South China Sea Forum

[cochine]

Brothers-in-Arms: Vietnam Ramps Up Its Defense Potential With Russian Help
© Sputnik/ Maksim Bogovid
RUSSIA
15:03 10.01.2017(updated 15:05 10.01.2017) Get short URL
104512372


Vietnam now ranks seventeenth in the complete Global Firepower (GFP) list and second in Southeast Asia after Indonesia, thanks much to modern arms supplies from Russia.

© SPUTNIK/ RAMIL SITDIKOV
Russia's T-90 Battle Tank Interests Vietnam Because It's 'More Modern' Than Rivals
The Global Firepower (GFP) list puts the military powers of the world into full perspective depending on their defense outlays, air and naval might, number and quality of Air Force bases and seaports, etc.


Commenting on the information contained in the Global Firepower 2016 report, AEC News Today wrote that with its history of victorious wars fought against France, the US and China, Vietnam possesses a military force to reckon with.

In an interview with Sputnik Vietnam, former Deputy Defense Minister, Col. Gen. Nguyen Van Duoc said that his country owned much of its military potential to the assistance it once received from the Soviet Union and the weapons now being supplied it by the Russian Federation.

“We have the very same feelings of love and respect for Russia that we once had for the Soviet Union. Our military-technical cooperation is expanding all the time with Russia providing us with everything we need: tanks, warplanes, naval ships, submarines and air-defense systems. Much of what they have in the Russian Army we now also have here in Vietnam,” he said.

Meanwhile, a Kilo-class Russian diesel-electric submarine, armed with Kalibr missiles, the last of the six such vessels ordered by Hanoi, is on the way to Vietnam.

These submarines are extremely silent and are very aptly called “black holes” by Western military specialists.

A second pair of Gepard-class frigates is now in the final stages of their trials in the Black Sea and will soon be handed over to the Vietnamese Navy, in addition to as many supplied earlier.

The Soviet Union started supplying North Vietnam with firearms and anti-aircraft systems back in the early 1950s. In 1954 Soviet Katyusha multiple rocket launchers helped the North Vietnamese forces win the Battle of Dien Bien Phu — the final battle of the First Indochina War.

During the 1960s and 1970s, Soviet missiles and warplanes shot down an estimated 1,700 US military aircraft and it was Soviet tanks that rammed the gates of the Doc Lap presidential palace in Saigon on April 1975, the day when the North Vietnamese Army took the capital of South Vietnam.

In recent years Russia and Vietnam have signed a raft of arms-delivery contracts worth over 4.5 billion dollars.

The list of Russian military supplies to Vietnam include Tor, Buk and S-300 air defense systems and the sides are currently negotiating the supply of the state-of-the-art S-400 missile systems.

© SPUTNIK/ ROMAN DENISOV
Russia Rebuilding Military Airfields in Vietnam, Pacific Islands – Former Air Force Chief
Russian Mi-8 helicopters are the backbone of Vietnam’s combat helicopter fleet and Russia has also supplied 10 Su-27 fighters and 32 Su-30MK2 multi-role fighters that offer enhanced combat capabilities against aerial, ground and sea-based targets.


Apart from the already mentioned Gepard-class frigates, Russia has also provided the Vietnamese Navy with high-speed Svetlyak-class frigates and a number of Tarantul-class missile corvettes.

After watching the performance of Molniya-class guided missile boats, the Vietnamese military started building them under license in Vietnam.

Russia has supplied Vietnam with the Bastion mobile coastal missile complex that can effectively protect a 600-kilometer stretch of the coastline and keep an eye on up to 200,000 square kilometers of open water area.

When a group of US naval ships sailing close to the Crimean coast caught sight of Bastion batteries deployed on the peninsula, they quickly turned back and steamed away.

According to military experts, Russian-made arms account for a hefty 90 percent of Vietnam’s arsenal.

