South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Blackstone said:
If nations want to claim the moral high ground, they first have to demonstrate their own purity. Western hypocrisy on the so-called "rule based order" doesn't pass the smell test, and the 'do as we say, not as we do' people are the ones in denial
Click to expand...

Well PRC is not in any position to argue since they are a signatory of the UNCLOS and they are violating the exact thing they shun.
If they were true to their words they would have came to Ogasawara last year to capture all the coral poachers and/or NOT pass the Okinawa isles EEZ with their war ships. Hypocrisy swings both ways as always.


Blackstone said:
Some nations snipe at China's lawful opt out of Philippine's arbitration case, but do they secretly want the case to fail?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Speculative at best and had not heard any official statements to prove otherwise. Basically an opinion piece.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Here's a question: has China done anything so far that violates UNCLOS or other international laws to which China is a signatory?

Note that I'm asking for actual things that China has done, not biased interpretations of China's claims and intentions.

First, the nine-dash-line. International law does not allow nations to claim open waters as sovereign territory. Nations can only have territorial waters based on sovereign land masses. The EEZ of a nation is not its sovereign territory, only an area where it has exclusive economic rights, mostly related to resource exploitation.

China has *never* claimed all the area within the dashed line as its sovereign territory. This is a myth repeated by anti-China media to confuse and mislead the public. The nine-dash-line denotes a region where the ISLANDS are sovereign Chinese territory, but the waters are still governed by UNCLOS designated regions of territorial water and EEZ.

Second, UNCLOS allows EEZ only around natural islands that can support human habitation. At first glance, this means artificial islands, like those reclaimed by China, are not eligible for EEZ. However, whether artificial or natural, China is still allowed to claim *territorial* waters around those islands, and that is exactly what China has done.

As for skirmishes between fishermen and maritime law enforcement, whether Chinese or from other nations, let's not forget that this area has been under dispute for well over half a century, probably even longer than that. The Chinese coastguard is arguably one of the more restrained actors in the area, especially compared to the likes of Philippines. If this situation is to change, then the relevant nations need to sit down together and work out a deal, like all other border disputes.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
SamuraiBlue said:
Well PRC is not in any position to argue since they are a signatory of the UNCLOS and they are violating the exact thing they shun.
If they were true to their words they would have came to Ogasawara last year to capture all the coral poachers and/or NOT pass the Okinawa isles EEZ with their war ships. Hypocrisy swings both ways as always.
Click to expand...
I've been critical of PRC hypocrisy and its other unhelpful actions in SCS and elsewhere. My point is the same measuring stick should be used for all nations, and not used for/against some and not others.

Speculative at best and had not heard any official statements to prove otherwise. Basically an opinion piece.
Click to expand...
True, but most publications we've seen, regardless of source, are at least partially speculative.
 
Geographer

Geographer

Junior Member
solarz, you made many good points. However, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is explicit that artificial islands cannot claim an EEZ or territorial waters.
Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.
Click to expand...
All of China's EEZ and territorial waters claims in the South China Sea have to come from the disputed natural islands. China may not possess Itu Aba, Spratly, etc but they can still measure EEZs and territorial waters from them because China believes those islands are their territory.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Geographer said:
solarz, you made many good points. However, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is explicit that artificial islands cannot claim an EEZ or territorial waters.

All of China's EEZ and territorial waters claims in the South China Sea have to come from the disputed natural islands. China may not possess Itu Aba, Spratly, etc but they can still measure EEZs and territorial waters from them because China believes those islands are their territory.
Click to expand...

That would apply to islands built entirely from scratch. However, that is not the case with China's land reclamation, as per this section of the UNCLOS:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Article121

Regime of islands

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
Click to expand...

Before the reclamation projects, those islands would be considered "rocks", which do generate territorial waters and contiguous zones, just not EEZ. The fact that their status was later artificially upgraded to islands does not affect their territorial waters.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

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


3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
Click to expand...
What about "rocks" that can sustain human habitation or economic life, do they get territorial waters and EEZ? Example: a "rock" with oil or gas rig nearby, harvesting resources.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Blackstone said:
What about "rocks" that can sustain human habitation or economic life, do they get territorial waters and EEZ? Example: a "rock" with oil or gas rig nearby, harvesting resources.
Click to expand...

Then they wouldn't be "rocks" under the UNCLOS definition. "Nearby" does not meet the criteria of "of their own".
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Good to see cooler heads prevailed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In an apparent about-face, Malaysia's navy yesterday said no Chinese vessels had encroached into Malaysian waters after investigating claims by the maritime authorities that 82 fishing boats were spotted off Beting Patinggi Ali, in the hotly disputed South China Sea.

