China's SCS Strategy Thread

ahojunk

Senior Member
I am not sure of how accurate this report is, but nonetheless here it is...
If China leaves UNCLOS, then UNCLOS will become just another useless organization.


--------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Over 160 countries and the European Union have signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). The United States, however, has long declined to do so.

Now, China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that it might exit the convention if an upcoming ruling by an international tribunal runs counter to its questionable position: that nearly the entire South China Sea is its territory.

The US is urging China to respect the upcoming ruling, which could happen this month and is widely expected to favor the Philippines. In 2013 the Philippines
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
—the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in The Hague—to rule on whether China’s “nine-dash line” is valid, under Unclos.

US secretary of defense Ash Carter, speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue earlier this month,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of China respecting the tribunal’s ruling:

"The United States views the upcoming ruling by the UN Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea as an opportunity for China and the rest of the region to recommit to a principled future, to renewed diplomacy, and to lowering tensions, rather than raising them. All of us should come together to ensure this opportunity is realized."

That position is undercut, of course, by the US’s own failure to join UNCLOS.

Despite efforts by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, and support from the US business community, environmental groups, and the military, the US Senate has never ratified the convention. Ratification has been blocked for years by a few conservative Republican senators, with Oklahoma’s James Inhofe playing a prominent role. Many US conservatives consider involvement in some international organizations and treaties as detrimental to national interests, and as an infringement on national sovereignty.

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton said in 2012 that opposition to the treaty was “based in ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence, or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the treaty.

In 2009, China officially submitted its nine-dash-line map to the United Nations. The map shows most of the South China Sea being enclosed by the line. The accompanying text included this passage:
"China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof."

Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines subsequently objected to it. They asserted, among other things, that China’s claims, as reflected in the map, are without basis under the convention. They noted the line overlaps with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of other nations. Under UNCLOS, nations have exclusive rights to exploiting resources in their EEZs, which extend 200 nautical miles from the shore.

Some worry that China might become more aggressive after a ruling that doesn’t go its way. Indeed, almost immediately after the Philippines filed the case with the tribunal, China began setting about building, and later militarizing, artificial islands from which it could project its emerging maritime power.

In a show of strength of its own, the US Navy recently deployed not one but two aircraft carrier strike groups to the South China Sea—a rare move.

Now the US, while trying to tell China to abide by the international law, faces a credibility gap. If China leaves the convention, as it’s now threatened to do, there’s little the US can say about it.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I am not sure of how accurate this report is, but nonetheless here it is...
If China leaves UNCLOS, then UNCLOS will become just another useless organization.


--------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Over 160 countries and the European Union have signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). The United States, however, has long declined to do so.

Now, China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that it might exit the convention if an upcoming ruling by an international tribunal runs counter to its questionable position: that nearly the entire South China Sea is its territory.

The US is urging China to respect the upcoming ruling, which could happen this month and is widely expected to favor the Philippines. In 2013 the Philippines
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
—the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in The Hague—to rule on whether China’s “nine-dash line” is valid, under Unclos.

US secretary of defense Ash Carter, speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue earlier this month,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of China respecting the tribunal’s ruling:

"The United States views the upcoming ruling by the UN Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea as an opportunity for China and the rest of the region to recommit to a principled future, to renewed diplomacy, and to lowering tensions, rather than raising them. All of us should come together to ensure this opportunity is realized."

That position is undercut, of course, by the US’s own failure to join UNCLOS.

Despite efforts by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, and support from the US business community, environmental groups, and the military, the US Senate has never ratified the convention. Ratification has been blocked for years by a few conservative Republican senators, with Oklahoma’s James Inhofe playing a prominent role. Many US conservatives consider involvement in some international organizations and treaties as detrimental to national interests, and as an infringement on national sovereignty.

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton said in 2012 that opposition to the treaty was “based in ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence, or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the treaty.

In 2009, China officially submitted its nine-dash-line map to the United Nations. The map shows most of the South China Sea being enclosed by the line. The accompanying text included this passage:
"China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof."

Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines subsequently objected to it. They asserted, among other things, that China’s claims, as reflected in the map, are without basis under the convention. They noted the line overlaps with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of other nations. Under UNCLOS, nations have exclusive rights to exploiting resources in their EEZs, which extend 200 nautical miles from the shore.