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201701101049432881-russia-vietnam-arms/

 

[terranMarine]

China finishing South China Sea buildings that could house missiles

China, in an early test of U.S. President Donald Trump, is nearly finished building almost two dozen structures on artificial islands in the South China Sea that appear designed to house long-range surface-to-air missiles, two U.S. officials told Reuters.

The development is likely to raise questions about whether and how the United States will respond, given its vows to take a tough line on China in the South China Sea.

China claims almost all the South China Sea, which carries a third of the world's maritime traffic. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims. Trump's administration has called China's island building in the South China Sea illegal.

Building the concrete structures with retractable roofs on Subi, Mischief and Fiery Cross reefs, part of the Spratly Islands chain where China already has built military-length airstrips, could be considered a military escalation, the U.S. officials said in recent days, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"It is not like the Chinese to build anything in the South China Sea just to build it, and these structures resemble others that house SAM batteries, so the logical conclusion is that's what they are for," said a U.S. intelligence official.

Another official said the structures appeared to be 20 meters (66 feet) long and 10 meters (33 feet) high.

A Pentagon spokesman said the United States remained committed to "non-militarization in the South China Sea" and urged all claimants to take actions consistent with international law.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In his Senate confirmation hearing last month, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson raised China's ire when he said Beijing should be denied access to the islands it is building in the South China Sea.

Tillerson subsequently softened his language, and Trump further reduced tensions by pledging to honor the long-standing U.S. "One China" policy in a Feb. 10 telephone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

LONGER-RANGE

Greg Poling, a South China Sea expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said in a December report that China apparently had installed weapons, including anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, on all seven of the islands it has built in the South China Sea.

The officials said the new structures were likely to house surface-to-air missiles that would expand China's air defense umbrella over the islands. They did not give a time line on when they believed China would deploy missiles on the islands.

"It certainly raises the tension," Poling said. "The Chinese have gotten good at these steady increases in their capabilities."

On Tuesday, the Philippines said Southeast Asian countries saw China's installation of weapons in the South China Sea as "very unsettling" and have urged dialogue to stop an escalation of "recent developments."

Philippine Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay did not say what provoked the concern but said the 10-member Association of South East Asian Nations, or ASEAN, hoped China and the United States would ensure peace and stability.

POLITICAL TEST

The U.S. intelligence official said the structures did not pose a significant military threat to U.S. forces in the region, given their visibility and vulnerability.

Building them appeared to be more of a political test of how the Trump administration would respond, he said.

"The logical response would also be political – something that should not lead to military escalation in a vital strategic area," the official said.

Chas Freeman, a China expert and former assistant secretary of defense, said he was inclined to view such installations as serving a military purpose - bolstering China's claims against those of other nations - rather than a political signal to the United States.

"There is a tendency here in Washington to imagine that it's all about us, but we are not a claimant in the South China Sea," Freeman said. "We are not going to challenge China's possession of any of these land features in my judgment. If that's going to happen, it's going to be done by the Vietnamese, or . . . the Filipinos . . . or the Malaysians, who are the three counter-claimants of note."

He said it was an "unfortunate, but not (an) unpredictable development."

Tillerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that China's building of islands and putting military assets on them was "akin to Russia's taking Crimea" from Ukraine.

In his written responses to follow-up questions, he softened his language, saying that in the event of an unspecified "contingency," the United States and its allies "must be capable of limiting China's access to and use of" those islands to pose a threat.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-southchinasea-exclusive-idUSKBN161029

 

[TaiShang]

China, in an early test of U.S. President Donald Trump, is nearly finished building almost two dozen structures on artificial islands in the South China Sea that appear designed to house long-range surface-to-air missiles

Pure speculation. Those are greenhouses to grow fruit and vegetables.

The development is likely to raise questions about whether and how the United States will respond, given its vows to take a tough line on China in the South China Sea.

In response, the US Navy will pass nearby China's islands, making some other people to sing "Me love you long time".

Trump's administration has called China's island building in the South China Sea illegal.

Trump even said US economic figures were all fake and Obama administration set up the ISIS. If I want to believe what the Trump administration says, I want to believe them all.

