Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[Peter]

Easily...The concept of 'sovereignty' rests upon respect, meaning that it is not enough that you claim to be a 'sovereign' over a territory, but that also others must respect that claim as well.

Sovereignty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What is this? You pulled this definition from the Internet without a clue of what the reality out there is ... to refute me!? You must be desperated

Let's examine it okay ...

Sovereign authority is exercised within borders - islands are outside of borders ... for grap

but also, by definition, with respect to outsiders, who may not interfere with the sovereign's governance. - China respects Vietnam, is she not? Has China invaded the islands that Vietnam exercised its sovereign authority within borders of the islands and controlled by Vietnam?

So, what is your point or should I say "pointless"?

So if China does not respect Viet Nam's sovereignty over the islands, it does not matter if China has absolute control over some of them, China's claim of sovereignty will not be respected, hence, China does not have sovereignty over them. The respect works both ways: I do not interfere with your borders. You do not interfere with mine. If that respect exists, sovereignty exists.

China does respect Viet Nam's sovereignty over some of the islands that Vietnam exercised its sovereign authority within those islands' borders. What else do you want?

You're right:

You flunked.

 

[gambit]

What is this? You pulled this definition from the Internet without a clue of what the reality out there is ... to refute me!? You must be desperated

Let's examine it okay ...

Sovereign authority is exercised within borders - islands are outside of borders ... for grap

Right...Does that mean the US does not have sovereignty over the State of Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico? Or how about Taiwan? That island is well outside of the 12-mile limit that China declared to be territorial waters. So by your simplistic argument, the PRC does not have any sovereignty claim to Taiwan, correct? How many islands in the world that are under the sovereignty of a continental State? How about island nation-states, do they lose sovereignty over other islands? Google is your friend. Use it.

You are hilarious in continuing to make a fool out of yourself this way......You lost all credibility regarding the issue of sovereignty.

 

[Peter]

Right...Does that mean the US does not have sovereignty over the State of Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico? Or how about Taiwan? That island is well outside of the 12-mile limit that China declared to be territorial waters. So by your simplistic argument, the PRC does not have any sovereignty claim to Taiwan, correct? How many islands in the world that are under the sovereignty of a continental State? How about island nation-states, do they lose sovereignty over other islands? Google is your friend. Use it.

You are hilarious in continuing to make a fool out of yourself this way......You lost all credibility regarding the issue of sovereignty.

Dude, you're so hilariously dense. No kidding man ...

Did you not read that I also asked and said:

Has China invaded the islands that Vietnam exercised its sovereign authority within borders of the islands and controlled by Vietnam?
...
China does respect Viet Nam's sovereignty over some of the islands that Vietnam exercised its sovereign authority within those islands' borders.

Definitely, you do have serious reading comprehension of the English language, Gambit!

In simple English, let I simplify it so you can learn something...

1. Sovereign authority is exercised within borders - So islands are outside of borders ... for grap
2. And then, if you can grap any island at all and control it, of course you will have sovereign authority is exercised within borders of that island.

About State of Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico are examples of what I am trying to say above, am I not. You just have problem of selective reading and understanding; that's all!

 

[gambit]

Dude, you're so hilariously dense. No kidding man ...

Did you not read that I also asked and said:



Definitely, you do have serious reading comprehension of the English language, Gambit!

In simple English, let I simplify it so you can learn something...

1. Sovereign authority is exercised within borders - So islands are outside of borders ... for grap
2. And then, if you can grap any island at all and control it, of course you will have sovereign authority is exercised within borders of that island.

About State of Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico are examples of what I am trying to say above, am I not. You just have problem of selective reading and understanding; that's all!

Yeah...We will leave you to tap-dance around this. I see no reason to continue this 'sovereignty' issue further. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Liang1a]

What is this? You pulled this definition from the Internet without a clue of what the reality out there is ... to refute me!? You must be desperated

Let's examine it okay ...

Sovereign authority is exercised within borders - islands are outside of borders ... for grap

but also, by definition, with respect to outsiders, who may not interfere with the sovereign's governance. - China respects Vietnam, is she not? Has China invaded the islands that Vietnam exercised its sovereign authority within borders of the islands and controlled by Vietnam?

