PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

J

joshuatree

Captain
jacksprat said:
China's positioning of the oil rig in Vietnam's claimed EEZ is nothing more than a flagrant violation of international norms and an attempt to seek the hegemony over its regional neighbors.
Click to expand...

It's actually far more than your perceived violation.

- China possesses and administers Paracel Islands for decades.
- A diplomatic note from North Vietnam which is the current Vietnam acknowledged the territorial seas listed by China and that list included the Paracels and Spratlys.
- Paracels are capable of generating its own EEZ.

So no, it's not a flagrant violation. It may be controversial because there's no demarcation of EEZ overlaps. All this talk of international norm grow stale when it's always applied inconsistently, i.e. certain countries are allowed to unilaterally define their own ADIZ, other CGs firing water cannons are not considered provocative or dangerous, terrorist attacks can occur in other countries but somehow it can't or receive acknowledgement in China, etc etc.


jacksprat said:
Might does not make right unless of course you are China.
Click to expand...

You can insert many other nations into that sentence and it holds as much validity.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
joshuatree said:
It's actually far more than your perceived violation.

- China possesses and administers Paracel Islands for decades.
- A diplomatic note from North Vietnam which is the current Vietnam acknowledged the territorial seas listed by China and that list included the Paracels and Spratlys.
Click to expand...

I keep on seeing this 1958 diplomatic note as if there is some form of legal agreement to justify China's position. What is conveniently left out are the details that provide context. In 1954, under the Geneva agreement there was a demarcation between the North and South and what constitute the south by geographical location includes the Paracels. Until the reunification of Vietnam which clearly was not 1958, the North can't give away what it doesn't own. In any case, upon reunification, Vietnam rescinded its note - so to speak. In common commercial law, there is a recognition between letter of intent and an agreement with the formal being unenforceable.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
I am not sure if these fishing boats from both China and Vietnam harassing each other belong in this thread, they are not PLAN and neither PLAN ships nor bases are involved in these incidents. Especially since we have been discussing this on the SCS strategies thread already and some of the posts here seem to be copies of posts there.
 
Last edited:
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Brumby said:
I keep on seeing this 1958 diplomatic note as if there is some form of legal agreement to justify China's position. What is conveniently left out are the details that provide context. In 1954, under the Geneva agreement there was a demarcation between the North and South and what constitute the south by geographical location includes the Paracels. Until the reunification of Vietnam which clearly was not 1958, the North can't give away what it doesn't own. In any case, upon reunification, Vietnam rescinded its note - so to speak. In common commercial law, there is a recognition between letter of intent and an agreement with the formal being unenforceable.
Click to expand...

Oh we're playing that game are we? So, where did the Vietnamese say they got the Parcels? From the French! And the French took them from... the Chinese! Maybe the French want to try and kick the Chinese out of the Parcels, and then hand them over to Vietnam...?
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
Brumby said:
I keep on seeing this 1958 diplomatic note as if there is some form of legal agreement to justify China's position. What is conveniently left out are the details that provide context. In 1954, under the Geneva agreement there was a demarcation between the North and South and what constitute the south by geographical location includes the Paracels. Until the reunification of Vietnam which clearly was not 1958, the North can't give away what it doesn't own. In any case, upon reunification, Vietnam rescinded its note - so to speak. In common commercial law, there is a recognition between letter of intent and an agreement with the formal being unenforceable.
Click to expand...

I actually don't see the 1958 diplomatic note mentioned enough, that seems to be conveniently left out in lots of media reports, just like the fact that the Paracels always had the eastern half occupied by the Chinese post WW2.

A diplomatic note is still an official communication piece from a state. It still holds a certain weight and it reflected one state acknowledging another state's claim. No other claimant in the area has anything close to that. Ultimately, North Vietnam is what became modern day Vietnam and the note was still effective when Vietnam was unified. But glad you pointed out how Vietnam rescinded the note. So after about 16 or 17 years later of recognition of Chinese claims, it rescinds and that has zero weight? That actually undermines the creditability of Vietnam. Comparing to commercial law is the wrong comparison, just like there's a difference between civil law and criminal law, what is being examined here is international sovereignty issues, not a commercial transaction.
 
Last edited:
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Blackstone said:
Oh we're playing that game are we? So, where did the Vietnamese say they got the Parcels? From the French! And the French took them from... the Chinese! Maybe the French want to try and kick the Chinese out of the Parcels, and then hand them over to Vietnam...?
Click to expand...

There is no game. Just putting things in perspective regarding the 1958 note that is conveniently invoked. Once history is involved, we are on a slippery slope. Does it mean that the Mongols can claim China today because the Yuan dynasty preceded the Ming and Qing or do we resort to Adam?
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Brumby said:
There is no game. Just putting things in perspective regarding the 1958 note that is conveniently invoked. Once history is involved, we are on a slippery slope. Does it mean that the Mongols can claim China today because the Yuan dynasty preceded the Ming and Qing or do we resort to Adam?
Click to expand...

China would probably welcome a Mongol invasion, it gives her the opportunity to bring Mongolia back to the fold. Did Adam ever made it out to East Asia?
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
joshuatree said:
I actually don't see the 1958 diplomatic note mentioned enough, that seems to be conveniently left out in lots of media reports, just like the fact that the Paracels always had the eastern half occupied by the Chinese post WW2.

A diplomatic note is still an official communication piece from a state. It still holds a certain weight and it reflected one state acknowledging another state's claim. No other claimant in the area has anything close to that. Ultimately, North Vietnam is what became modern day Vietnam and the note was still effective when Vietnam was unified. But glad you pointed out how Vietnam rescinded the note. So after about 16 or 17 years later of recognition of Chinese claims, it rescinds and that has zero weight? That actually undermines the creditability of Vietnam. Comparing to commercial law is the wrong comparison, just like there's a difference between civil law and criminal law, what is being examined here is international sovereignty issues, not a commercial transaction.
Click to expand...

The issue is not the type of legal issue but the general principle regarding formalization to signal an agreement between 2 parties. I am not a lawyer but my most basic understanding is that a diplomatic note does not have the strength of a formal treaty especially concerning sovereign issues. If this note provides such a fundamental strength to China's legal position, I would think the best course would be to present it to the International Court of Justice.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Blackstone said:
China would probably welcome a Mongol invasion, it gives her the opportunity to bring Mongolia back to the fold. Did Adam ever made it out to East Asia?
Click to expand...

You nailed the issue. Is it might, right, legal or history? China should outline its case.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
Brumby said:
The issue is not the type of legal issue but the general principle regarding formalization to signal an agreement between 2 parties. I am not a lawyer but my most basic understanding is that a diplomatic note does not have the strength of a formal treaty especially concerning sovereign issues. If this note provides such a fundamental strength to China's legal position, I would think the best course would be to present it to the International Court of Justice.
Click to expand...

If we're talking about general principle, then we're back at square one, Vietnam acknowledged Chinese territorial claims vis-a-vis respecting its territorial seas. Can't have the latter without the former. This acknowledgement existed for close to two decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top