PLA Navy patrols Bashi Channel between Taiwan and Philippines

[Zero_wing]

The filippino government has refused a joint investigation with Taiwan

Next move Taiwan - Take this island (中业岛 Zhongye Dao) and name it in honour of the deceased skipper - Hung Shih-cheng.Dao (Hung Shih-cheng Island)

or these:

北子岛(Beizi Dao)

西月岛（Xiyue Dao）

Wow i don't know want b.s names are that but i know this is much is true?

Man the fisherman was right on the money with this one! hahahaha

 

[Martian2]

Personal Anecdote

The first time I saw China's nine-dash line map was in 1992 when I (with my parents) was at a CEIEC's office in Beijing. I asked, "what are those lines in the sea on the map?" I was told that was the extent of China's boundary and the map was everywhere in Chinese government offices.

Thus, it is disingenuous for Gambit to try and claim all ASEAN governments did not see China's map for 50 years. That is clearly a lie.

Anyone that interacted with China on a governmental level or on business cannot not have seen the Chinese 1948 nine-dash line map.

----------

I've added my personal anecdote (above) in reference to my earlier post for explanatory value.

50 years of Undisputed Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea

At Gambit, you are being retarded.

These are governments. They each have a foreign affairs department. You can't claim they were uninformed of the Chinese map. All of the ASEAN nations saw the map and sat quietly for 50 years. If they didn't like the Chinese 1948 nine-dash line map, the Chinese ambassador is just down the street.

Furthermore, Premier Pham Van Dong (in 1958) conceded the Paracels and Spratly Islands in writing to China.

It doesn't get any more crystal clear than that. This is an open and shut case.

 

[Zero_wing]

Personal Anecdote

The first time I saw China's nine-dash line map was in 1992 when I (with my parents) was at a CEIEC's office in Beijing. I asked, "what are those lines in the sea on the map?" I was told that was the extent of China's boundary and the map was everywhere in Chinese government offices.

Thus, it is disingenuous for Gambit to try and claim all ASEAN governments did not see China's map for 50 years. That is clearly a lie.

Anyone that interacted with China on a governmental level or on business cannot not have seen the Chinese 1948 nine-dash line map.

----------

I've added my personal anecdote (above) in reference to my earlier post for explanatory value.

50 years of Undisputed Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea

At Gambit, you are being retarded.

These are governments. They each have a foreign affairs department. You can't claim they were uninformed of the Chinese map. All of the ASEAN nations saw the map and sat quietly for 50 years. If they didn't like the Chinese 1948 nine-dash line map, the Chinese ambassador is just down the street.

Furthermore, Premier Pham Van Dong (in 1958) conceded the Paracels and Spratly Islands in writing to China.

It doesn't get any more crystal clear than that. This is an open and shut case.

tell it to the UN ITLOS

 

[VietHome]

No dispute: China's 1948 nine-dash line map plus Article 15 of UNCLOS is clear

There has been no distortion. My claim throughout this thread that China's 65-year-old historic title to the South China Seas (with 50 years being completely undisputed) is 100% correct. It would have taken a mere 15 minutes for any ASEAN government to write a letter of formal protest on their government letterhead and deliver it to the Chinese ambassador in their country.

However, for 50 years, not a single ASEAN country protested China's map showing the sea boundary between China and their country. Thus, we can only conclude that all of the ASEAN countries depicted on China's 1948 nine-dash line map agreed with the sea border.

Facts:

1. China's 1948 nine-dash line map shows the sea border between China and a neighboring ASEAN country.

2. Unless an ASEAN country can produce the original formal government protest letter (which will be subject to carbon dating), it is a fact that China's nine-dash line map was undisputed for 50 years from 1948 to 1998 (or so).

3. If China's nine-dash line map encroached on a neighboring country's sea territory, it stands to reason they would have formally complained. For example, if China decided to draw a chunk of Vietnamese territory as part of Chinese territory, would Vietnam formally complain? Of course they would in a heartbeat.

4. Since there were no formal complaints for 50 years, we can only conclude China's nine-dash line map accurately represented the sea border between China and neighboring countries.