So, what is your point or should I say "pointless"?




China does respect Viet Nam's sovereignty over some of the islands that Vietnam exercised its sovereign authority within those islands' borders. What else do you want?

You're right:

You people don't have any idea what sovereignty is or sovereignty is established. Sovereignty is established by international common laws that require a country to claim sovereignty over a territory that is terra nullius or unoccupied land and then maintain occupation and control over it. Forcibly conquering an occupied territory is illegal and the former sovereign owner can use force to take it back. Therefore, the sovereignty of Nansha A., Xisha A. and other archipelagos in the S. China Sea belongs to China because China is the first one to discover them in the 3rd Century BC over 2,000 years ago. China had incorporated these archipelagos into its administrative maps since the Tang Dynasty around 700 AD and has maintained and asserted its sovereignty ever since. Vietnam by its own admission had "discovered" Nansha and Xisha only in the 17th Century when it was no longer terra nullius. Since China had already discovered and established sovereignty over these islands and features, it is not legal for Vietnam to claim sovereignty over them. Vietnam would be invading China's sovereign territories by falsely claiming something that is already China's sovereign territories. Even though Vietnam is currently occupying some of the islands, it is nothing more than unlawful invasion and China has the sovereign right to use force to compel it to leave.

Vietnam is also claiming the islands based on succession from France. By a treaty in 1887 France had agreed that all "isles" to the east of meridian of 105 degrees 43 minutes east of Paris will be assigned to China. Since Nansha and Xisha are all to the east of that meridian France had in effect acknowledged that they belong to China. Even though France in 1933 tried to establish some kind of transmission device on the islands they were protested by the Chinese. Therefore, France had never established sovereignty over any islands in question. Or putting it another way, China had never gave up sovereignty over these islands. Therefore, Vietnam cannot succeed to these islands through succession from France.

Therefore, since Vietnam has no sovereignty rights over these islands they cannot lawfully occupy any of them and must immediately vacate these islands or suffer the consequences of China's righteous wrath.

The question of whether Vietnam had agreed or not agreed to China's sovereignty over these islands is immaterial since these islands were never Vietnam's to give. They were China's and they are still China's. Whether Vietnam acknowledge it or not is immaterial. It is in the best interest of Vietnam to acknowledge it and so bring peace to the region and to itself. In the end, Vietnam can benefit more from peace than China. China can develop even if it fought a war against Vietnam.

Many people think it will be very costly for China to fight Vietnam basing their belief on the war against the US. But the US made a mistake of trying to occupy and develop Vietnam. The vietnamese could hide in the jungle and tunnels and so avoided death and capture. Vietnam also had huge amounts of aids from Russia and China with a secure supply line across the border from China. If Vietnam go to war against China today, it will be fighting alone without any help from anybody. Its supply line will be blocked by China on land through Cambodia or Laos and on sea by Chinese navy. Its former ally China will now be its enemy and it will get no help from Russia. Every fighter and frigate and bullet it get from Russia must be paid for with hard currencies. And vietnam doesn't have a lot of that. China on the other hand can independently make all its weapons from fighters to frigates to submarines to anti-ship missiles and many more at much lower cost and without needing any foreign currencies. And the most important strategic difference is that China is not fighting to occupy Vietnam but only to blow it out of the islands which Vietnam could not defend without air dominance and sea dominance. Once China has destroyed Vietnam's tiny airforce and navy, China would be the one with air and sea dominance. Therefore, Vietnam cannot fight China to occupy these islands.

Vietnam might recruit the US as its new ally. But America is now on the verge of economic collapse. And even if it could avert a financial default it will still have many years of hard work to get its economy back in order. It is simply not in any shape to fight China which is now the second most powerful military force in the world with an economy in purchasing power parity terms is just 10% or less behind the US. And china is in much better economic shape than the US. So China can be expected to expand rapidly to overtake the US while the US will be lucky not to contract. Therefore, the US can bluff but will have to back down if China called its bluff.

