China's SCS Strategy Thread

[siegecrossbow]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

BTW Vietnam and Philippines actual claim are about the same size of china's claim, AND they actually hold more islands in Spratly than china...

Not to mention that their claims overlap as well, a fact usually not brought up in South China Sea dispute discussions.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

No no no

the 9 dash denotes all the little island and shoals with in it. all the land features. China claims all that. It does not claim the actual ocean itself as territorial sea.

this is what's actually obtrusive about the US official's claim, because the actual position of 9-dash line (denotes the claim of all land features with in those 9 dashes, not the ocean itself) is public knowledge for 6 decades now. and yet there is still buzz about "clearify the position" .

On the position of over lapping EEZ its a whole different story.


similiarlly Vietnam and Philippines actual claim are closer to the size of china's claim, AND they actually hold more islands in Spratly than china...

Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification.

I suppose the key point then arises, how large is the territorial waters and EEZ areas conferred by all the islands in the 9 dash line?
Territorial waters isn't that great, as it only extends 12 nm out, while EEZ spans out 200nm, which would obviously cover a much greater area.

I suppose the US is scared that China will use its claimed island's EEZ areas as a form of territorial waters and deny the US to enter the large EEZ region, which will in fact be a good chunk of the SCS. Obviously, the law allowing military vessels to enter in EEZ would probably be re interpreted by the US if it were in China's shoes, but I think that is the reason the US is scared.
Misrepresenting the nine dash line is probably just a nice simple way to make the PRC look bad, no surprise there.

 

[i.e.]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification.

I suppose the key point then arises, how large is the territorial waters and EEZ areas conferred by all the islands in the 9 dash line?
Territorial waters isn't that great, as it only extends 12 nm out, while EEZ spans out 200nm, which would obviously cover a much greater area.

I suppose the US is scared that China will use its claimed island's EEZ areas as a form of territorial waters and deny the US to enter the large EEZ region, which will in fact be a good chunk of the SCS. Obviously, the law allowing military vessels to enter in EEZ would probably be re interpreted by the US if it were in China's shoes, but I think that is the reason the US is scared.
Misrepresenting the nine dash line is probably just a nice simple way to make the PRC look bad, no surprise there.

US positions is always that Freedom of the Sea in EEZ are almost absolute. very convenient for a maritime superpower.

China';s position is that the military vessels should be benign and transit only. For example towing a giant hydrophone array behind the ship and loitering 30 nm out of your biggest sub base does not qualify to be benign.

EEZ itself is easier. EEZ demarcation is actually a very well thought out, rule base, technical oriented process. easier to bargain because the constraint of territorial sovereignty is not constraining the negotiation positions, and guided by UNCLOS

on this note, one must note that, China's land feature claim in SCS has nothing to do with UNCLOS. it is territorial in nature. UNCLOS only concerns with oceans, not how one determines which island belong to whom. Have a island that lays with in your claimed 200 nm EEZ does not mean that Island belongs to you.... as it is often argued by our Philipino friends..

Attempts to use UNCLOS to attempt to "reign in" China, or simply to argue that china does not follow the rule of law in it's SCS land feature claims, are , frankly, imho. stupid.

because, frankly, you are using the wrong law. (!)

The regrettably global media in this instance, is once again, nothing more than an echo chamber drowning out the true meaning of international law. And some of those articles written by supposily reputable think tanks are, imho, grossly naive and misinterpret international law for their own argument sake.

 

[i.e.]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Not to mention that their claims overlap as well, a fact usually not brought up in South China Sea dispute discussions.

because china is the big baddie. it needs to get its skull bashed in. damn the international law.
===

funny thing is... in the near future, china may be the only power in the world which try to actively defend the post war international system. it is actually trying to maximize its power "with in the system" rather than over thrown the system.

shame that the founders of world's first truly international system of rule of law are wittingly or unwittingly undermining it.

===

law needs to exist for its own sake, not because it is convenient or advantageous for you. frankly much in the west is losing sight on the larger picture... that the world system and the peace it brings is worth more than its own pity geopolitical advantage... in mist its visceral distrust of China. People needs to watch star trek more.

 

[solarz]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

The regrettably global media in this instance, is once again, nothing more than an echo chamber drowning out the true meaning of international law. And some of those articles written by supposily reputable think tanks are, imho, grossly naive and misinterpret international law for their own argument sake.

Yes, exactly.

Every SINGLE Chinese publication about the South China Sea territorial claims specifically refer to the South China Sea islands. Yet the US (and the rest of the West-aligned nations) keep acting like China is claiming open seas. This is dishonesty, pure and simple!

 

[Brumby]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Attempts to use UNCLOS to attempt to "reign in" China, or simply to argue that china does not follow the rule of law in it's SCS land feature claims, are , frankly, imho. stupid.

because, frankly, you are using the wrong law. (!)

If the wrong law is being used then by your statement it implies that there is a right law which is the basis of China's position. Please enlighten as to what that might be.

 

[solarz]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

If the wrong law is being used then by your statement it implies that there is a right law which is the basis of China's position. Please enlighten as to what that might be.

So if you decide to eat a cake and I accused you of copyright infringement for eating that cake, then there has to be a law that allows you to eat cakes? You need to check your logic, buddy.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

So if you decide to eat a cake and I accused you of copyright infringement for eating that cake, then there has to be a law that allows you to eat cakes? You need to check your logic, buddy.

I do not think I would logically compare the PRC's claims to the many Islands in the South China Sea encompassed by the 9-dash as similar to "eating cake," either. That too is not good logic, particularly when there are others claiming that the cake in this case that you are eating is theirs. LOL!

 

[Brumby]

Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

So if you decide to eat a cake and I accused you of copyright infringement for eating that cake, then there has to be a law that allows you to eat cakes? You need to check your logic, buddy.

A basic principle of logical reasoning is that the conclusion is drawn from the premise. I fail to see the legal nexus between eating a cake and copyright infringement. At least get your reasoning right if you want to talk logic. Secondly, your statement is a logical fallacy of equivocation as Jeff pointed out.

 

[port_08]

I think it is fair game, whoever has the might and able to defend the island should claim them. These are just small matters, entire continent have been claim before thru barrel of the guns as might makes right, true then true now...