The false narrative is that the arbitral commission has legal standing to make the determination. This is part of the false narrative that UNCLOS is interpreted and recognized by all countries the same way in its entirety. There are many interpretations, points of contention, non-signatories to UNCLOS, and signatories opting out to various parts of UNCLOS, including China opting out of mandatory arbitration settlement.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
The false narrative is that the arbitral commission has legal standing to make the determination. This is part of the false narrative that UNCLOS is interpreted and recognized by all countries the same way in its entirety. There are many interpretations, points of contention, non-signatories to UNCLOS, and signatories opting out to various parts of UNCLOS, including China opting out of mandatory arbitration settlement.
It said the court is biased cause it has no chinese judges.
It plans to estbalish a new international court replacing the one in hague in Beijing.
It said That's more like it,
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
This is an example of irrationality when placed against facts. Article 288(4) gives the PCA the legal standing. Sorry you can accuse the PCA of having applied wrong judgement but the legal standing to make the determination is grounded on facts.
@weig2000
In the 1980s, Japan saw itself as the "leader" of Asia and couldn't imagine China ever being anything other than a poor agrarian state that wasn't any threat. Now it is very different, and they are having a very difficult time adjusting to changes in the world.
I agree that Vietnam is pragmatic, so eventually things will change. The relevant example here is the relationship between Mexico and the USA.
The Philippines is kind of an artificial country in my opinion, as it has been a colony since it was founded as a Spanish colony in the 1500s, before becoming an American colony in 1898 and then independence in 1946.
So for most of its history, it hasn't ever fended for itself and has always been *dependent* on an outside power. I think that mentality is still very much prevalent, as the surveys also show that Filipinos love Americans more than themselves.
===
The other thing to note is the huge generational gap in attitudes between young and old.
Eg. In the US
a) 27% of over-50s have a favourable view of China
b) 55% of under-30s have a favourable view of China
So it is very much a case of waiting for the over-50s in the USA to fade away (ie. the Trumps/Clintons/McCains/Harrises), before the next generation takes over.
===
And I would agree the military guys are always dramatising the situation. The military generally attracts a certain personality/viewpoint type and they spend all their time talking to other military guys.
Whereas the politicians in both the US and China - spend all their time doing all sorts of deals with each other - and use the military as a signalling mechanism.
In the 1980s, Japan saw itself as the "leader" of Asia and couldn't imagine China ever being anything other than a poor agrarian state that wasn't any threat. Now it is very different, and they are having a very difficult time adjusting to changes in the world.
I agree that Vietnam is pragmatic, so eventually things will change. The relevant example here is the relationship between Mexico and the USA.
The Philippines is kind of an artificial country in my opinion, as it has been a colony since it was founded as a Spanish colony in the 1500s, before becoming an American colony in 1898 and then independence in 1946.
So for most of its history, it hasn't ever fended for itself and has always been *dependent* on an outside power. I think that mentality is still very much prevalent, as the surveys also show that Filipinos love Americans more than themselves.
===
The other thing to note is the huge generational gap in attitudes between young and old.
Eg. In the US
a) 27% of over-50s have a favourable view of China
b) 55% of under-30s have a favourable view of China
So it is very much a case of waiting for the over-50s in the USA to fade away (ie. the Trumps/Clintons/McCains/Harrises), before the next generation takes over.
===
And I would agree the military guys are always dramatising the situation. The military generally attracts a certain personality/viewpoint type and they spend all their time talking to other military guys.
Whereas the politicians in both the US and China - spend all their time doing all sorts of deals with each other - and use the military as a signalling mechanism.
Last edited:
I don't know what is going on in this thread, but it needs to stop. First, insinuating that Harris is hawkish toward China due to being half Japanese is completely out of line with this forum. There are plenty of Americans who hold hawkish views toward China and making this about race is simply not acceptable.
From personal experience, I've met numerous people on these military forums of Chinese ethnicity who are involved with or serving with ABAC (America, Britain, Australia, Canada) militaries who have views that are more hawkish than what Harris has publicly advocated. So, please keep this away from an American's ethnicity.
As for this talk of Western imperialism and using phrases like "white-man's burden" is completely not helpful here. I'm shutting this thread down for a couple of days and deleting all the inappropriate posts.