The situation being what it is, Vietnam has no viable option but to leave the Chinese sovereign islands as soon as possible. The fact that Vietnam is continuing to occupy these Chinese islands for so long is due entirely to China's benevolence of trying to avoid wars. But in the end, with more Chinese people being offended by Vietnam's arrogance and calling for the use of military force to blow the Vietnamese away the next Chinese government will very likely take a more militaristic path to Vietnam. While China can go on developing economically without breaking a single stride, Vietnam will be devasted by war. This may be Vietnam's last chance for peace.

 

[gambit]

You people don't have any idea what sovereignty is or sovereignty is established. Sovereignty is established by international common law that require a country to claim sovereignty over a territory that is terra nullius or unoccupied land and then maintain occupation and control over it. Forcibly conquering an occupied territory is illegal and the former sovereign owner can use force to take it back. Therefore, the sovereignty of Nansha A., Xisha A. and other archipelagos in the S. China Sea belong to China because China is the first one to discover them in the 3re Century BC over 2,000 years ago. China had incorporated these archipelagos into its administrative maps since the Tang Dynasty around 700 AD and has maintained and asserted its sovereignty ever since. Vietnam by its own admission had "discovered" Nansha and Xisha only in the 17th Century when it was no longer terra nullius. Since China had already discovered and established sovereignty over these islands and features, it is not legal for Vietnam to claim sovereignty over them. Vietnam would be invading China's sovereign territories by falsely claiming something that is already China's sovereign territories. Even though Vietnam is currently occupying some of the islands, it is nothing more than unlawful invasion and China has the sovereign right to use force to compel it to leave.

Vietnam is also claiming the islands based on succession from France. By a treaty in 1887 France had agreed that all "isles" to the meridian of 105 degrees 43 minutes east of Paris will be assigned to China. Since Nansha and Xisha are all to that meridian France had in effect acknowledged that they belong to China. Even though France in 1933 tried to establish some kind of transmission device on the islands they were protested by the Chinese. Therefore, France had never established sovereignty over any islands in question. Therefore, Vietnam cannot succeed to these islands through succession from France.

Historical legitimacy is a separate issue. This is about the legitimacy of the 1958 North Viet Nam response to China because it was construed to be either an admittance of sovereignty by China or a concession/reversion of sovereignty of the same to China. There are plenty of arguments that considers the historical aspects of this...

Vietnamese Claims to the Truong Sa Archipelago [Ed. Spratly Islands]

Most agree that the Chinese were probably the first to find the islands,...

Because of these state-sponsored economic activities, the Le dynasty considered the archipelago to be part of Vietnamese territory.[19]

This de facto sovereignty over the Truong Sa chain is confirmed by European sources. Portuguese and Dutch maps drawn by navigators in the early 17th century identify the islands as Vietnamese.

 

[Liang1a]

Historical legitimacy is a separate issue. This is about the legitimacy of the 1958 North Viet Nam response to China because it was construed to be either an admittance of sovereignty by China or a concession/reversion of sovereignty of the same to China. There are plenty of arguments that considers the historical aspects of this...

Historical legitimacy is the entire issue. Once China has established its sovereignty, the issue is no longer debatable. It does not matter what the Vietnamese think or what the Europeans think. China has the sovereign right to defend its sovereign territories. It is like Vietnam claiming Hawaii. Just because Vietnam claimed Hawaii and the Japanese supported that claim will not make it legitimate. America will still have the right to defend it.

Therefore, just because Vietnam might deny it had conceded sovereignty to China does not mean Vietnam has sovereignty over these islands. Once China has established sovereignty over these islands what Vietnam chose to concede or revert or not to concede or not to revert is immaterial. China does not need Vietnam's admittance of China's sovereignty over these islands. And Vietnam cannot revert to China what Vietnam never had.

 

[gambit]

Historical legitimacy is the entire issue. Once China has established its sovereignty, the issue is no longer debatable. It does not matter what the Vietnamese think or what the Europeans think. China has the sovereign right to defend its sovereign territories. It is like Vietnam claiming Hawaii. Just because Vietnam claimed Hawaii and the Japanese supported that claim will not make it legitimate. America will still have the right to defend it.

