China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

The UNCLOS is simply a treaty that a bunch of countries, including China, signed on to. However, because all countries have their own opinions, UNCLOS was designed to allow signatory nations to opt out of clauses that they do not like.

To put it simply, China is only bound by those clauses in the UNCLOS that it signed on to. It is absolutely not bound by any of the clauses that it opted out of, and this includes the arbitration portion at hand. Therefore, the international court in question has no legal authority to make any judgement whatsoever on this case.

Unfortunately what you are saying is simply brute reasoning not grounded in either law or fact specific to the matter under discussion.

So in reality, what are the facts and the specific provisions in question and how do they resolve the contention?

The central theme of the Chinese argument is that China has opted out of certain provisions. Specifically they are Article 298 1 (a) (b) (c)


In effect, the facts are that China has opted out of arbitration on delimitation issues (sovereignty) only and not a blanket opt out on all arbitration. This fact seems to be lost or conveniently ignore when arguing that the arbitration is not applicable.

In contrast, what has the Tribunal accepted for consideration.


The Tribunal has very clearly laid out in all the seven issues it has accepted to rule on are not concerning disputes of sovereignty but interpretation and application of UNCLOS provisions. This it can only do after due consideration is made based on law and fact. It has clearly laid out in its decision that it has jurisdiction. This is provided under Article 288.

UNCLOS provides that the Tribunal has sole authority in making the determination on whether it has jurisdiction. The Tribunal last year in its decision has determined it has jurisdiction over 7 of the 15 disputes.

Therefore in summary, China's argument that the Tribunal has no legal authority over the disputes is simply not supported by either law or facts.

 

[solarz]

Unfortunately what you are saying is simply brute reasoning not grounded in either law or fact specific to the matter under discussion.

So in reality, what are the facts and the specific provisions in question and how do they resolve the contention?

The central theme of the Chinese argument is that China has opted out of certain provisions. Specifically they are Article 298 1 (a) (b) (c)
View attachment 27056
View attachment 27057
In effect, the facts are that China has opted out of arbitration on delimitation issues (sovereignty) only and not a blanket opt out on all arbitration. This fact seems to be lost or conveniently ignore when arguing that the arbitration is not applicable.

In contrast, what has the Tribunal accepted for consideration.
View attachment 27058
View attachment 27059
The Tribunal has very clearly laid out in all the seven issues it has accepted to rule on are not concerning disputes of sovereignty but interpretation and application of UNCLOS provisions. This it can only do after due consideration is made based on law and fact. It has clearly laid out in its decision that it has jurisdiction. This is provided under Article 288.
View attachment 27060
UNCLOS provides that the Tribunal has sole authority in making the determination on whether it has jurisdiction. The Tribunal last year in its decision has determined it has jurisdiction over 7 of the 15 disputes.

Therefore in summary, China's argument that the Tribunal has no legal authority over the disputes is simply not supported by either law or facts.

I suggest you read this article again:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China doesn't care about the technicalities that this Tribunal is using to proceed with the case. It is blatantly clear that the case is only a means to obstruct China sovereignty claims. It doesn't matter how the Tribunal words its decision, China is making one thing very clear: whatever the results of the Tribunal, China will not abide by any decision that affects its sovereignty claims.

In other words, the Tribunal can declare SCS islands to be rocks, islands, or even rubber ducks, it will not affect China's sovereignty claims by on iota.

 

[Yvrch]

Analysts said the maritime nuclear power platforms will play an important role in China's long-term South China Sea strategy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China edging closer to first maritime nuclear station
By Bai Tiantian (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) 03:45, April 22, 2016

File photo

China is edging closer to building its first maritime nuclear power platform, which could sail to remote waters and provide stable power to offshore projects.

Analysts believe that the platform, once accomplished, could significantly boost the efficiency of the country's construction work on islands in the South China Sea. In a phone interview with the Global Times on Thursday, Liu Zhengguo, director of the general office of the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC), China's leading shipbuilding group in charge of designing and assembling the platforms, said the company is "pushing forward the work."

"The development of nuclear power platforms is a burgeoning trend," Liu said, when asked to comment on a previous media report that China plans to build 20 maritime nuclear power platforms.

"The exact number of plants to be built [by CSIC] depends on the market demand," he said, without confirming or denying the reported number. "Judging by various factors … the demand is pretty strong."

Liu said that the construction of the platforms is "based on mature technology." He emphasized that the plants are mainly for civilian use, such as providing electricity for oil drilling platforms.

According to a Wednesday report published by eworldship.com, a Shanghai-based shipbuilding industry website, Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industry Company (BSHIC), a ship assembly enterprise under the CSIC, will be responsible for building China's first maritime nuclear power platform, and the CSIC will build about 20 such platforms "in the future."

The report said the National Development and Reform Commission has approved this, and the Bohai company convened on Tuesday with Liaoning Provincial Economy and Informatization Commission, Huludao Municipal Economy and Informatization Commission, the safety inspection team of CSIC's nuclear safety department and Wuhan Second Institute of Ship Design, also known by its code name Institute 719, to discuss the location and relevant viability issues of the construction.

According to the website, a group of experts has reviewed and discussed the technical plan on the construction of the platform proposed by Institute 719, which is also under the CSIC, and reached a unanimous conclusion.

Liu did not confirm or deny the existence of such a meeting.

The construction of the first maritime nuclear power platform, which serves as a demonstration project, is expected to be completed by 2018 and be put into use by 2019, China Securities Journal reported in January.

Reliable power source

Analysts said the maritime nuclear power platforms will play an important role in China's long-term South China Sea strategy.

Li Jie, a Beijing-based naval expert, told the Global Times on Thursday that the platforms could provide reliable power for lighthouses, seawater desalination, rescue and relief equipment, defensive weapons and airports and harbors on islands in the South China Sea.

