South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Brumby said:

I already said that flouting rules is always an option but it also comes at a cost. The discussion isn't about history and so I am not sure what is frankly your contention.

Click to expand...

History is very important, it shows great powers can break all sort of international rules and get away with it. I don't mean little inconsequential ones, I mean breaking the ultimate Westphalian rule of invading other sovereign states.

Here's a prediction if the ICJ rules for Philippines and China laughs it off: NOTHING consequential will happen. There will be no military actions against China. There will be no sanctions against China. There will be no embargo against China. There will be finger wiggling; there will be foot stamping. Senator John McCain will surely call for bombing of Beijing, but he will be dismissed for being himself. President Obama might cancel some worthless inter-governmental conference or some other nonsense, and Secretary Carter will ape some incomprehensible diatribe. There may even be a useless UN Security Council draft to condemn China; which will be vetoed by not one, but two permanent Security Council members. But that's about it.

It ends with China keeps on trucking, ICJ loses credibility, the world finds a way to accommodate, Philippines elects a new President who will then go to Beijing with hat in hand, and everyone continues to fight for spots on the "One Belt, One Road." Life goes on.

UNCLOS and ICJ are part of UN, everybody knows that the big five have veto. Basically UN (including ICJ and UNCLOS) can't do anything to the big 5.

I am sure the Philippine knows this ... I am wondering why the current Philippine govt is so aggressive toward China, but no words toward Vietnam or Taiwan. Vietnam occupies some islands claimed by the Philippine, even Vietnam "stole" a significant size island from the Philippine.


China is the giant not far from the Philippine, and soon will become the biggest economy in the world, eventually China will dominate Asia .... and Chinese people have a very long memory

Blackstone said:

History is very important, it shows great powers can break all sort of international rules and get away with it. I don't mean little inconsequential ones, I mean breaking the ultimate Westphalian rule of invading other sovereign states.

Click to expand...

I recognise the point you are making is something you are very passionate in getting across. I would give you full satisfaction that this is sincerely noted and I will not contest it. Now that you have got this off your chest, can we please move on.

Blackstone said:

Here's a prediction if the ICJ rules for Philippines and China laughs it off: NOTHING consequential will happen. There will be no military actions against China. There will be no sanctions against China. There will be no embargo against China. There will be finger wiggling; there will be foot stamping. Senator John McCain will surely call for bombing of Beijing, but he will be dismissed for being himself. President Obama might cancel some worthless inter-governmental conference or some other nonsense, and Secretary Carter will ape some incomprehensible diatribe. There may even be a useless UN Security Council draft to condemn China; which will be vetoed by not one, but two permanent Security Council members. But that's about it.

It ends with China keeps on trucking, ICJ loses credibility, the world finds a way to accommodate, Philippines elects a new President who will then go to Beijing with hat in hand, and everyone continues to fight for spots on the "One Belt, One Road." Life goes on.

Click to expand...

I will not be as liberal as you in attempting to anticipate what will transpire eventually. I do disagree on the point that the ICJ credibility is on trial. Their role is simply to offer their legal opinion and operate within the scope of that role as defined within its given constitution .

Brumby said:

I recognise the point you are making is something you are very passionate in getting across. I would give you full satisfaction that this is sincerely noted and I will not contest it. Now that you have got this off your chest, can we please move on.

Click to expand...

Only if you're reasonable about how history affects thinking and decision making across human endeavors, especially how courts defer to precedence, then we could move on. Dismissing history as irrelevant doesn't do any dispute justice, especially in sovereignty disputes. I don't envy the ICJ's task in steering around the SCS historical icebergs, but I'm sure the judges will take history into account, and heavily so.

I will not be as liberal as you in attempting to anticipate what will transpire eventually. I do disagree on the point that the ICJ credibility is on trial. Their role is simply to offer their legal opinion and operate within the scope of that role as defined within its given constitution .

Click to expand...

I didn't say ICJ will lose complete credibility, but it will take hits if nations ignore its ruling. We agree the ICJ's role is to render legal opinions and rulings, and it's up to member states to support or not support the system. Given the way all nations behave, I have zero doubt those that can ignore unfavorable rulings will do so, if they see it as in their interests, and those that can't only wished they could. Realpolitik 101.

I object to the characterisation that China has broken any international law in this dispute.

Can anyone point to any specific law it has broken?

I see a lot of spin and propaganda, but very little objective facts.

I should add, in the media when reporting this issue.

plawolf said:

I object to the characterisation that China has broken any international law in this dispute.

Can anyone point to any specific law it has broken?

I see a lot of spin and propaganda, but very little objective facts.

Click to expand...

Yours is simply a rhetorical question.

Brumby said:

Yours (plawolf) is simply a rhetorical question.

Click to expand...

No, plawolf's question isn't rhetorical. He or she basically said those that claim China broke international law(s) must provide proof, and not merely accusations. How could that be rhetorical?

Blackstone said:

No, plawolf's question isn't rhetorical. He or she basically said those that claim China broke international law(s) must provide proof, and not merely accusations. How could that be rhetorical?

Click to expand...

In order to measure breakage it has to be measured against a standard and that standard has to define what breakage actually means. UNCLOS is the most comprehensive provisions that the nations of the world had agree on to resolve maritime disputes but because it is so comprehensive, the legal provisions are purposely drafted loosely and in correlation a resolution regime is built into the provisions. The fact that China has opted out of the resolution framework, there is no measure and mechanism to objectively measure China's activities and to resolve disputes in the SCS. Disputes resolution don't settle legal or illegal issues but merely equitable outcome given a set of facts and background. Hence absent a measurement the question itself cannot be addressed adequately and by simple definition is a rhetorical question.

Brumby said:

In order to measure breakage it has to be measured against a standard and that standard has to define what breakage actually means. UNCLOS is the most comprehensive provisions that the nations of the world had agree on to resolve maritime disputes but because it is so comprehensive, the legal provisions are purposely drafted loosely and in correlation a resolution regime is built into the provisions. The fact that China has opted out of the resolution framework, there is no measure and mechanism to objectively measure China's activities and to resolve disputes in the SCS. Disputes resolution don't settle legal or illegal issues but merely equitable outcome given a set of facts and background. Hence absent a measurement the question itself cannot be addressed adequately and by simple definition is a rhetorical question.

Click to expand...

So absent a measurement and the legal provisions being purposefully drafted loosely, statements indicating China has broken any international law (not necessarily your statements) ring hollow.