"It certainly raises the tension," Poling said. "The Chinese have gotten good at these steady increases in their capabilities."

As if the US does not do that.

The U.S. intelligence official said the structures did not pose a significant military threat to U.S. forces in the region, given their visibility and vulnerability.

As if aircraft carriers and all those bases with some 300.000 military persons are not visible to China.

"There is a tendency here in Washington to imagine that it's all about us, but we are not a claimant in the South China Sea," Freeman said. "We are not going to challenge China's possession of any of these land features in my judgment. If that's going to happen, it's going to be done by the Vietnamese, or . . . the Filipinos . . . or the Malaysians, who are the three counter-claimants of note."

The Filipinos and Malaysians spoke by getting closer to China and signing economic and defense agreements. Vietnam makes noise, however. But it is ineffective.

Tillerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that China's building of islands and putting military assets on them was "akin to Russia's taking Crimea" from Ukraine.

Poor comparison and analysis. Even Opie is smarter than him.

China building of islands putting military assets on them is only akin to US building and weaponizing Hawaii.

 

[terranMarine]

@TaiShang very valid points, no matter what kind of noises Washington is making (including sending some extra warships, battlegroup for patrolling in the international water in SCS) at the end of the day China is doing land reclamation and building infrastructure. Not even US can stop it as we have said it countless of times in the past 2-3 years. Certain primitive primates from down under China can keep posting US sending ships to patrol, so what? Vietnam cannot do anything about it, couldn't steal Taiping island, couldn't do sh!t. Malaysia never made much noise and we know how the relations has improved between CN & PH because a smarter leader has been elected. Vietnam can keep on dreaming of a war in which Japan & US would send their men to die on their behalf so that Viets can later on grab all those islands (eh i don't think so )

 

[cochine]

CHINA INFURIATED OVER PH FRESH REMARKS ON SOUTH CHINA SEA
Posted on February 23, 2017

Share on FacebookTweet on Twitter


China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuan on Wednesday said Philippines’s remarks about concerns for ASEAN regarding Chinese stance on South China Sea do not represent the bloc.

Geng said China looks to work with the ASEAN to complete the draft of a framework of the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC) before midyear.

China dismissed Philippine Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay’s remarks about concerns raised by ASEAN over China in the South China Sea, saying “such comments were only his opinion and does not represent the view of ASEAN as a whole.”

He urged Yasay to follow President Rodrigo Duterte’s policies to improve China-Philippine relations and work with China to resolve the South China Sea disputes through friendly talks.

On Tuesday, ASEAN foreign ministers called for the “full and effective implementation” of the 2012 Declaration on the Conduct (DOC) of Parties in the South China Sea.

Yasay said Southeast Asian countries see China’s installation of weapons systems in the South China Sea as very unsettling and want to prevent militarization, according to media reports.

http://tankler.com/china-infuriated-over-ph-fresh-remarks-on-south-china-sea-12869

 

[TaiShang]

South China Sea Dispute: Why US Carriers Unable to Put Pressure on China

16:36 22.02.2017(updated 16:38 22.02.2017) ， Sputnik News

As the temperature is rising in the South China Sea over the recent freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) launched by the US and further reports that China "has nearly finished" buildings "that could house missiles", a RIA Novosti correspondent explains why the US is unable to put any pressure on Beijing.

© AP Photo/ Fan Yishu/Xinhua

On Saturday, the US navy strike group led by the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier the USS Carl Vinson and consisting of Destroyer Squadron (DESRON), Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108), and aircraft from Carrier Air Wing (CVW) began what the US Navy called "routine operations" in the South China Sea.

China has denounced the patrol for threatening its sovereignty and security in the South China Sea.

"China always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight all countries enjoy under international law. But we are consistently opposed to relevant countries threatening and damaging the sovereignty and security of littoral countries under the flag of freedom of navigation and overflight," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told journalists commenting on the matter.

On Wednesday, Reuters, citing two unnamed US officials, reported that "China has nearly finished building almost two dozen structures on artificial islands in the South China Sea that appear designed to house long-range surface-to-air missiles."

