thats hypocrisy you guys i should be able to ask questions based on this forum this the whole point of joining in the first place
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
You believe what you want. I got no time or beef with you. All I'm saying was we are not (now I'm going to be blunt) as blunt as you. We stick with the topic and skirts around the politics.
Let's face it, the very fact there is a sinidefence is political in itself. Because without politics, there would be no need for defence, let along Sinodefence.
I hope this is good guide for you. You can take it or leave it. I'll not respond any further.
antiterror13
Brigadier
don't be a crying baby ... no sympathy at all
It is only right that the Moderator should intervene when need be, especially on sensitive issues like the South China Sea. My take is that China and the US and the 4 ASEAN Countries have their view points. No way could any of these parties convince others that they are right......... China based their claims on Historical Basis, while the others would based their findings on the International Court Of Justice decision on claims by Philippines, Vietnam & 2 other claimants.The ONLY way to settle this difficult situation is through MEDIATION if acceptable by all parties concerned. Who could be the mediator? The UN without interference by US or China. This will be a very difficult Geo-political problem when NO Major Party/parties involved the the disputes will give way. It will then become a status -co situation. Hopefully there will not be accidental collision of ships that could escalate into Open Conflict in the region. No one wins in Maritime hostilities.
no respect ill follow your " rules " im only here to get info because wikipedia isnt credible
Agree with much of what you said. There are certainly no winners here, except for one (and that's because they are not directly involved) what ever the outcome.
I would like to point out one MAJOR error in your post. This is an important error and can not go without correction. It is a factual error and it's not political or geo-politic at play.
The fact you, who are from the area got this one important fact wrong is worrying, and showed just how the MSM have clouded the issue over the years. For avoidance of doubt, I'll state the error concerned, and I'll doubt very much anyone would state I'm wrong on this.
Here goes.
You mentioned Philippines and I quote below:
"while the others would based their findings on the International Court Of Justice decision on claims by Philippines"
This is factualy wrong as it implies philippines have won a case at the International court of justice, (ICJ) against, and I presumed China or anyone else for this matter.
There was no such case brought to ICJ, let alone winning it and therefore be able to based their claim on it.
The ICJ is a bono fidal court of the UN. it is use to try war criminals. Etc. From Nazi Germany to Imperial Japan to Bosnia.
The case brought by the Philippines was held at the Hague, same place as ICJ. But here the similarity ends! Instead the case was "tried" at the "Court of arbitration". A privately funded court, with no connections what so ever to the ICJ!
Furthermore, Philippines brought the case to this "court" under UNCLOS, however, under UNCLOS, China have made it clear, it will exercised its RIGHT not to participate, or come under its "jurisdiction" which is allowable under the UNCLOS rules!
So in short, there was no ICJ ruling, there was a ruling by the "court of arbitration". But this ruling is a private ruling, and not the rule of law. In addition, the defendant have exercised its right not to participate and be bound by its findings!
Who is right & who is wrong re: South China Sea UNCLOS jurisdiction is dependent on whose side the person or the party favours. No point of debating this issue further. Let the parties concerned settle the matter hopefully amicably. Any hostilities that can arise by any antagonistic nation will only result in we ASIANs & our region suffering. For the “spectators” the best way to ensure that rise of Asia will diminish is to make Asians fight with each other while the others watch gleefully.
I think your answer. If I may say so it's avoiding my post, whether deliberate or not I don't know.
You see I've never said who's right and who's wrong. What I was pointing out was that your understanding of the "courts" and its "judgements" are not correct. Why am I stressing this point. Because one is a legal court, the other is not! And the western MSM, keeps insisting on the non-legal court as jurisdiction on this case. So therefore mis-leading people including yourself in believing the Philippines have won a land-mark case in a well-respected international court such as the ICJ. When nothing can be further from the truth.
The truth is the Philippines have won a "court" case in a private "court" where China was even represented! And sooner people knows this and not making false claim the better.
It has got nothing to do with who's right or wrong!
Last edited:
sorry, one key word was missing in this sentence.
where China was ( not ) even represented. China opted not to participate in this farce by the so called court of arbitration.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I’m sorry, but that is plain wrong. China grandfathered in its SCS claims upon ratification of UNCLOS, and opted out of arbitration as per UNCLOS’ own rules, which puts China’s SCS claims firmly outside the bounds of UNCLOS and the jurisdiction of the court of arbitration.
That is a matter of fact, and is not up for interpretation or discussion. By even hearing the case, never mind making any sort of judgment, the court of arbitration proved itself as a political tool and a kangaroo court.
It’s no coincidence that the ICJ issued a public declaration firmly distancing itself from the court of arbitration with almost indecent haste as soon as the western MSM tried to conflate the two to lend the court of arbitration status and legitimacy it plainly lacked.
The silence from the legal community regarding the ruling is absolutely deafening. It is telling that the entire western MSM could not find even one legal expert of repute or note to come forward and defend the court of arbitration decision because it is utterly indefensible from a purely legal prospective.