Some worry that China might become more aggressive after a ruling that doesn’t go its way. Indeed, almost immediately after the Philippines filed the case with the tribunal, China began setting about building, and later militarizing, artificial islands from which it could project its emerging maritime power.

In a show of strength of its own, the US Navy recently deployed not one but two aircraft carrier strike groups to the South China Sea—a rare move.


Now the US, while trying to tell China to abide by the international law, faces a credibility gap. If China leaves the convention, as it’s now threatened to do, there’s little the US can say about it.

Building islands is an "aggressive move", while deploying two CVBG is a "show of strength". These articles are getting ever more naked in their propaganda. Soon enough, they'll give North Korea's Ministry of Truth a run for their money!

In any case, like Taxiya's post above indicates, this article is drawing its material from a Japanese article with no credible source. The Chinese side itself has refuted such an allegation.

Indeed, it makes no sense for China to withdraw from UNCLOS, as such a move would be tantamount to conceding that Philippine's case is legitimate.

This is just another trash article designed to further build a false narrative against China.
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Source: Xinhua |2016-06-21 22:38:13| Editor: huaxia

LONDON, June 21 (Xinhua) -- Two leading experts on international law in Britain have recently published two research papers, both concluding that an arbitral tribunal which allowed the South China Sea case initiated by the Philippines against China to go ahead is not convincing in many respects.

Antonios Tzanakopoulos, associate professor of public international law at the University of Oxford, and Chris Whomersley, a former deputy legal adviser to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, were the experts.

In 2002, China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), including the Philippines, signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), which stipulated that "the parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned."

Whomersley argued that "there is a strong case for saying that the Philippines was estopped from ignoring the declaration and proceeding to the institution of legal proceedings."

Tzanakopoulos, in his paper, observed that "the relevant provision therein regarding resolution of disputes by negotiation was drafted in clearly binding terms, stating that the parties 'undertake' to resolve disputes through friendly consultations."

The South China Sea disputes involve many of the littoral states, and any determination by the tribunal may have the effect of rendering states other than the Philippines and China the "indispensable third parties," Tzanakopoulos wrote in his paper.

He argued that "the South China Sea disputes, as multilateral disputes, are not fit for determination in the context of a bilateral, adversarial proceeding between only two of the many disputing states."

Whomersley, in his paper, also pointed to the potential damage to international relations by an unconvincing decision of the tribunal.

He warned "it is potentially destabilizing to the general course of international business that the Tribunal accepted that the Philippines could resile from the undertakings in a formal document like the Declaration (DOC)."

Tzanakopoulos also warned in his paper: "The complex and multilateral nature of the relevant disputes" in the South China Sea could lead to "a rather hard case" for the arbitration system.

"Hard cases make bad law, and it may be that the Annex VII Tribunal in the Philippines-China dispute has not taken this fully under advisement," he explained.

The scholar suggested that the best solution to these complex disputes is putting aside disputes and engaging in joint exploitation of the territory in the South China Sea, put forward by the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping decades ago.

"Perhaps zones of cooperation will do much to allow the littoral states to enjoy the benefits of the South China Sea without all the fallout that adjudication inevitably produces in the face of strong objections," he concluded in his paper.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Images from the June 17th showdown between the Indonesian Navy and Chinese Maritime patrol.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


fF9tv3J.jpg


55bhPf5.jpg


4bkmxwv.jpg
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I am not sure of how accurate this report is, but nonetheless here it is...
If China leaves UNCLOS, then UNCLOS will become just another useless organization.


--------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Over 160 countries and the European Union have signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). The United States, however, has long declined to do so.

Now, China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that it might exit the convention if an upcoming ruling by an international tribunal runs counter to its questionable position: that nearly the entire South China Sea is its territory.

The US is urging China to respect the upcoming ruling, which could happen this month and is widely expected to favor the Philippines. In 2013 the Philippines
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
—the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in The Hague—to rule on whether China’s “nine-dash line” is valid, under Unclos.

US secretary of defense Ash Carter, speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue earlier this month,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of China respecting the tribunal’s ruling:

"The United States views the upcoming ruling by the UN Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea as an opportunity for China and the rest of the region to recommit to a principled future, to renewed diplomacy, and to lowering tensions, rather than raising them. All of us should come together to ensure this opportunity is realized."