What kind of logic is this?? It fails on multiple points so I have to lay them out here:

1) When is saying nothing = acceptance? In American justice system (which you claim to be a citizen of), there is a famous clause "You have the right to remain silent." That means when a policeman asks a person, he/she has a right to shut his/her mouth, which demonstrated neither admittance, nor rejection of guilt. Extending that fundamental logic to dealing between nations, which is even more serious. Your argument does not pass any bars at all. Here are some bits of irony: when Tibet gained independent from the Qing Dynasty in 1914, both POC and PRC forces said nothing until the PRC invaded Tibet in 1949. What happened in those 35 years? Another example is Sekaku islands. Those were held by Japan in 1895, not until 2010, which is 175 years later that PRC asserts its claim of the islands. Please don't say "private ownership" is what kept PRC from protesting, everyone knows those islands belong to a Japanese family, hence those are "private" in-name-only. Furthermore, If China really thinks Sekaku is its territory, why didn't they protest that private family?! Funny eh? PRC knew in 2010 that it's strong enough to pick a fight with Japan, so it did.

2) You can't draw a map, hid it in your closet, whispered it to your friends, and then one day gave it to me saying my house belongs to you?!! Did PRC use that maps to move ships around in SCS in 1948, passing American 7th fleet like a boss? Did it proclaimed to the UN that idea before UNCLOS was signed that this water are theirs. Maybe ASEAN nations have seen the maps in some Chinese diplomatic room somewhere, but without PRC sudden drum-beats, they must have thought that was another decoration, memory of the lost Chinese heavenly empire Let me turn around your logic and ask: "If China knew that those islands belong to them, during the course of 50 years they did not say anything. Ok since silence = admittance, does it mean they admitted they have no jurisdictions on those islands already??" See, your logic even falls onto itself.

3) You are naive to think dealings between nations is final once a side has claimed something and the other did not reply. Everything has to be on paper with official Treaties signed, such as UNCLOS. It's funny that PRC signed UNCLOS (knowing full well that Treaty in effect will nullified any further claims it has to the SCS), then comeback many years later to make a do-over. This claim made by PRC is so ridiculous that without a threat of violence, no ASEAN nations will give it serious concern. You can shout that you own my house everyday, but I will ignore you thinking that you are a little "off." But if you bring guns, then I have legitimate concern.

4) What is your status of limitation? 50 years? So If I were to agree with all of your logic (which are all ridiculous up till now) why would it suddenly that ASEAN nations cannot voice their opposition NOW? Back to the house analogy: you played the game of hide and seek for 50 years, told me that you own my house, and then say: "I drew this map which clearly indicates I have your house. You did not protest for 50 years so you agreed with me. But your right of protest ends when I'm saying this, so I will bring my guns and kick you out now!!!" This kind of childish argument is really sad if it's not so laughable.

5. Article 15 of the 1982 UNCLOS convention clearly states that historic titles are exempt from the 200-mile EEZ rule.

6. China's nine-dash line map is a 63-year-old historic title and pre-dates UNCLOS by 34 years. Hence, China's nine-dash line map is exempt from the 200-mile EEZ rule.

7. In conclusion, China's 1948 nine-dash line map and Article 15 of UNCLOS preclude the Philippines from claiming a 200-mile EEZ wherever it conflicts with China's nine-dash line map.

Is that easy enough for you Filipinos to understand? The same logic applies to you Vietnamese too. You are also not entitled to a 200-mile EEZ wherever it conflicts with China's nine-dash line map.

After I have repudiated your premises, very thing written further here as the conclusion is invalid.

 

[USAHawk785]

Good points, Viethome. Thanks for providing an unbiased analysis.

 

[gambit]

What kind of logic is this?? It fails on multiple points so I have to lay them out here:

<snipped>

After I have repudiated your premises, very thing written further here as the conclusion is invalid.

Your hand must be sore from all that spanking.

 

[chinapakistan]

come and take it!

Yeah, we will, we took HuangYan. Hurts? Now we are waiting for chance to take others.

