South China Sea Arbitration News & Discussion

[William Hung]

But China own and manage SCS islands not begenning at modern world, we have historical rights. Our buddhistm came back from India through SCS, our fleet went to Indian ocean ( West Ocean we ever call it ) through SCS. Our long long history have enough detailed files recording SCS islands and our fishermen on the SCS islands were the first Chinamen met with European maritime venture via SCS.



You ignore the most importance aspect, the PAC judges have no means to face it: the court has no jurisidction to territory disputes. This is the reason they rudely declare islands / shoal / reef in SCS all are not islands. In order to make this case applicable to their jurisdiction, they have break the basic fact, we can call it a scandal, and the rulingis harming the UNCLOS authority.

The Philippines had carefully constructed their case so as not to include issues regarding specific territorial disputes such as boundary delimitation, etc that are indeed outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It was filed so that the dispute is about the “intepretation” of the law and conventions of UNCLOS, things which the Tribunal do indeed have jurisdiction over. And the Tribunal had disagreed with China and accept that the case is not related to those specific disputes that are exempted from UNCLOS, so the Tribunal ruled that it indeed has jurisdiction over most of the matter. If China disagree, then its too bad, because China had already ratified UNCLOS which has a very specific clause saying that even if there are disagreements regarding the Tribunal having jurisdiction, it is still the Tribunal that gets to decide on it. Read article 288 under UNCLOS. This specific clause validates the Tribunal’s ruling and its jurisdiction...and it is a clause that China had agreed to when it first ratified UNCLOS. In other words, this Tribunal and its ruling is valid and legal under UNCLOS, the same UNCLOS that China voluntarily became signatory to and the same UNCLOS which China is still legally binded to.

If you don’t like it then you can lobby your government to pull China out of UNCLOS, but you cannot claim that the Tribunal or its ruling is illegal, because it is in fact valid and legal under the provisions of UNCLOS. But I totally understand that when one party recieve an unfavorable ruling from a court, even in a normal civilian court, the most common reaction from the said party is to say that the court or ruling is biased or unfair. That’s a common reaction.

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

Shunji Yanai with Abe

Questions of neutrality: China takes aim at judges in South China Sea case
July, 11, 2016 SCMP

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...neutrality-china-takes-aim-judges-south-china

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states. It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice, a separate institution. *(which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN), PCA IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UN)

The PCA is a permanent bureaucracy that assists temporary tribunals to resolve disputes among states (and similar entities), intergovernmental organizations, or even private parties arising out of international agreements. The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade.

The court was established in 1899 by the first Hague Peace Conference. The Peace Palace was built for the Court in 1913 with funds from American steel magnate Andrew Carnegie. Since 1922, the building has also housed the separate Permanent Court of International Justice, which was replaced by the International Court of Justice in 1946.

The PCA is not a “court" in the conventional understanding of that term but an administrative organization with the object of having permanent and readily available means to serve as the registry for purposes of international arbitration and other related procedures, including commissions of enquiry and conciliation. The judges or arbitrators that hear cases are officially called "Members" of the Court.

The public at large is usually more familiar with the International Court of Justice than with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, partly because of the closed nature of cases handled by the PCA and also the small number of cases dealt with between 1946 and 1990. Sometimes even the decision itself is kept confidential at the request of the parties.

TODAY, UN WEBSITE says the PCA only renting the same building where International Court of Justice is and PCA HAS no relationship with the UN.

View attachment 317194

So PCA has no affliation to the UN
(TODAY, UN WEBSITE says the PCA only renting the same building where International Court of Justice is and PCA HAS no relationship with the UN.)

 

[gayMo]

My fault to call you an idiot, sorry, but you at least try to show some of your wills of learning.

Everthing involving in "international" in your mind seems giant and legal. ISIS is internatioal too.

The PCA was founded in 1899, it is a product of colonial period.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states. It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice, a separate institution. *(which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN), PCA IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UN)


Source: https://defence.pk/threads/what-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration-is.439091/#ixzz4EHfIh9oq

Hi no offence thnk you. There is a reason that the pca has members and signatorieS, the world is aware of its capabilities and it's limitations and that is not enforceable. China is not the first power that has trashed international arbitration outcomes that are not ruled in its favor and won't be the last.
It just puts paid to China s claim of peaceful rise, cooperation etc. There is a reputations price. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future. Again as i have mentioned in earlier unrelated threads, what we say here is of little value and of no consequence so let's just be pleasant to one another and agree to disagree should the need arise and move on.