Other moderators, please re-open this again in 2 days if I don't do so.
When this gets reopened, please stay on topic rather than getting into politics and race.
From personal experience, I've met numerous people on these military forums of Chinese ethnicity who are involved with or serving with ABAC (America, Britain, Australia, Canada) militaries who have views that are more hawkish than what Harris has publicly advocated. So, please keep this away from an American's ethnicity.
As for this talk of Western imperialism and using phrases like "white-man's burden" is completely not helpful here. I'm shutting this thread down for a couple of days and deleting all the inappropriate posts.
Other moderators, please re-open this again in 2 days if I don't do so.
When this gets reopened, please stay on topic rather than getting into politics and race.
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
I this is a good rebuttal to accusation that China somehow is not in compliance with UNCLOS. Anyway Liu is right why go to a court when the card is stack against you . It is a farce
Stop playing with fire in the South China Sea
A naval soldier of the Chinese People's Liberation Army aboard the aircraft carrier Liaoning Credit: REUTERS/XINHUA
Away from Britain’s focus on the, a serious international situation is developing in the . Although little reported in the UK, there is now much discussion about whether China should accept the ruling of the South China Sea arbitration process.
Proponents of this idea claim that China’s rejection would “undermine” the “rule-based international system” and would put the peace and stability of the region “under immediate threat”. We disagree.
The Philippines has abused its right of action by knowingly initiating an unlawful case
It is important to understand that this arbitration process was in fact started by the Philippines unilaterally as an attempt to legitimise their illegal occupation of the Nansha islands and reefs.
Unknown to most of the British public is the fact that more than 40 of China’s islands and reefs in Nansha are illegally occupied by the Philippines and some other countries, who have built airstrips and deployed weapons there. The Philippines in particular has kept provoking disputes over islands and reefs time and again by, for example, “grounding” a warship forcibly and illegally on China’s reef to lay its claim.
China responded with maximum self-restraint, appealing for negotiations and consultations. We have called for disputes to be shelved and for joint development pending the ultimate solution of the issue.
China constructs two lighthouses on disputed South China Sea islands Play! 01:16
However, it now appears that the Philippines sees China’s self-restraint as being weak. It has therefore gone one step further. It not only wants Chinese islands and reefs but has also filed for arbitration to drape its illegal occupation in the cloak of law.
Yet the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case at all. The submissions made by the Philippines appear to be related only to the classification of maritime features and fishery disputes, but are in essence inseparable from territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.
Territorial sovereignty is not within the scope of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), whose preamble states that it establishes a legal order for the seas and oceans “with due regard for the sovereignty of all States”. China made a clear declaration in 2006 in accordance with UNCLOS to exclude maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration. More than 30 other countries, including Britain, have made similar declarations.
Despite the fact that this tribunal has no jurisdiction over either territorial sovereignty or maritime delimitation, the Philippines has abused its right of action by knowingly initiating an unlawful case.
The tribunal meanwhile has abused its right of competency by knowingly accepting a case that is clearly not within its jurisdiction.
Tom Zwart, a law professor at Utrecht University, warned in a recent article that in East Asia, “the [arbitration] award will be widely regarded as the fruit of a poisonous tree, and it will fail, therefore, to garner the necessary support”.
Such a view is shared by numerous international law experts around the world. China’s non-participation in the arbitration process upholds international law.
The Law of the Sea clearly provides for a bilateral approach prior to any third-party mechanism, including arbitration. Yet it is clear that bilateral options between China and the Philippines have not been exhausted. The tribunal’s imprudent decision to start the compulsory arbitration process suggests a lack of even minimal respect for the spirit and principles of the UNCLOS to say the least.
Would anybody go into a football match where the rival team has conspired with the referee? Of course not. The fans and audience would not accept it.
The “wirepuller” behind the arbitration is self-evident. For years this country from outside the region has been stepping up its rebalancing strategy in the Asia Pacific.
Its politicians have been making provocative remarks when talking about its Asia Pacific policies and the South China Sea issue, and its military has invested massively in the South China Sea region and areas around it.
The arbitration is in fact its carefully drafted show; the Philippines is merely reading the script.
