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

Brumby

Brumby

Major
duncanidaho said:
Peter Tomka, Slovakia
Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor, Mexiko
Hisashi Owada, Japan
Ronny Abraham, France
Sir Kenneth Keith, NZL
Sir Christopher Greenwood, GB
Joan E. Donoghue, US
Giorgio Gaja, Italy
Dalveer Bhandari, India

9 out of 15 Judges are definitely not pro China, plus Vietnam can appoint an ad hoc judge for this tribunal. There will be 10 out of 16 judges, who are definitely not pro China.

China has nothing to gain, if it calls for the ICJ.
Click to expand...

You are making an accusatory statement that the appointed judges will not make decisions based on recognized standards of law or justice but instead will have pre conceived bias against a particular person or entity. This is a definition of a kangaroo court even though you do not want to call it as such.
 
D

duncanidaho

Junior Member
Brumby said:
You are making an accusatory statement that the appointed judges will not make decisions based on recognized standards of law or justice but instead will have pre conceived bias against a particular person or entity. This is a definition of a kangaroo court even though you do not want to call it as such.
Click to expand...

It's up to you, to interpret whatever you like in my posting, but don't accused me for making accusatory statements, when I didn't make any.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
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...

You point out the complexity of SCS disputes and the multiple chains of sovereignty claims. The Communists had their own separate one between CCOP and CVN, reflected in the 1958 diplomatic note, but that's the weaker claim to the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty that returned ownership from Japan to the Republic of China (now on Taiwan). Vietnam's claim to the Spratlys is weak on previous ownership grounds, that's why it pursues the EEZ angle under UNCLOS.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
Brumby said:
Does North Vietnam have the legal status in 1958 to give away something it doesn't own at that time?
Click to expand...

Even if going by your argument, the breakdown of timeline is as such.

Diplomatic note - 1958
Battle of the Paracel Islands - Jan 1974
Unification of Vietnam under North Vietnam - May 1975
Newly unified Vietnam renews claim to Paracels some time after.

So the 1958 note was still in effect under a unified Vietnam led by the North Vietnamese govt that made that note. At that point, there is no ambiguity about North Vietnam's status acknowledging Chinese claim to the islands.

You defer to ICOJ but there are other nations that do not subject to the rulings of ICOJ either.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Brumby said:
By your reasoning neither North and South would be properly constituted following the 1954 conference. The 1958 note would effectively be useless.
Click to expand...
North Vietnam signed and ratified the Geneva Agreement and was an independent country. South Vietnam was a US sponsored dictatorship that didn't dare to hold free and fair elections for the reunification in 1956 ( The US administration expected that in such election 85% of the South Vietnamese would vote for president Ho ). A few years later the US sent thousands of "advisers" because the regime couldn't defend itself against its own population. I remember seeing a video on Dutch television that was distributed by National Geographic Magazine about the brutal conduct of the regime in the late '50's.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
joshuatree said:
Even if going by your argument, the breakdown of timeline is as such.

Diplomatic note - 1958
Battle of the Paracel Islands - Jan 1974
Unification of Vietnam under North Vietnam - May 1975
Newly unified Vietnam renews claim to Paracels some time after.

So the 1958 note was still in effect under a unified Vietnam led by the North Vietnamese govt that made that note. At that point, there is no ambiguity about North Vietnam's status acknowledging Chinese claim to the islands.

You defer to ICOJ but there are other nations that do not subject to the rulings of ICOJ either.
Click to expand...

Insert S. Vietnam invasion of Parcels, then under ROC, and since Taiwan was powerless to reclaim lost territory, Mainland China had to step in and do the job.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
delft said:
I remember seeing a video on Dutch television that was distributed by National Geographic Magazine about the brutal conduct of the regime in the late '50's.
Click to expand...

OT- let's not compare acts of brutality, since North Vietnam could give lessons to the South. And eventually did!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top