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

joshuatree said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 In any case, upon reunification, Vietnam rescinded its note - so to speak.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...

delft said:

The 1954 agreement said that the country was to be reunited by presidential elections in 1956. Those elections didn't happen because the South Vietnamese dictator Ngo Dinh Diem could expect a massive defeat and South Vietnam and the US didn't ratify the agreement. The US promised to keep to this agreement but kept Ngo in power until he was killed in a military coup in 1963. In the eyes of North Vietnam however the Saigon regime could have no legal authority over any part of Vietnam.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

The fundamental issue doesn't change. Does North Vietnam have the legal status in 1958 to give away something it doesn't own at that time? In fact this persistent argument affirms Vietnam's sovereignty over the islands rather than not. If you take this issue to its logical conclusion, it is purely a legal procedural issue under international law. Something the International Court of Justice clearly can adjudicate based on the facts regarding the supposedly assignment.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

The fundamental issue doesn't change. Does North Vietnam have the legal status in 1958 to give away something it doesn't own at that time? In fact this persistent argument affirms Vietnam's sovereignty over the islands rather than not. If you take this issue to its logical conclusion, it is purely a legal procedural issue under international law. Something the International Court of Justice clearly can adjudicate based on the facts regarding the supposedly assignment.

Click to expand...

duncanidaho said:

Sorry, but in the diplomatic note from Pham Van Dong, North Vietnam gave nothing away 1958. In the diplomatic note the northvietnamese Government only confirmed the chinese sovereignty over the Paracel- and Spratly-Islands. Since North Vietnam won the Civil War, every diplomatic note they gave and every treaty they signed are legally binding. The case would be different, if South Vietnam won the Vietnamwar.

Now to the International Court of Justice. The question is, whether the ICJ will maketheir decision independently or not. 9 out of 15 judges are definetly not pro China, so it will be like a vabanque game, if China agrees to abide by the Court's adjudication. So China has nothing to loose, if it doesn't accept the ICJ as arbitral tribunal, but China can loose everything, if it does.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

If I were to sum up what you have just said - the International Court of Justice is no more than a kangaroo court.

Click to expand...

delft said:

South Vietnam had no standing in this matter as it was not a legally constituted state according to the 1954 agreement. Vietnam recognized in 1958 that the islands were Chinese.

Click to expand...

duncanidaho said:

I just point out, that there is no need for China to call for the ICJ.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

.... and the reason is?

Click to expand...