Miscellaneous News

Remember to look at the Guano Act to what the US uses to stake its claims.

kwaigonegin said:

Historical claims is baseless. If that's the case UK can claim the US and hundreds of other examples. At one time of the other someone has 'owned;' someone else.. just depends on how many hundreds of thousands of years you want to go back.
Court ruling is court ruling and needs to be legally binding otherwise it's meaningless and can open a whole lotta can of worms that can never be closed.
Anyway we should open another thread since this thread is only for news reporting not for discussion.

Click to expand...

The part you conveniently omitted is international rule of law means nothing unless it's applied equally to all nations. So tell me, where your crocodile tears when other powerful countries ignored ICJ rulings?

To clarify, The Hague ruled that all "high tide features" including Itu Aba (taiping) in disputed area are rocks and not eligible for EEZ. Since Taiping is the largest island (now "rock") we can assume all lesser islands are all defined as rocks.

This means that all extended EEZ claims based on "rocks" from all parties are invalid by their ruling. Not just China but also PH, VN, MY, Brunei, Indonesia. The ruling also specified China has traditional fishing rights within Philippine EEZ.

The ruling will also have a future negative impact to Japan's 400,000 sq km EEZ claim based on a small atoll (okinotirishma) in the Philippine sea.



Rodrigo Duterte has already publicially stated that he intends to pursue "soft landing". So we'll see how this turn out from future bilateral negotiations.

adeptitus said:

To clarify, The Hague ruled that all "high tide features" including Itu Aba (taiping) in disputed area are rocks and not eligible for EEZ. Since Taiping is the largest island (now "rock") we can assume all lesser islands are all defined as rocks.

This means that all extended EEZ claims based on "rocks" from all parties are invalid by their ruling. Not just China but also PH, VN, MY, Brunei, Indonesia. The ruling also specified China has traditional fishing rights within Philippine EEZ.

The ruling will also have a future negative impact to Japan's 400,000 sq km EEZ claim based on a small atoll (okinotirishma) in the Philippine sea.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Rodrigo Duterte has already publicially stated that he intends to pursue "soft landing". So we'll see how this turn out from future bilateral negotiations.

Click to expand...

It's in China's interests to soft play the PCA's white paper and throw something that sounds nice and neighborly to Philippines and the region, while not giving up anything of substance. I hope Beijing ditches the 9DL, because it serves no good purpose and causes endless amounts of trouble; the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Blackstone said:

The part you conveniently omitted is international rule of law means nothing unless it's applied equally to all nations. So tell me, where your crocodile tears when other powerful countries ignored ICJ rulings?

Click to expand...

Citation pls. Besides we're not talking about other events. This is not a case of so and so ignored the rules therefore I should too.did it therefore e

Blackstone said:

The part you conveniently omitted is international rule of law means nothing unless it's applied equally to all nations. So tell me, where your crocodile tears when other powerful countries ignored ICJ rulings?

Click to expand...

rule of law applies to everyone. If certain parties choose to ignore it doesn't give you the right to make it an excuse.
Why even bother with the ICJ/PCA etc then? might as well abolish it.
At the end of the day this is about perception. Regardless of whether China thinks the verdict was right or wrong, the fact of the matter is the perception will be very negative towards China from the world community and in the long run it bodes bad for China and Chinese communities worldwide.
Chinese reputation is at an all time low and things like this doesn't help.

kwaigonegin said:

Citation pls. Besides we're not talking about other events. This is not a case of so and so ignored the rules therefore I should too.did it therefore e


rule of law applies to everyone. If certain parties choose to ignore it doesn't give you the right to make it an excuse.
Why even bother with the ICJ then? might as well abolish it.

Click to expand...

The PCA is not the ICJ. It's not even a real court. It's a relic of the colonial era.

solarz said:

The PCA is not the ICJ. It's not even a real court. It's a relic of the colonial era.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected .. it is TECHNICALLY not the same but the overarching result is still the same. The average joe on the street or even governments are not going to care weather it came from the PCA or the ICJ. All they know is some 'world' court (I know technically PCA is NOT a court) ruled against China.

kwaigonegin said:

I stand corrected .. it is TECHNICALLY not the same but the overarching result is still the same. The average joe on the street or even governments are not going to care weather it came from the PCA or the ICJ. All they know is some 'world' court (I know technically PCA is NOT a court) ruled against China.