 

[Martian2]

Vietnam has never challenged China's 1948 historical map/title and Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 document

At VietHome, according to your logic, all published maps are irrelevant.

That is simply not the case.

Publicly published maps and especially those hanging in government offices are historical records that qualify as historical titles under Article 15 of UNCLOS.

As far as I know, Vietnam has never challenged China's 1948 historical title/map and its historical relevance. Vietnam keeps parroting that it is entitled to a 200-mile EEZ. Furthermore, I have also never heard Vietnam challenge Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 document explicitly ceding Paracels and Spratly Islands to China.

You should read China's conditional approval of UNCLOS. It states clearly that Chinese agreement specifically exempts territorial delimitations.

Thus, if Vietnam disagrees, you will have to take up the issue with the PLA Army (when they cross into northern Vietnam as retaliation for sea incursions), PLA Navy (like at Johnson Reef in 1988), and PLA Air Force (which currently scares your fishermen when they thunder overhead).

----------

Discussion on law:

Your analogy of "remaining silent" does not apply, because it is applicable only to criminal law. The Sino-Vietnamese dispute is about property boundary and falls under civil law.

For civil law disputes involving land, the proper analogy is an easement (which is only ten years in the United States).

The "adverse possession" principle of property boundary is usually 20 years in the United States. For non-common law jurisdictions, the maximum statute of limitations is 30 years (see citation below).

Since China had undisputed possession of the South China Sea for 50 years, China can claim the South China Sea territory under "adverse possession." I'm sure there are other legal principles that China can claim. However, I only need one.

Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Non-common law jurisdictions

Some non-common law jurisdictions have laws similar to adverse possession. For example, Louisiana has a legal doctrine called acquisitive prescription, which is derived from French law.

In Roman law, usucapio laws allowed someone who was in possession of a good without title to become the lawful proprietor if the original owner didn't show up after some time (one or two years), unless the good was obtained illegally (by theft or force). Stemming from Roman law, adverse possession is recognized for instance in Romanian property law which establishes two time periods for the acquisition of property: 30 years and 10&#8211;20 years depending on the bona fidae of the possessor and the location of the parties involved."

"The legal definition of adverse possession." (From the Wikipedia article)

----------

http://www.lawyerviews.com/lawsite/basicinfo/ap.html

"Adverse Possession:Basics

By Konstantine Kyros, Esq.

Adverse possession is a way of acquiring title to real property by physically occupying it for a long period of time. As strange as it may seem to the non-lawyer, you may acquire property without the consent of the actual title holder if you possess it long enough and meet the legal requirements discussed below. Also discussed below are the theories that underlie this doctrine.

In Massachusetts you must possess the property being claimed, continuously for 20 years (Mass. Gen. L. ch. 260, sec.21) To meet the requirements for adverse possession you must also show that:

1) You were the exclusive possessor and actually entered the property.

2) Your possession must be open and notorious--your possession must be seen. The possession must be appropriate to the type, size and use of the land. Enclosures, houses, cabins, payment of taxes all help establish your claim. The general idea is to give the owner reasonable notice that you are in possession and give him the opportunity to eject you.

3) Your possession must be adverse to the owners claim, in other words without the owners consent. If the owner has given permission for you to be on the property you can't claim the property adversely.

4) Your possession must be continuous (for 20 years). If your entry was only occasional you may be deemed a trespasser and not be able to claim adverse possession. However, certain seasonal or intermittent uses satisfy the continuous element if the average owner of a particular piece of property would use it in that manner (e.g. a summer home).

Continuity can also be established by adding together or "tacking" successive adverse possessors. For example if A possesses the land for 15 years and then gives it to B who possesses it for 5 years, B may then claim title by adverse possession by tacking the two claims.

Massachusetts has a special land registration system in which a question of title can be brought to the Land Court which investigates and evaluates the merits of the claim. Based on its findings the court can issue a new certificate of title. A further advantage of this procedure (to the owner) is that property registered through the land court cannot be adversely possessed.



