South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

The US response to the question on non-ratification of UNCLOS, from Voice of America:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

June 06, 2016 7:00 PM

Sometime in the next several weeks, an international tribunal in The Hague will announce its long-awaited ruling on a territorial dispute in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines. The court is expected to rule at least partially in favor of Manila.

China already has said it will ignore the ruling of the tribunal, which it claims is biased.

If China does disregard the decision, the United States almost certainly will portray the case as yet another instance in which Beijing flouts international law. But any U.S. attempt to pressure China over its rejection of the ruling will be complicated by the fact that Washington itself has not ratified the treaty on which the Philippine complaint is based — the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.

The vast majority of the world's nations have signed onto UNCLOS, which is known as the "constitution for the oceans." The treaty provides guidelines for how nations use the world's seas and their natural resources. It also contains mechanisms for addressing disputes, such as the current one between the Philippines and China.

The U.S. has not accepted UNCLOS because of opposition from Republicans in the Senate, where treaties must be approved by a two-thirds' vote. Failure to act on the treaty has drawn regular critiques from U.S. President Barack Obama.

Last week, Obama specifically linked the issue to China.

"If we're truly concerned about China's actions in the South China Sea ... the Senate should help strengthen our case by approving the Law of the Sea convention, as our military leaders have urged," Obama said in a commencement speech to the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Arguments against signing
Steven Groves, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has written extensively on the Law of the Sea treaty, says that argument is "completely ridiculous."

"There's no evidence to support it," Groves told VOA. "China is going to disregard any negative outcome from the arbitration whether or not the U.S. is party to the treaty or not."

Groves is among the camp of conservatives who are generally skeptical about U.S. participation in international treaties and systems, viewing them as undermining U.S. sovereignty. He also is concerned that UNCLOS will subject the U.S. to stricter and, in his view, unnecessary environmental standards.

"All indications are that if we joined the Law of the Sea treaty, that all kinds of meritless environmental lawsuits would be brought against us," Groves said.

Arguments for signing
Other analysts argue that ratifying UNCLOS would give the U.S. more leverage on the international scene, especially in relation to China.

The U.S. "could say a lot more, and probably much more convincingly" if it were a party to the treaty, says Andrew Chubb, a China expert at the University of Western Australia. "As it stands, they have to talk about more abstract terms like 'accepted rules' of international law and 'rules-based order,'" he said.

Any diplomatic damage is limited to some extent because almost all the provisions in UNCLOS reflect customary international law, which is binding on all states.

"In fact, the irony is that the United States already scrupulously follows the rules in the convention," said James Kraska, an international law expert at the U.S. Naval War College.

But Kraska says the U.S. has more to gain by formally joining UNCLOS, including a more stable legal framework for accessing resources on the extended continental shelf of the U.S. He also says joining the treaty would give the U.S. more credibility on the world stage.

"I'm not willing to say it's going to make all the difference, because China is not going to suddenly change their mind, just because we join the convention," he said. "But I think it helps."

Click to expand...

Cambodia's take on the US-China dispute in the SCS, Indonesia maintains neutrality:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Andrea TanJun 06, 2016 8:11 pm ET
(Bloomberg) -- A tiny Southeast Asian nation that in 2012 torpedoed a regional leaders’ statement on the South China Sea now says those countries won’t take sides in the disputes with China over the waterway.

“Asean tries to keep centrality,” Vuth Reth, assistant to Cambodia’s Deputy Prime Minister Tea Banh, said on Sunday, referring to the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

“We don’t say we tend to this side or that side,” Reth said in an interview on the sidelines of the Shangri-La security dialogue in Singapore.

Reth’s comments come as a Hague arbitration tribunal is expected to rule within weeks on a Philippine challenge to China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

China, Asean’s biggest trading partner, contests more than 80 percent of the waterway and has built some military infrastructure and reclaimed 3,000 acres of land in the past few years. Asean countries including Vietnam and the Philippines have overlapping claims in the area, through which more than $5 trillion in seaborne trade passes every year.

“Everything moves along and everyone agrees with what is the result,” Reth said. “Peace and prosperity will follow with that.”

Indonesian Defense Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu echoed Reth’s comments on not picking sides in the dispute.

“Indonesia’s position is that we will stand impartial and neutral on this issue,” Ryacudu said on the sidelines of the forum. “In the interest of Indonesia, we would like to find and expedite the process to find a solution to the South China Sea. That’s the most important position of Indonesia.”