 

[kuge]

a few days ago my local newspaper ran a page on report between an iranian scholar & a chinese scholar about ancient Iranian maps naming SCS as china sea.& in some cases china islands.

here it is: sorry in chinese
http://www.kwongwah.com.my/?p=166218

 

[greenwood]

The Philippines had carefully constructed their case so as not to include issues regarding specific territorial disputes such as boundary delimitation, etc that are indeed outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It was filed so that the dispute is about the “intepretation” of the law and conventions of UNCLOS, things which the Tribunal do indeed have jurisdiction over. And the Tribunal had disagreed with China and accept that the case is not related to those specific disputes that are exempted from UNCLOS, so the Tribunal ruled that it indeed has jurisdiction over most of the matter. If China disagree, then its too bad, because China had already ratified UNCLOS which has a very specific clause saying that even if there are disagreements regarding the Tribunal having jurisdiction, it is still the Tribunal that gets to decide on it. Read article 288 under UNCLOS. This specific clause validates the Tribunal’s ruling and its jurisdiction...and it is a clause that China had agreed to when it first ratified UNCLOS. In other words, this Tribunal and its ruling is valid and legal under UNCLOS, the same UNCLOS that China voluntarily became signatory to and the same UNCLOS which China is still legally binded to.

If you don’t like it then you can lobby your government to pull China out of UNCLOS, but you cannot claim that the Tribunal or its ruling is illegal, because it is in fact valid and legal under the provisions of UNCLOS. But I totally understand that when one party recieve an unfavorable ruling from a court, even in a normal civilian court, the most common reaction from the said party is to say that the court or ruling is biased or unfair. That’s a common reaction.

Hey, please learn the differences among:
the SCS Arbitration court,
( Hamburg ) International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,
International Court of Justice,
( Hague ) PCA ( pernament court of arbitration )

Dont mess up all to talk together, all you said seems correct, but their relation is apple and orange.
This SCS arbitration is not UNCLOS convention.

 

[gayMo]

But China own and manage SCS islands not begenning at modern world, we have historical rights. Our buddhistm came back from India through SCS, our fleet went to Indian ocean ( West Ocean we ever call it ) through SCS. Our long long history have enough detailed files recording SCS islands and our fishermen on the SCS islands were the first Chinamen met with European maritime venture via SCS.



You ignore the most importance aspect, the PAC judges have no means to face it: the court has no jurisidction to territory disputes. This is the reason they rudely declare islands / shoal / reef in SCS all are not islands. In order to make this case applicable to their jurisdiction, they have break the basic fact, we can call it a scandal, and the rulingis harming the UNCLOS authority.

I dont know about the historical facts you quote. But the nine dash line seems a bit unrealistic to me given that its so close to all the asean countries and so far away from mainland. Also to bolster the claim all the small so called rocks are being converted to islands. In the modern world it seems a bit unfair. I am the first to say that worse things have been done by western powers but it does not change perception of what china is doing and now that perceptionperception has become fact after the tribunal verdict.

It is just some 1000 miles south of Tokyo. BTW, Taiping island is only 1154 km from Chinese Hainan. You can do the maths if you know the difference between British and Metric system.

What is the closest point in japan from this island is it tokyo? If not your calculation has to be between beijing vs Tokyo from this islands isnt it?
Also do you agree that what japan did was right?

 

[William Hung]

CNN: Will China abide by the South China Sea decision?
By William Burke-White

Updated 10:57 PM ET, Tue July 12, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/opinions/south-china-sea-decision-burke-white/

I doubt any country would expects China to abide by any unfavorable ruling, which actually, the question title doesn’t really made sense in the first place. In fact, the Philippines didn’t actually asked the Tribunal to tell China to leave the SCS. What the Philippines had asked for, is to have the Tribunal officially issue a judgement whether China’s SCS claims are legally valid under UNCLOS, whether Chinese’s conducts in the SCS had violated UNCLOS. And the Philippines received favourable rulings in the sense that the Tribunal did eventually ruled and agreed with what the Philippines had asked for, namely, to issue an official judgement and rule that certain Chinese conducts in the SCS, had indeed violated UNCLOS, and more importantly, to officially issue a judgment that the so-called Chinese “historic” and “legal” claims over the SCS are officially invalid and illegal under UNCLOS.