Therefore, just because Vietnam might deny it had conceded sovereignty to China does not mean Vietnam has sovereignty over these islands. Once China has established sovereignty over these islands what Vietnam chose to concede or revert or not to concede or not to revert is immaterial. China does not need Vietnam's admittance of China's sovereignty over these islands. And Vietnam cannot revert to China what Vietnam never had.

No, it is not. At best it is only partially valid in this debate. International law recognizes that knowledge (discovery) alone is insufficient to confer sovereignty. Knowledge as illustrated on maps or transferred through folklore is insufficient. Even occupation after discovery can be deemed insufficient. The occupier must be duly representatives of State, in other words, they must be capable of 'presence of State' over time. Opportunistic fishermen are not representatives of State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_(sovereignty_transfer)

In law, prescription is the method of sovereignty transfer of a territory through international law analogous to the common law doctrine of adverse possession for private real-estate. Prescription involves the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory in question for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign. This doctrine legalizes de jure the de facto transfer of sovereignty caused in part by the original sovereign's extended negligence and/or neglect of the area in question.

Acquiring a piece of movable or immovable property by prescription is known as "acquisitive prescription" while losing property or a right is known as "extinctive prescription".

When sovereignty is in dispute, the final method of resolution is 'prescription' and it is usually time dependent. Sovereignty via prescription is conferred after an examination of facts inquiring if a claimant has established 'presence of State' over a certain amount of time and that if such possession is taken away negative international consequences would be inevitable. Prescription is legitimization AFTER the fact.

Just in case you think am making this stuff up...

http://www.iranreview.org/content/D...ver_Three_Iranian_Islands_in_Persian_Gulf.htm

Officialdom of the map is a reason which refutes British viewpoints that the islands were not owned by any country at that time. (1) On the other hand, lawyers as well as creditable legal sources and international arbiters have always agreed that to own a land by relying on the principle of continued possession or prescription, that land should have been possessed in peaceful ways and without interruption.

International Court of Justice

After summarizing the arguments advanced by each of the Parties the Court observes that they agree between themselves that acquisitive prescription is recognized in international law and that they further agree on the conditions under which title to territory may be acquired by prescription, but that their views differ on whether those conditions are satisfied in this case. Their disagreement relates primarily to the legal inferences which may be drawn from the presence on Kasikili/Sedudu Island of the Masubia of Eastern Caprivi: while Namibia bases its argument primarily on that presence, considered in the light of the concept of "indirect rule", to claim that its predecessors exercised title-generating State authority over the Island, Botswana sees this as simply a "private" activity, without any relevance in the eyes of international law.

The issue is not if one agree with ICJ regarding Botswana v Namibia territorial dispute. The issue is that the 'prescription' mode of assigning territorial sovereignty in a dispute is a valid resolution.

Viet Nam has proved beyond reasonable doubt that under the time requirement rule for prescritive acquisition of the islands, the islands were continuously occupied and administered through various agencies -- Vietnamese and French -- regardless of who discovered them first.

 

[NiceGuy]

Historical legitimacy is the entire issue. Once China has established its sovereignty, the issue is no longer debatable. It does not matter what the Vietnamese think or what the Europeans think. China has the sovereign right to defend its sovereign territories. It is like Vietnam claiming Hawaii. Just because Vietnam claimed Hawaii and the Japanese supported that claim will not make it legitimate. America will still have the right to defend it.

Therefore, just because Vietnam might deny it had conceded sovereignty to China does not mean Vietnam has sovereignty over these islands. Once China has established sovereignty over these islands what Vietnam chose to concede or revert or not to concede or not to revert is immaterial. China does not need Vietnam's admittance of China's sovereignty over these islands. And Vietnam cannot revert to China what Vietnam never had.

We declare the sovereignty over those is lands and sent troops to protect in 1836, during Nguyen dynasty, so where were CHina troops ??you have No envidence to prove that: VN killed you fishermen and robed islands form CHina. Don't try to take what don't belong to you. Take Taiwan back first if you have the Guts, Mr.Ah Q.

