South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion

[Tiqiu]

The problem with this Chinese objection is that China had already ratified, in other words: had agreed to, the UNCLOS which included a very specific legal clause that fundamentally says that if there are any dispute or disagreement over whether a court/tribunal has jurisdiction or not, then the court/tribunal will be the one that has the final say about its jurisdiction. Yes, the court/tribunal will get to decide on it, not the dispute parties. It may sound unbelievable to some Chinese now, but that is what China had ratified and agreed to lol.

The problems with your such remarks are that you are blank in law subject and you never lived in a place outside Vietnam. If you had lived in the West, you would know there will be exclusion clause in every legal agreement, be it international treaty, legal contract or simple commercial/retail agreement. For instance In Australia, if you buy an insurance policy,or buy a ferry ticket,or send your cloths to dry-clean, there will be disclaimer clauses to prevent from claiming your rights in certain circumstances which are already pre-described on the legal document/ticket/receipt. You need to check the exclusion clause of the UNCLOS before making your comments on this matter.

 

[greenwood]

OK, well I am not sure what the legalese is regarding the definition of islands and shoals.

Many of the names given to the "shoals" have the word island in them it seems anyway.

Name is something habit. But court / legal orgalization should has its justice spirit and very serious terms.

 

[beijingwalker]

Japan: Parties are required to comply with Arbitral Tribunal’s award

July 13, 2016 Gracel Ortega World 0



“Japan has consistently advocated the importance of the rule of law and the use of peaceful means, not the use of force or coercion, in seeking settlement of maritime disputes,” Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said after the Arbitral Tribunal instituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rendered it award regarding the West Philippine Sea dispute.

He added that as the Tribunal’s award is final and legally binding on the parties to the dispute under the provisions of UNCLOS, the parties to this case are required to comply with the award.

“Japan strongly expects that the parties’ compliance with this award will eventually lead to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea,” the Japanese Minister added.

You know what Japan says means to China, right? not even worth the crap, an occupied country by US, just a lapdog of Uncle Sam.

 

[cochine]

You know what Japan says means to China, right? not even worth the crap, an occupied country by US, just a lapdog of Uncle Sam.

China is a loser.

 

[Pinoy]

Ex-Pres. Aquino on the ruling issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration

Published July 13, 2016
Statement of Benigno S. Aquino III on the ruling issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on the case submitted by the Philippines July 13, 2016:

I reviewed the Press Release and Summary issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the “South China Sea Arbitration” (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China). I am, of course, quite elated particularly since all the points we had raised were affirmed.

We want to thank the Permanent Court of Arbitration for their fair judgment, and we would also like to extend our gratitude for the clarity with which they presented their ruling.

Let us remember that the disputes in the Sea Known by Many Names have gone on for decades—from our perspective, stretching as far back as the 1970s. These conflicts have come about, primarily because of the differing opinions on each country’s rights and obligations. To this end, I would ask our countrymen and all people of goodwill to read the Press Release and Summary issued by the Tribunal, to gain a full understanding of the issues involved.

Let me emphasize: All countries that have made a comment on this issue, to our knowledge, have expressed adherence to international law. Indeed: International law has been made clearer with this monumental decision. This of course deals with the Philippines and China, clarifying each state’s rights and obligations; but as our lead counsel said, it also has very strong implications as far as other coastal states are concerned, with regard to UNCLOS.

At this point, may I suggest that instead of viewing this decision as a victory of one party over another, the best way to look at this judgment is that it is a victory for all. I say this because the clarity rendered now establishes better conditions that enable countries to engage each other, bearing in mind their duties and rights within a context that espouses equality and amity.

Might I say: The decision to pursue arbitration was not an easy one to make. Going into arbitration was called a game-changer. We foresaw and experienced the pressures in taking this route; yet until the end, we stood our ground.

In this course, we involved all branches of government. During the consultations, we had the Senate as represented by then-Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, and later on by Senator Franklin Drilon, as well as the House under the leadership of Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. Former Presidents Fidel V. Ramos and Joseph Estrada were unequivocal in their support. We also invited the Judiciary, which at that time, due to prudence on handling cases related to the matter, had to decline.

