South China Sea Forum

[Sanchez]

Both of your math and history teachers feel ashamed for what you said

I took it as a compliment! Other Ancient powers declined once for ever but China's different. After all the collapses we are still stronger and above their heads. For the angry Viets in the forum China remains to be unremovable nightmares and that's OK with me.

 

[Penguin]

Isn't that exactly what I've said? The freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations are permitted by international law.

Either on the high seas, or one's EEZ (i.e. there goes China's territorial claim, at least wrt Spratly's)

 

[Solomon2]

The two are completely unrelated. After Japanese declaration to nationalize the Diaoyu island, it was challenged by both PRC & ROC. There were even a three way jousting on the sea between the Taiwan fishing boat, the Japanese coast guard and the Chinese maritime patrol boat. As the result Japan extended an invitation to ROC for a fishing rights agreement just to take ROC out of the equation. As you can see, without resolving the internal issue between PRC & ROC, China does not have a united front to best serve its interest. As such China will delay any meaningful negotiation at this point.

Mmmm, no, I've never heard that PRC diplomats cite this. Probably because it undermines the position that ROC is a wayward province rather than an independent state. I don't see what's wrong with carrying on sea negotiations in earnest and simply ignoring ROC and previous Chinese-only interpretations of previous fishing arrangements.

 

[Viva_Viet]

I took it as a compliment! Other Ancient powers declined once for ever but China's different. After all the collapses we are still stronger and above their heads. For the angry Viets in the forum China remains to be unremovable nightmares and that's OK with me.

In the last collape, CN.lost KoKang,half of Mongol,Senkaku,TW and lots of land to Russia.

I dont see any 'angry'Vnese in this thread,only angry Cnese here after US ships slap on your claim when entering 12miles

 

[boomslang]

Next America will say, now they have a reason to militarize Alaska....

Alaska is a state, chief. And too late on the 'militarize' thing. Been there, done that.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

In the last collape, CN.lost KoKang,half of Mongol,Senkaku,TW and lots of land to Russia.

I dont see any 'angry'Vnese in this thread,only angry Cnese here after US ships slap on your claim when entering 12miles

And China is growing stronger again.

You realised this when you lost the Paracels remember? You didn't collapse but you still lost territory.

When you actually do collapse there will be nothing left. Whereas China always returns after a collapse, as we have done for thousands of years.

 

[boomslang]

....china becoming more imperialist by the year.

Not to mention douches for sanding over live coral.

 

[Viva_Viet]

And China is growing stronger again.

You realised this when you lost the Paracels remember? You didn't collapse but you still lost territory.

When you actually do collapse there will be nothing left. Whereas China always returns after a collapse, as we have done for thousands of years.

We got more lands from Laos-Kam, we focus on expansion to the West. Those rock r useless to us.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Not to mention douches for sanding over live coral.

Coral will hold the weight of worlds.

We got more lands from Laos-Kam, we focus on expansion to the West. Those rock r useless to us.

"Expansion to the west"? LOL what are you talking about?

 

[bobsm]

Australia not to join U.S. operation in South China Sea: FM
English.news.cn 2015-10-29 20:24:16

CANBERRA, Oct. 29 (Xinhua) -- Australia has not been asked to join the United States in sailing warships near Chinese islands in the South China Sea and Australia has no plan to go beyond what it is doing there now, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said on Thursday.

"We have not been asked to join the United States and we have no plans to do other than what we already do," Bishop told media.

She also confirmed reports that two Australian Royal Navy destroyers are now in China for a joint live fire exercise.

"Indeed, we have joint exercises with the United States Navy, we have joint exercises with the Chinese Navy so we will continue to operate in that region," Bishop said.

The Australian newspaper reported Thursday that two Australian Anzac-class frigates are in China and will conduct a live-firing exercise with China's People's Liberation Army navy.

Other cabinet members of Australia had been delivering similar remarks, clarifying Australia's stance on the issue.

Defense Minister Malise Payne said in a statement that "Australia is not involved in the current United States activity in the South China Sea".

Cabinet Secretary Arthur Sinodinos told Sky News that Australia did not have "any plans to do what the United States has done" in relation to freedom of navigation exercises.

Earlier this week, a U.S. navy warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of Chinese islands in the South China Sea, constituting a grave challenge to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

Australia not to join U.S. operation in South China Sea: FM - Xinhua | English.news.cn

 

[jhungary]

Like I've already said, innocent passage have specific protocols to follow. For example you can't launch on board helicopter, you can't turn on your radar etc. Unless the US specifically stated it is exercising innocent passage, the chance are that it is not.
Chinese naval vessels on the other hand are transiting through the Bering Strait, which according to UNCLOS on Straits, is called transit passage, which has less restrictive requirements than innocent passage. The two actions are actually very different legally speaking. And you know what's the biggest difference between the two? That innocent passage can be suspended by the costal state while transit passage cannot be.



Read the definition of international waterway in your own post.

In International Law, international waterways are straits, canals, and rivers that connect two areas of the high seas or enable ocean shipping to reach interior ports on international seas, gulfs, or lakes that otherwise would be land-locked. International waterways also may be rivers that serve as international boundaries or traverse successively two or more states. Ships have a right of passage through international waterways.

The South China Sea by definition does not fall into the category of international waterway, or you can designate the entire world's ocean as international waterway. The below article is the only relevant restriction on artificial structures that it should not interfere with the use of recognized sea lanes. It is designed for narrow waterway and can't certainly be applied to vast sea, as I have yet to see anyone use that article as a justification against the Chinese construction.