The parties directly involved in the South China Sea should consult and negotiate face to face, drawing on historical facts and international law
Ironically, while pointing the finger at others and labelling China as “not abiding by international law” in the name of protecting UNCLOS and the international law, this country seems to have forgotten that it has itself refused to sign UNCLOS.
There is a quote from the Bible which neatly sums up the situation: “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?”
My advice for the Philippines is to return to a negotiated solution, and for some countries from outside the region to stop playing with fire.
The parties directly involved in the South China Sea should consult and negotiate face to face, drawing on historical facts and international law. This is the only way we will resolve the South China Sea issue, restore harmony, and bring about lasting peace, cooperation and prosperity to this region.
Liu Xiaoming is China’s ambassador to the UK
Stop playing with fire in the South China Sea
A naval soldier of the Chinese People's Liberation Army aboard the aircraft carrier Liaoning Credit: REUTERS/XINHUA
Away from Britain’s focus on the, a serious international situation is developing in the . Although little reported in the UK, there is now much discussion about whether China should accept the ruling of the South China Sea arbitration process.
Proponents of this idea claim that China’s rejection would “undermine” the “rule-based international system” and would put the peace and stability of the region “under immediate threat”. We disagree.
The Philippines has abused its right of action by knowingly initiating an unlawful case
It is important to understand that this arbitration process was in fact started by the Philippines unilaterally as an attempt to legitimise their illegal occupation of the Nansha islands and reefs.
Unknown to most of the British public is the fact that more than 40 of China’s islands and reefs in Nansha are illegally occupied by the Philippines and some other countries, who have built airstrips and deployed weapons there. The Philippines in particular has kept provoking disputes over islands and reefs time and again by, for example, “grounding” a warship forcibly and illegally on China’s reef to lay its claim.
China responded with maximum self-restraint, appealing for negotiations and consultations. We have called for disputes to be shelved and for joint development pending the ultimate solution of the issue.
China constructs two lighthouses on disputed South China Sea islands Play! 01:16
However, it now appears that the Philippines sees China’s self-restraint as being weak. It has therefore gone one step further. It not only wants Chinese islands and reefs but has also filed for arbitration to drape its illegal occupation in the cloak of law.
Yet the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case at all. The submissions made by the Philippines appear to be related only to the classification of maritime features and fishery disputes, but are in essence inseparable from territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.
Territorial sovereignty is not within the scope of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), whose preamble states that it establishes a legal order for the seas and oceans “with due regard for the sovereignty of all States”. China made a clear declaration in 2006 in accordance with UNCLOS to exclude maritime delimitation from compulsory arbitration. More than 30 other countries, including Britain, have made similar declarations.
Despite the fact that this tribunal has no jurisdiction over either territorial sovereignty or maritime delimitation, the Philippines has abused its right of action by knowingly initiating an unlawful case.
The tribunal meanwhile has abused its right of competency by knowingly accepting a case that is clearly not within its jurisdiction.
Tom Zwart, a law professor at Utrecht University, warned in a recent article that in East Asia, “the [arbitration] award will be widely regarded as the fruit of a poisonous tree, and it will fail, therefore, to garner the necessary support”.
Such a view is shared by numerous international law experts around the world. China’s non-participation in the arbitration process upholds international law.
The Law of the Sea clearly provides for a bilateral approach prior to any third-party mechanism, including arbitration. Yet it is clear that bilateral options between China and the Philippines have not been exhausted. The tribunal’s imprudent decision to start the compulsory arbitration process suggests a lack of even minimal respect for the spirit and principles of the UNCLOS to say the least.
Would anybody go into a football match where the rival team has conspired with the referee? Of course not. The fans and audience would not accept it.
The “wirepuller” behind the arbitration is self-evident. For years this country from outside the region has been stepping up its rebalancing strategy in the Asia Pacific.
Its politicians have been making provocative remarks when talking about its Asia Pacific policies and the South China Sea issue, and its military has invested massively in the South China Sea region and areas around it.
The arbitration is in fact its carefully drafted show; the Philippines is merely reading the script.
The parties directly involved in the South China Sea should consult and negotiate face to face, drawing on historical facts and international law
Ironically, while pointing the finger at others and labelling China as “not abiding by international law” in the name of protecting UNCLOS and the international law, this country seems to have forgotten that it has itself refused to sign UNCLOS.
