China's SCS Strategy Thread

[no_name]

Guys, are we there yet?

 

[delft]

I do not think that the territories of other countries are as well defined as that of the Philippines but that countries at least has a precisely defined extend in the Paris peace agreement between US and Spain. I haven't read it but I understand the islands we are discussing do not belong the the Philippines.

 

[nfgc]

What is peculiar about 1810 that you would draw the starting point from there? Because the current international order actually is based more or less on the end of World War II.

That date is when the Qing began to weaken, wrt the rest of the world, resulting in 168 years of societal chaos.

 

[janjak desalin]

[...]Out of all these kind of "rating" opinion surveys (Likert scales) that I've studied and taken myself, there usually are at least five options so there is at least one intermediary between each of the extremes and between the neutral view.

I've preferred to use a seven option Likert scale in the surveys I've either designed or contributed to. I like to allow for the grey shades. A four option, or any even numbered option, in my opinion, is simply a forced choice test.
Ok, back on topic!

 

[plawolf]

If going by UNCLOS, are other claimants being asked to abide with the same scrutiny and intensity as China? I don't have an issue with asking a claimant to abide so long as it's equally being asked of all others involved.

What is peculiar about 1810 that you would draw the starting point from there? Because the current international order actually is based more or less on the end of World War II.

China specifically and clearly exercised the opt-out option set out in UNCLOS, which was available to all, upon ratification thereby making it clear it does not accept nor abide by UNCLOS rules on dispute resolution and settlement.

That is the end of the matter on using UNCLOS to determine ownership on the islands.

 

[janjak desalin]

That is the end of the matter on using UNCLOS to determine ownership on the islands.

Yes, it is!
As always, some prefer to unquestioningly subscribe to policy regimes the 'legitimacy' of which derive their spurious 'legality' from the prerogatives and rationales of western imperialist, colonialist, or expansionist, projects, particularly as those regimes support their own nationalist chauvinism.
Isn't it interesting that conditions resultant of western imperialist, colonialist, and expansionist, projects are considered, by some, to be the natural order and that any challenge to these conditions is perceived as, somehow, wrong? Perhaps Haiti should still be enslaved by France, China should remain bound by the "unequal treaties" of the 19th century, and the United States should cede its sovereignty back to Great Britain? Or is only the later of these utter nonsense?
As a descendant of Indigenous Americans and Africans, I tend to question the presumed legitimacy of all 'Enlightened' European inter-ethnic/international policies. The current world order is not based on any equitable policies of justice and the New World Order will not be determined solely by the prerogatives of the present regime of domination. At some point, Operation Ajax will have to be recognized as an illegal violation of a nations sovereignty! Deal with it!

 

[joshuatree]

China specifically and clearly exercised the opt-out option set out in UNCLOS, which was available to all, upon ratification thereby making it clear it does not accept nor abide by UNCLOS rules on dispute resolution and settlement.

That is the end of the matter on using UNCLOS to determine ownership on the islands.

Actually, UNCLOS has no authority on determining ownership of those islands.

What China has legally opted out of is the maritime rights dispute resolution methods listed within UNCLOS.

 

[joshuatree]

That date is when the Qing began to weaken, wrt the rest of the world, resulting in 168 years of societal chaos.

So what is the argument you are making whether pro or anti-China based on the date you listed as when the Qing began to weaken?

 

[nfgc]

China specifically and clearly exercised the opt-out option set out in UNCLOS, which was available to all, upon ratification thereby making it clear it does not accept nor abide by UNCLOS rules on dispute resolution and settlement.

In particular, China's rejection for any venue to adjudicate or arbitrate anything, that is not a venue in China under the laws of China and no other. Also note the section XV that they mentioned, has Article 292. Prompt release of vessels and crews.

"The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV"

SECTION 2. COMPULSORY PROCEDURES ENTAILING BINDING DECISIONS

ANY? Including prompt release of vessels and crews?

So what is the argument you are making whether pro or anti-China based on the date you listed as when the Qing began to weaken?

That China is going to perceive any international law or treaty from that date forward as being illegitimate unless it resolves in China's favour or China had control of its content.

China gets its way, or the treaty is unfair.

 

[solarz]

In particular, China's rejection for any venue to adjudicate or arbitrate anything, that is not a venue in China under the laws of China and no other. Also note the section XV that they mentioned, has Article 292. Prompt release of vessels and crews.

"The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV"

SECTION 2. COMPULSORY PROCEDURES ENTAILING BINDING DECISIONS

ANY? Including prompt release of vessels and crews?

That China is going to perceive any international law or treaty from that date forward as being illegitimate unless it resolves in China's favour or China had control of its content.

China gets its way, or the treaty is unfair.

Are you serious? China does not follow international treaties because it specifically opted out of a section of a treaty that the US didn't even sign?