South China Sea Forum
- Thread starter SinoChallenger
- Start date
Kyle Sun
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 2,689
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Talk your shit to USA , ask Bush and Obama why they did not follow International laws.
It is USA who destroy the authority of international laws.
Even Heilongjiang province and Xijiang are not on this map .Strongly agree with you.
China has only big mouth. The historical evidences are not on their side. So, they are very afraid of the international court.
This is a Chinese map published by the Shanghai Publishing House, in the Qing Dynasty.
On the map, Where is the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands? Where is so-called "nine dotted line"?
Does that means those places are not ours?
Last edited:
Okemos
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 0
In fact, territories are mostly decided by historical claims. Otherwise, tell me what's the basis of you occupying the Philipines islands? Because your ancestors were born there or because a UN document says so? Of course, historical claims could be decided by continual occupation, war, treaties, etc. Majorities of land demarcation are based on historical occupation, discoveries. UN treaties cannot nullify historical claims and thus re-demarcate borders. Most laws do not have retroactive effect.
What's considered international community? Shall we vote to decide each territorial dispute? Is the whole world a democracy at large? Shall a tiny country like Brunei have equal voting power as a country with billion population, thus, making one Brunei person's voting power worth 10000 times than a Chinese or an Indian?
BoQ77
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 8,704
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Nine-dashed-line appear to be a navigating route of someone who is unknown.
Is that a 2000 years old historical line ? Anything prove that guy actually sail on that track ?
sailing only is nothing related to territory.
What if my dog invades your garden and piss on, can I claim your garden as my land ?
Pangu
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
A Sea of False Accusations
CIIS Time: Apr 22, 2014 Writer: Cao Qun Editor: Li Xiaoyu
By Cao Qun
The Philippines' legal challenge over South China Sea disputes is untenable
Last year, the Philippines instituted arbitral proceedings against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea. The case appeared to have entered a new phase when Manila submitted a 4,000-page memorial filing to the arbitral tribunal on March 30.
The latest move of the Philippines, in truth, is merely the starting point for resolving the issue of whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over the arbitration case. In accordance with Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the arbitral tribunal, if China does not appear before the tribunal, the tribunal shall invite written arguments from the Philippines on, or pose questions regarding, specific issues which it considers have not been canvassed or have been inadequately canvassed in the pleadings submitted by the Philippines. The Philippines shall make a supplemental written submission within three months, which shall be communicated to China for comments. The latter's comments will then be submitted within three months of the communication. Therefore, whether the case will finally be accepted and heard by the tribunal is still far from certain.
In response to the move, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said China does not accept the Philippines' submission of the disputes for international arbitration. "On issues concerning disputes over sovereignty of islands and reefs and delimitation of maritime boundaries, China has all along adhered to settling disputes through direct negotiations with countries concerned," said a ministry spokesman.
Nine-dash line
Under Article 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), China declared that it does not accept compulsory procedures relating to sea boundary delimitations in 2006. But the Philippines insisted that the arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction over the claims the country has asserted in the belief that its claims do not fall within the excepted category of disputes. In these circumstances, pursuant to Article 9 of Annex VII to the UNCLOS, the arbitral tribunal must demonstrate not only that it has jurisdiction over the disputes but also that the Philippines' claims are well founded in fact and law before making its award.
Though Philippines' arbitral proceedings against China are carefully packaged, they come down to disputes concerning maritime delimitations involving the concurrent consideration of unsettled sovereignty disputes over insular land territory—issues that are not covered by the UNCLOS. The Philippines doubted the legitimacy of the "nine-dash line" claimed by China in the South China Sea, and asserted South China Sea maritime disputes should be judged by the UNCLOS. But the fact is, under the principle of "non-retroactivity of treaties" enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties adopted in 1969, the UNCLOS, which came into force in 1994, cannot deny China's "U-shape line" published almost half a century ago.
Moreover, since the Chinese Government has so far not made a clear interpretation of the nine-dash line, the logic behind the Philippines' accusation that the line does not conform to the UNCLOS is questionable. Currently, there are several different interpretations over the nine-dash line within China's academic circles. The Philippine side may ask China to give an official explanation before making its comments. However, Manila chose to distort China's claim, saying China has claimed the sovereignty of the whole South China Sea and made that the precondition for negotiations.