Click to expand...

The PCA is an arbitrator.

Arbitration
The submission of a dispute to an unbiased third person designated by the parties to the controversy, who agree in advanceto comply with the award—a decision to be issued after a hearing at which both parties have an opportunity to be heard.

Click to expand...

By definition, arbitration can only take place when both parties to the controversy agree to comply with the award. China has refused to participate in the PCA proceedings, therefore, by definition, the PCA has no authority to arbitrate.

solarz said:

The PCA is an arbitrator.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By definition, arbitration can only take place when both parties to the controversy agree to comply with the award. China has refused to participate in the PCA proceedings, therefore, by definition, the PCA has no authority to arbitrate.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the western censored FACT that BOTH China AND the Philipines clearly declared upon ratification of UNCLOS that they exercised the opt out option, stated in UNCLOS itself, regarding binding arbitration.

UNCLOS offered countries an opt out so they do not need to worry about having arbitration used against them in territorial disputes, which both China and the Philipines chose to exercise.

Now the PCA has broken its own rules and international laws by trying to impose arbitration against China, in clear breach of China's opt out.

That is the core reason China is telling the PCA to take a long walk off a short peer and stick their ruling where the sun don't shine.

Interesting how the entire picture flips from black to white when you look at ALL the pertenant facts and not just what the western media wants you to know isn't it?

adeptitus said:

To clarify, The Hague ruled that all "high tide features" including Itu Aba (taiping) in disputed area are rocks and not eligible for EEZ. Since Taiping is the largest island (now "rock") we can assume all lesser islands are all defined as rocks.

This means that all extended EEZ claims based on "rocks" from all parties are invalid by their ruling. Not just China but also PH, VN, MY, Brunei, Indonesia. The ruling also specified China has traditional fishing rights within Philippine EEZ.

The ruling will also have a future negative impact to Japan's 400,000 sq km EEZ claim based on a small atoll (okinotirishma) in the Philippine sea.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Rodrigo Duterte has already publicially stated that he intends to pursue "soft landing". So we'll see how this turn out from future bilateral negotiations.

Click to expand...

It actually extends to all, including US possessions out in the Pacific which it claims an EEZ for much less inhabited features. Should be the same for the British Indian Ocean Territory as well, nothing but military and contractor population. The US can claim it didn't ratify UNCLOS all they want, but it claims it adheres to customary law which is based on the defacto legal practice which is UNCLOS. Doubt these other states are going to willingly relinquish their claims which is why this PCA ruling actually undermined its credibility.

For the SCS states, Vietnam should definitely vacate Cornwallis South Reef and such since they all are LTEs well beyond even their hypothetical max limit continental shelf claim. Wanna bet that's going to happen?

Coming up with "stable community" when 121 made no such requirement and no time limits, the PCA made a purely subjective argument. When did the five judges become qualified sociologists to say what is or isn't a stable community? Guess nomadic tribes were never a stable community in their books. Fishermen have long been known to be basing out of Taiping.

597. The record before the Tribunal indicates the consistent presence of small numbers of fishermen, mostly from Hainan, on the main features in the Spratly Islands. A footnote to the description of Tizard Bank in the 1868 edition of the China Sea Directory reads as follows: Hainan fisherman, who subsist by collecting trepang and tortoise-shell, were found upon most of these islands, some of whom remain for years amongst the reefs. Junks from Hainan annually visit the islands and reefs of the China Sea with supplies of rice and other necessaries, for which the fishermen give trepang and other articles in exchange, and remit their profits home; the junks leave Hainan in December or January, and return with the first of the S.W. monsoon. The fishermen upon Itu-Aba island were more comfortably established than the others . . . . 640

Click to expand...

The ruling also demonstrated grave legal overstep just even in procedure. Ruling Taiping Island was not a point requested in relief. It did not allow representation from the actual administrators of the feature. It did not conduct actual onsite analysis at the invitation of the administrators since they were turned away in court. All theoretical behind closed doors. Why not rule all the Spratly features occupied by all claimants while you're at it? Very selective. It just made the whole process look exactly like lawfare. On the other hand, had the ruling stayed away from Taiping since it was not a specific point or accorded it its rightful EEZ without disqualifying on subjective interpretations, the ruling may actually have de-escalated as it awards some and denies some to all parties, allowing a means for sides to compromise and work it out.