South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

confusion said:

This is another perfect example of selective information gathering by Brumby. He only considers the secondary sources coming from the Philippines, w/o bothering to gather 1st hand information from Taiwan.

Click to expand...

Article 121(3) of UNCLOS stipulates two very important conditions for an insular formation to qualify as ‘island’: to sustain ‘human habitation’ or ‘economic life of its own’. Yet, how can one say with any certainty whether a feature is capable of sustaining human habitation or have the capacity to generate economic life of its own? More importantly, can there be a category of island, in a legal sense, that can have economic life of its own but cannot sustain human habitation, or vice versa? Finally, would an island which had once been inhabited but have become uninhabited over time, due to persisting adverse economic conditions for example, be deprived of its legal status?

First of all, Article 121(3) refers to the capacity of sustaining human habitation, not simply habitation. Capacity for habitation is arguably a broader condition than actual habitation, meaning that an island must not necessarily be, or have once been, inhabited to be considered as such. The key is to prove the island’s ability to sustain habitation. Clearly, the first objective step to prove this ability is to look at the island’s present or past population. Even though it is not necessary for an island to actually be or have at some point been inhabited to meet the ‘sustain human habitation’ condition, it will certainly be easier to argue that an island can actually sustain human habitation if it has once been inhabited. In addition, the fact that the given population has historically made use of the surrounding waters, e.g. for fishing and mining, may be used to establish the island’s legal status. On this analysis, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

group of islands off the west coast of Scotland would still be thought of as an island, even though the population left over eighty years ago.

Assuming that there are no solid indications that the island is, or used to be, inhabited, the second practical step is to examine the island’s capacity to sustain human habitation. In that regard, the most vital needs for human survival are arguably food, fresh water, and shelter. Therefore, it may be suggested that the existence of cultivable soil, fresh water and enough space for shelter are the three most critical features of an island that has the ability to sustain human life.

The second requirement provided in Article 121(3) concerns the island’s capacity to ‘sustain economic life of its own’. Similarly to the first requirement, the phrase ‘able to sustain’ suggests that the existence of economic life is not necessary but rather is the presence of resources that can sustain such economic life that is crucial to qualify as island proper. Be that as it may, it is submitted that if natural resources, e.g. fisheries or minerals, are known to be present on the island is enough to reach the threshold of Article 121(3). This view finds some support on the Judgement of the Supreme Court of Norway in the case

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, where it was held that the existence of physical opportunities on Abel Island for sustaining some kind of economic life, namely bear hunting, were considered enough to grant the feature the legal status of an island.

Further to the above, the phrase ‘of its own’ indicates that the island itself must be capable of generating the source for its economic life. However, nowhere in the discussions that took place at UNCLOS III was it mentioned that islands must have self-sufficiency. As a matter of fact, it would not always be possible for any state, whether continental or island, to achieve self-sufficiency at every level, whether analysing that from the perspective of (for example) the economy, energy, food or agriculture. Some external support to fully realise the economic potential of an island must be deemed permissible to that end.

Click to expand...

Brumby said:

You should not go there because you are making accusations. You have no idea what process I use.

Click to expand...

was based on the assertion that Itu Aba was able to generate drinking water and that was based on a PR campaign recently with pictures of a well with drinking water.

Click to expand...

These questions on sustainability got me thinking whether the pictures with the well with drinking water is it one of form or substance.

Click to expand...

confusion said:

Nope. I can make that claim with great confidence. You cannot escape your posting history. And, your previous post is excellent example to support my claim.


A simple fact check with Taiwanese sources would've provided you with refutations similar to many that I listed in my previous post. You never saw fit to include any of that information in your expert legal 'analysis'. Selective information gathering? Check. Complete reliance on secondary Filipino sources w/o bothering to consult with Taiwanese sources? Check. I'm certainly not wrong.

You also admitted that you didn't bother to check sources coming from Taiwan. The only 'source' you used from Taiwan was this:


You selectively chose only one source, "pictures" of a drinking well (and, you only chose this as a source so that you could denigrate the validity of Taiwan's claims). One-sided? Check.

You didn't bother to research any further. You didn't bother to perform the minimal level of due diligence to balance out your one-sided arguments.

I'm clearly not wrong in asserting that Brumby is a selective information gatherer who only considers the secondary sources coming from the Philippines, w/o bothering to gather 1st hand information from Taiwan.

Again, you know your argument is complete bunk. Otherwise, why not take me up on the bet that I offered in my previous post? Everyone here knows that you're just full of hot air.

Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

June 10, 2016 12:35 am
by MICHAEL JOE T. DELIZO, REPORTER

A ruling by an international arbitral tribunal will in no way solve a bitter maritime dispute between the Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), according to two of the country’s former senior diplomats.

This assertion mirrored the ex-envoys’ backing of the position of the Duterte administration to resume the Philippines’ disrupted bilateral negotiations with China.

After all, the former senior diplomats said, the Philippines will not necessarily enjoy the expected favorable decision of the court.

Rosario Manalo, chairman of the High-Level Task Force on the Asean Charter and former Foreign Affairs undersecretary for international economic relations, noted that it is already late for the Philippines to compete its claim as China has already built artificial islands suitable for military use in the disputed waters.

“It’s a little bit too late because kinain na lahat ng mga [Chinese] lahat ng teritoryo. Hindi ba nagbi-build na siya [It’s a little bit too late because the Chinese have already eaten up all the territories. They have their building activities, right]?” she said in a recent chat.

Manalo explained that “under international law, the country who has physical control is the owner.”

She suggested that the two competing countries could undertake joint exploration and “share the fruits of the sea” to ease tensions in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea).

The West Philippine Sea is believed to potentially hold huge deposits of oil and gas.

It is also a rich fishing ground and a vital maritime route, where $5 trillion of annual global trade passes through.

China, according to Manalo, will agree to joint exploration.

“They will because they have to. Otherwise, matitignan siya ng buong mundo na, ‘Ano ka? Walang hiya ka talaga, ’no?’ [Otherwise, the world will see them as, ‘What are you? Are you shameless’]?” she said.

China claims nearly 90 percent of the sea though its nine-dash line, while the Philippines insists its rights to areas within 200 nautical miles of its coastline, under the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

Manila in 2013 sought the ruling of The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) to clarify its maritime rights.

But Manalo said the award will have no bearing if Beijing will not recognize the decision.

The only way to save the Philippines’ claims, she said, is to diplomatically talk with China and ask them: “How we can cooperate? If you keep setting plots against us, you are in effect hostile to us. Is that the demonstration of friendship on your side?”

Manalo saw no need for the United States to join the negotiations as it does not have any claim in the contested territories in the South China Sea.

“Hindi puwede ang multilateral talks… Ano ang keber ng United States sa atin? May posisyon ba sila sa teritoryo natin at China? Tayo lang at ang China ang may problema dun eh [We cannot pursue multilateral talks… What’s the interest of the United States in us? Do they have any claim to the Philippines or China’s territory? The problem is only between us and China],” the diplomat said.

Lauro Baja, former Foreign Affairs undersecretary for policy and Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, clarified that engaging in bilateral talks with China will not harm the Philippine case in the tribunal.

“You can’t resolve an issue without talking to each other,” he said in a separate interview.

“I have yet to hear an excuse or justification that going bilateral will prejudice our case in the panel. How? These judges are statesmen, they are learned. They know how to distinguish rhetoric, what is legal or what is reality.”

Baja noted that the question of territorial integrity or maritime entitlement will not be solved solely on legal ground.

“What the department [Foreign Affairs] or the Philippines may have missed is that they relied too much on the legal angle,” he said. “Second, we relied too much on the panel and we put all our eggs in the panel. We should have had more foresight like the others.”

Baja dismissed a recommendation of Ernest Bower, senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, to elevate the Philippine case to the United Nations Security Council if China will not abide by the court ruling.

He also explained that China, as permanent member of the Security Council, will surely veto such move.

Therefore, Baja said, nothing will happen unless Beijing is inhibited by the Security Council.

“That’s suntok sa buwan [far-fetched]. Before you take a first step in the Security Council, you must have some informal informant. And in that first step, China will kill it,” he added, laughing.

“Of course, you can go to the UN General Assembly. But all you can gain there without manifestation of specifics is again a moral support to our position,” Baja said.

Click to expand...

“But as I said, on matters of territorial integrity and sovereignty and maritime entitlements, there is no such thing as moral victories.”

Click to expand...

:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ambassador Rosario Manalo, who was head of the High Level Task Force on Asean charter, said while it appeared too late to address the issue because of China’s massive buildup in the South China Sea, bilateral talks could ease tensions that have raised the stakes and rankled the international community.

“We should negotiate (with China), although it is a bit too late because of China’s buildup. Under international law, the country who has physical control is the owner,” Manalo said in a chance interview at the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) late Wednesday.

Manalo, who has been nominated at the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, noted the Philippines’ arbitration case provoked China to intensify its military buildup and activities.

