What's new

Scarborough Shoal: Phl facts vs Beijing fiction

If your case is really sound solid then there's no reason for you to stay away from the arbitration.

Arbitration is for the weak. Why would China level the playing field for some BS political nonsense when China is operating from a position of power? That makes zero sense. Realpolitik. China operates on that principle.
 
You won't find any support in the court.
We know all the words you will say or you can say. We do feel the smelly you released when you open your mouth.
LOL China knows if they base their claims through UNCLOS, it is the end of the story. They will get nothing from that law.

Yep it's so embarrassing that we took Scarborough shoal in 2012 and no one tried to stop us.
Well once we get a favorable decision then it will be a big problem to China.

Anyway there's always a payback when you thumb your nose at the international community. China will be a greedy imperialist in the eyes of the world (which will severely deteriorate its image)
 
Well once we get a favorable decision then it will be a big problem to China. Anyway there's always a payback when you thumb your nose at the international community.

Yes we faced terrible international consequences after Scarborough shoal in 2012.

Except that we didn't face any consequences at all. :P
 
Arbitration is for the weak. Why would China level the playing field for some BS political nonsense when China is operating from a position of power? That makes zero sense. Realpolitik. China operates on that principle.
To tell you the truth, most Chinese are tired in arguing with these people. They make no sense.

LOL China knows if they base their claims through UNCLOS, it is the end of the story. They will get nothing from that law.


Well once we get a favorable decision then it will be a big problem to China.

Anyway there's always a payback when you thumb your nose at the international community. China will be a greedy imperialist in the eyes of the world (which will severely deteriorate its image)
Oh really? Big problem? Or a big problem that only in your mind?

Yes we faced terrible international consequences after Scarborough shoal in 2012.

Except that we didn't face any consequences at all. :P
Banana is a powerful weapon to defeat them. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.:smokin:
 
Arbitration is for the weak. Why would China level the playing field for some BS political nonsense when China is operating from a position of power? That makes zero sense. Realpolitik. China operates on that principle.
LOL you can't wax your fairy tale arguments this time and those maps that you pulled straight out from Davy Jones locker which will be useless in legal court.

To tell you the truth, most Chinese are tired in arguing with these people. They make no sense.


Oh really? Big problem? Or a big problem that only in your mind?


Banana is a powerful weapon to defeat them. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.:smokin:
Well China can fool their own people but they cannot fool us.
 
LOL you can't wax your fairy tale arguments this time and those maps that you pulled straight out from Davy Jones locker which will be useless in legal court.


Well China can fool their own people but they cannot fool us.
With your 100 IQ?
 
Yes we faced terrible international consequences after Scarborough shoal in 2012.

Except that we didn't face any consequences at all. :P
We'll get back in Scarborough once we get a favorable decision. We, Filipinos, are all peace-loving people.

So I hope and pray for a truly peaceful and fair resolution of the case in the U.N.

In the meantime, China must refrain from aggravating the issue by restraining all its military adventurism.

I want the best, to be honest, but I also am expecting the worst because China has slammed every peaceful move her neighbors have made over a group of islands/reefs/shoals while they preach about peace.
 
We'll get back in Scarborough once we get a favorable decision. We are all peace-loving people.

So I hope and pray for a truly peaceful and fair resolution of the case in the U.N.

In the meantime, China must refrain from aggravating the issue by restraining all its military adventurism.

I want the best, to be honest, but I also am expecting the worst because China has slammed every peaceful move her neighbors have made over a group of islands/reefs/shoals while they preach about peace.

Like I said, we faced zero international consequences for Scarborough shoal in 2012.

They wouldn't even put minor economic sanctions on the Chinese leaders.

Not even diplomatic anger. Just nothing.
 
With your 100 IQ?
LOL your ignorance is embarrassing.

Like I said, we faced zero international consequences for Scarborough shoal in 2012.

They wouldn't even put minor economic sanctions on the Chinese leaders.

Not even diplomatic anger. Just nothing.
Did the international court release their decision? Like I said there's always a payback when you thumb your nose at the international community. Just wait and see.
 
Did the international court release their decision? Like I said there's always a payback when you thumb your nose at the international community. Just wait and see.

LOL your best time to get a response was in 2012, when it happened.

They didn't care about it back then.

The chances of them caring about it now are pretty low.

Still, what do you think the International community is willing to sacrifice for the Philippines? Their economic growth? No way. Their business ties with China? No way. So what then?
 
This is a great post by someone named Allen, down at the Hidden Harmonies China Blog | 中国博客 探索和谐 blog.

While UNCLOS does allow nations to claim Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) that extend 200 nautical miles out from a nation’s territorial sea, the UNCLOS is not the basis of the dispute between China and the Philippines.

One way to view the dispute is as a dispute over maritime boundary. Since the South China Seas is populated with hundreds of islands and rocks, the question is how to disentangle the overlapping claims to the seas arising from the various claims to the islands. This would clearly be a dispute involving UNCLOS.

The problem with this analysis is that China and the Philippines do not even agree over which islands and/or rocks belong to whom. The UNCLOS might be the appropriate forum to assess extent of various claims over the seas when there exists clearly delineated and accepted claims to land territories, but when it comes to disputes over actual claims over land (islands or rocks), there is little that the UNCLOS provides.

Another problem with appealing to the UNCLOS is that the the UNCLOS is really a red herring, as far as the South China Seas and China and the Philippines are concerned.

