South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

SamuraiBlue

Captain
By human or by nature makes no difference. In the end it's still a land mass.

Just read and accept Part V Article 60 Section 8 of UNCLOS.
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.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
It is clear that the treaty, IMHO, refers to natural land masses, that without human intervention, were at certain levels with respect to high tide.

If mankind (be it Chinese, US, Japan, Philippines, etc.) had to physically intervene in some way to create land masses that are above the high tide mark with respect to the specifications in the treaty, then it is not natural. Nature did not do it...man did.

I think that is pretty straight forward.

Now...when it comes to political intrigue, you will see people wresting the interpretation in fantastic ways to make it say or mean something other than what is clearly intended, but which lines up with their desires.

An example of this, on the extreme, was a certain US President who legally tried to question the very definition of the word, "is."
 

Zool

Junior Member
As stated in UNCLOS, a feature and it's entitlements are defined by it's natural state and those entitlements do not change as a result of artificial factors. That's current law until there is a revision to UNCLOS or another set of laws come in and supersede it.

I'm interested to know if a feature can lose it's entitlements and drop in category as a result of erosion or rise in sea levels. Are artificial means of preventing erosion and land loss accepted in retaining category and entitlement? I know this is a real world scenario faced by many islands in the South Pacific today, but I'm not sure of the legal standing. I imagine a case could potentially be made to revise UNCLOS positions concerning artificial growth of features, on the basis of artificial sustainment.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
That is NOT written in stone therefore doesn't have the right to tell the world what is a landmass and what is not. Just accept that UNCLOS is NOT the one world order.
Well it is written in black and white on a treaty, the part that PRC is a signatory with 200 other nations so it is a UN mandate.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
There are real partners and then there are symbolic partners, India-Japan security alliance is the latter. It's possible Japan might hold India's coat if it chooses to confront China, and vice versa, but the notion New Delhi would take on Beijing in East Asia or Tokyo would do so in South Asia is enormously entertaining, but ultimately unrealistic.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on December 12. As Abe concluded his short two-day visit to India the end of their meeting, the two leaders issued
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
In this document, Abe and Modi agreed on expanding bilateral cooperation in a wide range of issues from investment, disaster risk management, and people-to-people exchange. They also acknowledged that stability of the Indo-Pacific region to be “indispensable” to their respective national security and prosperity, calling for a more robust cooperation in security issues.

The Japan-India relationship is among the core relationships that Abe has focused on since he served prime minister for the first time, from 2006-2007. In fact, shortly after Abe returned to power in December 2012, he contributed
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on December 27, 2012. In this commentary, he introduced the “Diamond Concept (daiyamondo kousou), in which he envisioned that the United States, Japan, Australia, and India would form a virtual security “diamond” and work together to maintain the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region.

This commentary by Abe attracted hardly any attention in Japan when it was published. However, when reflecting on the major foreign policy decisions that Abe has made since then, it is clear that Abe’s moves to pursue more robust relationships with Australia and India, while continuing to anchor these relationships with its alliance with the United States, are remarkably consistent with this “Diamond Concept.” It is also a critical component of his government “proactive contribution to peace” principle articulated in the National Security Strategy.

This weekend, as the two leaders agreed to elevate their bilateral relationship to “special strategic and global partnership,” the Japanese and Indian government signed two important security agreements.

One is a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. With elements such as the establishment of a Japan-India Joint Committee for the oversight and prohibition of third-party transfers without prior approval, this agreement paves the way for a more robust Japan-India cooperation in the area of defense technology.

The other is the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Commonly referred to as the general security of military information agreement (GSOMIA), this agreement obligates both Japan and India to protect classified military information exchanged between the two countries, thereby facilitating more robust intelligence exchanges between the Indian Armed Forces and the Japan Self-Defense Force (JSDF). That, in turn, creates a foundation for a more robust defense cooperation between the two.

These agreements build on the progress in Japan-India bilateral defense relations, which was jump-started when Abe visited India in August 2007 during his first stint as prime minister. Since then, the deepening of Japan-India relations, along with Japan-Australia relations, has enjoyed bipartisan support in Japan. Indeed, it was under Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) rule that Japan and India signed two critical documents that serve as the stepping stoned of today’s relationship —
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in October 2008, and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in December 2009 to implement what was agreed upon in the Joint Declaration on Security. In 2013, the leaders of the two countries signed an agreement in which the both sides agreed to allow the Indian Navy and Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) to hold joint training on a regular basis. JMSDF also has already participated in the U.S.-India bilateral exercise Malabar as an observer. Now that the agreements on defense technology transfer and GSOMIA both in place, Japan-India security relations have become one of Japan’s most institutionalized relationships, only after security ties with the United States and Australia.

Similar to its security partnership with Australia, Japan’s security cooperation with India allows Japan to engage one of the biggest security partners for the United States on a host of security issues. A close security partnership with Australia has afforded Japan the opportunity to be more active in areas, such as capacity building in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, that are critical for the stability of the Asia-Pacific region. A closer security relationship with India benefits Japan in a similar way. With a solid institutional framework in place, it is up to the defense leaders in Tokyo to optimize this framework and achieve a concrete result, thereby adding real meat to the bones of this growing relationship.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Well it is written in black and white on a treaty, the part that PRC is a signatory with 200 other nations so it is a UN mandate.
The one thing I learned from watching Bill Clinton torture words and get away with perjury in Federal Court in the Monica Lewinsky scandal is even simple, "black and white" words and phrases can be twisted like pretzels in a court of law. Nothing is black and white in courts; the guilty go free, and innocents are jailed with alarming regularity. It's more functions of specific arguments at hand, resources various sides could bring to the bar, the agendas the courts themselves, and the circuses surrounding legal events.
 

Zetageist

Junior Member
Old article, interesting map though:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


map_900.jpg


Map of the Spratly Islands region. Dark blue lines represent the 200M EEZ/CS of Vietnam and the Philippines. Vietnamese-occupied islands (triangles) and rocks (squares) in orange, Philippine-occupied islands and rocks in bright blue. Chinese-occupied rocks and submerged reefs (circles) positions indicated in red. The yellow line is a 200M radius around Itu Aba, the largest island in the area. The shaded area is the extended continental shelf area jointly claimed by Vietnam and Malaysia. The southern tip of Palawan, Philippines is visible on the lower right corner. Image created by Jay Batongbacal.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
STOP the meaningless argument.

IT IS A PART OF A TREATY that China has signed on to.

That is the salient fact.

Continuing arguments by saying that it is signed on paper but not in stone is simply a useless and meaningless statement continuing a discussion that is already over.

Thanks.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.
 
Top