There is a quote from the Bible which neatly sums up the situation: “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?”
My advice for the Philippines is to return to a negotiated solution, and for some countries from outside the region to stop playing with fire.
The parties directly involved in the South China Sea should consult and negotiate face to face, drawing on historical facts and international law. This is the only way we will resolve the South China Sea issue, restore harmony, and bring about lasting peace, cooperation and prosperity to this region.
Liu Xiaoming is China’s ambassador to the UK
: Han Peng 丨 CCTV.com
06-08-2016 06:40 BJT
The eighth round of Sino-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue has wrapped up in Beijing. Officials from both countries say the two-day talks have narrowed the differences between the world's two biggest economies and reduced the risks of miscalculation. One important progress is on the South China Sea.
Tensions over South China Sea remain one of the biggest disagreements at the Sino-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Both countries reaffirmed their positions, but Washington has slightly softened its tone.
"The US will make it clear that we are looking for a peaceful resolution to the disputes of the South China Sea...We urged all nations to find a diplomatic solution... in rule of law," US Secretary of State John Kerry, said.
Kerry's latest remarks comes despite the US military's tough words towards China. Last Friday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter warned that China's actions could "erect a Great Wall of self-isolation".
The remarks were met with cautious welcome from Chinese officials.
"We hope that the United States can honor its pledge that it does not take side in the disputes in the South China Sea," Chinese state councilor Yang Jiechi said.
Despite the differences, both sides spoke highly of their newly expanded common ground, referring to their recent cooperation in nuclear issues with Iran and the Korean Peninsula, and reaching the historic Paris agreement on fighting climate change.
China says they are good examples of building a new type of major power relations, which is aimed at avoiding conflict between a rising power of China and a resident power of the United States.
"Thanks to our concerted efforts, our two countries have cooperated at bilateral, regional and global levels in a wide range of areas, and registered new programmes in our relations. We witnessed record highs in trade and two-way investment, enjoyed closer people-to-people and sub-national exchanges, and made new headway in cooperation in cyberspace, law enforcement and military exchanges," President Xi Jinping said.
Running parallel to the S&ED, was the High-level Consultation on People-to-People Exchange. John Kerry greeted the sports teams of Chinese universities, accompanied by Chinese Vice Premier Liu Yandong.
Kerry said people-to-people exchanges should go without governmental intervention, and raised concerns over China's new law on non-governmental organizations, which strengthened government supervision.
Liu rejected the remarks, saying the law is only aimed at improving the playing field for civil society, and that the NGOs which follow the law can continue to operate freely in China.
Officials from both countries say although they cannot reach agreement on every single issue, the Dialogue is important in narrowing the differences and expanding common ground. They say that keeping close communication is vital in avoiding serious miscalculation and building trust in the world's most consequential bilateral relations.
By Wu Jin
China.org.cn, June 13, 2016
A total of 15 Philippine young people and one U.S. citizen, attempting to land on China's Huangyan Island, were intercepted by two motor boats driven by Chinese maritime police on June 12, as the Philippines celebrated its Independence Day.
Those people belong to the Kalayaan ATIN ITO, a local organization, which announced its members' arrival at the area approximate to the island around 7:30 on the Sunday morning.
But the fishing boat they took was spotted and intercepted by two motor boats from the Chinese maritime police who asked the interlopers to go back. The confrontation there lasted for four consecutive hours.
At 11:00 a.m., five Philippine citizens onboard trying to swim to Huangyan Island, to place their country flag as well as UN flag, were stopped by the Chinese maritime police. Two Philippine citizens swimming to the surrounding area of the island raised their country flag before they left at 12:30 a.m.
Those people on the fishing boat returned and reached the Philippines at 3:00 a.m. the next day.
China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has reiterated that the Huangyan Island is an integral part of China's territory and any actions that China launches there are within the country's sovereign rights for legitimate concerns. China is confident that it can uphold its lawful rights and interests from being encroached, the spokespeople from the ministry stressed.
China feels US and Japan way too concentrated in SCS therefore it decides to open a new front at Diayutai, Senkakus. China and Russia just sent a bunch of warships within 24 miles of the island and scaring the hell out of japan. It promptly asked for US assistance. Well , good, that should keep them busy at East Sea.