Brumby
Major
If you have a problem complain to the moderators. It is not your place to make such judgement.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Wow, what a tape recorder you are. Don't ever accuse others of lack of free-thinking when all you do is parrot one completely defeated line. Context is extremely important to discussion; nothing can be discussed in a vacuum, especially not something as complicated as international affairs. It wouldn't be possible to admire how awesome a basketball player Michael Jordan was without comparing him to the other players. Nice try (as far as your tries go), but no cheddar.
And by the way, if you want to stick strictly on topic, this thread is about China's strategy in the SCS, not how mean you think Chinese mouthpieces are. In other words, anything other than objective analysis of China's actions in the SCS or perhaps recommendations for success, are technically off topic. If you want to moan about how mean China is without regard to what is the norm in this situation, go start a new thread! LOL
Other than that, the same old nag deserves the same old response: if other countries flout these arbitrary rulings or "laws", so can China, and fairly at that.
Last edited:
Your arguments depend on certain assumptions about the nature of the international order and its players, and China's actions in the context of the international order. By making the arguments that you are, you open yourself up to counter arguments that will inevitably examine the assumptions underlying your position.
If you do not want the thread to go off topic, then perhaps considering restricting your own arguments that rely on assumptions beyond the scope of the thread.
Brumby
Major
If you refer to the genesis of the recent discussions I was responding to China's claim that it has sovereign right to build. My contention is that that sovereignty is disputed and the UN tribunal has ruled on it. Are my comments regarding the ruling factual or assumptions?
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Your assumption is clearly that it is the norm for countries to obey deliberations that they relinquish territory and that is not the case.
Your other assumption that having anyone else put a claim on your territory removes your right to build on it is either out of thin air or from some anti-China propaganda you ate.
Now after doing some research, I see that this "court" at Hague is a total joke; it has hardly any jurisdiction at all. Many countries in the world have not ratified their support and many more including China, USA and Russia, are not signatories to it. It literally has no jurisdiction whatsoever over these countries. To these 3 powers (and many many more), this "court" is just a bunch of Dutch guys debating amongst themselves. And what's even more funny is that even the Philippines withdrew their signature from it! This is hilarious! Check out the jurisdiction map on the right side below the logo. Only green countries have agreed to submit themselves to arbitration by this court. All other colors represent different ways and situations they used to say NO (detailed key is in the link under the picture).
Good job; the more you raise the issue the more holes become apparent in your "argument." Keep it up; I want to learn more about how China is acting completely within its rights and doing the right thing for its people.
Last edited:
You fail. It is not an “UN tribunal”, it’s a private arbitration court that happens to be in The Hague. Do you know what arbitration court means? It means that both parties must agree to use it to settle things, and that the decision is only consultative.
Since China in the first place did not agree to use that particular court, whatever it says does not matter, even if China had agreed to take it there, the decision would only be consultative. I can go to a private court and tell them to print a statement that Biscuits is the sovereign owner of the mainland USA, but if USA doesn’t agree to use that court, it’s just a statement by individuals.
Now, I have no problem if you are ignorant of that for real, but if you are deliberately spreading misinformation, that is not the good faith behavior this board needs.
Guys, don't spoil the fun by infoming him his lack of knowledge in this matter, it gas been great watching him keep on about this "International arbitration court" as some sort of arm of the UN when every member on this board knows it has got nothing to do with the UN.
Now the cat is out of the bag, hope he get himself better infirmed, I mean this days and age with google, etc it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to educate himself.
Hell, I will help him here, the "international court of arbitration" is based in the Hauge, so it looks like, and sounds like something the UN has set up, but it is entirely privately funded, and ti cap it all, the "case" bought by the phillipins was encouraged by the US with a Japanese "judge", talk about a loaded dice!
The day after the "judgement" the UN put out a statement on their website clearlly spelt out that this "case" has got nothing to do with them!
Looks like game, set and match for Mr pony!
Your assumption is clearly that it is the norm for countries to obey deliberations that they relinquish territory and that is not the case.
Your other assumption that having anyone else put a claim on your territory removes your right to build on it is either out of thin air or from some anti-China propaganda you ate.
Now after doing some research, I see that this "court" at Hague is a total joke; it has hardly any jurisdiction at all. Many countries in the world have not ratified their support and many more including China, USA and Russia, are not signatories to it. It literally has no jurisdiction whatsoever over these countries. To these 3 powers (and many many more), this "court" is just a bunch of Dutch guys debating amongst themselves. And what's even more funny is that even the Philippines withdrew their signature from it! This is hilarious! Check out the jurisdiction map on the right side below the logo. Only green countries have agreed to submit themselves to arbitration by this court. All other colors represent different ways and situations they used to say NO (detailed key is in the link under the picture).
Good job; the more you raise the issue the more holes become apparent in your "argument." Keep it up; I want to learn more about how China is acting completely within its rights and doing the right thing for its people.
Unless I missed something, the ICC shouldn't be relevant to this discussion.
I assume the "ruling" that Brumby was on about is the PCA one back in 2016.
The PCA, ICC and ICJ (among others) are all different and unique from each other.
Are you talking about the "UN tribunal" ruling made back in 2016 by the PCA? If so, your comments rely on certain assumptions, for example off the top of my head:
1. that it is accepted practice and normal for great powers to agree to the rulings of that particular arbitration court (or indeed any international tribunal), and that China is acting in an inconsistent way with past norms demonstrated by other similar actors
2. that the PCA in particular had jurisdiction to make a ruling on this matter (which China has always contested)
3. that the PCA is a "UN tribunal". The PCA isn't a UN court or tribunal -- it is merely an observer to the UN, but the UN's principal judicial body is the ICJ (international court of justice)
I hope you can see from these quick points (point 1 in particular) why you can't reasonably expect to make the arguments you've been putting out and not expect people to offer counter examples and to bring in historical context and past practice by other nations in response.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
You are correct; I made a mistake and realized about 10 minutes after I couldn't edit. I confused the ICC with the PCA because they were both in Hague and that map is of the ICC.
BUT, that said, I didn't spend the time doing nothing. I'll make some points:
1. "The PCA is not a court in the traditional sense but provides services of arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes that arise out of international agreements between member states, international organizations or private parties." In other words, it's just an arbitration service and really only binding in any way if both parties agree to go to arbitration.
2. The specific case involving the Philippines and an absent China was legally justified by the following:
"China refused to participate in the arbitration, stating that several treaties with the Philippines stipulate that bilateral negotiations be used to resolve border disputes. It also accuses the Philippines of violating the voluntary Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, made in 2002 between and China, which also stipulated bilateral negotiations as the means of resolving border and other disputes. China issued a position paper in December 2014 arguing the dispute was not subject to arbitration because it was ultimately a matter of sovereignty, not exploitation rights."
3. As Brumby incorrectly stated that the Britain vs. Mauritius case was completely different because it was a non-binding UN resolution, this case was actually the exact case before Philippines vs. China in the PCA. It resolved in 2015 in Mauritius' favor and Britain basically gave the court the finger and left.
Last edited: