Security dilemma in informal alliance politics: The case of dispute in South China Sea

[Abacin]

China can't do same things with Russia and Japan. You will punished like bad boy.

Mao chose to align with USA in 1971. 19 years later, Soviet Union collapsed and most of its industries got wiped. Russia has become a good resources provider for Chinese industrial power.

For Japan, you should check recent news. Japanese industrial powerhouses are going bankrupt one by one. Japanese GDP per Capita has dropped to only $32000 from as much as $55000. With the exclusion from Greater China zone, it is just a time of matters for Japanese industry to get wiped too.

Chinese wisdom is beyond the imagination of Vietnamese. Last two centuries we just had a nap and some silly neighbors start to think that they can challenge us. Unfortunately in Chinese 5000 history, all of those countries became historical records.

 

[CCP]

China can't do same things with Russia and Japan. You will punished like bad boy.

Well, could you google China-Soviet war and East China Sea ADIZ .

 

[TaiShang]

China can't do same things with Russia and Japan. You will punished like bad boy.

China does not have too many territorial disputes, as a matter of fact. Our land borders (although China is the country with the most number of neighbors) are being set except the one with India. We have an island dispute with Japan, which we are managing well with no sign of escalation. We have been negotiating with Korea and Japan on sea delimitation.

In the SCS, we have disputes, like everybody else there, China is not the only one. In fact, to have a dispute, you must have at least two sides -- unless one has a dispute with oneself due to split personality.

Basically, I would argue, China has disputes with three countries: India, Vietnam and the Philippines.

 

[mkb95]

China does not have too many territorial disputes, as a matter of fact. Our land borders (although China is the country with the most number of neighbors) are being set except the one with India. We have an island dispute with Japan, which we are managing well with no sign of escalation. We have been negotiating with Korea and Japan on sea delimitation.

In the SCS, we have disputes, like everybody else there, China is not the only one. In fact, to have a dispute, you must have at least two sides -- unless one has a dispute with oneself due to split personality.

Basically, I would argue, China has disputes with three countries: India, Vietnam and the Philippines.

claiming whole scs belongs to you and everyone else should ask your permission before passing bcos ur ancestor were doing trade in whole scs is not exactly two-sided dispute.

 

[Martian2]

claiming whole scs belongs to you and everyone else should ask your permission before passing bcos ur ancestor were doing trade in whole scs is not exactly two-sided dispute.

According to your argument, Indians do not own India. Just because Indian ancestors found it first, it does not belong to India.

Thus, China can dispute Indian ownership to India.

Based on your logic, first finder doesn't matter.
----------

What's it going to be?

First finder is the true owner.

Or who has the strongest military power? We can use the European colonial system. Whoever wins on the battlefield is the owner.

If Indians don't want to recognize Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea, I see no reason to recognize Indian sovereignty over most parts of the sub-continent. Of course, South Tibet, Sikkim, and a few other places are always excluded.

 

[TaiShang]

claiming whole scs belongs to you and everyone else should ask your permission before passing bcos ur ancestor were doing trade in whole scs is not exactly two-sided dispute.

The physical features that are claimed, not the entire sea. That's why it is not a solid line. Of course, those physical features do have their own territorial waters.

As long as it is innocent (non-military) passage, no body has to take permission. Being the largest trading nation on the face of the earth requires that China do all in its power to further facilitate sea-borne trade. That's partly the reason for the development efforts in the South China Sea. China's vital national interests simply require that China is in full control of and access to its territorial waters and beyond.

 

[mkb95]

According to your argument, Indians do not own India. Just because Indian ancestors found it first, it does not belong to India.

Thus, China can dispute Indian ownership to India.

Based on your logic, first finder doesn't matter.
----------

What's it going to be?

First finder is the true owner.

Or who has the strongest military power? We can use the European colonial system. Whoever wins on the battlefield is the owner.

If Indians don't want to recognize Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea, I see no reason to recognize Indian sovereignty over most parts of the sub-continent. Of course, South Tibet, Sikkim, and a few other places are always excluded.

claim to scs should be based on international law which suggest -
"Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention."
every country is asking china to follow only itnl laws and not decide its territory based on its military power.
India calls for early conclusion of S China Sea code of conduct | The Indian Express
we indians are asking the same thing.
and if we go by chinese argument,whole indian ocean belongs to us since our trade with african countries and with arabs also covered whole indian ocean.

 

[TaiShang]

claim to scs should be based on international law

International law and international customary law, which recognize historical titles.

every country is asking china to follow only itnl laws and not decide its territory based on its military power.

Not every country. Most countries do not care. India's opinion does not count.

and if we go by chinese argument,whole indian ocean belongs to us since our trade with african countries and with arabs also covered whole indian ocean.