The Theory behind Adverse Possession

The idea that one can simply acquire property by sitting on it seems very strange in a free society based upon a conception of property rights. One line of reasoning, advanced by Oliver Wendell Holmes suggests that the purpose of the doctrine is to protect the expectations of those who have used property for a long time. Richard Posner (founder of the law and economics school of thought), reasons that the purpose of adverse possession is to preserve the status quo. Posner argues that the adverse possessor has become attached to the property and losing it would be a serious loss, whereas the title holder would view the acquisition as a sudden, unexpected increase in his wealth. Therefore, Posner argues it is better (economically speaking) to allow the adverse possessor to keep the property. A somewhat related idea is that the doctrine rewards the productive use of land, while penalizing the unproductive owner who sleeps on his rights.

The other line of thought argues that adverse possession really functions to protect property rights. The doctrine protects ownership by barring stale claims and errors in the title records. The idea is that as time passes it becomes more difficult and ultimately not worthwhile to seek out every remote claim to the disputed property. The doctrine is sort of designed to flush the system of errors. As seminal law review article states the idea is not to "reward the diligent trespasser for his wrong nor yet to penalize the negligent and dormant owner for sleeping upon his rights; the great purpose is automatically to quiet all titles which are openly and consistently asserted, to provide proof of meritorious titles, and correct errors in conveyancing." Henry Ballantine, "Title by Adverse Possession," 32 Harv. L. Rev. 135 (1918). Although the doctrine is not designed to protect wrong doers or "diligent trespassers" it does so because it is necessary to protect valid titles from various errors and the passage of time."

 

[VietHome]

Vietnam has never challenged China's 1948 historical map/title and Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 document

Thank you Martian2 for giving me back some energy to put this claim of yours to rest right now. I was tired from lack of sleep responding to both you and KirovAirship. Thus, even though I saw your post about Pham Van Dong's documents, I decided to give it a rest for now. But now, I'm even more eager to put set things straight with you.

------------------

At VietHome, according to your logic, all published maps are irrelevant.

That is simply not the case.

Publicly published maps and especially those hanging in government offices are historical records that qualify as historical titles under Article 15 of UNCLOS.

As far as I know, Vietnam has never challenged China's 1948 historical title/map and its historical relevance. Vietnam keeps parroting that it is entitled to a 200-mile EEZ. Furthermore, I have also never heard Vietnam challenge Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 document explicitly ceding Paracels and Spratly Islands to China.

First of all, you have almost no credible repudiation of my points concerning other ASEAN nations and Taiwan, Therefore, according to your logic of "silence = acceptance," it looks like you have conceded your idea about China's assertion of owning the entire SCS against Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. Those nations have not sent that kind of letter to China. Now, you based your entire claim with Pham Van Dong's letter, so I'm happy to go one-on-one with you regarding Vietnam.

------------------

Ok, first, if you gonna quote someone's letter, please refer to his title correctly. Pham Van Dong was not Vietnam Primer, he was Vietnam Prime Minister during the times that letter was written. Since you seems awfully unfamiliar with Soviet's style of governance, I will tell you right now that Prime Minister is not the representative head of Vietnam, nor the actual person yielding the most power. The representative head of Vietnam is the President of Vietnam, who at the time was Truong Chinh. The group yields the most power in Vietnam is the Politburo. The group that has any power of passing laws or approving Treaties is the National Assembly (or Congress)

So given that lay out of the land, my first point are in order:

1) Pham Van Dong has no authority to approve the concession of lands nor he can proactively
conceded future lands acquired. That power rest solely on National Assembly according to Democratic Republic of Vietnam's (North Vietnam) Constitution. Thus, that letter bare no legality in under Vietnam's law.

2) North Vietnam did not have the power of give away lands it does not own under international laws. This is common sense. A person cannot sell what he/she does not own. Nations relationship are the same way. North Vietnam cannot give away Paracel or Spratly islands because those belonged to South Vietnam under the Geneva Convention. It's like North Korea cannot give away Seoul to the China because it's not North Korea to give. Thus that letter bare no legality under International law.