China continues to view the Philippines as being “on a hostile side” after it filed in January 2013 an arbitration case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, she said.

But Manalo said she was optimistic that China would agree to a bilateral agreement with the Philippines because it needed to repair its damaged image in the international community after ramping up its military buildup to almost 90 percent of the disputed waters in the South China Sea.

“They (China) will (agree to bilateral agreement). They will because they have to, otherwise, the international community will continue to build a negative image of China,” she said.

Resolved by talking
Meanwhile, former foreign affairs undersecretary for policy Lauro Baja, who helped negotiate the Declaration of Conduct in the South China Sea between Asean and China in 2002, agreed that the row could only be resolved by talking to Beijing.

“You cannot resolve an issue without talking to each other, whether bilateral, multilateral, global … they are not mutually exclusive. That’s what other claimant countries are doing. Look at Vietnam, Malaysia,” said Baja in a separate interview at the DFA on Wednesday.

Baja said even if the Philippines wins its arbitration case, “there are no moral victories in questions of territorial sovereignty or maritime entitlement because they (China) are already there.”

China has repeatedly ignored the tribunal, and enforcing the upcoming decision remains the Philippines’ next primary concern.

Manila should call on its allies led by the United States, “to be more forthright, to be more open and specific in their support for the Philippines,” said Baja in a separate interview with reporters.

He said countries supporting freedom of navigation and peaceful settlement of disputes should give specific commitments in cases of confrontations with Chinese military ships.

“If there’s an incident in Scarborough shoal or a specific action by China, what would you do? What will these allies do (referring to the United States and Japan)?” Baja said.

He said the Philippines’ security allies—Japan, United States and Australia—must be more upfront in their support to Manila.

“If you ask them if they will come to our aid if there will be an attack in Scarborough or Sierra Madre (ship), they will not be forthright,” Baja said.

Click to expand...

ahojunk said:

Now Taiwan is also joining the fray ..... I think China is happy .....
-------

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Published Jun 8, 2016, 5:00 am SGT

The statement that the occupation of Itu Aba Island (Taiping Island) by Taiwan in 1956 violates Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and, therefore, does not confer lawful title, is not based on facts or history ("

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"; May 31).

Whether from the perspective of history, geography or international law, the Nansha (Spratly) Islands, Shisha (Paracel) Islands, Chungsha Islands (Macclesfield Bank) and Tungsha (Pratas) Islands, as well as their surrounding waters, are an inherent part of Taiwan's territory and waters.

When France attempted to occupy nine of the Shisha and Nansha islands in 1931 and 1933 during its colonisation of Annam (known today as Vietnam), Taiwan responded to this challenge by ordering its embassy in France to issue statements of sovereignty.

On April 29, 1930, at the Far Eastern Meteorological Conference in Hong Kong, the Taiwan-operated observatory in Tungsha Islands was acknowledged as the most important in the South China Sea. The Philippine representative for the Manila Observatory's suggestion that Taiwan set up meteorological observatories on the Shisha and Chungsha islands to enhance navigation safety was also passed unanimously.

Likewise, at the International Civil Aviation Organisation's conference in Manila on Oct 27, 1955, a resolution was passed for Taiwan to provide weather reports on the Tungsha, Shisha and Nansha islands.

Clearly, the fact that Taiwan owns and exercises effective control over these islands has been recognised by foreign governments and international organisations.

After World War II, with assistance from the Allies, Taiwan took formal possession in 1946 of South China Sea islands formerly seized by Japan.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty, which entered into force on April 28, 1952, and the Treaty of Peace between Taiwan and Japan signed on the same day, reaffirmed that the South China Sea territories occupied by Japan should be returned to Taiwan.

Particularly, the first point on this Taiwan-Japan Treaty of Peace stipulates that the terms of the treaty shall, in respect of Taiwan, be applicable to all the territories which are now, or which may hereafter be, under the control of the Taiwanese government.

Taiwan's sovereignty over South China Sea islands is, therefore, in accordance with international law.

Taiwan, in accordance with its Constitution, is obligated to safeguard its sovereignty and territories.

Taiwan proposes to shelve disputes, pursue peace and promote joint development, thus making the South China Sea a sea of peace and cooperation.

Tsai Chi-yuan (Ms)
Senior Assistant Director
Taipei Representative Office in Singapore

Click to expand...

solarz said:

I find it pretty ridiculous that they say "Taiwan" did this and that back in the 1930's. Is Tsai planning to revive the whole name change shenanigan again?

Click to expand...