Under International Law, nations generally have the right to ratify treaties in parts by ratifying treaties with reservations – and with statements articulating its understanding of the terms of the treaty. This is the case with UNCLOS. Neither China nor the Philippines ratified the UNCLOS in full. In fact, few of nations that ratified the UNCLOS did so without some sorts of qualifying statements and reservations (see UNCLOS delcarations and statements upon ratification).

The Philippines ratified the UNCLOS under these terms:

Understanding made upon signature (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (8 May 1984) 8/ 9/

1. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines under and arising from the Constitution of the Philippines.

2. Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines as successor of the United States of America, under and arising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America of 10 December 1898, and the Treaty of Washington between the United States of America and Great Britain of 2 January 1930.

3. Such signing shall not diminish or in any manner affect the rights and obligations of the contracting parties under the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States of America of 30 August 1951 and its related interpretative instruments; nor those under any other pertinent bilateral or multilateral treaty or agreement to which the Philippines is a party.

4. Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the waters appurtenant thereto.

5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamation of the Republic of the Philippines; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippines Constitution.

6. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty, independence and security.

7. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines, and removes straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high sea from the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation.

8. The agreement of the Republic of the Philippines to the submission for peaceful resolution, under any of the procedures provided in the Convention, of disputes under article 298 shall not be considered as a derogation of Philippines sovereignty.

In other words, Philippines subscribes to the UNCLOS with the understanding that it does not impair Philippine claim to sovereignty in the South China Sea. Statement 8 is actually a full-blown reservation in the sense that even though Philippines submit to binding arbitrary process, it would do so only where it does not impinge on Philippines sovereignty.

China ratified the UNCLOS under these terms:

Upon ratification (7 June 1996)1/:

In accordance with the decision of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China at its nineteenth session, the President of the People’s Republic of China has hereby ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and at the same time made the following statement:

1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.

2. The People’s Republic of China will effect, through consultations, the delimitation of the boundary of the maritime jurisdiction with the States with coasts opposite or adjacent to China respectively on the basis of international law and in accordance with the principle of equitability.

3. The People’s Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.

4. The People’s Republic of China reaffirms that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.

Declaration made after ratification (25 August 2006)

Declaration under article 298:

The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.

Thus China ratifies the UNCLOS with the understanding that it does not impinge upon its sovereign claims to all the islands and regions of South China Seas. Further China has, as provided explicitly under Article 298 of the UNCLOS, explicitly renounced its willingness to arbitration involving broad category of explicit cases.


Article 2 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone claims under Chinese sovereignty all territorial land and seas where:

The PRC’s territorial sea refers to the waters adjacent to its territorial land.

The PRC’s territorial land includes the mainland and its offshore islands, Taiwan and the various affiliated islands including Diaoyu Island, Penghu Islands, Dongsha Islands, Xisha Islands, Nansha (Spratly) Islands and other islands that belong to the People’s Republic of China.

Given the above, it is quite funny that the Philippines has referred its dispute with China to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. Legally, the disputes do not come under the UNCLOS – from either the Philippines or Chinese side. Philippines can’t make a long laundry list of statements that protect its stakes and yet want to have its cake too by trying to bind China in making similar laundry list of statements…

This is a political issue that deserves a diplomatic solution. China claims South China Seas based on history. It’s ironic to see today Philippines “hosting” French archeologists to study sunken Chinese ships in its alleged territorial waters. I hope the Philippine side will understand the depth of Chinese claims and come to the table with a more sincere spirit, instead of playing legal games and trying to distract from the real work that needs to be done.
 
Last edited:
LOL your best time to get a response was in 2012, when it happened.

They didn't care about it back then.

The chances of them caring about it now are pretty low.

Still, what do you think the International community is willing to sacrifice for the Philippines? Their economic growth? No way. Their business ties with China? No way. So what then?
Bringing it up to the UN shows that the people of the Philippines as a sovereign people have voices and stance wanting to be heard and respected.

We want peace. Vietnam wants peace. ASEAN wants peace. Who is the provocateur? Who always disturbs the peace? China is like an obese monster in our midst, it keeps on consuming everything, and steals all it sees.

You may or may not heed this tribunal’s final decision, but you will certainly loose your credibility among the international community. Your image of greed and as a bully will earn for more yourself the mistrust of many countries of the world.

This is a great post by someone named Allen, down at the Hidden Harmonies China Blog | 中国博客 探索和谐 blog.
You don't want to bring disputes in the proper International courts, you want it settled bilaterally, do you know why? Because you know your case won't stand a chance in the proper courts so with your enormous size and quantity, you will just bully the smaller neighbors to get what you want, especially lands and oil from it. So just zip it because I won't be swayed by your CCP propaganda.
 
So just zip it because I won't be swayed by your CCP propaganda.

You don't need to be swayed by CPC propaganda.

The only thing that matters is that Scarborough shoal is ours, and we control it. And the Philippines doesn't have the defense budget to do anything about it, tell me how you will combat the PLAN. Even our nuclear submarines alone would cost as much as the entire defence budget of the Philippines.
 
What I only read there is that everything is on China's perspective. Granted that the article was written by a Western-educated Taiwanese living in the US, the article only keeps mentioning China's claim which is based on historical claims, markers that are seen as relics, etc. Even if the article states that everyone in the region can sail and navigate freely, the mentioned regions have ancient "states" that are known to be tributaries of China. The solution presented their through the means of a bilateral negotiations means that the Philippines is on the losing side as China has leverage over such negotiations and we would likely lose more than just face.

Also, if China allows freedom in navigation, why is it that our fishermen are always blocked and forced to turn around by Chinese coast guard and only allow Chinese fishermen in the area?
 
Back
Top Bottom