Asean works as a bloc on the basis of consensus and has yet to establish a code of conduct with China for the South China Sea. While it has called for tensions to be lowered in the waters, it has never referenced China in its statements.

Indeed in 2012, Asean failed to reach common ground on the South China Sea issue, ending a regional conference without a joint statement -- the first in its 45-year history. Cambodia held the rotating chair of Asean that year.

After the meeting collapsed, Cambodia denied it had fallen prey to pressure from China to avoid raising the issue in the statement. China had warned nations beforehand to not mention the territorial spats.

China has in recent months sought to canvass support within Southeast Asia for its position on the South China Sea, emphasizing that even as it opposes the Philippines’ legal challenge, it stands for cooperation and peace.

Ahead of the arbitration ruling, its diplomats have made trips to nations in the region and met with senior officials from countries including Cambodia and Laos, which holds the Asean chair this year.

Chinese Admiral Sun Jianguo said at the forum in Singapore on Sunday that territorial disputes haven’t impeded freedom of navigation in the waterway. The U.S. has been conducting freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, with its Navy sailing ships near reefs claimed by countries including China.

“How can other people rather than your own homeowner play around in your house, if I may say,” Reth said of the China-U.S. tensions. “It’s like a thief.”

Who’s the thief?

“I know and you know,” Reth said, laughing.

Click to expand...

confusion said:

Haha, how do you go from this,


to this on the issue of Itu Aba's status?


That's very uncharacteristic of you. I'm surprised that a highly principled man such as yourself would suddenly change his opinion due to political expediency. Perhaps you've suddenly come to the realization that Itu Aba's status is indeed absolutely vital to the Philippines' core claims?

If reviewing the Philippines submission has given you a new-found realization that Itu Aba = rock is a reasonable, winning claim, by all means, please share and explain your line of reasoning. Show us how this position is supportable. Provide us with the facts to back up this claim. Show us how your understanding of this case and interpretation of international law is superior to that of Dr. Paul Gewirtz, Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale, who asserts that:

Click to expand...

I expected someone would picked up the supposedly contradictory statements that I made concerning the status of Itu Aba as to whether it is an island or rock. I am glad you actually brought this up because it concerns a subject that actually had not been discussed at all on this forum (to my knowledge) or in the cyber space.

Before I proceed with the topic of discussion I would like to from the outset state that it resolves around what UNCLOS defines as a mandatory condition to be classified as an island i.e. "that can sustain human habitation or economic life on its own". When I initially took the view that Itu Aba was probably an island, it was based on the assertion that Itu Aba was able to generate drinking water and that was based on a PR campaign recently with pictures of a well with drinking water. Frankly, I don't have much interest in Itu Aba and if those are the facts then the condition would favor that it is an island rather than not. In recent days, I had been conducting some research on the prospective arbitral award and came across a document outlining the Philippines arguments and 8 propositions which I quote :

(1) there is no fresh water on Itu Aba suitable for drinking or capable of sustaining a human settlement;
(2) there is no natural source of nourishment on the feature capable of sustaining a human settlement;
(3) there is no soil on Itu Aba capable of facilitating any kind of agricultural production that could sustain human habitation;
(4) there has never been a population on the feature that is indigenous to it;
(5) excluding military garrisons, there has never been human settlement of any kind on Itu Aba;
(6) there was not even a military occupation prior to World War II;
(7) the Taiwanese troops that are garrisoned at Itu Aba are entirely dependent for their survival on supplies from Taiwan, and apart from sunlight and air, they derive nothing they need from the feature itself;
(8) no economic activity has been or is performed on Itu Aba.

The Philippines argument got me thinking more deeply and broadly over what might constitute as sustaining human settlement and frankly until recently I had not given it much thought. In my view this question is not simply an opinion but is a matter of fact. As such, the only way to make the determination is for the arbitral commission to visit Itu Aba. It would require expert opinion to make a determination on the question of fact relating to the meaning of sustainability in terms of water and food on Itu Aba. Some questions I would suspect as relevant are :
(a)Is natural drinking water available the whole year round?
(b)Is there sufficient rain and catchment area to sustain such provision continuously during the year? If rain is only available during the monsoon, is there sufficient drinking water to sustain life during off rain period? A distinction may also need to be made between minimum to survive as opposed to sustaining human settlement.
(c)Is drinking water brought in to supplement the needs of the population?
(d)The same questions would apply to food and then to economic activities.

