China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

Are you talking about the "UN tribunal" ruling made back in 2016 by the PCA? If so, your comments rely on certain assumptions, for example off the top of my head:
1. that it is accepted practice and normal for great powers to agree to the rulings of that particular arbitration court (or indeed any international tribunal), and that China is acting in an inconsistent way with past norms demonstrated by other similar actors
2. that the PCA in particular had jurisdiction to make a ruling on this matter (which China has always contested)
3. that the PCA is a "UN tribunal". The PCA isn't a UN court or tribunal -- it is merely an observer to the UN, but the UN's principal judicial body is the ICJ (international court of justice)


I hope you can see from these quick points (point 1 in particular) why you can't reasonably expect to make the arguments you've been putting out and not expect people to offer counter examples and to bring in historical context and past practice by other nations in response.

I don't have any problem with opposing views. Isn't it part of the political discussions you were supporting that should be opened up.

What you described as assumptions doesn't change the fact that there was a ruling even if China is disputing. Likewise China's claim that it has sovereignty is disputed just as China is disputing the ruling. The problem is there is a reluctance (even denial) to accept that there is a dispute and the sovereignty issue is unresolved. .

 

[manqiangrexue]

I don't have any problem with opposing views. Isn't it part of the political discussions you were supporting that should be opened up.

What you described as assumptions doesn't change the fact that there was a ruling even if China is disputing. Likewise China's claim that it has sovereignty is disputed just as China is disputing the ruling. The problem is there is a reluctance (even denial) to accept that there is a dispute and the sovereignty issue is unresolved. .

There was no "ruling" because this PCA "court" is just an arbitration service provided for members who wish to participate. So insisting that there is a "ruling" when one member specifically provided legal reasons that it would not participate or submit itself to the "court" is denial of the limits of the powers of the PCA. Refer here: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-561#post-556718

And there is no confusion in China that this land is disputed by others, but China's stance is that it's still sovereign Chinese territory. Those 2 are not mutually exclusive; it's basically saying, we have a disagreement and I'm adamant that I'm right. This has no effect on the right to build or use them. Now if you were to say that I'm not sure this is mine, it's probably not, but I'll do with it as I wish anyway, then, you would have a case that this is belligerent behavior. But as long as China sees them as rightful Chinese territory (as has provided evidence for such), it's just a domestic issue of what China wants to do with its own land, even if others try to claim it. If you want to see denial, then you must look to Japan, which refuses to even acknowledge that the Diaoyu Islands are in dispute.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't have any problem with opposing views. Isn't it part of the political discussions you were supporting that should be opened up.

I never suggested that you have a "problem" with opposing views.

But you did write this before (highlighted for emphasis):

In case you have not noticed, this thread is about the SCS and the UN tribunal has already rules that China's occupation of the islands is illegal. As such its claim of sovereignty is simply belligerent act. If to wish to discuss other countries start a new thread. As Deino has advised, stay on topic or is it rules somehow don't apply to you guys?

I'm just pointing out that for people to appropriately respond to your position it will necessitate the discussion of actions of other countries.

What you described as assumptions doesn't change the fact that there was a ruling even if China is disputing. Likewise China's claim that it has sovereignty is disputed just as China is disputing the ruling. The problem is there is a reluctance (even denial) to accept that there is a dispute and the sovereignty issue unresolved. .

I outlined those assumptions to demonstrate why the very debate about this topic means you're going to have the discussion go beyond the thread topic and bring in other related topics such as discussing other countries.

When I use the word "assumption" I mean that it is a view that you hold which your argument is derived from. Feel free to replace the word "assumption" with "premise" or "beliefs". My point is that your argument is dependent on various beliefs/assumptions/premises you hold, which others may disagree with, meaning others are not merely going to challenge your argument but rather seek to challenge the beliefs that underlie the argument. That will broaden the scope of the discussion beyond the thread's topic itself.

If you want to remain on topic, then consider changing the arguments that you are posting in this thread instead.

As for whether there's a dispute or not or whatever, I have no contribution. In disagreements it may benefit some parties to claim no dispute exists and benefit other parties to claim that there is a dispute.
edit: as manqiangrexu wrote, the "no dispute exists" phrase is the equivalent of "we have a disagreement and I'm adamant that I'm right"

 

[manqiangrexue]

I never suggested that you have a "problem" with opposing views.

But you did write this before (highlighted for emphasis):


I'm just pointing out that for people to appropriately respond to your position it will necessitate the discussion of actions of other countries.





