South China Sea Forum

[Bienvenido]

What can a toothless western puppet tribunal do to china today.I think we have made it clear that we legally own the SCS and we don't give a **** about what westerners think.This whole tribunal thing is only a joke that even more funnier than the so call UN army got beaten upside down in NK，this time they don't even have the guts to form an army，lol.

You are just allergic to legal means because you thrive on doing illegal things.

 

[northeast]

You are just allergic to legal means because you thrive on doing illegal things.

We don't need to do what is legal according to westerners' laws.We are the next superpower，we need a new law that fit our own profit like what US and Europe doing.

 

[Bienvenido]

We don't need to do what is legal according to westerners' laws.We are the next superpower，we need a new law that fit our own profit like what US and Europe doing.

Now your accusing the UN arbitration as a westerners' laws is the lamest excuse I've heard from. What next "super power"? If you can't follow the international laws that we have all agreed and signed upon then you have no place in the international community. You should be isolated and sanctioned like your favorite rogue pet N. Korea.

 

[northeast]

Now your accusing the UN arbitration as a westerners' laws is the lamest excuse I've heard from. What next "super power"? If you can't follow the international laws that we have all agreed and signed upon then you have no place in the international community. You should be isolated and sanctioned like your favorite rogue pet N. Korea.

Of course it's westerners' law,and even according to the law,the UN arbitration don't have the right to judge who owns SCS，not to mention they don't have any means to force China to follow their out-dated law.So all these things mean that the whole thing is just another boring ”Blame China” game.

 

[Bienvenido]

Of course they are westerners' law，and even according to the law，the
UN arbitration don't have the right to judge who owns SCS，not to mention they don't have any means to force China to follow their out-dated law.So all these things mean that the whole thing is just another boring ”Blame China” game.

It only proves China don't have any respect. You are enemy of the free world masquerading as friend. You cannot use SCS as "extension chord" to connect your maritime boundary to our territorial waters. Anyway this action does not in anyway complicate the purpose and intent of our country. The same action will not only strengthen our position but will amass sympathies form other countries and the UN as well. No nation who adheres to the principle of the UN will do such thing, unless you are ready to be isolated. The pressure is now yours.

 

[j20dragon]

It only proves China don't have any respect. You are enemy of the free world masquerading as friend. You cannot use SCS as "extension chord" to connect your maritime boundary to our territorial waters. Anyway this action does not in anyway complicate the purpose and intent of our country. The same action will not only strengthen our position but will amass sympathies form other countries and the UN as well. No nation who adheres to the principle of the UN will do such thing, unless you are ready to be isolated. The pressure is now yours.

I always find it laughable that people think the UNCLOS arbitration will force our hand, or can even claim we violate the law. Truth of the matter is, we have the "ace card" which turn UNCLOS into a game of "he says, she says", endless debate without ever providing concrete evidence. Shall we look at our "ace card"?

To understand UNCLOS, everyone must understand that each country has the "right" to make a declaration before ratification of any new law on UNCLOS for what each states agree and NOT agree.

China made this "key" statement, which is extremely important regarding dispute settlement and UNCLOS.

Upon ratification (7 June 1996)1/:

In accordance with the decision of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China at its nineteenth session, the President of the People's Republic of China has hereby ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and at the same time made the following statement:

1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People's Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.

2. The People's Republic of China will effect, through consultations, the delimitation of the boundary of the maritime jurisdiction with the States with coasts opposite or adjacent to China respectively on the basis of international law and in accordance with the principle of equitability.

3. The People's Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.

4. The People's Republic of China reaffirms that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.

Declaration made after ratification (25 August 2006)

Declaration under article 298:

The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.

Shall we look in detail of what we will not agree when ratifying the new law?

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.

Shall we look deeper in the Article 15, 74, 83 that we did not agree with?

Article15

Delimitation of the territorial sea between States

with opposite or adjacent coasts

Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.

Article 74

Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone

between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

1. The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.

2. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV.

3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.

4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement.

Article 83

Delimitation of the continental shelf

between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

1. The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.

2. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV.

3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.

4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the continental shelf shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement.

Fact is we do not accept these articles and disputing states have no right to infringe on our territorial claim when we agreed when ratified UNCLOS. These are what we said when ratified:

"The People's Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992."


In other words, we always reaffirm our territorial claims. It is up to other dispute parties to prove our territorial claims are invalid, which is a tough task considered we have many historical evidence, treaties, and among the legal right of acquiescence of disputing states. If you understand the legal definition of "Acquiescence" in the court of law, you will understand why our territorial rights are unchallenged.

So why didn't we agree to arbitration, you may ask, if we are confident to win any territorial dispute? It's simple. First, there is no legal procedure that can force our hand. Second, we did not violate any UNCLOS by making that "Declaration" and as such UNCLOS credibility is intact when a great power, as China, did not break any agreements we obligated to follow... And lastly, the 9-dotted line may lack sufficient "moral" justification to make a claim, which is why we are hesitated to clearly clarified as a strategic attempt to keep disputing countries from "guessing" or attempting to understand a strategy to advance their interest.

We can win all territorial disputes in the court of law but we will lose the moral justification. We understand this, which is why we will not go to arbitration.

 

[Viet]

I remember Chinese FM Spokeperson Hong Lei saying that "China has sufficient historical and jurisprudence evidence to support its claim to the Nansha islands, which are located in the South China Sea and their adjacent waters."

I was like really? Come on then why can't you submit yourself to the international arbitration body?

If you are a responsible member of the international community, then you should not turn your back but rather face the accusation you are claiming to be false, and prove that it is indeed false. Am I right?

Chinese are naked, their so-called historical and jurisprudence evidence are based on thin air and lie. Good move Pinoy.

 

[j20dragon]

Chinese are naked, their so-called historical and jurisprudence evidence are based on thin air and lie. Good move Pinoy.

Truth is, and every non-observers already know... Your Vietnamese regime is using the same "historical and jurisprudence" to justify their claim. LOL Another fact is when it comes to "understand the law and manipulation of law", both Vietnam and Philippine are not smart enough, which is why your government is hiring western lawyers to fight for you.

 

[walle]

lol this man represented Nicaragua vs the US, the US lost that one but did anything change? They gave the International court the middle finger and carried on their business.

 

[j20dragon]

LOL When it comes to international law, China and the USA are the best at manipulating it to our advantage. We understand each other too well. Different approach, but same outcome. The US chose to ignore UNCLOS completely, while we participated but only the one favorable to our national interest. This give us a leeway to maneuver everything. HAHA I must admit, we Chinese are inherently smarter than most country.

 

[GR!FF!N]

We don't need to do what is legal according to westerners' laws.We are the next superpower，we need a new law that fit our own profit like what US and Europe doing.

But China is still heading the "Westerner's UN's Security Council"????shouldn't they leave that biased and corrupt organisation immediately???or is it China just wants to enjoy all the benefits of UN but oppose to follow its rules??

 

[Minjitta]

I like to say that there is no "beat" but ready to "defend" our self first. Tự cứu trước khi trời cứu. and the model of politic system is both copied from Stalin model, not from China. Problem ís how to change it without riots and violations.

Vn needed to change her society, better education, health care, inftustructor, no corruption, only then the country transforms it self for the better.

 

[EastSea]

no comment.

 

[Soryu]

Vn needed to change her society, better education, health care, inftustructor, no corruption, only then the country transforms it self for the better.

We alway want those thing, all of us, bro.

 

[cirr]

CCG 3174：