These questions on sustainability got me thinking whether the pictures with the well with drinking water is it one of form or substance. For example, showing pictures of a well with water doesn't mean it can sustain a settlement indefinitely. Such questions can only be answered by facts on the ground.

In short while Itu Aba may have the form of available drinking water, it needs to pass the test of sustainability and that is not established. Hence the outcome is not necessarily a slam dunk that Itu Aba is an island and why I said that the Philippines position is not as weak as I originally thought. We are working on unchartered territory and there is effectively no precedent as to how the commission would view sustainability and what they would consider as important conditions that must be met.

Resource Sustainability on Itu Aba would be a function of population working and living there. What is naturally available and sustains 20 people may not be enough to sustain 100 or 1000 people living there without additional support.

I do not believe there is a fixed number in law that says X number of people constitute natural sustainment, and likely 2 or more people being able to live off the land is enough to meet the requirements.

How many people living there beyond natural sustainment would also be irrelevant to the argument as Human growth and development in modern history has not been limited to complete environmental sustainability of a population due to technology - much to the dismay of Green parties around the world.

Zool said:

Resource Sustainability on Itu Aba would be a function of population working and living there. What is naturally available and sustains 20 people may not be enough to sustain 100 or 1000 people living there without additional support.

I do not believe there is a fixed number in law that says X number of people constitute natural sustainment, and likely 2 or more people being able to live off the land is enough to meet the requirements.

How many people living there beyond natural sustainment would also be irrelevant to the argument as Human growth and development in modern history has not been limited to complete environmental sustainability of a population due to technology - much to the dismay of Green parties around the world.

Click to expand...

I believe your thoughts are focussed on quantitative sustainment. My initial read of the hurdle is one of duration. For example, if rain fall is seasonal and there is limited catchment due to land mass then the availability of natural water that can sustain living conditions might be limited and not continous. If such a condition is prevalent then it doesn't matter what the population size is and would not meet the condition of sustainment.

Brumby said:

I believe your thoughts are focussed on quantitative sustainment. My initial read of the hurdle is one of duration. For example, if rain fall is seasonal and there is limited catchment due to land mass then the availability of natural water that can sustain living conditions might be limited and not continous. If such a condition is prevalent then it doesn't matter what the population size is and would not meet the condition of sustainment.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, a fixed amount of natural water can be stretched in terms of use if the population is smaller. So quantitative sustainment still has correlation to one of duration. Since Article 121 talks of sustaining human habitation without numbers, a minimum population of 1 would not be an unreasonable qualifying metric.

Brumby said:

(1) there is no fresh water on Itu Aba suitable for drinking or capable of sustaining a human settlement;
(2) there is no natural source of nourishment on the feature capable of sustaining a human settlement;
(3) there is no soil on Itu Aba capable of facilitating any kind of agricultural production that could sustain human habitation;
(4) there has never been a population on the feature that is indigenous to it;
(5) excluding military garrisons, there has never been human settlement of any kind on Itu Aba;
(6) there was not even a military occupation prior to World War II;
(7) the Taiwanese troops that are garrisoned at Itu Aba are entirely dependent for their survival on supplies from Taiwan, and apart from sunlight and air, they derive nothing they need from the feature itself;
(8) no economic activity has been or is performed on Itu Aba.

Click to expand...

The Filipino argument seems to be a shotgun approach and seeing what sticks. The Taiwanese have presented evidence and have openly invited the court as well as the Filipinos to physcially visit the island to ascertain themselves. So while there are skeptics to the Taiwanese PR, the Taiwanese are not indicating they are hiding anything. On the other hand, what evidence have the Filipinos presented aside from just pitching their arguments? In fact, it's peculiar they would so quickly turn down the invitation because a visit of their own with whatever accompanying experts of their choosing could further validate their arguments. It remains to be seen just how the court will make its determination. But a lack of any real physical visit would seem less than thorough.


1 - Taiwan has already shown in pics and to journalists 4 operational freshwater wells. It does not seem unreasonable to presume 4 wells is plenty to sustain 1 human year round, and that's not including catching rainwater above ground.

