I'm saying your arguments are no more off topic than the subsequent posts that others have made in the most logical counter argument to your position, such as in this case.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
I'm saying your arguments are no more off topic than the subsequent posts that others have made in the most logical counter argument to your position, such as in this case.
Actually, I think judge Judy got more creditbility than his "international court of abitration" that he holds dearly to.
In fact, by calling it a "court" is unjust to the word court. I can only describe it as a "court" named after a famous animal in his supposed country of origin.... 袋鼠 KANGAROO!
Brumby
Major
How is the US and Israel relate to the counter argument in this thread? I get it that the US may be having disputes with other countries which it often does but that doesn't change the fact that there is a sovereignty dispute in the SCS and the tribunal has ruled on it. The issue isn't whether China or the US may not be abiding by certain rules but the denial that there is even a a dispute.
Here's what you wrote:
The relevance of the behaviour of other countries is relevant to the underlined part, as it serves to show that international tribunals and courts may be toothless and ignored by various nations when it is either important to their core interests.
Therefore, it is a way of negating that part of your argument where you bring up the PCA ruling, by saying that such rulings from similar bodies in the past can and have been ignored.
What's left of your argument as to whether there is a dispute of sovereignty or not had been addressed above and is unimportant. China will claim there is no dispute so as to maximize its rhetoric for the purposes of competing territorial claims, as other parties in the past in other territorial disputes have done as well.
I think this is a classic example of the (in) famous saying-
Do as I say, not as I do.
Brumby
Major
The issue of sovereignty was the core of the whole contention. How is it that it is unimportant? China obviously will maintain that there is no dispute but that position is not recognised by others. For China to state that it has sovereign right to build is not a position that is accepted by other countries. Its actions are considered destabilising. The US FONOPs is signalling that it does not recognise China's claims
Actually the arguments and counter arguments had been beaten to death 3 years ago. This is just history repeating. I am signing off on this thread. Thanks for the time.
It is unclear as to whether you understand there are at least two separate issues and what the Chinese and US positions are.
There is a territorial dispute where China is one of the claimants of overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea, where the US is not a claimant and officially proclaims it does not have a position on the dispute. Of course in a territorial dispute each claimant will say that there is no dispute with territory under their control while there is a dispute with territory under others' control.
There is an international law dispute over the rights of coastal states regulating military activities in its nearby waters, where China and the US are on opposing sides where each side has other countries' support as well as varying circumstances and interpretations within its own side.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
It is not UN tribunal It is private arbitration panel paid for and stacked with full US appointee It has no jurisdiction at all
The UN go full length to distance themselves from this panel
Now ICJ IS UN BODY
Wikipedia has this to say about the PCA.‘The PCA is not a “court" in the conventional understanding of that term but an administrative organization with the object of having permanent and readily available means to serve as the registry for purposes of international arbitration and other related procedures, including commissions of enquiry and conciliation. The judges or arbitrators that hear cases are officially called "Members" of the Court.
The public at large is usually more familiar with the International Court of Justice than with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, partly because of the closed nature of cases handled by the PCA and also the small number of cases dealt with between 1946 and 1990. Sometimes even the decision itself is kept confidential at the request of the parties.’
To simplify, this is a private entity established to facilitate arbitration by member states on a willing buyer willing seller basis. It is quite like a commercial establishment, any member state can come to seek help to arbitrate their disputes. It is not a court! It is not a world body like the UN or sanctioned by the UN. Its jurisdiction and ruling are as good as the disputing parties want it to be. It has no authority and no legal status if a disputing party is not willing to subject itself to its arbitration. The closest example of such a court is the international court in Tanjong Pagar in Singapore, a convenient store for customers to avail themselves of its facilities.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
The PCA sometimes gets confused with the International Court of Justice, which has its seat in the same building. The PCA is however not part of the UN system,although it does have observer status in the UN General Assembly since 1993.
Mr. Brumby is 110% dialed in here gentlemen, his honest, accurate, succinct summary of the truth is indeed threatening to China's narrative! that's what has you in a "funk".... it's indeed humorous to observe! LOL