islands only started in the 1950-1960s~ and since they were terra nullius, the sovereignty lied to whichever countries occupied the islands/reefs/rocks.

That is legal perspective regarding island sovereignty~
Let's move to sea boundary and the problem with "nine-line dash"~

Before UNCLOS, an island could only generate 6 to 10nm from its coastline. UNCLOS set precendent for the existence of 200 nm.

And since most "islands" on SCS are rocks, reefs, banks that cannot support human habitation, they won;t generate any EEZ at all. You can't actually use "historical" basis, as the very existence of EEZ is based on UNCLOS.

So what happen when a country decide not to apply UNCLOS? It only have 6-10nm territorial water without EEZ! That is the case with Greece and Turkey in Aegean Sea where historical rights (and disputes) are involved between Turkey and Greece.

So how can China justifies its "Nine-Line Dashes" and treat them as if they were EEZ boundaries? It appears that they have no legal basis.

 

[kankan326]

you are just a pawn.

Chiang Kai-shek sent the army to North Vietnam under the command of the Alllied Forces.
The British occupied South Vietnam. The Japanese surrendered to the British.

The japanese invasion of indochina occured in 1940. how could Japan have controlled the islands in 1938, 2 years ago?

Where did your French dad go? As I said, China was authorized to accept Japanese surrender in north Vietnam and SCS. And Japanese did occupy some islands in 1938. Even though France took some islands. It was a problem between France and China. And it had nothing to do with Vietnam.

 

[GR!FF!N]

@Maxtini

don't take this thread seriously.these members barely bother to study about international law and barely care whether some claim is valid or not.its just like "As my leaders said,so should I follow" type attitude.

by the way,if some members bother to study about SCS Dispute in details.....

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...iSV3n-zqZHtjQFfSd1QVtXw&bvm=bv.67229260,d.c2E

 

[Viet]

Where did your French dad go? As I said, China was authorized to accept Japanese surrender in north Vietnam and SCS. And Japanese did occupy some islands in 1938. Even though France took some islands. It was a problem between France and China. And it had nothing to do with Vietnam.

problem between France and China?

China lost the war against France. you lost the war against Japan. actually you lost all wars against major military powers including Vietnam in the last two centuries. You lost large parts of territory.

China contributed very little to the defeat of Japan. the Japanese occupied large parts of China and killed you as they pleased.
America and Soviet Union were the actual victors. Without their help, China would still be a colony of Japan. Yes, you were just a loser, thanks to your backwardness.

You came back to the world stage in the 1970s, because America withdrew from Vietnam and changed the side.

 

[xunzi]

Yeah~ and that all leaves to legal perspective.

From legal perspective, sovereignty is generated from actual exercise of sovereign acts, including the garrisonning of troops and perpetual occupation by citizens. Sovereignty could be lost if the states ceased to exercise its jurisdiction and act of sovereignty.

That is the case with China~even if China used to control South China Sea Islands, the period of Haijin where Ming China declared total abandonment of sea voyage and travel was tantamount to relinquishing any actual sovereignty of the islands~ rendering them terra nullius (open to be grab by any sovereigns)

The subsequent Qing also never actually garissoned any troops nor asserting any sovereignty to the islands themselves. It is only after the republican era that suddenly the Kuomintang government claim the islands, and that's without any actual occupation of the islands until 1950s!

The one who occupied the islands effectively were Japan during WWII. But since Japan relinquished the sovereignty over the islands without naming any successor, it renders the islands terra nullius again.

The occupation of the islands only started in the 1950-1960s~ and since they were terra nullius, the sovereignty lied to whichever countries occupied the islands/reefs/rocks.

That is legal perspective regarding island sovereignty~
Let's move to sea boundary and the problem with "nine-line dash"~

Before UNCLOS, an island could only generate 6 to 10nm from its coastline. UNCLOS set precendent for the existence of 200 nm.

And since most "islands" on SCS are rocks, reefs, banks that cannot support human habitation, they won;t generate any EEZ at all. You can't actually use "historical" basis, as the very existence of EEZ is based on UNCLOS.

So what happen when a country decide not to apply UNCLOS? It only have 6-10nm territorial water without EEZ! That is the case with Greece and Turkey in Aegean Sea where historical rights (and disputes) are involved between Turkey and Greece.

So how can China justifies its "Nine-Line Dashes" and treat them as if they were EEZ boundaries? It appears that they have no legal basis.

I want you to read this in response to your bold claim and tell me what you think of this.

During the Second World War, Japanese expelled the French troops and took over the islands in spite of the 1938 declaration. The Spratlys and the Paracels were conquered by Japan in 1939. Japan administered the Spratlys via Taiwan's jurisdiction and the Paracels via Hainan's jurisdiction.[34] The Paracels and Spratlys were handed over to Republic of China control from Japan after the 1945 surrender of Japan,[35] since the Allied powers assigned the Republic of China to receive Japanese surrenders in that area.[36] At the end of the war (Asian-Pacific Region), Nationalist China formally retook the Paracels, Spratlys and other islands in the South China Sea in October and November 1946. In Geneva accord of 1954 Japan formally renounced all of its claims to, inter alia, the South China Sea islands which it had occupied during the World War II.[37] After WW2 ended, the Republic of China was the "most active claimaint". The Republic of China then garrisoned Woody island in the Paracels in 1946 and posted Chinese flags and markers on it, France tried, but failed to make them leave Woody island.[38] The aim of the Republic of China was to block the French claims.[39][40] The Republic of China drew up the map showing the U shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[41]

Under what reason do you believe that the area we operated does not have EEZ? Do you know the Woody Island alone is large enough and has fresh water and can sustain human habitation?

problem between France and China?