2 - According to the scientific literature and the results of the onsite surveys, vegetation on the island is comprised mainly of tropical coastal drifting flora, with a total of 106 land-based plant species from 46 families, including 20 species of trees,16 species of shrubs, 17 species of lianas, and 53 species of herbaceous plants. There are 147 trees on the island taller than chest height with girths greater than 100 centimeters, belonging to four common tropical species: the Indian almond (Terminalia catappa), fish poison tree (Barringtonia asiatica), lantern tree (Hernandia nymphaeifolia),and Alexandrian laurel (Calophyllum inophyllum). Most of these trees are 100-150 years old. The largest is a lantern tree four to five stories high, with a girth of 907 centimeters (equaling the arm spans of several people). Other wild crops include coconut, papaya, and plantain. There are approximately 500 coconut trees on the island, producing about 1,500 wonderfully flavored coconuts each year. There are also approximately 50 papaya trees and 50 plantain trees that grow in shrub areas, producing 200-300 kilograms of high-quality papayas and plantains each year. *

3 - Soil on Taiping Island is naturally formed and supports indigenous vegetation as well as agricultural crops

Meanwhile, samples were taken from five different areas—i.e., the sod area, coconut tree area, vegetable cultivation area, coastal forest area, and shrub area—in order to gain a better understanding of the basic properties and structural characteristics of the soil on Taiping Island. Field results revealed that soil on the island is naturally formed and supports indigenous vegetation as well as agricultural crops. The island’s soil composition and soil-profile characteristics show two main types of soil. The first type is found mainly on the outer periphery of the island. Its topsoil is grayish black, with many dry twigs and fallen leaves, and no guano layer underneath. The first 20 centimeters of topsoil consists primarily of coarse sand with a mixture of dry twigs and leaves, has definite soil structure with an abundance of plant roots, and is calcareous. At a depth of 20 to 60 centimeters it consists of eroded coral materials. The second type is found chiefly in inland areas of the island: black topsoil with many dry twigs and fallen leaves. At a depth of 20 centimeters there is a guano layer. The topsoil down to 40 centimeters consists primarily of sand with many dry twigs and leaves, and a large amount of brown lumps of guano. It is calcareous with well-formed soil structure, a greater amount of organic matter, and an abundance of plant roots. Both types of naturally formed soil on the island support indigenous vegetation and agricultural crops. *

4-6 Nothing in Article 121 sets a time limit.

7 - Please see 2.

8 - Just one of the two qualifiers for an EEZ under Article 121 which lists as "OR", not "AND". Furthermore, again, no time limit set in 121. If Taiwan wanted to start basing a small fishing fleet out of Taiping, that's easily an economic activity. Eco-tourism can be an economic activity as well.


*

This is another perfect example of selective information gathering by Brumby. He only considers the secondary sources coming from the Philippines, w/o bothering to gather 1st hand information from Taiwan.

Brumby said:

(1) there is no fresh water on Itu Aba suitable for drinking or capable of sustaining a human settlement;

Click to expand...

Taiping Island has four existing wells. The proportion of freshwater in four of them is 99.1, 75.8, 97.5, and 96.8 percent, respectively, averaging 92.3 percent. About 65 metric tons of water can be pumped from these wells daily to provide drinking water and meet cooking and everyday needs. Apart from well water, there are water-retaining facilities mainly used for farming.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Using the average water usage of 100 gallons a day of a typical American, Itu Aba is capable of supporting the water needs of 146 typical Americans. There's clearly enough water on Itu Aba to easily support a small population.

Scientists from NTU in Taiwan have determined that:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Water on Taiping Island is potable and of higher quality than groundwater on Penghu Island

Click to expand...

This cannot be a very high bar. There are many islands in Micronesia and Melanesia that derive their primary source of nourishment from fishing on atolls away from the island of residence. Take Satawal for example. The island itself is incapable of producing enough food to sustain the local population. The fish around Satawal is not nearly enough. The limited food derived from the local coconut trees, breadfruit trees and taro cultivation are not nearly enough to sustain the population. You can also apply this logic to Diego Garcia - there's no farming/fishing on Diego Garcia.

All you need to do is to show that nourishment is possible. You can fish in the atoll around Itu Aba. There are naturally growing coconut, papaya, and plaintain trees on the island. This situation is very similar to that of small Pacific islands like Satawal.

Wild coconut, papaya, and plantain are found all over the island and can be harvested throughout the year, enabling Taiping Island to sustain human habitation and economic life of its own

Click to expand...

You can certainly do limited agriculture on a level similar to Satawal. There's no requirement that you need to deforest the entire island to ensure that the population derives all of its sustenance from the base island.