3) Finally, the letter is not a Concession Declaration and the texts in this short letter never mention the give away of Paracel or Spratly islands. In case you think the above two points are not convincing enough. The letter is not a Concession Declaration because it did not have definitive words such as "abandon claims," "concede." "acknowledge ownership of" those specific islands. "Respecting claim" is tame and does means much anyways. PRC's spoke man always parroting the same lines that 'PRC respects other nations' territories,' yet they violate those territories on the daily basis.

In conclusion, the Pham Van Dong's letter that you used as utmost proof is illegitimate under Vietnam Laws, illegitimate under International Laws, and not a Concession Declaration of anything let alone naming specific give-away territories.

------------------

You mention maps? Ok let's have fun with maps:

Map in 1686 under Vietnam's Emperor Le Hy Tong showing the Parcels under the "Bãi Cát Vàng"

Map in 1687 of Paracel Islands belonging to Vietnam by Jean-Baptiste Nolin

Map in 1791 by Robert Sayer, London showing both Spartly and Paracel islands belong under Nguyen Lords of South Vietnam:

Map in 1834 by Le Huy Chu showing both Paracel and Spratly islands:

Map by Bishop Jean-Louis Taberd in 1838 showing "Bãi Cát Vàng" (Paracel) on the right hand side

Map under France Indochina in 1891:

Do you want more??

How's about Qing Dynasty map in 1904 showing China territory ends with Hainan Island:

Same iteration of that map (printed by Shanghai Publisher in 1904)

------------------

All those sources are from Vietnam, France, British and China itself. I have more maps to show you. So what say you? What value does your single map drawn in 1948 has??

Thus, if Vietnam disagrees, you will have to take up the issue with the PLA Army (when they cross into northern Vietnam as retaliation for sea incursions), PLA Navy (like at Johnson Reef in 1988), and PLA Air Force (which currently scares your fishermen when they thunder overhead).

Right, all hail to the victorious PLA!! If the PRC intended to take the islands under the barrel of the guns then it just has to say so. Please don't go around justifying invasions and expansionist bullying ideologue as some kind of moral high ground because the PRC has none in this case.

Btw,

Discussion on law:

Your analogy of "remaining silent" does not apply, because it is applicable only to criminal law. The Sino-Vietnamese dispute is about property boundary and falls under civil law.

<cut>

Although the doctrine is not designed to protect wrong doers or "diligent trespassers" it does so because it is necessary to protect valid titles from various errors and the passage of time."

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here since my usage of American common law was to show you that "silence does not equal acceptance" is common sense in international negotiation. Any applying of American civil Law here is invalid since it's the matter between ASEAN countries and PRC. Even if I accept your rationale, there are two points of repudiation:

1) Vietnam has never been silenced on the issue that PRC took away its Paracel and Spratly islands. Those information has been flashing for decades in Vietnam Media. You don't see it does not mean it's not there.

2) The Theory behind Adverse Possession you quoted can be apply in Vietnam Spratly situation as well. Vietnam has maintained a considerable ownership of those islands for decades until China starting to invade in 1988.

In closing: you have mention that you never see repudiation of Pham Van Dong's letter is because you hang around too much on Sino Defense Forum and this one Your lack of knowledge on the matter is due to you being spoon-fed bias information for so long. It's not my responsibility for you ignorance.

 

[Martian2]

Chinese maps are older than yours by centuries. I'm not posting the whole series again.

Anyway, Vietnam's claim is even weaker than the Philippines due to Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 document.

It doesn't matter, because both of your claims are kaput. Please pay attention to China's UNSC Permanent Veto.

----------

Storing my comment for future use:

"Martin Su Less than a minute ago

Your comment is awaiting moderation

Since there were no formal complaints for 50 years (from 1948 to 1988) by ASEAN countries, we can only conclude China's nine-dash line map accurately represented the sea border between China and neighboring countries.

Article 15 of the 1982 UNCLOS convention clearly states that historic titles are exempt from the 200-mile EEZ rule.

China's nine-dash line map is a 63-year-old historic title and pre-dates UNCLOS by 34 years. Hence, China's nine-dash line map is exempt from the 200-mile EEZ rule.

