William Hung
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,465
- Reaction score
- 16
William Hung, I only made it in my previous post because you didn't get it from the start, and wanted me to explain. Your thinking is really lacking here because you asked me to explain, I then explained, and then you said I only mentioned it in my previous post.
I was not questioning why you did not use the “China’s non-attendence” argument earlier, thats not my point. My point was, earlier you have only posted a handful of articles and the UK vs. Albania case as “evidences” to support your speculations that the judges have ulterior motives against China and dont want her to benefit. You claimed that from those articles and case, you could make postulations and extrapolations to support your speculations. I asked you how thos postulations could be made from those articles (which included an article written by an Israeli complaining that the ICJ is biased against Israel) to speculate about the “ulterior motives and bias” against China. You then tried to explain it by saying that “China is not attending the court case” but ignored the fact that I was challenging you to explain how you could make tgose postulations from those original articles and case, which you insisted that you could.
I still maintain that peer reviewed articles and past cases are evidences for the larger paradigm that I was discussing of impartiality issues in the international courts, unfair rulings and pandering to Western nations.
So you have only managed to find one case that fits your narrative (UK vs. Albania) out of a hundred or so other cases that the ICJ have adjudicated? and from that one single case (and other articles questioning the fairless in general), you have constructed a “larger paradigm” showing the International courts issuing unfair rulings and pandering to Western nations?
What a nice paradigm lol. You could only posted one case to support this paradigm, but what about the other cases where a western nation loses out to a non-western one? From the top of my head: UK vs. Iran over oil, US vs. Nicaragua, Belgium vs. Congo...
Oh, lets ignore all of those cases and just focus on one single case to construct that paradigm. lol
I cited this only in my previous post because you asked me to elaboate. You have to think more abstractly, which often means seeing things in generality where it can be applied to multiple situations.
Again as I have said, I was asking you to explain how your extrapolations/postulations could be made from those articles/case you first cited. But then you tried to explain your postulations/extrapolations by saying that China is not attending, which is something new and not part of those original articles/case. What does China’s non-attendance got to do with an article arguing that the ICJ is biased against Israel? Or the case between UK vs. Albania?? I was asking how the case and articles like those could be used to postulate that the judges has ulterior motives against China.
You see, the funny thing with you is this, you make statements and arguments that are flawed, and when I point out those flaws, you then either modify your statements or add additional things to your original statements to salvage your arguments and save face (and avoid admitting the flaws).
Second, it's petty that you want someone to explain to you the mechanisms for an unfair ruling. It's a basic court process that you should already know, and I'm not going to walk that through with you, you need to look it up yourself.
Earlier, you said that an interlocutor asking for sources and references is disrespectful to other posters/readers. Now, you also think that asking for explanations are petty lol.
I asked you for explanations because some of the things you said is absurd. Like one article you cited, written by an Israeli complaining that the ICJ is biased against Israel, how can such article be considered as “evidences” to support your specualtion that the judges have “ulterior motives” against China? you could use it to argue that the ICJ can be biased in general, but not “evidence” that they are biased specifically against China. Its just absurd and an explanation is warranted.
Listen friend, when you have realized that your arguments are flawed and can no longer debate and support your arguments, then just admit it. No need to make those funny excuses like asking for explanations is petty or requesting for sources is being disrespectful to other readers.
You are not getting it; you are thinking in such a concrete and shallow-minded way. I am showing you that an international court has made an unfair ruling against a non-Western country before and favoured a Western country, so it is entirely possible it can happen again. And to be fair, I have already said that such an idea is not without its criticisms.
This only shows that there is a possibility that the judges may rule unfairly against the non-western China, not that it will likely be so. And you priginally said it was likely so, not just only possibly so. Why soften and modify your rhetorics now?
A possibility worth mentioning that touches on a point I talked about before, was that when a situation is so subjective such that the arbitrators cannot make an "objective" ruling, they tend to rely on their subjective feelings instead. In the case of Nicaragua vs USA, they might have saw that USA is "clearly in the wrong", compared to say Albania vs UK, which might have been more subjective in nature.
This just looks like some really really desperate speculations. Have you analyzed the Nicaragua vs. US case yet before you made that speculation? All the documents for that case are on the public domain. So you have the necessary data to prove yourself that what you have said is indeed true, you wouldnt then have to speculate on it. Can you do that? Or are you going to use the excuse that it is petty and disrepectful to the readers to ask such a thing lol.
This reminds me again, that you also have data available to you to analyse whether the PHL vs. CN judges are biased ulterior motives against China. As I have said before, the judges name, profiles and their preliminary jurisdictional rulings are all made public. So why don’t you bring it here, analyse them and prove that your speculations are correct? Why just keep speculating when there are data available to you to prove your speculations correct? or are you going to use those excuses? lol
Yes of course I know that there have been rulings against Western counties. But you have not abstracted from these rulings. Here, I will explain.
The Albania v UK incidents took place during the early Cold War era (note that tensions between the Soviet Union and the West already began prior to WWII). Albania was allied to the Warsaw Pact.
In contrast, Nicaragua was not really "allied" to any sort of threat to Western hegemony. In the Nicaraguan revolution, it is not a clear cut case of Soviet vs USA, given that Sweden and France both supported the FSLN (with the Soviet Union) whereas the USA supported the Somozan government (which was a dictatorship).
In China v Philippines we are seeing a clear cut case of a "Western aligned country" v "threat to Western hegemony" happening. It's a possibility, not a guarantee.
Oh here we go again, you modifying your original argument when you’ve realized that it was flawed. You originally said (read your post #86) it was a bias against “non-western aligned” power, but now you have changed it into a bias against a country “allied to a threat against western hegemony”. Didnt I say you have a habit of changing rhetorics to save face and avoid admitting flaws? lol
Anyway, your modified version is still flawed because I could still give you another counter example. The court was biased against Albania because she was allied to the WP you say? Well let me introduce to you another counter-example from a country that were once also part of the Eastern Bloc: Bulgaria, who once shot down an Israeli civilian aircraft. And in 1957, Israel, the UK and US went to the ICJ to sue Bulgaria over that incident. The ICJ agreed with Bulgaria’s objection and rejected Israel’s case, the US and UK also then dropped their lawsuit.
So the ICJ ruled in favour of socialist Bulgaria. And is Bulgaria being part of the Eastern Bloc “clear cut” enough for you? So maybe now I will wait for you to make some additional changes to your argument? lol. You are getting more and more desperate with your reasoning but I will still have faith in you in explaining to me how you could “abstract” ideas and paradigms from this single UK vs. Albania ruling. Or better yet, just get straight to the available data on the PHL vs. CN case that I have mentioned earlier and prove your speculations are correct, instead of just trying desperately to “abstract” ideas from a UK vs. Albania case that is over 60 years old.
Last edited: