What's new

South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion

Threads cleaned up. All news related to the ruling has been merged into a single thread.

Multiple users who completely lost it have been given infractions and bans. Stick to the topic and stay civil or be banned FINAL WARNING.
 
. .
China is a loser. :-)

13626391_1205017039551158_4003444920338498922_n.jpg

Wasn't it a Vietnamese boat that was sent to the bottom of the SCS recently by the Chinese navy? These Vietnamese people have a weird notion of victory and defeat.
 
.
China is a loser. :-)

13626391_1205017039551158_4003444920338498922_n.jpg
These 64 Vietnamese widows who lost their soldier husband 28 years ago in a sea battle with China over the disputed islands would think otherwise. We should do our best to avoid such thing from happening again. The lessons to be learned is if China says we don't accept it, you better take it that way, and take it seriously.

64   soldiers who were killed by the Chinese navy in a clash 28 years ago.jpg
 
. .
India~~ Come on~~you have no power to effect us
Probably true.
But we are discussing here, how the ruling is going to effect the nations involved in South China issue. India is not a party to it.
 
. .
@greenwood

In response to

https://defence.pk/threads/south-china-sea-arbitration-news-discussion.438910/page-56#post-8461728

and

https://defence.pk/threads/south-china-sea-arbitration-news-discussion.438910/page-60#post-8461840

QUOTE:

"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."

The UNCLOS statement was as follows:

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/125726/full-text-dfa-sec-albert-del-rosarios-speech-at-un-tribunal

Third, that the various maritime features relied upon by China as a basis upon which to assert its claims in the South China Sea are not islands that generate entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Rather, some are “rocks” within the meaning of Article 121, paragraph 3; others are low-tide elevations; and still others are permanently submerged. As a result, none are capable of generating entitlements beyond 12M, and some generate no entitlements at all. China’s recent massive reclamation activities cannot lawfully change the original nature and character of these features;


So I am afraid that black and white picture you have of Taiping "island" means nothing unless you have some way of proving human habitation was able to be preserved there under its natural unaltered environment (definition of an island vs rock by UNCLOS convention).
 
. . .
Yes. Arbitration like this will gradually change the UNCLOS into "loser only" club.
 
.
we just crashed a Viet's ship 2 days ago in the SCS.

we are not going to talk with anyone anymore after today, the only things you have to face in future are Chinese missiles including Nuclear and Thermonuclear one!


End of discussion in here, come and stop us in the SCS if you dare !!!
And i read two chinese fishing boats were sunk recently,one by Indonesian Navy.What did you then.
 
.
If China defies tribunal without tangible loss, Beijing will be the winner
  • Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Hindustan Times, New Delhi
    |
  • Updated: Jul 12, 2016 22:24 IST
president-xi-jinping_c2c307d2-482e-11e6-a5ed-4b8bf40e703f.jpg


Though it lost on all legal fronts in the judgment of the international tribunal over its South China Sea claim, China may yet emerge geopolitically the winner.

The reason: if Beijing suffers no material damage from defying the tribunal’s judgment, the lesson for Southeast Asia will be that the continent’s unipolar moment has arrived – and China is atop the pole.

China’s strident denunciations of the tribunal even before the judgment indicated it knew it would lose. But for Beijing, the nine-dash line saga has been largely an expression of raw power, a signal that Beijing could lay claim to 90% of an international water body and that no one, specifically the United States, could do anything about it.

This has largely been accomplished. For nearly three years an isolationist Barack Obama administration failed to respond to China’s atoll-hopping.

Only in the past one-and-half years has the US responded with naval patrols and airpower, but none of this changes the hard reality of what China has captured on the ground.

The greatest damage has been to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a regional body of largely American allies. China’s territorial claims overlap those of five ASEAN members: the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia.

But, say Vietnamese and Singaporean officials, China has been able to divide ASEAN with at least four members ensuring that the grouping has been unable to put up a common front against the nine-dash line.

“ASEAN unity is now a fiction,” a senior Singaporean diplomat said recently.

For those Southeast Asian countries which have thrown in their lot with Beijing, the inability of the US to roll back China’s actions is confirmation that they are on the winning side.

When a former Indian former secretary asked a group of eminent ASEAN people some years ago how they saw the present US-China tussle over the South China Sea, they responded with a military metaphor – “If a Chinese carrier comes our way we will look to the US. If it does not send a carrier in response, then we will welcome the Chinese carrier with open arms.”

If, as many expect, the US will do little other than attack China rhetorically after the judgment, Southeast Asians will see it as further evidence of Beijing’s ascendancy.

Privately, Indian diplomats have been critical of the US response to China’s moves. One senior official described the Chinese grab of the South China Sea as akin to Beijing’s takeover of Tibet.

The Obama administration’s back-and-forth policy on countering China and the US’s inability to get allies like Japan or Australia to join US naval incursions into Chinese maritime claim areas were key reasons India turned down US requests for joint naval patrols in the South China Sea.

“We will oppose China’s claims to the last Vietnamese or Filipino,” was how one official semi-seriously characterised India’s policy.

