South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

[Brumby]

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.

 

[plawolf]

The Senkaku is therefore not considered disputed since PRC had never filed for ICJ arbitration.

Utter BS. Filing at the ICJ never has and never will be a measure of whether there is a dispute.

The ICJ is one possible method of resolving the dispute, that is all.

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.

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.

 

[joshuatree]

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?

Filing with the ICJ is not a validation of the existence of a dispute, it is merely an available venue to resolve a dispute.

To tie it back to the SCS, none of the claimants have filed any cases with the ICJ against the other claimants over the territorial disputes here, so again using your rationale, no disputes exist right? The case filed by the Philippines is not a territorial case with the ICJ, it is a UNCLOS EEZ case that may have ended up in the same court.

 

[Brumby]

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?

In international law, the word "dispute" has a legal meaning and not an ordinary meaning as we understand it. Once a "dispute" is formally recognised, the whole legal status changes. I am not familiar with the two different issues mentioned and so I would just stop here.

I would also add that this is a thread on SCS and not ESC.

 

[Blackstone]

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?

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.

 

[Blackstone]

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.

See post #418 above.

 

[Brumby]

I still say you hold China to higher standards.

I am curious to understand how you arrive at such a position. Please elaborate.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

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.

If you believe you can't win at court then blame the court to be corrupt. Very persuasive, not ! !
Stop blaming others.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

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.

Very compelling.. So in other words PRC is not going to court unless it is garanteed to win and not have other nations to follow suit in filing a complaint against PRC.
Very diplomatic. LoL

 

[advill]

Most nations prefer and adhere to International arbitrations and judgements. Examples: Cambodia & Thailand - "Preah Vihear Land around Temple"; Indonesia & Malaysia - "Sipadan & Ligitan Islands"; Singapore and Malaysia " Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh Light house & waters". These are only a few examples that were amiably solved by Southeast Asian nations; so why can't China so the same? The problem has always been that a major economic and military power tends to flex its muscles and disregard smaller countries who they can bully. That's what in the eyes of most countries in the Southeast Asian region feel, although a few are also scared to offend the Chinese because of economic reasons. Not following International rulings would invite criticisms world wide, and could end in serious conflicts.