South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Brumby said:

Actually Samurai Blue knows what he is talking about and is not straw man. There is a misunderstanding on the role of the LOS convention because parties in dispute are sovereign states. There are only 2 ways to legalise, either (I) by an international court provided both parties agree; and (ii) through a formalised international agreement. The role of the LOS convention is not to decide on sovereignty issues but is to provide the framework and mechanism to resolve disputes. In this manner it has set out definitions; rules; inclusions and exclusions. Historic claims unfortunately (and the root of disputes) is specifically excluded except under narrow conditions. Nine dash line doesn't have a leg to stand on if you understand the provisions of the LOS convention.

Click to expand...

Oh, I completely agree with you that samurai boy knows what he's doing and purposely framed his arguments along UNCLOS, where his argument is stronger, and away from land feature sovereignty, where his position is weakest. By setting up a false target to shoot at, he created a straw man argument, which is fallacious.

Bltizo said:

I thought it was simpler to just talk about China in this case, but yes absolutely, the entire SCS is a cluster-mess of claims due to historical reasons.

Click to expand...

Good point... it's a giant mess to be sure. On the other hand, what happens there can affect everyone in the Asia-Pacific area, and even the rest of the world, so the sovereignty problems must to be resolved. Peacefully.

Blackstone said:

Oh, I completely agree with you that samurai boy knows what he's doing and purposely framed his arguments along UNCLOS, where his argument is stronger, and away from land feature sovereignty, where his position is weakest. By setting up a false target to shoot at, he created a straw man argument, which is fallacious.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. In modern times, UNCLOS is the main terms of reference to settle international disputes of the sea and precisely why it was put together to help resolve disputes. Having said that, that doesn't mean two interested state can't agree outside the provisions of the convention provided there are no third parties objecting. By default, the LOS convention is the go to provisions and precisely what Samurai is referencing. If for example China doesn't want to abide by the convention then there is nothing others can do about it. One just have to ensure you can't have the cake and eat it.

SamuraiBlue said:

Nope they were only above water during low tides and was under 50~100cm during high tides.Under UNCLOS definition they are considered underwater reefs with no territorial claim attached.

Click to expand...

In its natural state, Fiery Cross reef is submerged at high tide, with the exception of two rocks.

Click to expand...

Maritime Briefing
Volume 1 Number 6
ISBN 1-897643-18-7
1995
A Geographical Description of the Spratly Islands
and an Account of Hydrographic Surveys
Amongst Those Islands
by
David Hancox and Victor Prescott
Edited by
Clive Schofield
International Boundaries Research Unit
Department of Geography
University of Durham
South Road
Durham DH1 3LE
UK

(xvii) Fiery Cross or Northwest Investigator Reef
This steep-to reef lies 46nm northwest from Maralie Reef at 9°57’N, 112°58’E. It has a linear shape aligned southwest–north east and its long axis measures 14nm while the maximum width is 4nm, giving a total area about 110km². Reefs 1nm wide surround a lagoon. Several patches of coral uncover and between them there are channels with depths from 15 to 40 metres. However none of the sailing directions refers to any specific entrance or mentions possible anchorages in the lagoon. Soundings in the lagoon give depths of 1.4 to 39 metres. The American and British sailing directions agree that at high water the reef is covered except for a prominent rock 1 metre high on the the southwest section. In calm weather the sea does not cover the reef. It is reported that the reef is occupied.

Click to expand...

folks, it's getting stupid, now!
China Jams US Spy Drones Over Disputed South China Sea Island
China tried to electronically jam US drone flights over the disputed South China Sea in order to prevent surveillance on man-made islands Beijing is constructing as a part of an aggressive land reclamation initiative, US officials said.
interestingly:
"Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said the United States does not recognize China's sovereignty claims over the new islands. He added that flights and Navy ships will continue their routine patrols, but will maintain a distance of at least 12 miles from the island."
does this seem to be a concession to a de-facto sovereignty?
this just seems to be a bit too confrontational. but, Xi did say that China was like a rock on the SCS!

Read more:

Bltizo said:

Great, in that case, China is probably seeking to put its historically based claim in the few exceptions.

In other words, there is no "legal basis" as such rather it is based on history. I think China has phrased it similarly themselves in recent years (the fact that its claim is related to history and ancient times and what not)

(Remember what we discussed a few pages back about accepting, enforcing and/or challenging laws present at a time and/or interpretation of such a law?)

Click to expand...

In order not to be misunderstood, I am not saying China has no legal basis to its claims. If it is under UNCLOS, its case is very weak at best. It doesn't mean China cannot make a claim outside the LOS convention as a historic claim. It just needs to set out its case and the legal premise for its claims. So far it has not done the bare minimum. If China is making a claim under general international law rather than the LOS convention, its claim would still need to be justified under such law. There is generally a three-part legal test under such an approach :
(I) Evidence of effective exercise of authority over its claims;
(ii) Evidence of continuous exercise of authority over its claims; and
(iii) Acquiescence by other states to (i) and (ii).

If everything fails, might is right. You just have to take your pick.

SamuraiBlue said:

Here is a map of SCS with the nine dash line and how UNCLOS defines each nation's territory.

Where are the islands that can make claim near the shore of Vietnam for example?
How about the claim near the coast of northern Philippines?
There are none that is why this claim is disturbing to say the least.

Click to expand...

An EEZ from the Paracels would be up against Vietnam's EEZ, thus putting the claim near Vietnam's shores. And Scarbrough Shoal is a feature that is above water during high tide. Furthermore, even the Philippines itself opted to classify Scarborough as a Regime of Islands, meaning it should be entitled to its own 12 nm territorial and potentially its own EEZ instead of simply calling it a feature within the EEZ from its main islands.

Ultimately, China has strategically left its nine dashes ambiguous. The arguments made about the nine dash not complying with international law is only from the point of view that the dashes are maritime boundaries. However, on the other end of the spectrum, if the nine dashes merely means land features within are considered Chinese territory and the associated territorial seas and EEZs accorded to those features, the nine dash isn't completely out of sync with UNCLOS. Even a US analysis of the different scenarios listed the latter as a realistic argument.

joshuatree said:

Even a US analysis of the different scenarios listed the latter as a realistic argument.

Click to expand...

Can you please quote the document and precise wording because a comprehensive legal assessment I have seen does not suggest such a conclusion.

janjak desalin said:

folks, it's getting stupid, now!

Click to expand...

my above post was posted to wrong forum! moderators please delete.

Brumby said:

Can you please quote the document and precise wording because a comprehensive legal assessment I have seen does not suggest such a conclusion.

Click to expand...

if the dashes on Chinese maps are intended to indicate only the islands over which China claims sovereignty then, to be consistent with the law of the sea, China’s maritime claims within the dashed line would be those set forth in the LOS Convention, namely a territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf, drawn in accordance with the LOS Convention from China’s mainland coast and land features that meet the definition of an “island” under Article 121 of the Convention.7

Click to expand...