That position is undercut, of course, by the US’s own failure to join UNCLOS.

Despite efforts by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, and support from the US business community, environmental groups, and the military, the US Senate has never ratified the convention. Ratification has been blocked for years by a few conservative Republican senators, with Oklahoma’s James Inhofe playing a prominent role. Many US conservatives consider involvement in some international organizations and treaties as detrimental to national interests, and as an infringement on national sovereignty.

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton said in 2012 that opposition to the treaty was “based in ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence, or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the treaty.

In 2009, China officially submitted its nine-dash-line map to the United Nations. The map shows most of the South China Sea being enclosed by the line. The accompanying text included this passage:
"China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof."

Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines subsequently objected to it. They asserted, among other things, that China’s claims, as reflected in the map, are without basis under the convention. They noted the line overlaps with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of other nations. Under UNCLOS, nations have exclusive rights to exploiting resources in their EEZs, which extend 200 nautical miles from the shore.

Some worry that China might become more aggressive after a ruling that doesn’t go its way. Indeed, almost immediately after the Philippines filed the case with the tribunal, China began setting about building, and later militarizing, artificial islands from which it could project its emerging maritime power.

In a show of strength of its own, the US Navy recently deployed not one but two aircraft carrier strike groups to the South China Sea—a rare move.

Now the US, while trying to tell China to abide by the international law, faces a credibility gap. If China leaves the convention, as it’s now threatened to do, there’s little the US can say about it.
I skipped the first question in my other post as it is not directly related to the WSJ number question.
Here is the translation of it for the non Chinese readers.

问:我是《华尔街日报》记者,第一个问题,据日本共同社报道,一旦南海仲裁案作出不利于中方的裁决,中方可能会考虑退出《联合国海洋法公约》。 你对此有何回应?第二个问题....

答:关于第一个问题,我注意到近期一些消息和传闻都是首先出自日本媒体,不知道其源头和目的是什么?

我要指出的是,菲律宾单方面提起南海仲裁案是滥用《联合国海洋法公约》程序,违反一般国际法,违反《南海各方行为宣言》和中菲之间达成的双边协议。中国坚持不接受、不参与菲律宾提起的仲裁恰恰是捍卫包括《公约》在内的国际法权威。我们始终坚持《公约》应得到善意、全面、完整的解释和适用,这将有利于维护国际海洋法律秩序,符合国际社会整体利益。

关于第二个问题,....

WSJ: First question, according to Kyoto News, China MAY consider abondon UNCLOS if......

Hua: Recently I've heard such hearsays (they) are all first come from Japanese media. I wonder what is their source and purpose.

I must make it clear that, Philipine's unilateral arbitration is abuse of UNCLOS procedure, against international law, against "joint declaration of conduct in SCS" and bilateral agreement between China and Philippine. China's not participating of the arbitration proceeding is exactly defending the authority of international law including UNCLOS......

Hua's key words are: Hearsay, Japan, purpose. Philipine abuse procedure, China defend UNCLOS. There is nothing of China quit UNCLOS. It is Japan's dirt-throwing campaign.

Additionally, this qz.com is one of the many cohort of Japan to further spreading such dirt, it build new dirt on top the Japanese dirt. This is a typical propaganda tactic, J make a lie, than A, P, F... build more lies based on J's lie, their only foundation is the very first lie, plus the usual "Whatever I say is the truth". This is soft power we all know, the dominance of media and communication, very often recently it is more powerful than guns and bombs.
 

Brumby

Major
A Guide to Countering Chinese Government Spin on the Fairness of the South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Rumors are swirling that the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) arbitral tribunal will release its long-awaited award in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
this week. China has already said it will not comply with the award, but it is clearly worried that a negative award will isolate China diplomatically or weaken its future claims in the region. So China’s diplomatic and global media assets have already been hard at work de-legitimatizing the not-yet-released award (which makes
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
).

Although China has reasonable legal arguments supporting its objection to jurisdiction, its recent efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the arbitral tribunal and the entire UNCLOS process are very far from reasonable. So as public service to Lawfare readers, I offer a few short responses to rebut talking points spouted by any Chinese diplomats or PR hacks you happen to run into.