China has reiterated it has sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and their adjacent waters, but never claimed sovereignty over all waters within the nine-dash line. For instance, in a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in May 2009, the Chinese Government stated that "China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and their adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof." From a legal perspective, while having sovereignty over its internal waters and territorial waters, a country can enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf. Therefore, "adjacent waters" in the letter should be interpreted as territorial waters, whereas "relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof" refer to China's EEZ and continental shelf.
EEZ claims
The Philippines also argued that China's sovereignty claim over some low-tide elevations or submerged features such as Meiji Reef, Ximen Reef, Nanxun Reef and Zhubi Reef violates the UNCLOS, which says submerged features not above sea level at high tide are part of seabed and cannot be subject to the sovereignty of a state. However, China released its nine-dash line long before the UNCLOS entered into force. The international law community at that time distinguished seabed and subsoil from waters in the high seas. They essentially deemed that the seabed and subsoil can be occupied. For instance, the eighth edition of Oppenheim's International Law published in 1955 said that states' exploitation of seabed resources through the activities of their people had become an international practice.
In the 1940s and 1950s, especially after Washington issued the Truman Proclamations in 1945, there were many cases of countries claiming rights over seabed and subsoil in the high seas. Truman Proclamation 2667 said the U.S. Government "regards the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control." Truman Proclamation 2668 vowed to establish conservation zones in those areas to protect fishery resources. Therefore, it is unfair to question China's "historic title" over the submerged features within the nine-dash line that have been officially identified by China.
It is worth noting that the low-tide elevations or submerged features the Philippines mentioned are all located within the EEZs of larger islands. Thus, the Philippine accusation that China claims too many waters is groundless. In a recent article published in RSIS Commentaries titled The South China Sea Disputes: Formula for a Paradigm Shift?, scholars Robert Beckman and Clive Schofield wrote that China could limit its EEZ claim to just the 12 largest islands in Nansha Archipelago. They all have vegetation and in some cases roads and structures have been built on them. Therefore, they are "islands" entitled in principle to EEZ and continental shelf rights of their own under the UNCLOS. The two authors pointed out that while it may appear that using only the larger disputed islands to generate its EEZ claim would entail a "loss" of potential maritime areas to China, the impact would actually be minimal because the islands are grouped in close proximity to each other, allowing a broad sweep of EEZ claims. They argued that claiming only the larger islands will not limit China's maritime reach significantly, but would bring the country's claim more in line with international law.
Furthermore, the Philippines has failed to fulfill the obligation to exchange views with China on the disputes. Article 283 of the UNCLOS says that when a dispute arises between state parties concerning the interpretation or application of the convention, the parties shall proceed expeditiously to an exchange of views regarding its settlement by negotiation or other peaceful means. And in accordance with Article 286 of the convention, if the Philippines fails to fulfill this obligation, it has no right to subject the disputes to compulsory procedures. In fact, the Philippines knows the importance of this obligation, and often regards diplomatic consultations on sovereignty disputes involving Huangyan Island and Meiji Reef as evidence that it has fulfilled the obligation. As previously mentioned, arbitration under the convention should not address any dispute concerning sovereignty over land territory. The Philippines also states explicitly in its notification and statement that it does not "seek in this arbitration a determination of which party enjoys sovereignty over the islands claimed by both of them." It therefore has no reason whatsoever to use diplomatic consultations on sovereignty disputes as evidence of fulfilling the obligation to exchange views.
In conclusion, the Philippines' push for international arbitration against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea is suspected of abusing the procedures of the UNCLOS. It also seeks to damage China's image by deliberately distorting the country's stance. Since the arbitration items the Philippines submitted either go against facts or international law, or involve disputes that China has excluded from arbitration procedures, the arbitral tribunal should conclude that it has no jurisdiction over the case.
The author is an assistant research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies
Source: A Sea of False Accusations -- Beijing Review
CIIS Time: Apr 22, 2014 Writer: Cao Qun Editor: Li Xiaoyu
By Cao Qun
The Philippines' legal challenge over South China Sea disputes is untenable
Last year, the Philippines instituted arbitral proceedings against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea. The case appeared to have entered a new phase when Manila submitted a 4,000-page memorial filing to the arbitral tribunal on March 30.