 

[Liang1a]

No, it is not. At best it is only partially valid in this debate. International law recognizes that knowledge (discovery) alone is insufficient to confer sovereignty. Knowledge as illustrated on maps or transferred through folklore is insufficient. Even occupation after discovery can be deemed insufficient. The occupier must be duly representatives of State, in other words, they must be capable of 'presence of State' over time. Opportunistic fishermen are not representatives of State.



When sovereignty is in dispute, the final method of resolution is 'prescription' and it is usually time dependent. Sovereignty via prescription is conferred after an examination of facts inquiring if a claimant has established 'presence of State' over a certain amount of time and that if such possession is taken away negative international consequences would be inevitable. Prescription is legitimization AFTER the fact.

Just in case you think am making this stuff up...




The issue is not if one agree with ICJ regarding Botswana v Namibia territorial dispute. The issue is that the 'prescription' mode of assigning territorial sovereignty in a dispute is a valid resolution.

Viet Nam has proved beyond reasonable doubt that under the time requirement rule for prescritive acquisition of the islands, the islands were continuously occupied and administered through various agencies -- Vietnamese and French -- regardless of who discovered them first.

-------------------------------------------------------------
First you have apparently missed the most essential point about prescription:

"Prescription involves the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory in question for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign."

See the part about "without protest or other contest by the original sovereign"? This means that if China as the original sovereign objected then the whole argument about Vietnam acquiring sovereignty based on prescription falls down on its face even if prescription were valid to begin with.

Obviously it is foolish for China to be patient and forbearing with Vietnam. China is not conversant with international laws or at least international law as defined by the West. Therefore, the best thing for China to do is to use force as soon as possible to retake its sovereign territories. Then China can use the prescription as well as uti possidetis in addition to historical sovereignty to justify its sovereignty.

Second, since prescription is used by a nation that does not have sovereignty to encroach onto the sovereign land of another country, the fact that Vietnam is using prescription as its justification for sovereignty over these islands it is an admission that the sovereignty belongs to China. Therefore, since Vietnam has acknowledged that China has the sovereignty and since China has "protested" and done "other contest" against Vietnam's illegal incroachment onto China's sovereign territories, there is no doubt that the sovereignty of these islands belong to China. And China has the right to use force to remove the invaders.

As I said before China had established sovereignty over these islands by incorporating them into China's administrative map since the Tang Dynasty and reasserted its sovereignty in every dynasty since down to the present day that is the ROC and PROC governments.

 

[Liang1a]

We declare the sovereignty over those is lands and sent troops to protect in 1836, during Nguyen dynasty, so where were CHina troops ??you have No envidence to prove that: VN killed you fishermen and robed islands form CHina. Don't try to take what don't belong to you. Take Taiwan back first if you have the Guts, Mr.Ah Q.

China had protested which is enough to sustain its sovereignty. You admitted yourself that you killed Chinese fishermen and "robed" (sic) islands from China. That is, you admitted you had stolen these islands from China. Now it is time for China to take back its sovereign islands. China has been patient with you Vietnamese. But this patience has been mistaken for lack of courage. It is obviously the time to let the Vietnamese know the sterner side of China.

As to taking back Taiwan, there is no hurry. The mainland and Taiwan are already becoming much closer. In due time the two brothers will be reunited. Already millions of Taiwan brothers are living and working in the mainland and trade and tourism are flourishing for the benefit of both. China has been hoping for the same mutually beneficial relationship with Vietnam. But it is obviously mistaken for the lack of courage. Time to correct that error.

 

[NiceGuy]

Second, since prescription is used by a nation that does not have sovereignty to encroach onto the sovereign land of another country, the fact that Vietnam is using prescription as its justification for sovereignty over these islands it is an admission that the sovereignty belongs to China. Therefore, since Vietnam has acknowledged that China has the sovereignty and since China has "protested" and done "other contest" against Vietnam's illegal incroachment onto China's sovereign territories, there is no doubt that the sovereignty of these islands belong to China. And China has the right to use force to remove the invaders.

You think your Force is Stronger than VN ??even if your're stronger, we will still fight with you till the last man if you dare to violate our EEZ with your war ship. All know that you scare to death of US. seven fleet, so we will try to invite US to take care of SCS(esat sea) and convince them to sell Powerful weapon, conduct a good training, build up a strong ASEAN association like NATO..etc..