It does not belong to you because it was not the state of India that first discovered and mapped the Indian Ocean.

China has been a continuous state for thousands of years. India is just an artificial creation of some now defunct colonial structuring.

 

[Martian2]

claim to scs should be based on international law which suggest -
"Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention."
every country is asking china to follow only itnl laws and not decide its territory based on its military power.
India calls for early conclusion of S China Sea code of conduct | The Indian Express
we indians are asking the same thing.
and if we go by chinese argument,whole indian ocean belongs to us since our trade with african countries and with arabs also covered whole indian ocean.

That's nonsense. There is no international law.

The United States has never ratified UNCLOS.

Russia disregarded UNCLOS/ITLOS in the Arctic Sunrise case.

China exempted itself from UNCLOS jurisdiction regarding territorial matters in a written notification to UNCLOS.

Don't claim international law where none exists.

 

[Zero_wing]

That's nonsense. There is no international law.

The United States has never ratified UNCLOS.

Russia disregarded UNCLOS/ITLOS in the Arctic Sunrise case.

China exempted itself from UNCLOS jurisdiction regarding territorial matters in a written notification to UNCLOS.

Don't claim international law where none exists.

Wow that made no sense at all typical how can a signer be exempted from a treaty that it signed its like saying am signer to contract but i will not follow the conditions of the contract

 

[Martian2]

Wow that made no sense at all typical how can a signer be exempted from a treaty that it signed its like saying am signer to contract but i will not follow the conditions of the contract

China's written exemption from UNCLOS jurisdiction regarding territorial matters is in accordance with the terms of UNCLOS. See citation below from the United Nations' official website.

Declarations or Statements upon UNCLOS ratification

"In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:

• "Article 298. Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
  • "1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
    • (a)
      
      
      • (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded form such submission;
        (ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
        (iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
      (b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
      (c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention."

 

[Zero_wing]

its binding treaty china has no right to deny or be exempted to anything that's why it's called a treaty its contract between states as party china is binding to it and as part of UN security council its duty bond to enforce it not to its advantage but to enforce it for the preservation of peace.

First article would be in china favor if china has Judicial rule over the area and second china is not archipelagic state most of those provisions are for archipelagic states

 

[Martian2]

Your the one who is reatard did you read it properly it would have matter if the 9 dash line is recognized but the world does not recognized the 9 dash line so even it it's biblical times as long as its not recognized or with no judicial enforcement its meaningless so that a problem and lastly a whole can not be the property of one nation its international law and UNCLOS is binding china, china can not pick the laws it follows or you people do not understand the word binding? lastly its disputed your the one who does not understand things calling me names does not change that fact

You're just ranting. I'm tired of arguing with an idiot.

Try reading Article 298. China is within its rights. UNCLOS clearly has no jurisdiction. It's a stupid UN organization that is trying to expand its powers beyond the UNCLOS treaty.

The United States, Russia, and China do not recognize UNCLOS jurisdiction regarding territorial matters. UNCLOS is NOT international law.

 

[Zero_wing]

Are you retarded?

Did you just ignore the UNCLOS citation for exemption from UNCLOS jurisdiction?

Read the blue text and bold sentences.

In following UNCLOS procedure, China is exempt from UNCLOS jurisdiction regarding sea boundary delimitations and historical titles.

Read UNCLOS Article 298. UNCLOS has no right to interfere with China's 1948 Nine-Dash-Line map.

Since UNCLOS was established in 1982, UNCLOS has the additional problem of lacking retroactive powers. UNCLOS cannot seize existing Chinese territory.


Stop adding your own bs interpretation. Article 298 does not apply only to archipelagical states. You're making it up.

how UNCLOS was made to help archipelagic states and besides other things its like saying song writers don't write notes for songs now that retarded.

Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment,

Bearing in mind that the achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked,

Desiring by this Convention to develop the principles embodied in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970 in which the General Assembly of the United Nations solemnly declared inter alia that the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States,

Believing that the codification and progressive development of the law of the sea achieved in this Convention will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly relations among all nations in conformity with the principles of justice and equal rights and will promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples of the world, in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations as set forth in the Charter,

Affirming that matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law

 

[Martian2]

how UNCLOS was made to help archipelagic states and besides other things its like saying song writers don't write notes for songs now that retarded.

Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment,

Bearing in mind that the achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked,

Desiring by this Convention to develop the principles embodied in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970 in which the General Assembly of the United Nations solemnly declared inter alia that the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States,

Believing that the codification and progressive development of the law of the sea achieved in this Convention will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly relations among all nations in conformity with the principles of justice and equal rights and will promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples of the world, in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations as set forth in the Charter,

Affirming that matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law

You're quoting a bunch of garbage that has nothing to do with Article 298. Learn to read.