"It is not like the Chinese to build anything in the South China Sea just to build it, and these structures resemble others that house SAM [surface-to-air missiles] batteries, so the logical conclusion is that's what they are for," the agency quotes a US intelligence official as saying.

Another official said the structures appeared to be 20 meters (66 feet) long and 10 meters (33 feet) high.

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said on Wednesday he was aware of the report, though did not say if China was planning on placing missiles on the reefs.

"China carrying out normal construction activities on its own territory, including deploying necessary and appropriate territorial defense facilities, is a normal right under international law for sovereign nations," he told reporters.

Commenting on the recent developments in the area, RIA Novosti political analyst Alexander Khrolenko provided his own take on the risk of a direct military standoff between China and the US, explaining that even though tensions are high, the risk of escalation is actually quite low.
"Washington has not changed its position on the disputed territories and defined water zones in the South China Sea with the election of Donald Trump. Many political analysts see the conflict between the US and China over the issue potentially more dangerous that the disputes between Russia and NATO in Europe," he writes in his article for RIA Novosti.

"However unchanged political rhetoric and the unpredictability of the latest events only demonstrate that any naval clashes off China's coast are very unlikely," the political analyst said, reminding the recent claims of US new defense secretary that there is no need for large-scale US actions in the South China Sea.

He further provided his reasons why the US' policy of "containment of China" is so contradictory.

Up to one third of the world's naval freight traffic volume goes through the South China Sea, as well as 75 per cent of the Middle Eastern crude oil shipments to the Asia Pacific Region, over 40 percent of which are going to China. Over $5 trillion of world trade transit annually (including $1.2 trillion in US trade transits annually) goes through this part of the World Ocean.

© AP Photo/ US Navy

Over a hundred islands and reefs make it easy to efficiently control the shelf which holds deposits of over 5.4 billion barrels of oil and over 55.1 trillion cubic meters of gas (according to the data of the US Department of Energy).

"The growth of China's economic and political influence has the US worried, but they have practically no means to hinder this process. It is not by chance that one of the most influential Chinese papers, People.cn has urged Beijing not to allow the US to disrupt the status quo in the South China Sea," the political analyst said.

He finally stated that it has become evident that the development of China's economy and its armed forces will allow China to further peacefully develop resources of the three adjacent seas and other areas of the World Ocean regardless of the US Washington's will and Pentagon's "signals."

 

[cochine]

US NAVAL WARFARE GROUP NOW IN SOUTH CHINA SEA
Posted on February 19, 2017

Share on FacebookTweet on Twitter


The Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 1 of the United States began routine operations in the South China Sea on February 18.

The warfare group includes Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 1’s Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108), and aircraft from Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 2.

Prior to their operations in the South China Sea, ships and aircraft from within the strike group conducted training off the islands of Hawaii and Guam to maintain and improve their readiness and develop cohesion as a strike group.

The strike group recently enjoyed a port visit to Guam and after departing the Marianas, conducted operations in the Philippine Sea.

“The training completed over the past few weeks has really brought the team together and improved our effectiveness and readiness as a strike group” said Rear Adm. James Kilby, commander, CSG 1.

“We are looking forward to demonstrating those capabilities while building upon existing strong relationships with our allies, partners and friends in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region,” Kilby added.

Vinson first operated in the South China Sea in 1983 and in total, has operated there during 16 previous deployments over its 35 year history.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Navy and Pacific Command leaders has planned to ratchet up potentially provocative operations in the South China Sea by sailing more warships near the increasingly militarized man-made islands that China claims as sovereign territory.

http://tankler.com/ebtsertbe-12676

 

[TaiShang]

The Philippines are cool with China's SCS development efforts:

***

Govt aware of China buildup, says Philippine security adviser

By Leila B. Salaverria
25 February 2017

Philippine Daily Inquirer (Philippines)


MANILA (Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN) - The Philippines’ National Security Adviser says the structures being built by China in the disputed waters could be turned into hangars, but hopefully not as military facilities.

