Miscellaneous News

Brumby

Brumby

Major
joshuatree said:
The ruling also demonstrated grave legal overstep just even in procedure.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to Stefan Talmon's 93 page opinion piece? I have read it. I agree with some of his comments on procedural matters but I am not professionally qualified to make a judgement. The PCA did preempt the "group of islands" argument though.

joshuatree said:
Ruling Taiping Island was not a point requested in relief. It did not allow representation from the actual administrators of the feature. It did not conduct actual onsite analysis at the invitation of the administrators since they were turned away in court. All theoretical behind closed doors. Why not rule all the Spratly features occupied by all claimants while you're at it? Very selective. It just made the whole process look exactly like lawfare.
Click to expand...
I regarded Taiping as a curve ball previously because I couldn't determine how the PCA would make the connection to the case. I still don't as I haven't read completely the 501 page judgement.

joshuatree said:
On the other hand, had the ruling stayed away from Taiping since it was not a specific point or accorded it its rightful EEZ without disqualifying on subjective interpretations, the ruling may actually have de-escalated as it awards some and denies some to all parties, allowing a means for sides to compromise and work it out.
Click to expand...
I disagree on this point. Removing Taiping island from the calculus injected significant clarity onto the direct issues of maritime entitlements and the ambiguity legal game China was playing. Realistically China was never going to budge on sovereignty and the ruling has the effect of limiting China's ambiguity card that it was playing all the time. According to a legal opinion I read, the PCA was in fact calling out that China was contravening Article 300 (good faith and abuse of rights) of the convention.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
kwaigonegin said:
Citation pls. Besides we're not talking about other events. This is not a case of so and so ignored the rules therefore I should too.did it therefore e


rule of law applies to everyone. If certain parties choose to ignore it doesn't give you the right to make it an excuse.
Click to expand...
But that's my point, the world doesn't have rule of law because nations routinely ignore ICJ rulings when they don't like them.

Why even bother with the ICJ/PCA etc then? might as well abolish it.
Click to expand...
It's useful for big powers to take grandstands on issues that align with their interests, and it's also useful for small powers to vent steam and make believe their voices actually count for something with the great powers. Given that, ICJ is useful to have around.

At the end of the day this is about perception. Regardless of whether China thinks the verdict was right or wrong, the fact of the matter is the perception will be very negative towards China from the world community and in the long run it bodes bad for China and Chinese communities worldwide.
Chinese reputation is at an all time low and things like this doesn't help.
Click to expand...
Perception is fleeting, just like moonshine. The world would little care China roadkilled the PCA, as long as the eagle and the dragon don't war, business continues, megacorps flourish, elites stuff their pockets, and bank vaults burst with gold. THAT is the real world.

Don't believe me? Look around you; the American public doesn't really care, EU is muted, and ASEAN want no trouble. 'Bad boy China' stories already peaked and will steady lose steam in the next few weeks. The world is eager to move on, even Philippines and the US. Put a fork in it.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
kwaigonegin said:
I stand corrected .. it is TECHNICALLY not the same but the overarching result is still the same. The average joe on the street or even governments are not going to care weather it came from the PCA or the ICJ. All they know is some 'world' court (I know technically PCA is NOT a court) ruled against China.
Click to expand...
hope you know I'm strongly pro-American ... but I noticed the pro-China team here :) had repeatedly brought up
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so I read it and:
The United States argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction, with U.S. ambassador to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
dismissing the Court as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't."
Click to expand...
LOL it seems
History Has The Tendency To Repeat Itself
so I attach like to
Yesterday at 8:14 AM
jon88 said:
I don't think China will ever appeal... or even comply with the ruling. Just as US didn't comply to the Nicaragua vs. USA ruling. USA set the precedent for other countries not to comply to ICJ rulings. Geo-politics at work folks.
Click to expand...
but feel free to explain if/how I'm mixing apples with oranges or something (am just preparing for pub-talk next week :)
 
J

jon88

New Member
Registered Member
Unbelievable! Just found out about this just now.

eldarlmari said:
'The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
located at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to resolve conflicts between member states, international organizations, or private parties.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It should not be confused with the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations, while the PCA is not a UN agency
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
'

Fees and Costs[
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
]
There are fixed costs for certain procedures such as non-refundable processing fee of €2000. For arbitration cases, there are no fixed costs, the costs can vary from case to case and the costs are negotiable.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Income and expenses[
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
]
Since the PCA is not UN-backed agency, it's income relies on the arbitration services it provides to its clients
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Unlike the judges from the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
who are paid by the UN
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, judges of the PCA are paid from that same income the PCA earns.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




How much did the PH pay to the PCA for the arbitration services rendered? Or perhaps some richer countries are funding the PH behind the scenes to pay for its abitration fees?
Click to expand...

Phoenix_Rising said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA’s website (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case and, for that reason, there is no information about it on the ICJ’s website."
Click to expand...

Damn politicians really know how to play all these games.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
jon88 said:
Unbelievable! Just found out about this just now.





Damn politicians really know how to play all these games.
Click to expand...
Not only is PCA not related to ICJ(UN), the tribunal that made the toilet paper is not much related to PCA either, secretarial service? Providing conference room and coffee? That's all the "legitimacy" that tribunal has. And someone here seemed hold a very high regard to that tribunal not long ago. Bottom line is a Kangaroo is a Kangaroo if it walks like one.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
solarz said:
This has actually been noted weeks ago on this forum, but I guess it didn't draw much attention until now.

Just goes to show that western media is about as trustworthy as DPRK media.
Click to expand...
Problem is that honest people who are aware of it will say it once instead of recycling over and over. Liars will never pick it up or answer it when put in front of them, they will look away and talk something else.

It is always difficult for truth to prevail as liars' grand master once said "a lie will become truth when repeated thousands times". Just look at the CNN and Reuters now, "UN court" everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top