China's SCS Strategy Thread

Blackstone

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

In ignoring an upcoming verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following well-established precedent by great powers.

By Graham Allison
July 11, 2016

This week the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) will deliver its award in the Philippines’ case against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea. In a bid to thwart Beijing’s attempt to turn the South China Sea into its own virtual lake, Manila contends that China’s claim to exclusive sovereignty over all the islands and shoals within the nine-dashed line – which encompasses 86 percent of the Sea – has no basis in international law. There is not much suspense about what the tribunal will decide: it will almost certainly side with the Philippines. The United States and its allies have already started criticizing China for signaling in advance that it will ignore the court’s ruling, which one Chinese official derided last week as “nothing more than a piece of paper.”

It may seem un-American to ask whether China should do as we say, or, by contrast, as we do. But suppose someone were bold enough to pose that question. The first thing they would discover is that no permanent member of the UN Security Council has ever complied with a ruling by the PCA on an issue involving the Law of the Sea. In fact, none of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court’s ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests. Thus, when China rejects the Court’s decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done for decades.

From the day the Philippines went to court, China has argued that the PCA has no legitimate jurisdiction on this issue since it concerns “sovereignty” – which the text of the Law of the Sea treaty explicitly prohibits tribunals from addressing. When the Court rejected China’s objection, Beijing refused to participate in its hearings and made it clear that it will ignore the PCA’s ruling. The United States and others have criticized Beijing for taking this stance. But again, if we ask how other permanent members of the Security Council have acted in similar circumstances, the answer will not be one we like.

When the Netherlands sued Russia after the latter’s navy boarded and detained the crew of a Dutch vessel in waters off of the Russian coast in 2013, Moscow asserted that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter and refused to participate in the hearings. It also ignored a tribunal’s order that the crew be released while the dispute was being resolved. After the PCA ruled that Russia had violated the Law of the Sea and ordered Moscow to pay the Netherlands compensation, Russia refused.

Anticipating the Court’s ruling in the case brought by the Philippines, UK Prime Minister David Cameron proclaimed: “We want to encourage China to be part of that rules-based world. We want to encourage everyone to abide by these adjudications.” Perhaps he had forgotten that just last year the PCA ruled that the UK had violated the Law of the Sea by unilaterally establishing a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Islands. The British government disregarded the ruling, and the Marine Protected Area remains in place today.

The United States has never been sued under the Law of the Sea because – unlike China – Washington has not ratified the international agreement and is thus not bound by its rules. Expect Chinese commentators to emphasize this point in the mutual recriminations that will follow the Court’s announcement.

The closest analogue to the Philippines case involving the United State arose in the 1980s when Nicaragua sued Washington for mining its harbors. Like China, the United States argued that the International Court of Justice did not have the authority to hear Nicaragua’s case. When the court rejected that claim, the United States not only refused to participate in subsequent proceedings, but also denied the Court’s jurisdiction on any future case involving the United States, unless Washington explicitly made an exception and asked the Court to hear a case. If China followed that precedent, it could withdraw from the Law of the Sea Treaty altogether – joining the United States as one of the world’s only nations not party to the agreement.

In the Nicaragua case, when the Court found in favor of Nicaragua and ordered the United States to pay reparations, the U.S. refused, and vetoed six UN Security Council resolutions ordering it to comply with the court’s ruling. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick aptly summed up Washington’s view of the matter when she dismissed the court as a “semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.”

Observing what permanent members of the Security Council do, as opposed to what they say, it is hard to disagree with realist’s claim that the IPC and its siblings in The Hague – the International Courts of Justice and the International Criminal Court – are only for small powers. Great powers do not recognize the jurisdiction of these courts – except in particular cases where they believe it is in their interest to do so. Thucydides’ summary of the Melian mantra – “the strong do as they will; the weak suffer as they must” – may exaggerate. But this week, when the Court finds against China, expect Beijing to do as great powers have traditionally done.
 

ahojunk

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

2016-07-09 14:38 | Xinhua | Editor: Huang Mingrui

The South China Sea arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines will set a "serious, wrong, and bad example" if it is allowed to go through, Chinese Ambassador to Britain Liu Xiaoming said.

In a recent interview with Reuters, Liu said China will not participate in the arbitration and China believes it is illegal for a tribunal to handle this case.

"The Philippines' arbitration case is against UNCLOS (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), because sovereignty and territorial disputes are not under the jurisdiction of UNCLOS," Liu stressed.

Liu noted that China, like 30 other countries, made a declaration in 2006 that it will not take part in third party arbitration when it comes to maritime delimitation.