In conclusion, China's 1948 nine-dash line map and Article 15 of UNCLOS preclude the Philippines from claiming a 200-mile EEZ wherever it conflicts with China's nine-dash line map. Also, under the legal doctrine of "adverse possession," China's undisputed 50-year sovereignty over the South China Sea grants it legal title."

----------

Last recourse for PH vs China’s maritime claim

"Last recourse for PH vs China’s maritime claim
by Ace Tamayo
Posted on 05/20/2013 3:35 PM | Updated 05/21/2013 9:56 AM

MANILA, Philippines – Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said that despite any decision made in the future by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on maritime entitlements at the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea), the Philippines would likely “appeal to world opinion” as its only remaining recourse against China.

In a commencement speech at the Pamatasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila on Saturday, May 18, Carpio explained that if UNCLOS decides against the Philippines, there's no question that China would immediately enforce such a decision. But if the decision will be adverse to China, the Chinese government will most likely use its naval might and its permanent membership in the UN Security Council to enforce its claim over the West Philippine Sea.

“The Philippines does not have the naval might to compel China to comply with any decision of the arbitral tribunal,” Carpio said.

Should UNCLOS decide in favor for the Philippines and China would not honor it, the Philippines could ask the Security Council to enforce the decision rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), according to Carpio. UNCLOS does not provide for any enforcement mechanism for decisions of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) or the arbitral tribunals created under UNCLOS.

However, Carpio explained that in this case, the Security Council can only act if none of its 5 permanent members will oppose the implementation of the ICJ decision, as each of the 5 permanent members wields veto powers. China is a permanent member of the Security Council and will naturally veto any enforcement measure against itself, Carpio added.

Carpio added that resorting to “world opinion” is a defining force in enforcing arbitral decisions that fall into the legal black hole due to the absence of effective international enforcement mechanisms.

“With a favorable decision from the arbitral tribunal, and world opinion also in our favor, time will be on the side of the Philippines,” Carpio said.

CONTROVERSIAL MAP. Map featuring China's 9-Dash line claim over the South China Sea. Image courtesy of www.southchinasea.org

China’s 9-dash line

The 9-Dash or U-Shaped line is used by China and Taiwan to claim a vast area of the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) including the Paracel Islands -- occupied by China but claimed by Vietnam -- and the Spratly Islands, also disputed by Brunei, the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam apart from Taiwan.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stressed that "the Philippines does not accept the validity of the 9-Dash line, that amounts to an excessive declaration of maritime space in violation of international law."

Carpio echoed the DFA and claimed that China’s 9-dash line is a “gross violation of UNCLOS” as it claims to almost the entire South China Sea. He added that China’s claim takes away the maritime entitlements of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and even Indonesia to exclusive economic zones and extended continental shelves in the South China Sea.

“In case of the Philippines, China’s 9-dash claim deprives 80% of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and 100% of its extended continental shelf, in the West Philippine Sea,” Carpio explained.

Carpio added that scholars of the law of the sea all over the world consider China’s 9-dash line claim as without basis in international law. China’s 9-dash line claim, if left to stand, will destroy and abrogate UNCLOS, the Constitution for the oceans and seas of our planet, he said.

“Today, there is no graver danger to the future existence and survival of UNCLOS than China’s 9-dash line claim to almost the entire South China Sea,” Carpio said.

‘Wise decision’

Carpio said it was wise for the Philippine to choose an arbitral tribunal under the UNCLOS to resolve maritime dispute with China as international law levels the playing field when large nations threaten small nations.

On January 22, the Philippines decided to elevate the territorial dispute over the West Philippine Sea to Annex VII arbitration under the UNCLOS as the standoff between the Philippine Navy and Chinese fishing vessels that entered Scarborough Shoal continues.

The government wants the tribunal to declare China's 9-Dash claim as "invalid" and "unlawful." But China formally rejected the arbitral proceedings initiated by the Philippines reiterating its position that “it has indisputable sovereignty over the entire South China Sea encompassed by its 9-dash line claim.”

On April 25, a five-man arbitral panel under Annex VII of UNCLOS was formed to hear the application for arbitration by the Philippines.

