China's SCS Strategy Thread

[confusion]

BTW, the lead council for the Philippines in their arbitration case is Paul Reichler, the same man who represented Mauritius in their case against the UK at UNCLOS.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lead council for the Philippines Paul Reichler “belongs to a select group of elite lawyers with extensive experience litigating on behalf of Sovereign States before the International Court of Justice," according to Chambers Global 2010. He has previously represented Mauritius in a similar UNCLOS dispute with the U.K.

While the court's findings are in theory binding for Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) signatory nations like China, the arbitration panel has no enforcement ability, and in the past its findings have sometimes been ignored by litigants.

Yeah, ignored by the UK and the US. So much delicious irony here.

 

[taxiya]

My problem isn't with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or any other international governing bodies that nations freely and voluntarily sign up, because while they were mostly setup by Western states, they have evolved to be more or less inclusive and relatively just.

However, in Philippines' case before the PCA, I believe the court overreached and China has grounds to ignore any ruling by saying it legally exercised its right to opt out.

I agree with you on this one.

Without difference with you, I myself and many others have no problem with PCA or any other international institutions so long as they act within their legal framework and stay within their mandated legal jurisdiction. But very often, they overreach or stretch their mandates turning themselves into a political tool of some entities, degrading their legitimacy, and therefor making themselves a laughing stock. This is a very bad precedent and practice, by doing so they effectively destroy the international institutions that are there to do good. PCA would have been at no fault if it dismissed the Philippine case after reviewing it something as "due to the fact of China's legitimaste opt out of the specific chapter of UNCLOS, this court find that the case is outside of the jurisdiction of this court". That would be a professional and impartial decision.

Without going too off topic, another example is the recent African countries threatening to leave ICC based on alleged bias (I agree with) on African countries, ignoring African Union's offer to prosecute the cases in AU proposed court. Most African countries were initially enthusiastic supporters and funding members of Treaty of Rome that established ICC, now look at what is happening, "misconduct" by ICC itself (primarily its western members) has destroyed it.

 

[Brumby]

Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is just a kangaroo court. One type of it is "a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations".
BTW, it is not a court (of law), but a bureaucracy. The word "court" does mislead people to believe it to hold higher legitimacy than it really has. It has nothing to do with but very often being confused with the UN ICJ also situated in Hague, once again "stealing" (by medias with agenda) legitimacy from UN.

As I have said before, non of the other SCS claimants than China did EXIST as a legal state entity at the time when China declared her sovereignty over SCS. IF for the argument's sake there is a dispute, it can only be between China, U.S.A. (Sovereign of Philippine) and/or France (Vietnam), UK (Malaysia), even Japan has a better standing than the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia, but it has surrendered its claim as the condition of ending WWII. Again, non of U.S.A., France or UK rejected China's claim back then. So how could some non-existence jump out and make a claim and being admitted into PCA proceeding? That really shows how low PCA has degenerated to be a kangaroo "court", a piece of junk.

In a sports game you know your team is in trouble when you resort to attacking the referee.

 

[kyanges]

In a sports game you know your team is in trouble when you resort to attacking the referee.

Suppose they could just ignore the referee like Britain did. (As mentioned a few posts back.)

 

[AndrewS]

Plus have you seen the quality of refereeing in some international-level sports games?

There was a running joke and groan when the Scottish referee ended up refereeing international football matches, but hey, the place has to be represented due to politics.

 

[Brumby]

Without difference with you, I myself and many others have no problem with PCA or any other international institutions so long as they act within their legal framework and stay within their mandated legal jurisdiction. But very often, they overreach or stretch their mandates turning themselves into a political tool of some entities, degrading their legitimacy, and therefor making themselves a laughing stock. This is a very bad precedent and practice, by doing so they effectively destroy the international institutions that are there to do good. PCA would have been at no fault if it dismissed the Philippine case after reviewing it something as "due to the fact of China's legitimaste opt out of the specific chapter of UNCLOS, this court find that the case is outside of the jurisdiction of this court". That would be a professional and impartial decision.

Your reasoning is the PCA is at fault because you don't like their determination. Your statements reflect total ignorance of the arbitral process that is contained in the UNCLOS provisions. Article 9 Annex VII requires that the Tribunal a duty to consider it has jurisdiction based on both law and facts before accepting the arbitration.


This continuing rubbish about the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction because of China's opt out reflects a complete ignorance of the facts. For goodness sake, go and have a look at the basis of the Tribunal's determination and what had been accepted rather than just parrot propaganda.

 

[Brumby]

Suppose they could just ignore the referee like Britain did. (As mentioned a few posts back.)

So what about Britain? Two wrongs make a right? This thread is on China's strategy and not Britain if you haven't noticed.

 

[taxiya]

Your reasoning is the PCA is at fault because you don't like their determination. Your statements reflect total ignorance of the arbitral process that is contained in the UNCLOS provisions. Article 9 Annex VII requires that the Tribunal a duty to consider it has jurisdiction based on both law and facts before accepting the arbitration.
View attachment 26990

This continuing rubbish about the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction because of China's opt out reflects a complete ignorance of the facts. For goodness sake, go and have a look at the basis of the Tribunal's determination and what had been accepted rather than just parrot propaganda.

all your words is based on the assumption that PCA has jurisdiction. For that assumption you referred to Article 9 Annex VII.

Article 9 Annex VII requires that the Tribunal a duty to consider it has jurisdiction

This is your base. However, "a duty to consider" will only lead to a review of the filing not necessarily a proceeding, is it not? It only means duty to consider, no more. Duty =\= Jurisdiction. I also suggest you to revisit logic class.

The opt out act (read the Chinese claim some posts back) were taken by many tenths countries. The act exclude them from taking up or accepting any legal proceedings of such nature, making such proceedings including PCA arbitration without a legal base, is that right? so the review (to determine whether or not accept the case) is a duty, but not the admitting and proceeding, is it right? Because of the opt out which removed the legal ground of arbitration there is ONLY one logical outcome of the review process, dismiss.

For example, if a Chinese person who has never been to U.S. sue a person in Germany in a court in Texas, non of them has anything related to U.S. What will happen then? I am sure the court will have the duty to review the case, but ONLY to find out whether the case is valid in the court, and the only conclusion can be dismiss, no proceeding should ever happen. The court would breaking laws if it choose to proceed. That is exactly what I am saying. Don't know if you can get the idea. I doubt as I sense you are acting exactly as the PCA.

All your accusation of me ignoring the arbitral process and asking me to look at the Tribunal's blah blah Is based on the assumption of PCA has the right to proceed, that is what I was rejecting all the time due to what I have said in the paragraph above. So there is no need for me to answer this, but I suggest you to think of my "is that right?"s

Finally, you own me an apology for calling my posts "rubbish". You have every right to disagree with me by arguing, but your wording is personal insult without doubt. And anything other than an apology is "the word of yours" in return.

 

[taxiya]

View attachment 26990

This is irrelevant as I have always said the proceeding itself (not the reviewing) has no legal base as if there is no chicken, no one is going to fight for the egg.

 

[joshuatree]

So what about Britain? Two wrongs make a right? This thread is on China's strategy and not Britain if you haven't noticed.

I agree this thread is about China's strategy in the SCS. But that could mean taking a page out of what Britain does when it comes to court rulings that are not in its favor.