"UK is one of the 30 countries. UNCLOS provides that sovereign countries have their sovereign right to make these declarations on optional exceptions," he explained.

China has always called for bilateral consultation and negotiations with neighboring countries, including the Philippines, when it comes to maritime disputes, the Chinese envoy said.

There had been a series of statements between China and the Philippines on how to resolve disputes before 2013 when the Philippines submitted its arbitration case.

"In our view, the Philippines have turned their back on their promise and that is against international practice. Once agreed, you have to follow your commitment," he said in the interview.

According to UNCLOS, Liu said, arbitration is only a supplementary means to resolve disputes, and bilateral channels are regarded as the main means to resolve a dispute between countries.

"The Philippines had never come to China to talk about this arbitration. And China and the Philippines had never had serious negotiations on this subject back then," he elaborated.

UNCLOS provides that a compulsory arbitration will not be resorted to settle a dispute between countries unless all bilateral channels are exhausted.

If this arbitration goes through, it "is against the spirit of UNCLOS," and will "set a serious, wrong and bad example," said Liu, adding that British and Dutch experts on the Law of the Sea shared the same concern with Chinese legal experts.

"Some people try to label China as not respecting international law if we reject this arbitration. But that is totally wrong. What China is doing is exactly safeguarding the authority and seriousness of international law, safeguarding the letter and spirit of UNCLOS," he told Reuters.

No matter what decision this tribunal is going to make, "it has no impact on China and China's sovereignty over these islands and reefs will not be bound by it," Liu argued.

"We will not fight in the court, but we will certainly fight for our sovereignty," he stressed.

Citing China's record in resolving territorial disputes with its neighbors, Liu reiterated that the door remains open for the Philippines to return to bilateral negotiations with China.

"The Philippines, they can put forward their proposals. And we can have our proposals and we'll meet half way. Any negotiation is a process of compromise."

"Now they have elected a new government. We do hope that they will change their course, return to the negotiation table," said the diplomat.

In the interview, Liu also slammed the U.S. "rebalancing in the Asia Pacific," voicing suspicion over American motives.

"I think the American move in the Asia Pacific emboldened those countries to change the traditional channel of negotiation with China," making them believe in "a better deal with China" via U.S. help, he said.

Describing U.S. "freedom of navigation" claims as a false argument, the ambassador said the situation in the South China Sea is calm and peaceful with no reason for military involvement from an outside power at all.

"What they are doing is not for safeguarding free navigation," Liu said. "They are there to challenge China's sovereignty over the islands and reefs. And they make a dangerous provocation. China has a legitimate right to check what they are doing."
 

ahojunk

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

Updated: 2016-07-11 14:43
(chinadaily.com.cn)

180373d2873018ee25d819.jpg


After the Philippines filed a case in The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration against China in the South China Sea dispute, Beijing has made it clear that it would neither participate in nor accept the ruling of the arbitral tribunal.

The dispute over the South China Sea was a small but very important segment of the quest for global dominance, said Ante Simonic, former Croatian ambassador to China.

"There is a new world order in the making and the center of tectonic movements are Asia and Pacific region. With all the regional disagreements and differences, there are opposed interests of the United States, the only superpower in the world and the global policeman, on the one side, the regional power China, on the other," he said.

"This dangerously tense and complex situation threatened not only safety of an extremely important maritime corridor but the peace and prosperity in the region, even the whole world," he said, "Therefore, all sides have to act in a wise, responsible and patient manner and gradually find a fair and long-term sustainable solution."


180373d2873018ee262e20.jpg


eca86bd9d54318ed85830d.jpg
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Updated: 2016-07-11 14:43
(chinadaily.com.cn)

View attachment 29000


After the Philippines filed a case in The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration against China in the South China Sea dispute, Beijing has made it clear that it would neither participate in nor accept the ruling of the arbitral tribunal.

The dispute over the South China Sea was a small but very important segment of the quest for global dominance, said Ante Simonic, former Croatian ambassador to China.

"There is a new world order in the making and the center of tectonic movements are Asia and Pacific region. With all the regional disagreements and differences, there are opposed interests of the United States, the only superpower in the world and the global policeman, on the one side, the regional power China, on the other," he said.

"This dangerously tense and complex situation threatened not only safety of an extremely important maritime corridor but the peace and prosperity in the region, even the whole world," he said, "Therefore, all sides have to act in a wise, responsible and patient manner and gradually find a fair and long-term sustainable solution."


View attachment 29001


View attachment 29002

ENOUGH SAID.
 

Ultra

Junior Member
I found it hilarious that it is PHILIPPINES that initiated the arbitration and to claim South China Sea theirs.

