South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion

[Providence]

Here, it is not merely the arbitration China rejects but the very content of a treaty it negotiated with its neighbors. For the ruling states, "to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention."

So it's not a dispute over borders at all. The argument of "historic fishing grounds", etc. that the Chinese gov't uses to justify itself to its people are themselves null and void.

I don't think the paid idiots will try to get their head around such arguments which are legally tenable. The govt treat them like mushrooms. Feed them shit and keep them in the dark.

 

[beijingwalker]

Chinese military will protect sovereignty and interests

 

[William Hung]

By same logic US too agreed to south sea china claim after ww2 and now its backing off

Huh? we were talking about how a certain thing got “unilaterally imposed” on someone.

So are you admitting here that China indeed had agreed to something and then now backing off? meaning, this is not unilaterally imposed on China, but something that China had agreed to, but is now backing off. So you agreed with my point?

 

[beijingwalker]

China rejects Hague tribunal judgment

Chinese FM says China rejects ruling, arbitration is a political farce made under pretext of law

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

You probably meant Nepal. Technically its their internal situation which forces trucks to not cross India-Nepal border. That matter may be discussed in another thread as this is off-topic for this thread.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...el-subsidy-to-Bhutan/articleshow/20936874.cms

Just found it quite funny that Indian in here accuses China of "poking their neighbors" despite their country doing the same. It's the same as North Korea complaining about human right abuses in other countries. Switch the flag & there's no difference in how they treat their neighbors. There's a reason why Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan & others in here hate India & love China.

 

[beijingwalker]

China only negotiates with individual relevant countries to settle disputes, all previous land disputes were settled this way, no exceptions in the history,no outside parties are allowed, That's China's decades old principle which can not be bent or compromised.

 

[Providence]

There should not be any international court that could judge territory ownership. The reasonable role of International court should be a mediator rather than a judge. Which will create problems and flare conflicts between countries. This derails the real purpose and spirit of UN.

It's not an ad-hoc judgement but a 496 page report giving details and reasons for the judgement. Read that.

Yes, China can ignore an international legal verdict, or even pull out of the UNCLOS. But I wonder how China is going to now use those “we have historic and legal rights to xyz water” or “country xyz had violated international law” rhetorics. A few weeks ago, didn’t China accused Indonesia of violating UNCLOS during the fishing boats skirmish? Didn’t China recently appealed to UNCLOS and international laws with regards to the maritime disputes with Japan?

So what will China be invoking UNCLOS or international law again with these kind of disputes? Oh China.

Actually China is not just a signatory to UNCLOS but some of it's clauses form an integral part of border dispute agreements. China is willing to let go of even that if the paid idiots here are to be believed

 

[Providence]

China only negotiates with individual relevant countries to settle disputes, all previous land disputes were settled this way, no exceptions in the history,no outside parties are allowed, That's China's decades old principle which can not be bent or compromised.

Was china smoking opium then when it signed the UNCLOS ?

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Here, it is not merely the arbitration China rejects but the very content of a treaty it negotiated with its neighbors. For the ruling states, "to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention."

So it's not a dispute over borders at all. The argument of "historic fishing grounds", etc. that the Chinese gov't uses to justify itself to its people are themselves null and void.

Israel can claim Palestine on the basis of "historic Jewish ground" so why can't China do the same? Not that its any better, but there's a serious case of double standard here.

 

[jha]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...el-subsidy-to-Bhutan/articleshow/20936874.cms

Just found it quite funny that Indian in here accuses China of "poking their neighbors" despite their country doing the same. It's the same as North Korea complaining about human right abuses in other countries. Switch the flag & there's no difference in how they treat their neighbors. There's a reason why Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan & others in here hate India & love China.

Wow.. So you dug up a 3 years old article from net regarding some gas subsidy ( which not longer is relevant as govt has changed in India and we enjoy very warm relationship with Bhutan ) to create an equivalence with forcefully taking water from neighbors. Very poor job. looks like you will go to any length to establish the false equivalence. I am not interested in that exercise. Thank you.

 

[Jlaw]

Newer generation should not become a follower of their anchestor into such fanatic. Use commont sense to break that bad mentality in order to adopt. But I think it is difficult to do so in a dictatorial regime.

Indonesia history has this kind of case when Soekarno want to grab Malaysia and Singapore since both nation were part of Majapahit kingdom long before the West invation and we were very powerful militarily at that time. British and other commonwealth nations come and prevent that happening. Many people then oppose him because of this and other reason (ideology)

Soeharto then let go this effort and set up ASEAN instead to grow our nation economy and geopolitics influence.A right decision.

The question is why China needs to do this...?

My answer:

China leadership get pressure from their own people, they need to look tough to preserve their power since it has already become powerful economically and militarily.

They clever people In the leadership get trapped and cannot play smart anymore as nationalist people in the leadership will take benefit if the smart ones do that. Its decision to include Indonesia ZEE is the prove of that since even though it is actually a very small area without real economic and strategic reason they still try to grab that by saying its traditional fishing ground retoric.

The resulth than can give more reason for the clever guy in the leadership to play smarth without too much risk. So the resulth is actually good for China. It will lift some political burden on leadership shoulder to play aggressive due to their people aspirations (which is derived from psychological needs)

And you're the best think tank Indonesians have on PDF?



I feel for you guys.

 

[beijingwalker]

Was china smoking opium then when it signed the UNCLOS ?

Don't know, and I don't know if it has jurisdiction rights to rule or not. If China finds that is a unjust organ China can always choose to back out of it like US did.

 

[shah1398]

Chinese military will protect sovereignty and interests

China is least bothered on the decision of Hague tribunal and business would go on. Nonetheless what are the options all these parties including US have against China?
Military Option?....Not at all.
Economic Option???...Heck No.
Things would be going as usual out there.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Hehe, good news.
Question, China care? who will excute the decision?
Time to reclaim Huangyan island.

they successfully provocate 1.4 billion Chinese, more support to CCP from Chinese, go accelerate the construction on SCS island, or go to war with any countries there, including USA.


We can tear the judgement like USAhad done, or We do even not receive it, get you so called moral victory, that is only you can get?

Good.

Just the kind of arrogant, Sinocentric, hegemonist answer that was expected.

 

[Jlaw]

There should not be any international court that could judge territory ownership. The reasonable role of International court should be a mediator rather than a judge. Which will create problems and flare conflicts between countries. This derails the real purpose and spirit of UN.

Well obviously this is a game between US-China. No point in justifying who is right or wrong. The question is, what is china going to do next?