Carpio said the arbitration case of the Philippines against China is not about territorial sovereignty but on whether China’s 9-dash claim can take away the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf in the West Philippine Sea.

“We are, moreover, asking the tribunal to rule whether China, under its 9-dash line claim or domestic laws, can unilaterally appropriate for itself maritime space in the South China Sea beyond the exclusive economic zone of any coastal state,” Carpio said.

Recently, DFA disclosed that the European Union (EU) reiterated its support “for the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea according to international law, including the UNCLOS.” – Rappler.com"

 

[armchairPrivate]

Who cares about the maps. China has the power to grab what it wants. Period. End-of-story.

China doesn't have to reason with 3rd rate countries like Vietminhs.

You don't like it? Whar are you going to do? Cry to Uncle Sam? The Russikies? They do BIG business with China. They don't have the time for you.

The last time I check, Vietminhs have stop all the oil exploration in the DISPUTED waters. So eat it Vietminh.

 

[gambit]

Vietnam has never challenged China's 1948 historical map/title and Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 document

At VietHome, according to your logic, all published maps are irrelevant.

That is simply not the case.

Publicly published maps and especially those hanging in government offices are historical records that qualify as historical titles under Article 15 of UNCLOS.

No, they do not. UNCLOS 15 is vague as to what is acceptable to the modern legal system regarding inter-states relations when it comes to 'historical claims'. According to UNCLOS, there is no such thing as 'historical seas', but Article 10 is specific enough to mention 'historical bays'.

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Article 10 is as close as China can use and the South China Sea is not a bay. The best thing China can do with those maps is to frame them in museums.

You should read China's conditional approval of UNCLOS. It states clearly that Chinese agreement specifically exempts territorial delimitations.

Yes, China basically said she will accept UNCLOS when it is convenient to China and excuse herself when it is also convenient to China.

LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

Article 13
Other rights of the People's Republic of China to its exclusive economic zone and its continental shelf, which not provided for by this Law, shall be exercised in accordance with the international law and other relevant laws and regulations of the People's Republic of China.

Article 14
No provisions of this Law can prejudice historical rights of the People's Republic of China.

Article 13 said China will obey international laws and treaties. Then Article 14 effectively said China can hack up any 'historical claim' she wants.

Since China had undisputed possession of the South China Sea for 50 years, China can claim the South China Sea territory under "adverse possession." I'm sure there are other legal principles that China can claim. However, I only need one.

And you failed.

A claim is not the same thing as physical possession.

If China did exercised physical possession of the entirety of the South China Sea area, then why did the area have been used as INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LANES? Did any country had to petition China for access? By your own argument, may be China should give up Taiwan? After all, did mainland China exercised any physical possession of Taiwan? If you want to use US laws as basis for your argument, then the time passed with Taiwan being a de facto independent state to the point of having US military forces on that island effectively rendered any Chinese claim of sovereignty over Taiwan null and void.

 

[Martian2]

Sorry, you keep posting zero citations.

It's only your personal ramblings and I'm not interested in those.

 

[gambit]

Sorry, you keep posting zero citations.

It's only your personal ramblings and I'm not interested in those.

The rebuttals must have made sense, especially using your own argument for Taiwan.

 

[VietHome]

Chinese maps are older than yours by centuries. I'm not posting the whole series again.

Please show me the links to your lovely collection.

Anyway, Vietnam's claim is even weaker than the Philippines due to Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 document.

It only appears so if one runs away from intellectual argument on the matter.

It doesn't matter, because both of your claims are kaput. Please pay attention to China's UNSC Permanent Veto.

This is called typical bullying attitude. When the PRC moral argument is weaken, it runs back to its shiny flexing muscles. Where is the reputation of a "peaceful China"

btw, I'm not sure if you understand international court law. PRC can veto the UN Security Council Resolution, but it cannot prevent International Referee or International Court to issue their judgment. However, PRC can decide to not participate, which it has been doing the entire time with Philippines. You have to wonder why "big-bad" China runs away from International Court. Of course, a judgement against PRC will blow any wonderful images CCP has created for itself throughout the decades