China lost the war against France. you lost the war against Japan. actually you lost all wars against major military powers including Vietnam in the last two centuries. You lost large parts of territory.

China contributed very little to the defeat of Japan. the Japanese occupied large parts of China and killed you as they pleased.
America and Soviet Union were the actual victors. Without their help, China would still be a colony of Japan. Yes, you were just a loser, thanks to your backwardness.

You came back to the world stage in the 1970s, because America withdrew from Vietnam and changed the side.

There is a difference between fully occupied like in your Vietnam case and our case where we never declare surrender and the fight continued until Japan surrendered. This is important in legal matter. Please learn, my friend.

 

[kankan326]

I want you to read this in response to your bold claim and tell me what you think of this.

During the Second World War, Japanese expelled the French troops and took over the islands in spite of the 1938 declaration. The Spratlys and the Paracels were conquered by Japan in 1939. Japan administered the Spratlys via Taiwan's jurisdiction and the Paracels via Hainan's jurisdiction.[34] The Paracels and Spratlys were handed over to Republic of China control from Japan after the 1945 surrender of Japan,[35] since the Allied powers assigned the Republic of China to receive Japanese surrenders in that area.[36] At the end of the war (Asian-Pacific Region), Nationalist China formally retook the Paracels, Spratlys and other islands in the South China Sea in October and November 1946. In Geneva accord of 1954 Japan formally renounced all of its claims to, inter alia, the South China Sea islands which it had occupied during the World War II.[37] After WW2 ended, the Republic of China was the "most active claimaint". The Republic of China then garrisoned Woody island in the Paracels in 1946 and posted Chinese flags and markers on it, France tried, but failed to make them leave Woody island.[38] The aim of the Republic of China was to block the French claims.[39][40] The Republic of China drew up the map showing the U shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[41]

Under what reason do you believe that the area we operated does not have EEZ? Do you know the Woody Island alone is large enough and has fresh water and can sustain human habitation?

Great! Much better than my replies.

 

[Viet]

There is a difference between fully occupied like in your Vietnam case and our case where we never declare surrender and the fight continued until Japan surrendered. This is important in legal matter. Please learn, my friend.

Vietnam is small, hense it is easiler to be conquered. China asked for peace and ceded territories to your enemies. No surrender?

by the way, when France colonised Vietnam and established Indochina, Vietnamese emperors continued to rule Annam, the central part of Vietnam. Moreover, the French employed Vietnamese magistrats in Laos and Cambodia.

 

[xunzi]

you are on drugs. Answer these questions:

- what history? history of CCP? The history of our claim is consistent at the formation of the UN, post-war world order. These are the same claim we insisted and made at the time. Nobody object, not even you, Vietnam. In legal matter, the act of abstinence is a tacit acceptance.

- when China was formed? what is China? In legal term, modern China was form in 1911. We are not even talking about Qing's China but the China that was form at the first international recognize forum like the League of Nation in 1919.

- when ROC was recognised, and when PRC? ROC recognized internationally on 1919, PRC informally on 1949. Both are Chinese entity, responsible for the complete history of our modern nation.

- when you claim was invented? It was claimed when international forum was established.

- when international community was formed? and at all, what do you understand under international community? a hint for you: there were international organisions before UN. League of Nation in 1919, UN in 1946. Both of these international community forum have our presence in it. We are one of the key member in those forums, especially the latter as we are P5 member.

- has any country in the world recognised your lawless claim? Yes, ask our American friends.

- show proofs that you have ever controlled and administered the SC Sea! The proof is the legal documents, treaties, and recognition of no other than your North VN prime minister.

Allow me to answer in bold and teach you on each question you posted.

Vietnam is small, hense it is easiler to be conquered. China asked for peace and ceded territories to your enemies. No surrender?

by the way, when France colonised Vietnam and established Indochina, Vietnamese emperors continued to rule Annam, the central part of Vietnam. Moreover, the French employed Vietnamese magistrats in Laos and Cambodia.

Don't use sympathetic words, my friend. We need to focus on reasons, and not using your small state victimize approach that pain a positive image on your country humiliation history, all right? Can we do that? You must learn how imperial era work and how treaties were made. We lost battle, not war. War is when you declared total loss of your country. That is surrender. We lost war battle. We gave up concession on land and trade right in exchange for war damage. That is an unequal treaty. But fact is fact, no one fully ruled us or had complete control direction of our foreign policy.

 

[Rechoice]

Where did your French dad go? As I said, China was authorized to accept Japanese surrender in north Vietnam and SCS. And Japanese did occupy some islands in 1938. Even though France took some islands. It was a problem between France and China. And it had nothing to do with Vietnam.

The problem was solved, ROC signed with France in Chongqing the agreement 1946 and KMT committed that troops withdrawn from Vietnam let France taken surrender of Japan in Vietnam, included islands.

KMT occupied illegally Itu Aba with force 1956.

It do not change the truth That Vietnam controlled peacefully Islands from ancient. We didn't have trouble with China in the past. Man Qing governor in Canton has been stated Island Paracel not belong China.

 

[Viet]

Great! Much better than my replies.

when Germany surrendered in 1945, the country was cut into 4 pieces, occupied by France, England, America and Soviet Union. the victors controlled and administered Germany for a very long time. Germany regained full sovereignty after the re-unification in 1990.

does that mean the territory of Germany belongs to the 4 countries?

NO, of course not.

the short stay and control of KMT government on the islands do not change anything in term of ownership and sovereignty.

 

[Nike]

Yeah this is should be the example of other thread in Defence Pk, this kind of debate is healthy and much more educated than some raw argument. Show the world what East Asia people can do