(2) there is no natural source of nourishment on the feature capable of sustaining a human settlement;

Click to expand...

Also, the official UNCLOS regulation only states the below - there's no requirement that the island must derive all sustenance from the island in question; which is a very reasonable position, since many small Pacific islands derive most of their sustenance from off-island fishing.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation
or economic life of their own shall have no ex-
clusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

Click to expand...

Only uninformed idiots or the most biased fools in the world could take this position.

(3) there is no soil on Itu Aba capable of facilitating any kind of agricultural production that could sustain human habitation;

Click to expand...

1st, Itu Aba used to be farmed for guano. That's an indirect hint that the soil was actually very rich in nutrients; it's likely that Itu Aba's soil was more fertile in the past. There are some huge trees that have been growing on Itu Aba, some of which are over 100-150 years old. These type of trees cannot grow without the presence of topsoil, trees like this - all those fallen leaves around the trees are clearly vital in creating a topsoil layer:


Nevertheless, lets move on to the facts.

Meanwhile, samples were taken from five different areas—i.e., the sod area, coconut tree area, vegetable cultivation area, coastal forest area, and shrub area—in order to gain a better understanding of the basic properties and structural characteristics of the soil on Taiping Island. Field results revealed that soil on the island is naturally formed and supports indigenous vegetation as well as agricultural crops. The island’s soil composition and soil-profile characteristics show two main types of soil. The first type is found mainly on the outer periphery of the island. Its topsoil is grayish black, with many dry twigs and fallen leaves, and no guano layer underneath. The first 20 centimeters of topsoil consists primarily of coarse sand with a mixture of dry twigs and leaves, has definite soil structure with an abundance of plant roots, and is calcareous. At a depth of 20 to 60 centimeters it consists of eroded coral materials. The second type is found chiefly in inland areas of the island: black topsoil with many dry twigs and fallen leaves. At a depth of 20 centimeters there is a guano layer. The topsoil down to 40 centimeters consists primarily of sand with many dry twigs and leaves, and a large amount of brown lumps of guano. It is calcareous with well-formed soil structure, a greater amount of organic matter, and an abundance of plant roots. Both types of naturally formed soil on the island support indigenous vegetation and agricultural crops.

Click to expand...

You can clearly grow a lot of stuff in that type of soil.

These three points are non-issues - there's no requirement for "indigenous population" or "type of population/requirement of civilian population" or "time that island must be settled by".

(4) there has never been a population on the feature that is indigenous to it;
(5) excluding military garrisons, there has never been human settlement of any kind on Itu Aba;
(6) there was not even a military occupation prior to World War II;

Click to expand...

It is interesting that the Philippines has included these unnecessary requirements - it reeks of desperation, but there is a purpose; the strict standards elsewhere that the Philippines is trying to apply to Itu Aba would demote many other islands to the status of rocks, so they're trying to add these little unnecessary requirements to 'differentiate' their claim - "oh, if you add these requirements, then ALL of these requirements would only negate the status of Itu Aba. Other islands like Satawal would be unaffected."

Clearly a very low bar historically that the Philippines is trying to raise very high. Satawal has barely any economic activity - they fish together and share the fish with the whole community. What type of economic activity is taking place on Diego Garcia aside from military-related economic activities? Are the troops on Diego Garcia farming and fishing to sustain themselves on the island? Hilarious.

(7) the Taiwanese troops that are garrisoned at Itu Aba are entirely dependent for their survival on supplies from Taiwan, and apart from sunlight and air, they derive nothing they need from the feature itself;
(8) no economic activity has been or is performed on Itu Aba.

Click to expand...

I agree completely with this statement. Actually, this is the exact position of the Taiwan government. Taiwan has declared that the PCA cannot fairly rule on the status of Itu Aba without visiting the island.

As such, the only way to make the determination is for the arbitral commission to visit Itu Aba.

Click to expand...

In fact, Taiwan has BEGGED the PCA to visit Itu Aba. Taiwan has graciously extended an invitation, several times, for the Filipino government to send representatives to Itu Aba to gather information first-hand on conditions at Itu Aba. Both the PCA and the Filipino government have declined Taiwan's invitation. If the Filipino government was unwilling to send researchers to "confirm" the data that they sent to the PCA, what does that tell you about the reliability of the Filipino's information?