The Philippine government continues to be aware of China’s continued building of structures in the South China Sea, which National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon said could be turned into military facilities.

Esperon said some of the structures could be hangars.

“If they would turn them into military facilities, that would be alarming,” Esperon told reporters at Camp Aguinaldo.

While this is possible, he continues to hope this would not be the case, he said.

Asked what the Philippines would do if China converts the structures into military facilities, he said it would not just be the country that could be expected to take action.

“What would we fight China with?” he added.

 

[cochine]

WATCH: HOME SWEET HOME FOR 5TH, 6TH FA-50PH
Posted on February 22, 2017

Share on FacebookTweet on Twitter


The brand new FA-50 fighter jets of the Philippine Air Force (PAF) arrives in Clark at around 11 a.m. on Wednesday.


Col. Antonio Francisco, PAF spokesman said the two FA-50s, with tail numbers 005 and 006, was delivered by the Korean Aerospace Industries Ltd (KAI) at the Air Force City in Clark Air Base, Pampanga.

This will bring to six the number of fighter jets now in the Air Force inventory and the aircraft are expected to boost its capability.

KAI is expected to complete the delivery of the remaining six fighter jets within the year, according to the PAF spokesman.

The first and second batches of supersonic jets arrived in the Philippines on November 28, 2015 and on December 1, 2016.

The Department of National Defense (DND) sealed the jet acquisition contract with KAI for P18.9 billion.

http://tankler.com/sergh5yhge5-12837

 

[TaiShang]

Cruise ship starts maiden Xisha trip
By Xinhua | China Daily | Updated: 2017-03-03

​

The Changle Gongzhu, or Changle Princess, cruise ship is berthed at a port in Sanya, Hainan province, on Thursday. Guo Cheng/xinhua

SANYA, Hainan - A new cruise ship began its maiden voyage to the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea on Thursday afternoon. The Changle Gongzhu, or Changle Princess, sailed from Sanya with 308 passengers on board.

The new ship is capable of carrying 499 people. It has 82 guest rooms and offers dining, entertainment, shopping, medical treatment and postal services.

The first voyage will last four days and three nights, said an official with Hainan Strait Shipping, the owner of the vessel.

It will arrive in the Xisha Islands on Friday morning. Passengers can visit the islands of Yinyu, Quanfu and Yagong.

Hainan Strait Shipping began cruises to the Xisha Islands in 2013.

 

[cochine]

Aggressive China “makes rod for its own back”
VietNamNet would like to introduce an article by expert Pham Ngoc Minh Trang analyzing the absurdity of the views of China and pro-Sino scholars against the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling (PCA).

A photo taken of works built by China on Gaven Reef on February 19, 2015 by the Philippine army.


Argument: The Philippines violated commitments on dispute settlement by negotiation that were stipulated in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea (DOC) and other agreements.

China said that the Philippines and China, through the DOC and the other bilateral agreements between the two countries, had committed to resolve disputes in the East Sea (internationally known as the South China Sea) through negotiations only. Therefore, the Philippines’ case against China at the PCA was against the commitments made by the Philippines, and China did not recognize the whole proceedings, as well as jurisdiction and any verdict of the PCA.

In the ruling on the jurisdiction, the PCA affirmed that the DOC as well as bilateral agreements between the Philippines and China are not legally binding documents. [1] Thus, the Philippines’ use of the dispute settlement mechanism of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) to settle disputes with China in the East Sea through the PCA did not violate the provisions of the UNCLOS, as well as the obligations of the Philippines under international law. The PCA is absolutely competent in resolving this dispute.

The photo taken on February 19, 2015 by the Philippine military shows the construction scale of China on the Gaven Reef in Truong Sa (Spratlys Islands), Vietnam. Photo: EPA

In addition, Article 288 of the UNCLOS stipulates that if there is any dispute between the parties on the jurisdiction of the PCA, the PCA shall have full power to consider whether the PCA has jurisdiction or not. On October 29th 2015, the Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to resolve a number of requests in the petition of the Philippines. On July 12th 2016, the PCA continued to assert its jurisdiction over the remaining requirements, as well as to draw conclusions about the content of each issue.