Both Parties’ Consent is NOT required for a Compulsory Arbitration under UNCLOS

Chinese government spokesmen and their supporters have repeatedly criticized the Philippines’ arbitration as “unilateral.” They have also repeatedly intimated that the arbitration is “illegal” because the Philippines did not get China’s consent before starting the arbitration process. Some Chinese government officials have invoked the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to suggest that both parties must agree on the rules of dispute settlement before any arbitration may proceed.

On its face, this argument has no legal basis. The 1970 Declaration cannot override specific later-in-time treaty provisions, like UNCLOS (which China signed and ratified). Under Article 286 of UNCLOS, “any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall…be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section” (emphasis added). This is the classic language of compulsory dispute resolution: “any” party—as opposed to “both” parties—can submit a dispute to court or tribunal. It is true that many international treaties create optional arbitration regimes where both parties must consent before any arbitration may be initiated. But the whole idea of UNCLOS was to depart from that norm in order to force nations to pre-commit to compulsory arbitration without knowing what the particular dispute involved.

The Chinese government’s position seems to be that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, and therefore the compulsory dispute resolution procedures of the UNCLOS do not apply. Therefore, they argue that China must consent to any binding arbitration. But this position assumes China is correct about the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Because the Tribunal has exercised its powers
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to determine that it has jurisdiction over the dispute, then China is bound whether or not it has consented to this particular arbitration.

Ignoring the Tribunal’s Award Does Not “Uphold” International Law

One of the odder arguments put forth by China and its PR organs is that China’s boycott of the arbitral tribunal is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Or, as its leading state-run newspaper the People’s Daily has put it, China’s boycott “is the righteous act China has taken to defend the legitimate rights and interests of a State Party to UNCLOS and to uphold the authority and sanctity of this international instrument.”

It is hard to know what to make of this argument. The idea here is that if China complies with an arbitral award that exceeded the jurisdiction of UNCLOS, such compliance would somehow undermine the international legal system more generally. I suppose there is some danger that other state-parties to UNCLOS would have their maritime and territorial interests wrongly allocated to international dispute resolution, but I don’t imagine this is a great danger to the international legal system. Most other states that are party to UNCLOS have even granted arbitral tribunals the explicit power to adjudicate maritime boundaries, so I doubt an award against China would bother those countries very much.

In any event, China is ignoring the cost to the international legal system of its own “non-acceptance and non-participation.” As I’ve noted earlier, the UNCLOS dispute settlement system is designed to require states-parties to submit disputes to an elaborate arbitration and judicial system. It even provides explicitly for situations where one party refuses to participate (as China has done here) due to objections to jurisdiction. It reflects a strong commitment among the drafters of UNCLOS toward delegating almost all maritime related disputes to a third-party dispute settlement system.

China’s non-participation and non-compliance may not destroy this system, but it is hard to see how it strengthens or safeguards it either. Future disputes sent to UNCLOS dispute settlement may now be subject to the “China” precedent, but that precedent will be unlikely to seen as a positive one upholding the “sanctity” of UNCLOS.

The Appointment of the Arbitration Tribunal Was Not a Japanese Conspiracy

In recent months, the Chinese government media, and even Chinese government officials, have stepped up the attacks on the arbitral tribunal. For instance, Xiao Jianguo, deputy director-general of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, has charged that "[t]he arbitral tribunal has actually become an agent of the Philippines…" In
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
by Chinese diplomats, the Chinese ambassador to Indonesia suggested the constitution of the tribunal itself is illegal or improper.

[T]he then president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a Japanese national, went to great pains to form a temporary tribunal. Moreover, with four of the five arbitrators from Europe, it can hardly be considered as universally representative.

In a not so subtle invocation of the “nationalist” card, the good ambassador implies that a national of China’s traditional rival Japan appointed the tribunal full of non-representative Europeans. In
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Chinese nationalists have even suggested the role of the Japanese ITLOS president proves that this whole arbitration is a conspiracy hatched by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

But the ambassador (and his nationalist web-friends) omit an important fact. The only reason then-ITLOS president Shunji Yanai was involved is because China refused to exercise its right to appoint a member of the tribunal and to participate in the appointment of three others. Because of China’s boycott of the entire proceedings,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
empowers the president of ITLOS to appoint members of the tribunal if one party refuse to participate. This power accrues to him only because of China’s boycott.

