This part stood out the most to me. Why was the live broadcast of the discussions cut when China was the topic?
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
This part stood out the most to me. Why was the live broadcast of the discussions cut when China was the topic?
Blackstone
Brigadier
I'm fairly consistent in saying all states are, generally speaking, rational maximizers and would pursue their national interests with situational ethics and morals.
Last edited:
GreenestGDP
Junior Member
Well, thank you so much for correcting me.
Then, it means ICJ carry much more HEFT and AUTHORITY than PCA.
Am I right on this ICJ >>> PCA ... ... ??
If I am right ICJ >>> PCA, then it means USA -- Champion of the Right of Oppressed--people--all--over--the--Globe ( Okinawan, Diego Garcians, Guaman, ... and others ) according to Blackstone and Brumby
had chosen to ignore the much heftier and widely respected ICJ.
Way to go Blackstone and Brumby for showing -- how US show the world with its middle finger.
Brumby
Major
The decision of the PCA is legally binding on China in accordance with UNCLOS Annex VII. As often stated because decisions of the PCA lacks an enforceable mechanism, China can simply ignore the rulings. This however will come at a reputational cost to China. I think the rulings will help to narrow the scope of some of the disputes and help to clarify some of the issues such that future country negotiations (be it bilateral or multi lateral) will be more narrowly defined.
The Philippines had submitted altogether 15 claims to the PCA. As far as possible, rulings and their implications can be summarised into four broad categories.
(a)We can be sure that there will be no determination over sovereignty and/or delimitation of boundaries. It is outside the scope of the PCA's mandate, and a key feature of the Philippines legal argument to enable its submissions to be accepted by the PCA.
(b)The legality of the nine-dash line. In my opinion, the PCA will likely rule that the nine-dash line is inconsistent with UNCLOS. The upshot of this is that it will not have any direct impact on China's sovereignty claims because the nine-dash line is not a conventional legal argument but an outer boundary of its claim. The legal basis itself has never been conclusively and specifically defined by China. The ruling might eventually have the effect of forcing China to actually outline the legal basis of its sovereignty claim. Such an outcome on China would be a natural development in any case because China cannot in perpetuity sustain a sovereignty claim based on ambiguity.
(c)Maritime features and entitlements.
I would speculate that Subi, Gaven, Hughes, Mischief Reefs and Second Thomas Shoal will be determined as LTE's that do not generate any 12 nm territorial sea of its own. In other words, there is no sovereignty claims to be had over these reefs. Additionally, Fiery Cross Reef, Johnson South Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Scarborough Shoal will be determined as rocks under UNCLOS
Article 121 and be entitled to a 12 nm territorial sea, but no EEZ or continental shelf. Collectively, such determinations will have the effect of severely restricting Chinese attempt to claim maritime features beyond what are provided by UNCLOS. This outcome should not be a surprise should it eventuate because the nature of maritime entitlements are clearly outlined by UNCLOS.
The major curve ball in my view would be Itu Abba. Whilst not part of the dispute, information was sought by the PCA from ROC. There are two possible outcomes that I could speculate. The first is that the PCA would not make a determination on whether Itu Abba is an island or not. I think such an outcome would not be desirable and its residual effect is not helpful towards future resolution of the disputes in SCS. The second possible outcome is that the PCA would determine that Itu Abba has the status of an island but its maritime entitlement is restricted to a 12 nm territorial sea. Such a determination will be highly controversial but is not without legal precedence as established in the cases of Nicaragua v. Colombia (2012) and Romania v. Ukraine
(2009). The main reasoning being adjacent land coastlines dominate the tiny coastline of an island.
(d)The legality of China restricting the Philippines economic access to its EEZ i.e. Scarborough Shoal. IMO, whilst there is a dispute over sovereignty, restricting one party access would be deemed inconsistent with UNCLOS especially when the use or the threat to use force is evident.
Engineer
Major
China has already made statement to reject any ruling regardless of outcome.
duncanidaho
Junior Member
Well, thank you so much for correcting me.
Then, it means ICJ carry much more HEFT and AUTHORITY than PCA.
Am I right on this ICJ >>> PCA ... ... ??
If I am right ICJ >>> PCA, then it means USA -- Champion of the Right of Oppressed--people--all--over--the--Globe ( Okinawan, Diego Garcians, Guaman, ... and others ) according to Blackstone and Brumby
had chosen to ignore the much heftier and widely respected ICJ.
Way to go Blackstone and Brumby for showing -- how US show the world with its middle finger.
China declares to reject any ruling of PCA and it is good so.
Take a look of other cases of the PCA and you will know why.
A recent verdict of PCA said that Russia should pay $50b compensation to the shareholders of the late Russian oil company Yukos. In accordance with the charter of PCA Russia appealed to a medium level Dutch court in The Hague who decided that PCA had no authority in the matter as Russia had never ratified the treaty setting up the court. As China excluded the authority of PCA when it acceded to UNCLOS the same Dutch court is bounded to throw out any PCA verdict in this case.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Arbitration between nations must be voluntary, especially when the original arrangement included opting out clauses, that's what gives the institution its legitimacy. The PCA's perplexing overreach into international politics will likely diminish its own brand as a voluntary and impartial dispute mechanism. Also, China's ability to line up over 60 countries to denounce PCA overreach lends weight to its claim the court lacks legitimacy in this specific case.