South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
Of coruse I meant Senkaku Islands 
solarz
Brigadier
Really? Did the Philippines miss the memo on that?
You can claim that the islands were honestly stolen in 1895 and that therefore the claim is bogus. But as the claim is there the islands are disputed. There were such disputes even before international courts existed.
joshuatree
Captain
Well that is why the Philippines filed a case about validation of their EEZ and skipped resolving sovereignty over land features. In doing so, it's avoiding the requirement of the ICJ requiring both parties to agree when ruling over a territorial dispute. UNCLOS allows a state to opt out of listed methods of resolution (one being ICJ) on resolving EEZ issues but at the same time, allows the other state to continue to file a case over EEZ issues.
But in my opinion, this case is all for show as how can one panel honestly evaluate a state's EEZ entitlement without first knowing definitively what is considered that respective state's territory.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Empirical evidence show Japan is very much concerned about China's legitimate claims, that's why it spends so much resource, treasure, and political influence to support its position. As for the International Court of Justice adjudicating Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute, it's probably the best compromise in the short-term, but less clear if that's beneficial for China in the long-run. My preferred solution is for both sides to back off and leave the red hot problem for future generations to resolve.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The problem is nations may espouse proportional responses, in reality they do whatever they feel they must for their national interests. If their actions are proportional, then so much the better. But! Interests trump sentimentality, and always will. Better philosophies to live by are don't sit on the train tracks if you don't want to get run over, and don't start fights you can't finish. Philippines and Vietnam should have kept those in mind before they opened Pandora's box.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Nothing prevents Japan from filing with the ICJ, as it's perfectly free to do so even if China objects. However, why chance events in third-party hands, if it's not absolutely necessary? Aside from setting a precedence for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to drag you in court, there's the distinct possibility of losing the case too. Why do you think the US avoids the ICJ when possible, and ignores its rulings when it doesn't like them? Yes, that's right, because it can.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The prerequisite of defining EEZ ownership is sovereignty resolution, without which the former can't legally be enforced. It also gives the ICJ an excuse to punt and not risk the losing side ignoring its decisions.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Japan has three times in the past in which SK had refused to go to ICJ. For ICJ to take up a case, both parties is required to agree but once filed, it is considered disputed territory.
The Senkaku is therefore not considered disputed since PRC had never filed for ICJ arbitration. With Japan being a compulsory member once filed by PRC it automatically goes to court since Japan cannot refuse.
If PRC actually has empirical evidence then why do they not file it up to ICJ? As I had written above Japan is a compulsory member of ICJ so Japan cannot refuse arbitration and accept any rulings. Bottom line Japan has no worries in the world of losing.
Brumby
Major
So are you agreeing that China's actions are not meeting the proportional principle in accordance with international law? Do we have a resolution regarding your assertion that a higher standard is being placed on China so that we can put this issue to bed?