Indonesian Sailors Kidnapped by Pirates in Philippines
JAKARTA, Indonesia — Hijackers are holding 10 Indonesian crew members from a tugboat that they seized in waters off the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, in the latest high-profile case of piracy in the region, officials from both countries said on Tuesday.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Ships Urged to Avoid Philippine Waters amid Piracy Surge
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Philippines can't even effectively patrol its own sea, let along to safeguard all of South China Sea.
With South China Sea being the MOST IMPORTANT trade route in the world, letting a third world country like Philippines who can't even safeguard its own shore to have claim of South China Sea is a complete joke.

Letting Philippines have claim will just encourage piracy and embolden the pirates in South China Sea and destablize the world economy by threatening the critical sea-lane trade route. Only China has the manpower, technologies to safeguard this critical area.

The shortsightedness of American strategists who want to destablize Asia for their own short term self-interest will suffer the same consequences as their Middle East policy. But rest assure, China will not allow it to progress to that point, it is in China's (and everyone else in Asia's) interest to have a safe, reliable, pirate-free South China Sea.
 

Ultra

Junior Member
AHAHAHAHA Western hypocrisy at its best!!!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In a last-ditch effort to discredit an upcoming ruling, China plays the nationality card.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Had the table been turned, that it is Japan or USA at the receiving end and it just happen a Chinese is the president of the tribunal, they would cry murder all day long and it would be headline news.

The Japanese judge in question is the man to the right of Abe - Shunji Yanai, who just happen to be also Abe's closest advisor and on the panel of "security panel for legalizing collective self-defense". The panel that wants to seeking to legalize Japan to attack other countries.

japanese-prime-minister-shinzo-abe-flanked-by-the-chair-member-shunji-picture-id160950401


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So this Shunji Yanai is also the president of the said UN Tribunal. And the western media is still trying to say it is not bias. LOL!
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid I won't be online at the time (in like two hours from now?) the announcement is made (so I won't be first to post it :) anyway
Beijing defiant ahead of court ruling on its claims in South China Sea
Global Times, a nationalist Communist party tabloid, warns ‘provocateurs are doomed to fail’ in hours before verdict is handed down

Beijing has unleashed a final salvo of defiance, propaganda and bravado with hours to go until a landmark court ruling that could deal a major blow to its territorial claims in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

More than three years after the Philippines
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in The Hague to dismiss many of China’s sweeping claims in the resource-rich region, the court is set to announce its decision at around 11am Tuesday CEST (10am BST).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
has refused to recognise the five-judge court’s authority and on Tuesday morning the country’s Communist party-controlled press lashed out at what it claimed was a United States-sponsored conspiracy to stifle its rise.

“China in the past was weak … but now it has multiple means at its disposal,” warned the Global Times, a nationalist Communist party tabloid, in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, adding: “Provocateurs are doomed to fail.”

The China Daily, Beijing’s English-language mouthpiece, dismissed the court case as a “farce directed by Washington”.

“[The ruling] will not change the fact that China holds historical claims and sovereignty over those islands and reefs in the South China Sea, nor will it shake its resolve to defend every inch of them,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The newspaper argued that the damning findings of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
into the Iraq war showed Washington would be on “shaky ground” were it to engage in “a new round of US mudslinging against China”.

Xinhua, China’s official news agency, wrapped up an unremitting propaganda blitzkrieg by quoting Peruvian and Pakistani diplomats and an MP from Britain’s Labour party it claimed were supportive of Beijing’s position.

“Western media have hyped up the South China Sea issue for a long time, with reports full of prejudice and distortion. They have purposely created rumours, smeared China and deliberately overlooked voices of justice,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is set to rule on whether a series of Chinese-controlled rocks and reefs in the South China Sea should be considered islands which would therefore allow Beijing to claim the surrounding waters through exclusive economic zones.

The Philippines has also asked the court to consider whether international law supports China’s so-called
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, through which Beijing claims about 90% of the South China Sea.

Bonnie Glaser, the director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) thinktank, said a ruling questioning or rejecting the “nine-dash line” would “really limit the amount of water that the Chinese could have any legal sovereignty claim to”.

“My sense is that their biggest fear is that there is an explicit finding that the ‘nine-dash line’ is contrary to international law,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “That is something that they just cannot not abide, that they could not accept. And that would be very difficult for them to manage going forward.”
source is The Guardian:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

N00813

Junior Member
Registered Member
China loses the court battle. How will it respond? What will change?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
IMO simply ignoring the ruling and carrying on as before is the most likely path forwards, in the next year or two.

Philippines may push for more fishing/mineral/oil rights using this ruling, but what happens in the negotiations will likely stay secret until they are done.
 
Top