However, China’s continuing success in its South China Sea snatch and grab policy has been a major catalyst for India to deepen and broaden its economic and military influence among Indian Ocean states.

A policy that will only be enhanced after a tribunal judgment that China, though obligated by treaty to obey, has declared as “null and void”.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/analy...-the-winner/story-3idpqUsleMRjs8QmeoWZCI.html
 
Last edited:
.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/taiwan-south-china-sea-ruling-completely-unacceptable/


Itu Aba (Taiping Island)
Image Credit: Google Maps
Taiwan: South China Sea Ruling 'Completely Unacceptable'
Taiwan denounces the tribunal’s decision that Itu Aba is a rock, not an island


On July 12, an arbitral tribunal in The Hague issued a landmark ruling, overturning many of China’s claims in the South China Sea. The case, Republic of Philippines v. People’s Republic of China, was initiated in 2013, when Manila filed legal objections to Beijing’s claims and behavior in the disputed area. The case has attracted worldwide attention – particularly in Taiwan.

Taiwan shares many of its South China Sea claims with the PRC – in fact, the claims officially originated not with the PRC but with the Republic of China (ROC) government in the immediate post-war era. When the ROC moved its capital to Taipei at the end of the Chinese Civil War, it brought its territorial claims. Taiwan thus found itself in the uncomfortable position of having its claims challenged – through the Philippines’ case against China – without having an opportunity to participate in the case. Taiwan, which is not a member of the United Nations, is likewise not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); there was no legal avenue for Taipei to insert itself into the case. Even Taiwan’s request to send an observer delegation to the hearings was denied.

Most importantly for Taiwan, the tribunal took up the question of the status of Itu Aba, known as Taiping Island in Taiwan. The island, the largest naturally occurring feature in the Spratlys group, is occupied by Taiwan and houses a military garrison, a hospital, and a farm. Taipei strenuously argued its case that Itu Aba is capable of sustaining human habitation, with its freshwater wells and ability to grow produce, and is thus an island under UNCLOS. That, in turn, would give Taipei a claim to a 200 nautical mile EEZ extending from Itu Aba and encompassing a wide swath of the South China Sea.

Because Taipei was not able to officially participate in the case, it made its arguments in the court of public opinion, taking journalists to the island for a tour of its facilities and posting numerous images of Itu Aba online. At the last minute, the tribunal accepted an amicus curiae briefing from the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law, which made the legal argument that Itu Aba should be considered an island.

The tribunal, however, ultimately disagreed. It found that Itu Aba – along with the rest of the Spratlys – is not an island, as it cannot sustain a human community without external aid. Taiwan’s response was immediate.

“We absolutely will not accept [the tribunal's decision] and we maintain that the ruling is not legally binding on the ROC,” the Presidential Office of Taiwan said in a statement. The statement pointed out that the tribunal did not consult with Taiwan or invite it to participate in the case, yet the ruling has “seriously undermined” Taiwan’s maritime rights in the South China Sea.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued its own statement, calling the ruling “completely unacceptable to the government of the Republic of China.” The Ministry also explained Taiwan’s reasons for concluding that the decision has “no legally binding force on the ROC.” First, the statement said, “In the text of the award, the ROC is referred to as ‘Taiwan Authority of China.’ This inappropriate designation is demeaning to the status of the ROC as a sovereign state.”

Most enlightening.

It seems that the Chinese agree with the Chinese.

We are relieved.

A clash between them would have been unbearable. The emotional pain for the rest of the world would have been of massive proportions.

Thank you, @faithfulguy , for relieving us from this tension.



We get the message - **** the international tribunal, we have the warships and that's what matters.

An exemplary international citizen, and a leading light among the nations.

Thanks for the clarification, @Tiqiu .

China is just a developing nation. It will further develop the islands and utilize natural resources. Peaceful rise shall continue. I guess that's at least we can agree about.

Peaceful rise is hardly the phrase that comes to mind when the peaceful riser strides about the beach kicking sand in other people's faces.

We are already one and the same on this.

What will you do about your so called rights?

Use 'peaceful' methods, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do. Ignore treaties and international agreements, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do. Draw lines on a map and insist that our point of view is the only one, as the Chinese have taught the entire international community to do.

What else? What is good for China is surely good enough for the rest of the world. You surely want us to follow your shining example?
 
.
We get the message - **** the international tribunal, we have the warships and that's what matters.

An exemplary international citizen, and a leading light among the nations.

Thanks for the clarification, @Tiqiu .
Are you that naive? Look at your own 200 years history under the British rule and come back talking me again.

I am more than happy to clarity for you about how the Americans think of the so-called "international ruling".

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 12, 2016

QUESTION:
A follow-up. In a statement you said you ask for all parties to respect the rule of law and you support arbitration. Can you give me any example that the United States has ever complied with any of the rulings on international arbitration, particularly when it’s weighed against your interest?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, actually I think I’ve got one in here somewhere. Hang on a second. I know I’ve got one in here.

QUESTION: Don’t look in Nicaragua. (Laughter.)
 
.
Back
Top Bottom