"Normally we have to burn oil or coal for power. Given the long distance between the Nansha Islands and the Chinese mainland and the changing weather and oceanic conditions, transporting fuel could be an issue, which is why developing the maritime nuclear power platform is of great significance," Li said.

According to previous media reports, Institute 719 has proposed two designs for the maritime nuclear power platform. The first is a floating nuclear power plant and the second a submersible nuclear power plant that could work under water.

The CSIC has also been working with China General Nuclear Power Corp, a leading atomic power company in China. The latter is working on a small marine nuclear propulsion reactor, called ACPR50S. The 200-megawatt reactor can be installed inside a ship and is expected to be commissioned by 2020.

Impact of natural disasters

Wu Zhong, general manager of an asset management company under the CSIC, previously told the media that the market share for the maritime nuclear power platform is estimated at over 100 billion yuan ($15.45 billion) just for offshore oil exploration.

He said that the Bohai Bay alone will require 50 billion yuan worth of nuclear platforms per year and the demand for the South China Sea can only be greater.

Zhu Hanchao, deputy chief engineer at Institute 719, told the China Securities Journal that one platform will cost about 3 billion yuan to build and will be able to collect a total of 22.6 billion yuan by selling electricity in the 40-year life span.

Zhu declined to be interviewed by the Global Times on Thursday.

Tang Bo, an official at the National Nuclear Safety Administration, told the Global Times on Thursday that the administration is working on formulating relevant nuclear security regulations regarding the platforms, although some preliminary conclusions have been drawn and are awaiting verification.

In particular, the parameters to assess the impact exerted by natural disasters and accidents in the sea on the plants has yet to be decided, Tang said, citing the height of waves as an example.

 

[Brumby]

I suggest you read this article again:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China doesn't care about the technicalities that this Tribunal is using to proceed with the case. It is blatantly clear that the case is only a means to obstruct China sovereignty claims. It doesn't matter how the Tribunal words its decision, China is making one thing very clear: whatever the results of the Tribunal, China will not abide by any decision that affects its sovereignty claims.

In other words, the Tribunal can declare SCS islands to be rocks, islands, or even rubber ducks, it will not affect China's sovereignty claims by on iota.

It is then a different conversation. It is not that China is not bound by the Tribunal's decision or that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction but simply that China intends to thumb its nose at whatever outcome regardless. That is China's prerogative as a sovereign nation and consistent so far with its behaviour of damn the rules if it so happens to be in its way.

 

[Equation]

Therefore in summary, China's argument that the Tribunal has no legal authority over the disputes is simply not supported by either law or facts.

Doesn't matter because China's argument is that the Tribunal is not legit, therefore whatever judgment coming out from them becomes irrelevant because the so called law is not written in stone. It is a fact that there IS no one world body (meaning the entire human population on Earth abides to it) of government to both ratify and enforce it.

 

[Equation]

It is then a different conversation. It is not that China is not bound by the Tribunal's decision or that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction but simply that China intends to thumb its nose at whatever outcome regardless. That is China's prerogative as a sovereign nation and consistent so far with its behaviour of damn the rules if it so happens to be in its way.

But the rules are weak, illegitimate and unfair therefore never put into a vote by the entire human population to decide on that governing body UNCLOS to be the sole ruler on any case.

 

[Brumby]

Doesn't matter because China's argument is that the Tribunal is not legit, therefore whatever judgment coming out from them becomes irrelevant because the so called law is not written in stone. It is a fact that there IS no one world body (meaning the entire human population on Earth abides to it) of government to both ratify and enforce it.

There are two ways I would read into your statement. One is that China was dumb by signing onto an illegitimate document or it has no intention of honouring what it has signed onto.

But the rules are weak, illegitimate and unfair therefore never put into a vote by the entire human population to decide on that governing body UNCLOS to be the sole ruler on any case.

We are not discussing abstract values but that the fact is China is a signatory to UNCLOS. Either that means something or it doesn't and I am not referring to the document but China's commitment and honour on what it has signed onto.

 

[solarz]

It is then a different conversation. It is not that China is not bound by the Tribunal's decision or that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction but simply that China intends to thumb its nose at whatever outcome regardless. That is China's prerogative as a sovereign nation and consistent so far with its behaviour of damn the rules if it so happens to be in its way.

You are just playing with words in order to argue your anti-China bias. China has opted out of any sovereignty matters in the UNCLOS, therefore, it will not participate in or abide by any UNCLOS process that affects its sovereignty claims, no matter what loopholes certain actors try to use.

 

[Brumby]

You are just playing with words in order to argue your anti-China bias. China has opted out of any sovereignty matters in the UNCLOS, therefore, it will not participate in or abide by any UNCLOS process that affects its sovereignty claims, no matter what loopholes certain actors try to use.

The problem in your argument is an insistent that what is being considered before the Tribunal are matters concerning sovereignty issues when I have already demonstrated by both law and facts that they are not (post #2471). The troubling aspect about your continuing false narrative is an attempt in my view to mask the upcoming findings of the Tribunal that China is rejecting the outcome because it is about delimitation when it is not. Such an approach is insidious and unbecoming.

 

[Equation]

There are two ways I would read into your statement. One is that China was dumb by signing onto an illegitimate document or it has no intention of honouring what it has signed onto.

If you only see and read it in two ways than you are in trouble. The bottom line is China has no intention of giving up it's sovereignty over a flawed document in the first place that has very little weight and meaning.

We are not discussing abstract values but that the fact is China is a signatory to UNCLOS. Either that means something or it doesn't and I am not referring to the document but China's commitment and honour on what it has signed onto.

It means little, because UNCLOS is just a guide lines to governing bodies of nations to work out their issues among members. It is not set in stone. The world is not black and white as you think.