Allow me to reiterate my gratitude to all our countrymen and partners who have worked hard to defend our shared cause, specifically: then-Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario, former Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., former Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, former Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, former Solicitors-General Francis Jardeleza and Florin Hilbay, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, former Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and now Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, Sandiganbayan Justice Sarah Fernandez, former Undersecretary Emmanuel Bautista and Deputy Executive Secretary Menardo Guevarra, former Assistant Secretary Henry Bensurto Jr. and former Undersecretary Abigail Valte. We also thank the lawyers and experts who assisted our team, as led by Paul Reichler of the Washington-based law firm Foley Hoag.

Let us bear in mind: Where there is conflict over claims and opinions, cooperation cannot exist. Now that the rules are even clearer, we can all move forward as a global community. Without doubt, this long-running dispute is now closer to having a permanent solution.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...ent-court-of-arbitration#sthash.CQ1bF7Y9.dpuf

 

[Tiqiu]

Quite contrary to what many Vietnamese posters did here jumping up and down, their government has a zipped lips.What are they afraid of? What can they do to make China obey the ruling?

 

[Nilgiri]

Name is something habit. But court / legal orgalization should has its justice spirit and very serious terms.

What is the difference between a shoal and island according to UNCLOS? Any document stating the definition?

There must be significant overlap I think. Also if shoals have been reclaimed to make them into artificial islands, the court may still recognise them as shoals (what they originally were).

 

[beijingwalker]

China is a loser.

We will see

 

[Dawood Ibrahim]

It's a Embarrassing victory coz china didn't move a inch and congrats to China

 

[beijingwalker]

Chinese people just flipped off at the ruling

 

[barbarosa]

USA will make hot the field and then runaway.

 

[T-Rex]

I hope Xingiang is next. Its about time our brothers get their freedom from the Commies.

Your intention has been exposed, so get the fvck out of here.

 

[greenwood]

http://www.update.ph/2016/07/japan-parties-are-required-to-comply-with-arbitral-tribunals-award/7479

Japan: Parties are required to comply with Arbitral Tribunal’s award

July 13, 2016 Gracel Ortega World 0



“Japan has consistently advocated the importance of the rule of law and the use of peaceful means, not the use of force or coercion, in seeking settlement of maritime disputes,” Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said after the Arbitral Tribunal instituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rendered it award regarding the West Philippine Sea dispute.

He added that as the Tribunal’s award is final and legally binding on the parties to the dispute under the provisions of UNCLOS, the parties to this case are required to comply with the award.

“Japan strongly expects that the parties’ compliance with this award will eventually lead to the peaceful settlement of disputes in the South China Sea,” the Japanese Minister added.

This is joke of the day. The Japanese cheer for an illegal arbitral tribunal award. China don't accept and recognize the award. We have repeated it clearly and directly for years, the japanese foreign minsiter is a deef.

What is the difference between a shoal and island according to UNCLOS? Any document stating the definition?

There must be significant overlap I think. Also if shoals have been reclaimed to make them into artificial islands, the court may still recognise them as shoals (what they originally were).

That arbitration court lawer and chief judge's work to make clear definition of islands. ( see post 109. ) Obvisouly those court guys are incomponent to know what island is. They need to learn UNCLOS again.

 

[Dawood Ibrahim]

China is a loser.

Paray it's called A Victory without a trophy it shows who really the boss of the region real is
CHINA

 

[T-Rex]

Btw, @T-Rex being a Bangladeshi you must be knowing that India did honour a similar verdict from The International Court of Arbitration and left some vital sea areas to Bangladesh, and you are rejoicing China's rejection to honour the verdict when Philippines, another smaller country like Bangladesh is on the receiving end of it. How should I define it, hypocrisy, or shamelessness?

The whole thing was a drama orchestrated by Delhi and played out by Delhi's puppets in Dhaka. It was shown by the critics of the indian puppet regime how BD actually lost the most vital part of the Bay of Bengal, the area adjacent to the Talpatti island. Now try your tale somewhere else. We know all too well which kind of people form these tribunals and its good for us that China has also found it out.