Article 60
Artificial islands, installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone
7. Artificial islands, installations and structures and the safety zones around them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation.

OMG........You are still arguing an imagine stuff I NEVER SAID....

Let me dumb it down for you in point, so even you would understand

1.) I Never said SCS is international waterway

2.) SCS is located within International Water (High Seas), intercepting EEZ between China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Philippine

3.) International Waterway is not equal to International Water (High Seas)

4.) Panama Canal is an International Waterway.

5.) International Waterways share the same rights with International Water (High Seas) as per UNCLOS

6.) International Water and International Waterways must remain permanently neutral and demilitarize

7.) I used the Panama Canal example to illustrate why it is wrong to build Military Structure in International Water and International Waterways.

8.) Chinese is militarize the SCS, this is what violating the UNCLOS

9.) As I said many time before, if you are confused about why I use panama canal as an example, I can use Principality of Zealand as an example. to illustrate why it was violating UNCLOS.

There, I never said SCS is international waterways. I used Panama Canal as an example to illustrate why you cannot build Military Structure on any INTERNAIONAL WATER (Be it High Seas, International Waterway, Exclusive Economic Zone or even Contagious Zone)

If you still do not understand what I said, then I can't help you.

Isn't that exactly what I've said? The freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations are permitted by international law.

No, you cannot reclaim something that does not belong to you. Hence when a location is on High Seas, they have too be remain neutral. The question is, only China see the island belong to China (Hence within 12Nm Territorial Water) where Other country (Vietnam, Philippine, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore) all have overlapping EEZ within SCS. So, as per UNCLOS, it would be considered as a High Seas, unless challenged otherwise. (Because if Chinese claim would have valid, then the island would also lies within all other country territorial water.)

China can, either challenge the definition, or leave UNCLOS unilaterally to resolve the problem, as I said many time, you cannot have both.

The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:
(a) freedom of navigation;
(b) freedom of overflight;
(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;
(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;
(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;
(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.

US simply includes all military activities as navigation which China disagrees, at least in its near shore.

Again, this is how UNCLOS works, you either leave, like the US, if you did not agree to the term, or bitch about it and stay in UNCLOS and conform to it's rules, you cannot do both.

 

[BoQ77]

while its main role is anti air anti ballistic, Uss lassen could use below missiles to antiship:
- Harpoon missiles
- SM-2 OTH supersonic missiles
- Tomahawk missiles.

 

[Zsari]

OMG........You are still arguing an imagine stuff I NEVER SAID....

Let me dumb it down for you in point, so even you would understand

1.) I Never said SCS is international waterway

2.) SCS is located within International Water (High Seas), intercepting EEZ between China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Philippine

3.) International Waterway is not equal to International Water (High Seas)

4.) Panama Canal is an International Waterway.

5.) International Waterways share the same rights with International Water (High Seas) as per UNCLOS

6.) International Water and International Waterways must remain permanently neutral and demilitarize

7.) I used the Panama Canal example to illustrate why it is wrong to build Military Structure in International Water and International Waterways.

8.) Chinese is militarize the SCS, this is what violating the UNCLOS

9.) As I said many time before, if you are confused about why I use panama canal as an example, I can use Principality of Zealand as an example. to illustrate why it was violating UNCLOS.

There, I never said SCS is international waterways. I used Panama Canal as an example to illustrate why you cannot build Military Structure on any INTERNAIONAL WATER (Be it High Seas, International Waterway, Exclusive Economic Zone or even Contagious Zone)

If you still do not understand what I said, then I can't help you.

Oh boy. Please quote specific article in UNCLOS. And most importantly, China is building on the territory and territorial water it is claiming, not on the High Sea to begin with. An island/reef in the middle of the Pacific doesn't make it the High Sea.

Either on the high seas, or one's EEZ (i.e. there goes China's territorial claim, at least wrt Spratly's)

Wait, so you mean to say one can build on the high sea, or EEZ but not one's own territory and territorial water? You are joking right?

 

[jhungary]

Oh boy. Please quote specific article in UNCLOS. And most importantly, China is building on the territory and territorial water it is claiming, not on the High Sea to begin with. An island/reef in the middle of the Pacific doesn't make it the High Sea.



Wait, so you mean to say one can build on the high sea, or EEZ but not one's own territory and territorial water? You are joking right?

Article 88, Part VII dictate High Seas must be used for Peaceful purpose only
UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index

Article88

Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes

The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.

And just because you claim something, that does not make something automatically belong to you. If China claim the island of Gibraltar today, should Chinese start constructing in Gibraltar tomorrow?

As I said time and Again, I don't really care if Chinese claim have any legality in it, that's not up to me to decide. The problem I see, is either you stick it out with UNCLOS and conform to its condition and complaint about other aggression on an official channel, or you drop out of UNCLOS and claim and do whatever you want, then you lose the right to complain to others in an official capacity. China, at this moment, are ignoring the UNCLOS and complaining about the US. As I said, you can only do one, not both.

 

[Zsari]

Article 88, Part VII dictate High Seas must be used for Peaceful purpose only
UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index

Lol. Military installation are there to maintain peace in the area, so its for peaceful purpose. Again you cannot change out words in a legal document.

And just because you claim something, that does not make something automatically belong to you. If China claim the island of Gibraltar today, should Chinese start constructing in Gibraltar tomorrow?

If China controls it, then sure it can.