I don't know about might makes right but definitely double standards and favoritism. In this particular case it is also Japan's geographic advantage to be located next to open waters with no other immediately neighboring state to contend its claims. It is much easier to claim parts of a physical public commons for oneself when no one else is near.
I don't know about might makes right but definitely double standards and favoritism. In this particular case it is also Japan's geographic advantage to be located next to open waters with no other immediately neighboring state to contend its claims. It is much easier to claim parts of a physical public commons for oneself when no one else is near.
Brumby
Major
The primary problem I have with your line of argument is presumption of quilt i.e. excessive maritime claim. Please demonstrate that your fundamental assumption is true before you make accusations.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Or PRC could act based on International norm and take it to ICJ. Double standards?
Japan is claiming a 200 miles EEZ around the "island", isn't it? Last i check, there is no economy activity on that reef. How come Uncle Sam don't call out on it?
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Basically the US has no conflicting interest concerning the issue so they are not going to spend money on it.
The primary problem I have with your line of argument is your ignorance of facts already presented which either aligns with others' arguments or do not align with yours.
Brumby
Major
Assuming you are correct that Japan is claiming a 200 nm EEZ around the rock/island, there are a number of parties that might have a vested interest in this situation which I will lay out how it affects them and type actions that might be available :
(a)China - China might invite Japan onto a rather exclusive club and say "Welcome. What took you so long in deciding to screw the system? Didn't you get the memo by my actions?".
(b)US - The US has no direct avenue to intervene by way of FONOP just like the US has no direct avenue to intervene by way of FONOP in the Scarborough Shoal.
(c)Others - If other countries decide to fish in that vicinity within the 200 nm and is excluded by Japanese coast guards, there might be an avenue to lodge it as an issue with the International Tribunal.
Brumby
Major
If you are accusing Japan of certain infringement, isn't it fair and reasonable to actually specify what they are? Did you specify or did you merely asserted that Japan is wrong? Please contrast that with Vincent. At least he specified what he views the problem to be.
In another word, a hypocrite.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
No just unconcerned, that's all.