The PCA also emphasized that its ruling is final and legally binding on the parties involved in the case - the Philippines and China. Therefore, the Chinese statement of objections and their not adhering to the PCA’s ruling do not affect the legal validity of the decision. This act is contrary, if not a flagrant violation of international law and commitments that China has made as a member of UNCLOS.

Other arguments

In addition, there are also other arguments of pro-China scholars focusing on the legitimacy of the PCA. For example, the argument attacking the former director of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), judge Shunji Yanai. They said that Mr. Yanai is a Japanese and the one who chose the arbitrators for the case between the Philippines and China, so it would be certainly unfair and impartial.

Also there are the arguments that as the PCA had only five arbitrators, their ruling is not persuasive as the rulings given by other International Courts as the ITLOS (21 judges) or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (15 judges). But those who made this argument have forgotten that China’s refusal to appear at the Court led to the two legal consequences.

China would have been able to accept the claim of the Philippines and select the ITLOS or the ICJ to resolve the dispute. But China chose to be absent from the Court. Therefore, pursuant to Article 287 of the UNCLOS, a party in the dispute can unilaterally lodge its claim to the International Court. The court that accepts the case would be the Court of Arbitration under the Annex VII.

China would have been able to solve the dispute with the Philippines at the Court of Arbitration under Appendix VII and China would have had the right to select the arbitrators as its wish. But China chose to boycott the case. Thus, as defined in Article 3 of Annex VII of UNCLOS, the director of the ITLOS has to choose arbitrators because of the absence.

And up to now, China has made statements and actions representing views of not complying with a ruling made by the PCA on July 12, 2015. This behavior of China is justified that under Article 38, the regulation on the PCA is not in main sources of international law, so if China does not obey the ruling of the PCA, it does not mean that it is breaking international law. Legally, this argument is completely wrong.

As noted above, Article 296 of UNCLOS provides that the judgment of the International Court or the Court of Arbitration established under the UNCLOS (Annex VII) shall be final and binding to the parties mentioned in the ruling. China, though it did not appear at the Court, is still a party in the ruling, therefore it is obliged to implement this ruling. Otherwise, China will violate Article 296 of UNCLOS - this is a source of international law; thus, China does not comply with international law.

Finally, there is an argument that if China withdraws from the UNCLOS, China can avoid the implementation of the PCA’s ruling. This argument is hardly persuasive under the following two points. Firstly, under Article 317 of UNCLOS, member states have the right to denounce UNCLOS, but the denunciation does not include an obligation to implement the ruling in at least one year after it makesa declaration of withdrawal.

Secondly, as a member of UNCLOS, China benefits greatly from the provisions of UNCLOS, especially the institutions of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf. Thus, it is likely that China will not refuse these benefits only to evade the implementation of the ruling made on July 12, 2016

Conclusion

The arguments against the establishment of, competence, and the ruling and the legitimacy of the Court of Arbitration Annex VII solving the lawsuit between the Philippines and China from China and pro-China scholars may be dismissed logically and legally under international law. The PCA was very careful to split the proceedings into two different sessions. One session was held only to consider jurisdiction and the other to settle the dispute.

The final ruling of more than 500 pages thoroughly resolves each claim of the Philippines, showing the details of the court, and the coherence in each arguments of the judges. Therefore, China’s arguments against the court and its ruling show an attitude of disregarding justice and the superficial study of international law of the sea in particular and international law in general.

Pham Ngoc Minh Trang

Faculty of International Relations, HCM City University of Social Sciences and Humanities

-----

 

[samsara]

Aggressive China “makes rod for its own back”
VietNamNet would like to introduce an article by expert Pham Ngoc Minh Trang analyzing the absurdity of the views of China and pro-Sino scholars against the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling (PCA).