The Arbitral Tribunal Has Treated China Fairly

From my vantage point, the tribunal has bent over backwards to accommodate China, even though China has pointedly refused to participate in the process. Early on in the arbitration, a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. No strict rules required this replacement, but it was done to avoid even the thinnest veneer of bias.

The tribunal repeatedly stated that China was welcome to participate or submit briefs, and set deadlines that gave China as much time (if not more) than the Philippines. When China released a “position paper” reflecting its arguments on jurisdiction, the tribunal reviewed those arguments as part of its decision on jurisdiction, even though it had no obligation to do so.

In sum, China may well have prevailed on its jurisdictional argument if it had exercised its rights to participate in the appointment of arbitrator and to present arguments to the tribunal in both written and oral form. But China decided to simply boycott the arbitration completely, so we will never know. While I do not condemn China for refusing to participate in the arbitration, I do condemn its not-so-subtle attempts to smear an arbitral process which it had every opportunity to participate in. China has not been treated unfairly by the UNCLOS arbitration process, and informed observers should not let China get away with claiming otherwise.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Source: Xinhua |2016-06-21 22:38:13| Editor: huaxia

LONDON, June 21 (Xinhua) -- Two leading experts on international law in Britain have recently published two research papers, both concluding that an arbitral tribunal which allowed the South China Sea case initiated by the Philippines against China to go ahead is not convincing in many respects.

Antonios Tzanakopoulos, associate professor of public international law at the University of Oxford, and Chris Whomersley, a former deputy legal adviser to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, were the experts.

In 2002, China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), including the Philippines, signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), which stipulated that "the parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned."

Whomersley argued that "there is a strong case for saying that the Philippines was estopped from ignoring the declaration and proceeding to the institution of legal proceedings."

Tzanakopoulos, in his paper, observed that "the relevant provision therein regarding resolution of disputes by negotiation was drafted in clearly binding terms, stating that the parties 'undertake' to resolve disputes through friendly consultations."

The South China Sea disputes involve many of the littoral states, and any determination by the tribunal may have the effect of rendering states other than the Philippines and China the "indispensable third parties," Tzanakopoulos wrote in his paper.

He argued that "the South China Sea disputes, as multilateral disputes, are not fit for determination in the context of a bilateral, adversarial proceeding between only two of the many disputing states."

Whomersley, in his paper, also pointed to the potential damage to international relations by an unconvincing decision of the tribunal.

He warned "it is potentially destabilizing to the general course of international business that the Tribunal accepted that the Philippines could resile from the undertakings in a formal document like the Declaration (DOC)."

Tzanakopoulos also warned in his paper: "The complex and multilateral nature of the relevant disputes" in the South China Sea could lead to "a rather hard case" for the arbitration system.

"Hard cases make bad law, and it may be that the Annex VII Tribunal in the Philippines-China dispute has not taken this fully under advisement," he explained.

The scholar suggested that the best solution to these complex disputes is putting aside disputes and engaging in joint exploitation of the territory in the South China Sea, put forward by the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping decades ago.

"Perhaps zones of cooperation will do much to allow the littoral states to enjoy the benefits of the South China Sea without all the fallout that adjudication inevitably produces in the face of strong objections," he concluded in his paper.
A bit of balance from the usual unbalanced and one-sided claptrap from western lame stream media and pundits. But, in the final analysis, it means little, because nations do what's in their best interests, especially great powers.

Bottom line is China would act no differently than western nations in the regard to pick and choose what it considers "rules based" international order.

And they have every right to do that.
 

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
A Guide to Countering Chinese Government Spin on the Fairness of the South China Sea Arbitration Tribunal

You have no ground to stand on.
SCS involves many claimants not just Philippines and China.
This case involving exclusively on China and Phil means what? Means only those two are entitled to SCS??
 

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
Yo Yo Yo @Brumby

What's Phillippines's excuse for claiming Pagasus outside its 200 miles EEZ??
By doing that, isn't it a slap on the face of UNCLOS by Philippines??

And How Dare the case neglected to mention the other "rightful" claimaints?
 
Top