I outlined those assumptions to demonstrate why the very debate about this topic means you're going to have the discussion go beyond the thread topic and bring in other related topics such as discussing other countries.

When I use the word "assumption" I mean that it is a view that you hold which your argument is derived from. Feel free to replace the word "assumption" with "premise" or "beliefs". My point is that your argument is dependent on various beliefs/assumptions/premises you hold, which others may disagree with, meaning others are not merely going to challenge your argument but rather seek to challenge the beliefs that underlie the argument. That will broaden the scope of the discussion beyond the thread's topic itself.

If you want to remain on topic, then consider changing the arguments that you are posting in this thread instead.

As for whether there's a dispute or not or whatever, I have no contribution. In disagreements it may benefit some parties to claim no dispute exists and benefit other parties to claim that there is a dispute.

He doesn't want to remain "on topic" LOL He said that cus he thought it was a clever way to isolate China from all other cases of countries flouting "judgements" by removing all context to say China is the belligerent one when it's actually common practice to disregard these things especially when territory is involved.

 

[Shaolian]

To put it in laymen's terms, the PCA is to the ICJ, as what Judge Judy is to a County Court.

And Judge Judy dishes out way fairer abitrations than that PCA did.

 

[Brumby]

I'm just pointing out that for people to appropriately respond to your position it will necessitate the discussion of actions of other countries.

I don't agree with your position of an open ended scope for two main reasons.
Firstly it is associated with the on topic rule.
Secondly and more importantly it is to maintain some semblance or order. Once you step out of scope, the discussions very often have a life of its own outside the subject of the thread.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I don't agree with your position of an open ended scope for two main reasons.
Firstly it is associated with the on topic rule.
Secondly and more importantly it is to maintain some semblance or order. Once you step out of scope, the discussions very often have a life of its own outside the subject of the thread.

If you wanna stick to the topic, then stick to the topic! It's about Chinese strategic plays in the South China Sea! Not haters bellyaching about Chinese propaganda. I already told you this here:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-561#post-556692

Stop wasting everybody's time by parroting the same defeated lines over and over again. Saying it more often doesn't make it a better argument. You got debate skills like Danny Devito playing basketball.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't agree with your position of an open ended scope for two main reasons.
Firstly it is associated with the on topic rule.
Secondly and more importantly it is to maintain some semblance or order. Once you step out of scope, the discussions very often have a life of its own outside the subject of the thread.

Perhaps you should consider not making those arguments in the first place then, as you cannot reasonably expect to put forward arguments and not expect counter arguments along the most obvious pathways to challenge your underlying premises. If the challenge of your premises are "off topic" then it is really your posting of the argument itself which is the cause.


In fact you might have noticed a pattern in various threads where the subsequent pages of discussion after your contributions for some reason seem to take on a life of their own outside the subject of the thread. I wonder if it's because everyone is somehow drawn to making off topic counter arguments towards you, or if it is because there's something about your underlying arguments that is off topic to begin with...

 

[Brumby]

Perhaps you should consider not making those arguments in the first place then, as you cannot reasonably expect to put forward arguments and not expect counter arguments along the most obvious pathways to challenge your underlying premises. If the challenge of your premises are "off topic" then it is really your posting of the argument itself which is the cause.

You are suggesting that my arguments were in appropriate. I suggest you walk them through and point them out why they are inappropriate to the topic.

 

[Gatekeeper]

There was no "ruling" because this PCA "court" is just an arbitration service provided for members who wish to participate. So insisting that there is a "ruling" when one member specifically provided legal reasons that it would not participate or submit itself to the "court" is denial of the limits of the powers of the PCA. Refer here: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-561#post-556718

And there is no confusion in China that this land is disputed by others, but China's stance is that it's still sovereign Chinese territory. Those 2 are not mutually exclusive; it's basically saying, we have a disagreement and I'm adamant that I'm right. This has no effect on the right to build or use them. Now if you were to say that I'm not sure this is mine, it's probably not, but I'll do with it as I wish anyway, then, you would have a case that this is belligerent behavior. But as long as China sees them as rightful Chinese territory (as has provided evidence for such), it's just a domestic issue of what China wants to do with its own land, even if others try to claim it. If you want to see denial, then you must look to Japan, which refuses to even acknowledge that the Diaoyu Islands are in dispute.

This is too painful to watch, but strangely entertaining. I think he's caught in a time loop!