A photo taken of works built by China on Gaven Reef on February 19, 2015 by the Philippine army.


Argument: The Philippines violated commitments on dispute settlement by negotiation that were stipulated in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea (DOC) and other agreements.

China said that the Philippines and China, through the DOC and the other bilateral agreements between the two countries, had committed to resolve disputes in the East Sea (internationally known as the South China Sea) through negotiations only. Therefore, the Philippines’ case against China at the PCA was against the commitments made by the Philippines, and China did not recognize the whole proceedings, as well as jurisdiction and any verdict of the PCA.

In the ruling on the jurisdiction, the PCA affirmed that the DOC as well as bilateral agreements between the Philippines and China are not legally binding documents. [1] Thus, the Philippines’ use of the dispute settlement mechanism of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) to settle disputes with China in the East Sea through the PCA did not violate the provisions of the UNCLOS, as well as the obligations of the Philippines under international law. The PCA is absolutely competent in resolving this dispute.

The photo taken on February 19, 2015 by the Philippine military shows the construction scale of China on the Gaven Reef in Truong Sa (Spratlys Islands), Vietnam. Photo: EPA

In addition, Article 288 of the UNCLOS stipulates that if there is any dispute between the parties on the jurisdiction of the PCA, the PCA shall have full power to consider whether the PCA has jurisdiction or not. On October 29th 2015, the Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to resolve a number of requests in the petition of the Philippines. On July 12th 2016, the PCA continued to assert its jurisdiction over the remaining requirements, as well as to draw conclusions about the content of each issue.

The PCA also emphasized that its ruling is final and legally binding on the parties involved in the case - the Philippines and China. Therefore, the Chinese statement of objections and their not adhering to the PCA’s ruling do not affect the legal validity of the decision. This act is contrary, if not a flagrant violation of international law and commitments that China has made as a member of UNCLOS.

Other arguments

In addition, there are also other arguments of pro-China scholars focusing on the legitimacy of the PCA. For example, the argument attacking the former director of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), judge Shunji Yanai. They said that Mr. Yanai is a Japanese and the one who chose the arbitrators for the case between the Philippines and China, so it would be certainly unfair and impartial.

Also there are the arguments that as the PCA had only five arbitrators, their ruling is not persuasive as the rulings given by other International Courts as the ITLOS (21 judges) or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (15 judges). But those who made this argument have forgotten that China’s refusal to appear at the Court led to the two legal consequences.

China would have been able to accept the claim of the Philippines and select the ITLOS or the ICJ to resolve the dispute. But China chose to be absent from the Court. Therefore, pursuant to Article 287 of the UNCLOS, a party in the dispute can unilaterally lodge its claim to the International Court. The court that accepts the case would be the Court of Arbitration under the Annex VII.

China would have been able to solve the dispute with the Philippines at the Court of Arbitration under Appendix VII and China would have had the right to select the arbitrators as its wish. But China chose to boycott the case. Thus, as defined in Article 3 of Annex VII of UNCLOS, the director of the ITLOS has to choose arbitrators because of the absence.

And up to now, China has made statements and actions representing views of not complying with a ruling made by the PCA on July 12, 2015. This behavior of China is justified that under Article 38, the regulation on the PCA is not in main sources of international law, so if China does not obey the ruling of the PCA, it does not mean that it is breaking international law. Legally, this argument is completely wrong.

As noted above, Article 296 of UNCLOS provides that the judgment of the International Court or the Court of Arbitration established under the UNCLOS (Annex VII) shall be final and binding to the parties mentioned in the ruling. China, though it did not appear at the Court, is still a party in the ruling, therefore it is obliged to implement this ruling. Otherwise, China will violate Article 296 of UNCLOS - this is a source of international law; thus, China does not comply with international law.

Finally, there is an argument that if China withdraws from the UNCLOS, China can avoid the implementation of the PCA’s ruling. This argument is hardly persuasive under the following two points. Firstly, under Article 317 of UNCLOS, member states have the right to denounce UNCLOS, but the denunciation does not include an obligation to implement the ruling in at least one year after it makesa declaration of withdrawal.