Malaysia's National Security Minister Shahidan Kassim had said last week that three Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) ships and navy assets were sent to the area after aerial monitoring found a group of Chinese fishing boats there.

But Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said the navy chief told him yesterday that there was no trespass by Chinese vessels. "I am relieved that he (the navy chief) confirmed that our waters are safe," he told reporters.

Datuk Seri Hishammuddin had on Sunday indicated a reluctance to escalate tensions with China over the alleged encroachment into Malaysia's Exclusive Economic Zone, saying that even if the sightings were confirmed, the issue could be "resolved bilaterally" with Malaysia's top trade partner.

Sources said that although the boats were not clearly marked as Chinese, they were escorted by Chinese coast guard vessels. But the Defence Minister's denial of Beijing's involvement has caused confusion even among his colleagues. Datuk Seri Shahidan insisted "the boats are always there", and told The Straits Times to "call the MMEA now, they must have answers ready".

Prime Minister Najib Razak's administration has enjoyed cordial ties with Beijing, and Chinese investments have hit record highs, with billions of ringgit poured into taking control of energy and property arms previously owned by 1Malaysia Development Berhad. The government-owned investor was forced to sell these assets as it was struggling to meet obligations of RM42 billion (S$14.3 billion) in debt.

The incident came after Jakarta said last week a Chinese patrol boat had forcibly prevented its maritime authorities from detaining a Chinese fishing boat that was allegedly poaching in Indonesian waters.
Click to expand...
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
solarz said:
Here's a question: has China done anything so far that violates UNCLOS or other international laws to which China is a signatory?


Note that I'm asking for actual things that China has done, not biased interpretations of China's claims and intentions.


First, the nine-dash-line. International law does not allow nations to claim open waters as sovereign territory. Nations can only have territorial waters based on sovereign land masses. The EEZ of a nation is not its sovereign territory, only an area where it has exclusive economic rights, mostly related to resource exploitation.


China has *never* claimed all the area within the dashed line as its sovereign territory. This is a myth repeated by anti-China media to confuse and mislead the public.
Click to expand...

The problem is in the ubiquitous nine-dash combined with the nebulous nature in China’s claims. The end result is a direct function of the ambiguity nature of China’s approach to create confusion and not because of media reporting. You are misdirecting the cause and effect.


solarz said:
The nine-dash-line denotes a region where the ISLANDS are sovereign Chinese territory, but the waters are still governed by UNCLOS designated regions of territorial water and EEZ.
Click to expand...

Title is not derived through a map with nine dashes just as your property title is not substantiated on the back of a napkin but this is where the attempt at sleight of hand comes in. Your subsequent statement is predicated that China has legitimate title and then argues that China is just following the rules of UNCLOS pertaining to the regions of territorial water and EEZ. In effect, what do we end up seeing with Chinese claims :

Spratly islands – claims to historic title

Scarborough shoal – Indisputable sovereignty

Luconia shoals – God knows what

Natunas and surrounding seas – traditional fishing grounds

In summary, the narrative is tailored according to what China thinks it can get away in PR spin and not on the back of a strong legal standing.


solarz said:
Second, UNCLOS allows EEZ only around natural islands that can support human habitation. At first glance, this means artificial islands, like those reclaimed by China, are not eligible for EEZ. However, whether artificial or natural, China is still allowed to claim *territorial* waters around those islands, and that is exactly what China has done.
Click to expand...

No. As explained above, China has to first demonstrate it has clear title and that is disputed by other claimants. Secondly, artificial islands do not generate maritime entitlements, Thirdly, Article 13 (2), states “Where a low-tide elevation is wholly situated at a distance exceeding

the breadth of the territorial sea from the mainland or an island, it has no territorial sea of its own.” In other words, any territory sea entitlement is contingent on meeting the “parasitic” condition. It is not automatic.


solarz said:
As for skirmishes between fishermen and maritime law enforcement, whether Chinese or from other nations, let's not forget that this area has been under dispute for well over half a century, probably even longer than that. The Chinese coastguard is arguably one of the more restrained actors in the area, especially compared to the likes of Philippines. If this situation is to change, then the relevant nations need to sit down together and work out a deal, like all other border disputes.
Click to expand...

Precisely why UNCLOS was put in place with delimitating rules and a mechanism to settle disputes and not based on traditional reasons when it suits the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top