Don't talk about Force with VN, your force means Nothing to us.

 

[Liang1a]

gambit's quote of Wiki:
This doctrine legalizes de jure the de facto transfer of sovereignty caused in part by the original sovereign's extended negligence and/or neglect of the area in question.

Since the latter part of the Qing Dynasty, China was continuously under attack from the West and Japan. It is not due to negligence but to its inability to protect its sovereign territories. Even sicne WW2 China had suffered from civil war and war in Korea and Vietnam which prevented it from exercising full control of these islands. But there is no statute of limitation on the reassertion of control over its sovereign islands. China ceded Taiwan to Japan for 50 years but ultimately recovered it by going to war.

It is also clear that it is futile to persuade Vietnam and the West that China owns these islands. It is always my personal opinion that it is foolish of the Chinese government to be so patient and forbearing with these Asian countries who have been killing and robbing ethnic Chinese in their countries. Therefore, it is time to stop using friendly persuasion of mutual beneficial developments and use military force to take back what rightfully belongs to China and let the chips fall where they may.

Talk is cheap. Military force is what counts!

 

[NiceGuy]

China had protested which is enough to sustain its sovereignty. You admitted yourself that you killed Chinese fishermen and "robed" (sic) islands from China. That is, you admitted you had stolen these islands from China. Now it is time for China to take back its sovereign islands. China has been patient with you Vietnamese. But this patience has been mistaken for lack of courage. It is obviously the time to let the Vietnamese know the sterner side of China.

As to taking back Taiwan, there is no hurry. The mainland and Taiwan are already becoming much closer. In due time the two brothers will be reunited. Already millions of Taiwan brothers are living and working in the mainland and trade and tourism are flourishing for the benefit of both. China has been hoping for the same mutually beneficial relationship with Vietnam. But it is obviously mistaken for the lack of courage. Time to correct that error.

I asmit Nothing, show me the envidence to prove that : we VN killed your fishermen and robed islands from you .If you don't have, so please stop lying here

You never can take back Taiwan, coz you scare to death of US. seven fleet, and bcz you're just gutless Ah Q also.

 

[Liang1a]

niceguy wrote:
You think your Force is Stronger than VN ??even if your're stronger, we will still fight with you till the last man if you dare to violate our EEZ with your war ship. All know that you scare to death of US. seven fleet, so we will try to invite US to take care of SCS(esat sea) and convince them to sell Powerful weapon, conduct a good training, build up a strong ASEAN association like NATO..etc..

Don't talk about Force with VN, your force means Nothing to us.

You are decades out of date. China has everything America has. And what China does not have it can make up the difference with other equalizing weapons. For example, China has deployed DF-21D anti-ship missiles that can sink aircraft carriers up to 2,000 miles away which is outside of combat radius of carrier based fighters. So the American 7th fleet is useless or doesn't even dare to approach S. China Sea.

You are wishing China is scared to death of America. But that is no longer true. China had recently conducted a naval exercise that astounded the Japanese and the Americans with the number of ships and the advanced technologies displayed with UAV all around. There is no military technologies that the US has that China does not have. So be careful you don't walk into a hole.

As to ASEAN, the only 2 countries that dare to look ****-eyed at China are the Philippines and Vietnam. The Philippines and Vietnam are 2 of the poorest countries in ASEAN and I may say the stupidest and the most anti-Chinese. The others are much more friendly and smarter than these 2. Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos are either friendly or neutral. Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are also neutral. Brunei is simply too small to make any difference. So who is going to help Vietnam and Philippines to fight China? And to some degree you're right. Most people in ASEAN still think of China as it was 100 years ago. They don't realize the tremendous progress that has been made since the last 30 years. They also don't realize the change in Japan and the US that has rendered them much weaker both econmically and militarily relative to China.

This is why it would be a healthy thing for China to whack Vietnam and the Philippines. It would be much easier for China to work with ASEAN countries once it has demonstrated its new power. Pleading for friendship is not the best way to get friendship. Knock them down and kick them a few times may be the best way to establish a new friendly relationship.