Brumby
Major
What the Philippines is doing is within the provisions of ICJ proceedings. There are established cases and is not without precedent.Really? Did the Philippines miss the memo on that?
What the Philippines is doing is within the provisions of ICJ proceedings. There are established cases and is not without precedent.Really? Did the Philippines miss the memo on that?
The Senkaku is therefore not considered disputed since PRC had never filed for ICJ arbitration.
If PRC actually has empirical evidence then why do they not file it up to ICJ? As I had written above Japan is a compulsory member of ICJ so Japan cannot refuse arbitration and accept any rulings. Bottom line Japan has no worries in the world of losing.
Japan has three times in the past in which SK had refused to go to ICJ. For ICJ to take up a case, both parties is required to agree but once filed, it is considered disputed territory.
The Senkaku is therefore not considered disputed since PRC had never filed for ICJ arbitration. With Japan being a compulsory member once filed by PRC it automatically goes to court since Japan cannot refuse.
You argument contradicts. Since SK has refused to take the issue to ICJ, no case with ICJ is filed. In the case of Diaoyu/Senkaku, the PRC has decided not to take the issue to ICJ. (Probably prefers to resolve through other means.) Yet you say because of that, a dispute does not exist because no case is filed with ICJ. Well, no case is filed with ICJ over Dokdo/Takeshima therefore no dispute exists given your rationale. Are you in agreement that no dispute exists over Dokdo and it is Korean territory just so I have clarification on your position?
I agree China's actions are disproportional to other claimants actions; I still say you hold China to higher standards. The two are not mutually exclusive.So are you agreeing that China's actions are not meeting the proportional principle in accordance with international law? Do we have a resolution regarding your assertion that a higher standard is being placed on China so that we can put this issue to bed?
See post #418 above.If PRC actually has empirical evidence then why do they not file it up to ICJ? As I had written above Japan is a compulsory member of ICJ so Japan cannot refuse arbitration and accept any rulings. Bottom line Japan has no worries in the world of losing.
I still say you hold China to higher standards.
Because China has very good reason to be suspicious of the impartiality of western dominated instructions.
Could it possibly be that the reason you keep harping on about the ICJ is because you agree with me and think Japan's buddies in Washington and elsewhere will call in every favour and use every trick in the book to make sure China never wins any case it files against Japan no matter how good its evidence?
That's the true reason you think Japan has no worries at all of loosing, and why China will refuse to fall for such an obvious trick.
Nothing prevents Japan from filing with the ICJ, as it's perfectly free to do so even if China objects. However, why chance events in third-party hands, if it's not absolutely necessary? Aside from setting a precedence for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to drag you in court, there's the distinct possibility of losing the case too. Why do you think the US avoids the ICJ when possible, and ignores its rulings when it doesn't like them? Yes, that's right, because it can.
See post #418 above.