Secondly, as a member of UNCLOS, China benefits greatly from the provisions of UNCLOS, especially the institutions of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf. Thus, it is likely that China will not refuse these benefits only to evade the implementation of the ruling made on July 12, 2016

Conclusion

The arguments against the establishment of, competence, and the ruling and the legitimacy of the Court of Arbitration Annex VII solving the lawsuit between the Philippines and China from China and pro-China scholars may be dismissed logically and legally under international law. The PCA was very careful to split the proceedings into two different sessions. One session was held only to consider jurisdiction and the other to settle the dispute.

The final ruling of more than 500 pages thoroughly resolves each claim of the Philippines, showing the details of the court, and the coherence in each arguments of the judges. Therefore, China’s arguments against the court and its ruling show an attitude of disregarding justice and the superficial study of international law of the sea in particular and international law in general.

Pham Ngoc Minh Trang

Faculty of International Relations, HCM City University of Social Sciences and Humanities

-----

Vietnam is on its own if it wanna use the Kangaroo Court's ruling as the bargain tool with China over the South China Sea. The Philippines itself already ditched the faux and toothless ruling of the 3-person tribunal panel, now it can only lament upon the million dollars wasted for paying those three fortunate judges who laughed all the ways to their bank accounts. Think it may claim the reimbursement from Washington that had cheated it to proceed as such. Neither we hear anything from MAS and BRN govts sounding the Kangaroo Court's decisions.

Now the Vietnam is on its own among the claimants if it insist on chasing claims based on that invalidated ruling. Wanna see what the Viets can do over this issue aside from crying foul loudly. I dare Viet to ask the help from NATO force to back it up to see if it works its way lol

Ignorance is bliss, reality is not.

 

[cochine]

Last update 10:03 | 24/02/2017



Vietnam urges responsible behaviour in East Sea
Vietnam has reiterated its sovereignty over the Truong Sa (Spratly) and Hoang Sa (Paracels) archipelagoes, and held that all construction and reclamation at the two archipelagoes without Vietnam’s permission are illegal.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Le Hai Binh


Foreign Ministry spokesperson Le Hai Binh made the statement on February 23 in responding to reporters’ question on Vietnam’s reaction to reports that China has almost completed the construction of more than 20 structures which could be storage facilities of long-range surface-to-air missile on artificial islands in the East Sea.

“Vietnam has sufficient legal grounds and historical evidence” to prove its sovereignty over the two archipelagos, Binh said, adding that Vietnam will verify the information.

He highlighted Vietnam’s consistent stance on settling disputes in the East Sea by peaceful measures in line with international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and with full and effective observance of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea.

“Vietnam urges related parties to behave in a responsible manner and refrain from taking any action that can further complicate the situation, particularly militarization that threatens peace, stability, security, safety and freedom of navigation and overflight in the East Sea,” he said.

VNA

 

[terranMarine]

Burning down foreign factories and killing people with forbidden chemical weapon are illegal

 

[cochine]

Last update 09:38 | 01/03/2017



Vietnam rejects China’s new fishing regulations
Vietnam resolutely opposes and rejects China’s new regulations on a fishing break at sea, Foreign Ministry’s spokesman Le Hai Binh has said.

Foreign Ministry’s spokesman Le Hai Binh


He made the statement on February 28 in response to reporters’ queries about the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture’s official announcement on the application of the regulations, which also cover some waters areas of Vietnam.

The spokesman emphasised that Vietnam has sufficient legal ground and historical evidence affirming its sovereignty over Hoang Sa (Paracel) archipelago as well as legitimate rights over its waters in line with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Such unilateral decision made by China is a serious violation of Vietnam’s sovereignty over Hoang Sa, as well as her legal rights and interests over her waters, and international law, including the 1982 UNCLOS and relevant international legal documents. It runs counter to the spirit and wording of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea (DOC), and makes the East Sea situation continuously complicated and tense, Binh stated.

VNA