However, the PCA not visiting does tell me one thing: they think they have all of the information necessary to make a determination, since this case is pretty simple and obvious: Itu Aba is not a rock.

If you still believe in that nonsense, then why not put your money where your mouth is? I offer you a avatar bet that starts on the date that the PCA releases its ruling. I believe that the PCA will not rule that Itu Aba is a rock. If I win, you have to use an avatar as selected by me for one year. If you win, I'll use an avatar as selected by you for 5 years. I'm giving you 5:1 odds here. Surely you can't refuse if you're truly that confident that Itu Aba = rock is a valid, legal argument?

Interesting legal note here: France and the UK have never formally renounced their claims to the Spratly Islands.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Tuesday, June 7, 2016, 4:12 PM
At Foreign Policy, Keith Johnson and Dan De Luce

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on a new European pushback against China's South China Sea policies:

France has thrown its hat into the acrimonious South China Sea debate, calling for more European naval patrols in a contested waterway that is at the center of a growing dispute between China and the United States and its Asian allies.

French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, speaking Sunday at a three-day security conference in Singapore, called on European navies to have a “regular and visible” presence in the region to uphold the law of the sea and freedom of navigation.

The new French vociferousness appears linked to the looming ruling in the Philippines' arbitral case challenging some of China's most audacious maritime claims. But it shouldn't be entirely forgotten that France and Britain have colorable (if dormant) legal claims to some South China Sea islands. In his

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, journalist Bill Hayton lays out the tangled history of the historical claims to the Spratly Islands, in particular. Britain publicly laid claim to Spratly Island in 1877, and France made its own bid for possession in the 1930s. Summing up the historical evidence and law, Hayton notes "the apparently ridiculous situation whereby Britain or France might have as strong a legal claim to the islands as any of the states that border the Sea."

Ridiculous it may be, but as Hayton points out, neither France nor Britain has formally renounced their historical claims. That oversight is likely not lost on Chinese officials.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

I believe your thoughts are focussed on quantitative sustainment. My initial read of the hurdle is one of duration. For example, if rain fall is seasonal and there is limited catchment due to land mass then the availability of natural water that can sustain living conditions might be limited and not continous. If such a condition is prevalent then it doesn't matter what the population size is and would not meet the condition of sustainment.

Click to expand...

Joshuatree was able to continue my point before I could login again but the logic is the same as my earlier post - Quantity or Duration is all relative to population size and resource draw. So again, rainfall and weather patterns may sustain a group of 20 individuals via the natural water table indefinitely while 100+ people will need additional supply from outside sources, or perhaps technology like desalinization.

It seems logically irrelevant to me in that case, so long as the island can sustain 1 or 2 people naturally. After that it becomes a choice of how Human beings choose to work and develop the land. We have never limited our development on the basis of environmental sustainment. South West United States would be a desert without a whole lot of intervention. Las Vegas? Forget about it.

So to your original thought that Itu Aba being ruled an island could be more involved, I would disagree per that logic. I think it's the same reason you won't find legal basis for such complexity (X number of people or X number of years) in a ruling; it just does not make sense.

Zool said:

Joshuatree was able to continue my point before I could login again but the logic is the same as my earlier post - Quantity or Duration is all relative to population size and resource draw. So again, rainfall and weather patterns may sustain a group of 20 individuals via the natural water table indefinitely while 100+ people will need additional supply from outside sources, or perhaps technology like desalinization.

It seems logically irrelevant to me in that case, so long as the island can sustain 1 or 2 people naturally. After that it becomes a choice of how Human beings choose to work and develop the land. We have never limited our development on the basis of environmental sustainment. South West United States would be a desert without a whole lot of intervention. Las Vegas? Forget about it.

So to your original thought that Itu Aba being ruled an island could be more involved, I would disagree per that logic. I think it's the same reason you won't find legal basis for such complexity (X number of people or X number of years) in a ruling; it just does not make sense.

Click to expand...

I do not know what methodology the commission will apply even it decides to take on the determination. Historically, the commission had avoided doing so and to my knowledge there is only one known case that it did make a determination.

My earlier comment about minimum threshold still stands before population sizing becomes even relevant. If drinking water is naturally abundant then such a hurdle becomes a non issue. My read of sustainment is one of being able to sustain life naturally and not about economic sustainment.

Should the commission decide to take on the issue, any determination will be based on facts on the ground. It will be unchartered waters.