The latest move of the Philippines, in truth, is merely the starting point for resolving the issue of whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over the arbitration case. In accordance with Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the arbitral tribunal, if China does not appear before the tribunal, the tribunal shall invite written arguments from the Philippines on, or pose questions regarding, specific issues which it considers have not been canvassed or have been inadequately canvassed in the pleadings submitted by the Philippines. The Philippines shall make a supplemental written submission within three months, which shall be communicated to China for comments. The latter's comments will then be submitted within three months of the communication. Therefore, whether the case will finally be accepted and heard by the tribunal is still far from certain.
In response to the move, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said China does not accept the Philippines' submission of the disputes for international arbitration. "On issues concerning disputes over sovereignty of islands and reefs and delimitation of maritime boundaries, China has all along adhered to settling disputes through direct negotiations with countries concerned," said a ministry spokesman.
Nine-dash line
Under Article 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), China declared that it does not accept compulsory procedures relating to sea boundary delimitations in 2006. But the Philippines insisted that the arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction over the claims the country has asserted in the belief that its claims do not fall within the excepted category of disputes. In these circumstances, pursuant to Article 9 of Annex VII to the UNCLOS, the arbitral tribunal must demonstrate not only that it has jurisdiction over the disputes but also that the Philippines' claims are well founded in fact and law before making its award.
Though Philippines' arbitral proceedings against China are carefully packaged, they come down to disputes concerning maritime delimitations involving the concurrent consideration of unsettled sovereignty disputes over insular land territory—issues that are not covered by the UNCLOS. The Philippines doubted the legitimacy of the "nine-dash line" claimed by China in the South China Sea, and asserted South China Sea maritime disputes should be judged by the UNCLOS. But the fact is, under the principle of "non-retroactivity of treaties" enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties adopted in 1969, the UNCLOS, which came into force in 1994, cannot deny China's "U-shape line" published almost half a century ago.
Moreover, since the Chinese Government has so far not made a clear interpretation of the nine-dash line, the logic behind the Philippines' accusation that the line does not conform to the UNCLOS is questionable. Currently, there are several different interpretations over the nine-dash line within China's academic circles. The Philippine side may ask China to give an official explanation before making its comments. However, Manila chose to distort China's claim, saying China has claimed the sovereignty of the whole South China Sea and made that the precondition for negotiations.
China has reiterated it has sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and their adjacent waters, but never claimed sovereignty over all waters within the nine-dash line. For instance, in a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in May 2009, the Chinese Government stated that "China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and their adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof." From a legal perspective, while having sovereignty over its internal waters and territorial waters, a country can enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf. Therefore, "adjacent waters" in the letter should be interpreted as territorial waters, whereas "relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof" refer to China's EEZ and continental shelf.
EEZ claims
The Philippines also argued that China's sovereignty claim over some low-tide elevations or submerged features such as Meiji Reef, Ximen Reef, Nanxun Reef and Zhubi Reef violates the UNCLOS, which says submerged features not above sea level at high tide are part of seabed and cannot be subject to the sovereignty of a state. However, China released its nine-dash line long before the UNCLOS entered into force. The international law community at that time distinguished seabed and subsoil from waters in the high seas. They essentially deemed that the seabed and subsoil can be occupied. For instance, the eighth edition of Oppenheim's International Law published in 1955 said that states' exploitation of seabed resources through the activities of their people had become an international practice.
In the 1940s and 1950s, especially after Washington issued the Truman Proclamations in 1945, there were many cases of countries claiming rights over seabed and subsoil in the high seas. Truman Proclamation 2667 said the U.S. Government "regards the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control." Truman Proclamation 2668 vowed to establish conservation zones in those areas to protect fishery resources. Therefore, it is unfair to question China's "historic title" over the submerged features within the nine-dash line that have been officially identified by China.
It is worth noting that the low-tide elevations or submerged features the Philippines mentioned are all located within the EEZs of larger islands. Thus, the Philippine accusation that China claims too many waters is groundless. In a recent article published in RSIS Commentaries titled The South China Sea Disputes: Formula for a Paradigm Shift?, scholars Robert Beckman and Clive Schofield wrote that China could limit its EEZ claim to just the 12 largest islands in Nansha Archipelago. They all have vegetation and in some cases roads and structures have been built on them. Therefore, they are "islands" entitled in principle to EEZ and continental shelf rights of their own under the UNCLOS. The two authors pointed out that while it may appear that using only the larger disputed islands to generate its EEZ claim would entail a "loss" of potential maritime areas to China, the impact would actually be minimal because the islands are grouped in close proximity to each other, allowing a broad sweep of EEZ claims. They argued that claiming only the larger islands will not limit China's maritime reach significantly, but would bring the country's claim more in line with international law.