Before these rulings, China had always argued that they are complying to UNCLOS, that they have “indisputable” evidences and full historic and legal rights to their SCS claims, that their claims are legally valid. China have even invoked UNCLOS to dispute the claims/conducts of other dispute parties, with the latest example just a few weeks ago when China accused Indonesia of violating UNCLOS. But this Tribunal ruling had essentially flushed all these PRC rhetorics and arguments down the toilet. It is quite harsh like that. It fundamentally ruled that, China, it is you who have violated UNCLOS, it is your SCS claims that are illegal and invalid under UNCLOS. More importantly, the ruling is an official judgement, not just some advisory comments, etc.

 

[greenwood]

I dont know about the historical facts you quote. But the nine dash line seems a bit unrealistic to me given that its so close to all the asean countries and so far away from mainland. Also to bolster the claim all the small so called rocks are being converted to islands. In the modern world it seems a bit unfair. I am the first to say that worse things have been done by western powers but it does not change perception of what china is doing and now that perceptionperception has become fact after the tribunal verdict.


What is the closest point in japan from this island is it tokyo? If not your calculation has to be between beijing vs Tokyo from this islands isnt it?
Also do you agree that what japan did was eight?

It is not my fault you don't know the hsitorical facts, just like it is not your fault the European call native American as Indian in the first place. If the European then made some simple survey or inquiry, they wouldn't make the joke.
That's the reason I repeat you need to learn if you have interesting intention of this affair. China recently issued the "white paper" of China-Phillipines territory disputes about SCS. I hope next time, when we met, if taking this issue randomly, you don't speak out again "I don't know about the historical facts you quote"

 

[gambit]

So PCA has no affliation to the UN
(TODAY, UN WEBSITE says the PCA only renting the same building where International Court of Justice is and PCA HAS no relationship with the UN.)

The PCA is AFFILIATED with the United Nations, if not in hierarchy, then in principles. The UN is a recent development compares to the PCA, so if there are disputes where the PCA's historical experience can be better applied, referrals from the UN carries equal force.

https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680052af1

Not only do states more frequently seek recourse to the PCA, but international commercial arbitration can also be conducted under PCA auspices.

The 1976 United Nations UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules entrust to the Secretary-General of the PCA the role of designating, upon request of a party to arbitration proceedings, an "appointing authority" to decide on the appointment or rule on questions concerning the challenge of arbitrators. Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number and complexity of such requests, emanating from ad hoc arbitrations worldwide. In addition, the Secretary-General has with increasing frequency been requested to serve directly as appointing authority in UNCITRAL arbitrations.

The PCA have been accepted by the international community as a legitimate body for appeals in international disputes.

This is a feeble attempt to diminish the impact of the PCA regarding the SCS controversy.

 

[gayMo]

It is not my fault you don't know the hsitorical facts, just like it is not your fault the European call native American as Indian in the first place. If the European then made some simple survey or inquiry, they wouldn't make the joke.
That's the reason I repeat you need to learn if you have interesting intention of this affair. China recently issued the "white paper" of China-Phillipines territory disputes about SCS. I hope next time, when we met, if taking this issue randomly, you don't speak out again "I don't know about the historical facts you quote"

Ok, it is not random, i did not open my mouth until the UNCLOS verdict came. I think i will stick with that version. India complied with a decision that went aginst it 2 years sgo. One can massage a story in many ways to suit your interests.

 

[alaungphaya]

Here is what Myanmar's official line is. I don't know of any other non-invested SE Asian countries releasing statements about it yet.

 

[gambit]

What the Philippines had asked for, is to have the Tribunal officially issue a judgement whether China’s SCS claims are legally valid under UNCLOS, whether Chinese’s conducts in the SCS had violated UNCLOS.

This is what the PDF Chinese ain't gots the brains to understand.

The Tribunal's decision was not meant for China but for anyone who uses the SCS, that China's claim to the SCS is basically nonsense.

This leave China with two options: Either militarily enforce her claim to the SCS by attacking every ship that does not comply with her wishes, or leave those ships alone as they passage thru the SCS.

The latter is effectively an abandonment of her claim, in idea if not in fact.

 

[yusheng]

what the contributin the PCA done to the so called "internation community" ?
any good history the PCA has?
any good results the PCA has?
maybe only good for westerns.

 

[jhungary]

all european, no asian ,
View attachment 317304

are they really understand the situation and history of Asia?



and the japanese main judger is embezzle , an extrem Japanese right-winger.
View attachment 317302
the japanese judger who called the other four juders, once was japanese ambassador to USA.

View attachment 317303
empty seats with on Chinese

It never about "History" of Asia, the issue is always about Law. If History is to precede law, then we should all give our country back to Africa, each of our land are separated by the African continent in pre-historical sense.