Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cantonese and Hakka are both Han.
You keep talking about slaves of Han, do you know that was you, right?
Those people you call them "Baiyue", how come they were dressing like Han?
Here is another so-called "Baiyue" ruler, while much closer to Han than to Viet.
First, you need to read more carefully what those articles pertained to.
"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"
States may choose not to abide or bound by the settlement of disputes provided by the articles. Just as exemplified by the recent case brought by the Philippines, China has the right not to abide the ITLOS decision (one of the procedure for settlement of dispute).
However, It does not equate that states may choose not to abide whichever articles in UNCLOS. China cannot in any case, as a signatory of UNCLOS, declared that reef/banks/rocks that cannot sustain economic/livelihood of human has EEZ enjoyed by ordinary islands. This is exemplifed by the case of Okinotorishima of Japan, which, in accordance to UNCLOS, was not an island, and hence does have any EEZ. Japan, as signatory of UNCLOS, cannot choose not to abide by this decision. It may unilaterally chose to ignore this decision, but it might undermine the comitment and honour of Japan towards international rules and convention.
The Chinese decision to claim nearly all south china sea by its U-shaped nine-dash line clearly does not comply with UNCLOS. China may reject the settlement of dispute regarding this claim, but this does not necessarily mean it can arbitrarily drawn any line that principally does not allowed by the UNCLOS.
China may claim historical rights over south china sea, but the claim itself is quite weak and will be easily challenged by neighboring parties in South-East Asia. Note that maritime south-east asian was predominated Austronesian, whose realm has long been sea travelling. If historical rights were to be brought upon UNCLOS, south-east asian and pacific islanders might be able to claim ridiculously large area of seas encompassing nearly all of the pacific ocean.
Those people you call them "Baiyue", how come they were dressing like Han?
Here is another so-called "Baiyue" ruler, while much closer to Han than to Viet.
What he is saying is that if China go to war with Vietnam, China's economy would be crippled by the war itself.
This is probably the most Sane agrument i have heard for a long long time in this forum
Unratify UNCLOS does not mean you are not bound by international court decision, you just choose to ignore what it said.
There are way to settle this dispute once and for all. But China for some reason do not want to use them
By the way dispute in UNCLOS does not mean a dispute to any landmass. UNCLOS is a law or standard that define 3 things
1.)International Waterway (Territorial water, Contigious Zone, and EEZ)
2.)What you can do with which
3.)and arbritation process
Claiming an island is neither one of the 3. So claiming an island far away from you is not something you can rely on UNCLOS to solve.....
As is clear by the declaration of the respective claimants that none of them are willing to subject themselves to UNCLOS when they feels that their sovereignty is infringe upon.First, you need to read more carefully what those articles pertained to.
"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"
States may choose not to abide or bound by the settlement of disputes provided by the articles. Just as exemplified by the recent case brought by the Philippines, China has the right not to abide the ITLOS decision (one of the procedure for settlement of dispute).
However, It does not equate that states may choose not to abide whichever articles in UNCLOS. China cannot in any case, as a signatory of UNCLOS, declared that reef/banks/rocks that cannot sustain economic/livelihood of human has EEZ enjoyed by ordinary islands. This is exemplifed by the case of Okinotorishima of Japan, which, in accordance to UNCLOS, was not an island, and hence does have any EEZ. Japan, as signatory of UNCLOS, cannot choose not to abide by this decision. It may unilaterally chose to ignore this decision, but it might undermine the comitment and honour of Japan towards international rules and convention.
The Chinese decision to claim nearly all south china sea by its U-shaped nine-dash line clearly does not comply with UNCLOS. China may reject the settlement of dispute regarding this claim, but this does not necessarily mean it can arbitrarily drawn any line that principally does not allowed by the UNCLOS.
China may claim historical rights over south china sea, but the claim itself is quite weak and will be easily challenged by neighboring parties in South-East Asia. Note that maritime south-east asian was predominated Austronesian, whose realm has long been sea travelling. If historical rights were to be brought upon UNCLOS, south-east asian and pacific islanders might be able to claim ridiculously large area of seas encompassing nearly all of the pacific ocean.