Furthermore, the Philippines has failed to fulfill the obligation to exchange views with China on the disputes. Article 283 of the UNCLOS says that when a dispute arises between state parties concerning the interpretation or application of the convention, the parties shall proceed expeditiously to an exchange of views regarding its settlement by negotiation or other peaceful means. And in accordance with Article 286 of the convention, if the Philippines fails to fulfill this obligation, it has no right to subject the disputes to compulsory procedures. In fact, the Philippines knows the importance of this obligation, and often regards diplomatic consultations on sovereignty disputes involving Huangyan Island and Meiji Reef as evidence that it has fulfilled the obligation. As previously mentioned, arbitration under the convention should not address any dispute concerning sovereignty over land territory. The Philippines also states explicitly in its notification and statement that it does not "seek in this arbitration a determination of which party enjoys sovereignty over the islands claimed by both of them." It therefore has no reason whatsoever to use diplomatic consultations on sovereignty disputes as evidence of fulfilling the obligation to exchange views.
In conclusion, the Philippines' push for international arbitration against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea is suspected of abusing the procedures of the UNCLOS. It also seeks to damage China's image by deliberately distorting the country's stance. Since the arbitration items the Philippines submitted either go against facts or international law, or involve disputes that China has excluded from arbitration procedures, the arbitral tribunal should conclude that it has no jurisdiction over the case.
The author is an assistant research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies
Source: A Sea of False Accusations -- Beijing Review
terranMarine
BANNED
- Joined
- May 3, 2012
- Messages
- 7,597
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
Isn't that what the US is which is also part of the P5? Above the law, accuse Iraq of making weapons of mass destructions and invade that country. Now where's the law? Since you are begging Uncle Sam you don't see anything wrong with what the US did as long you think Uncle Sam is to help you contain China.
hurt
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 962
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I know that viet can't designThe new ship is complited, designed by Holland company.
xesy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 962
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
The boat was sunk 17nm from the rig. China one-sided bans all Vietnam vessels in a 10nm radius around the rig. Either ways China is wrong. You take self-defence to a new level. One day you will start a war in the name of self-defen.. oh wait, you already did.
BoQ77
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 8,704
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Actually, the Oil Rig is a vessel, like oil tank vessel, for example ... There's no special policy for it.
Why Chinese keep stating that any other vessels must stay away 8-10nm from their Oil Rig, while their armed fighters approach as near as 30 meters to Japanese unarmed aircrafts ? or Chinese fighter even hit to US aircraft in the international air zone ?
cause it heavy damage and must process emergency landing ...
and in latest news, Chinese civilian ships chased and ram to sink much smaller Vietnamese ship.
China doesn't respect others but forced others to respect security of their ships ( like the Hai Yang Shi You 981 Oil Rig vessel )
if the UN has any credibility.. palestinians and cambodians would have had their stolen lands back from israel and vietnam long time ago and china and japan wouldn't be fighting each other over a few useless rocks.. lol
tranquilium
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,107
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Yeah, no.
UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index
"Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention."
Next, please.
UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index
"Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention."
Next, please.
Last edited:
At least the japs acknowledge these facts. The dirty viets claim China stole their culture.
Too technical for pinoys and lil' jungle men to comprehend. Lol.
tranquilium
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,107
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
It felt like I have said this a thousand times. What exactly do these people feel that they are going to accomplish trying to sue a major nation, one that is a member of the permanent security council and one of the big three, at UN? You think that when major nations, the one that made the convention in the first place, won't leave loophole for themselves to use? Please, international charters haven't protected weak nation against strong ones since the dawn of human history.
In fact, it was only with the rise of China that East Asia has a relatively peaceful major power and the threat of this power kept the region peaceful against invaders from the other parts of the world.
The Philippine government does it because it is a gesture. One that is designed to show US that yes, they are on their side in their conflict with China. It wasn't mean to accomplish anything.
Sam Manekshaw
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,765
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Do it china....
You have to understand smaller, weak countries can only cry, beg and play victim. P5 countries should just ignore it, the incident will pass through in a week. Bringing it up plays in their favor.
We know that a stronger China is good for EA, bad for US. US' only realistic option is to use these pawns to incite problems. These fools actually fall for it.
