South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Brumby said:

I think it would be helpful if you understand what the Philippines is making in their legal submission. The effect is obvious if it is successful but the objectives are less clear to me. The best result would limit China's hand but it would not advance their own cause.

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

Taiping's EEZ overlaps with the Philippines' EEZ. Filipino media had coverage on how their team of lawyers debated on whether to completely ignore Taiping (pretend it doesn't exist) in their case or to argue Taiping is merely a rock and not qualifying for an EEZ. Former outright won't fly so the case currently tries to argue it is a rock which is also disingenuous.

I doubt an objective court will agree to the Filipino argument that Taiping is just a rock so even if the court addresses a non-defined 9DL, nothing really changes out there because where China has been reclaiming is within Taiping's EEZ as well. And the Philippines can't question who owns Taiping in court because that would give the court no jurisdiction over the case.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

Brumby, I get it, you want Chine to go back being exceptionally meek and mild, but that simply isn't happening. China is tired of being being told by Western powers it should behave in the exact opposite way all Western great powers behaved. What is the chance of that??? My guess is the ICJ doesn't want anything to do with the hot potato Manila threw at it, and will find a legal way to try and give both sides something. Under that scenario, China will probably get its wish by ICJ punting on lack of standings due to no cooperation from Beijing, and Philippines get ICJ's love with "the court wishes China would stop behaving like all other Western great powers... yada yada."

China has absolutely no reason to let up in the SCS, in fact any let up would weaken its position, because the US has switched to hard containment strategy, and both sides are preparing for confrontation. God help us all if it leads to conflicts.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

Is Taiping island included in the Philippines submission to the ICJ? If it isn't then it is not part of the consideration by the courts. How does it then have a bearing on the case? This is the part I am lost.

Click to expand...

The experts, bolstering the views of the international lawyers helping the Philippines in the arbitration case, on Friday explained in separate interviews the necessity of describing Itu Aba as a “rock” under the definition of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) in the Philippines’ case against China.

The issue of Itu Aba’s inclusion in the Philippines’ presentation of its case against China before a UN arbitration body almost cost newly appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza a seat in the high court.

Click to expand...

Jardeleza, the then solicitor general and chief government counsel, had wanted to exclude a 14-paragraph discussion on Itu Aba, the only island in the Spratlys occupied by Taiwan (which calls it Tai Ping), from the memorial the government submitted to the tribunal in The Hague last March.
The subsection in question described Itu Aba as a “rock” entitled under the Unclos to a 12-mile territorial sea but not a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

The international law firm Reichler and Martin strongly disagreed with Jardeleza, arguing how important it was to describe Itu Aba as “a rock with a very limited entitlement” and that it would damage the Philippine case if the discussion was removed.

The lawyers brought their arguments to Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario and President Aquino. Mr. Aquino ultimately decided that the Itu Aba discussion be included in the memorial.

Click to expand...

“If Itu Aba were to be seen as capable of generating a 200 nautical mile EEZ and continental shelf, the whole area which is subject of the case requires a [maritime boundary] delimitation before anything could be decided, and that will take the case out of the jurisdiction of the tribunal,” said Batongbacal.

Click to expand...

If Itu Aba is considered an “island,” its 200 nautical mile EEZ would reach Palawan province.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

There are specific legal issues being brought before the courts by the Philippines. I don't believe you understand what they are based on your above comments.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

Is Taiping island included in the Philippines submission to the ICJ? If it isn't then it is not part of the consideration by the courts. How does it then have a bearing on the case? This is the part I am lost.

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

Yes, included. All this info is readily available online.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

It doesn't matter what the ICJ says, because they China refused to be a party to the suit. There's no legal way to compel China to accept ICJ's jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

Except that the nature of the Philippines submission appears to be an attempt to circumvent this issue. The end game of the Philippines is less clear to me.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

That matters only in a debating club, because if the ICJ finds in Philippine's favor, China would simply tell the ICJ it opted out and therefore isn't obligated by the ruling. Worst yet, China wouldn't even bother with lip service and simply ignore the ICJ, thereby showing the world's three biggert powers have no problems ignoring international laws when it suits them.

Click to expand...