South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Bltizo said:
Note my post on the last page: China's acceptance of UNCLOS means they're interpreting it as applying to the islands within the 9 dashed line which were "always" their "sovereign" territory.
From that perspective it is possible to reconcile the nine dashed line as well as UNCLOS.
Click to expand...

Here is a map of SCS with the nine dash line and how UNCLOS defines each nation's territory.
1004px-South_China_Sea_vector.svg.png

Where are the islands that can make claim near the shore of Vietnam for example?
How about the claim near the coast of northern Philippines?
There are none that is why this claim is disturbing to say the least.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Blackstone said:
I think you're right, Brumby. UNCLOS doesn't recognize artificial islands as real ones, so China shouldn't get 12 mile territorial waters around them. On the other hand, the 2,000 newly formed acres are indeed land features, so it's not clear what legal status they would eventually enjoy.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it is uncharted territory and has no legal precedent.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
SamuraiBlue said:
Before UNCLOS a nation cannot make claim to body of water beside territorial shore line.
That changed with UNCLOS with the acceptance of EEZ. Both are based on a baseline which is natural formation that is above waters at high tide.
The land PRC is claim is not nor the open sea that is 200 miles from any shorelines within the 9 dash line.
Click to expand...
The problem is you use a straw man fallacy to argue your position. Which is wrong. So, let's get to the bottom line. Prove me wrong if you can: I offer two thesis, 1) UNCLOS doesn't deal with sovereignty issues, so the land features under dispute by various SCS claimants has nothing to do with UNCLOS, and 2) to date, there's no evidence PRC officially claimed water as sovereign territory except traditional 3, 6, 12. or whatever miles land features get.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Brumby said:
The LOS convention was put in place to settle disputes between states such as this and within that convention it outlines very specific conditions in which disputes are assessed and resolved. Specifically claims based on historic "rights"; "title"; or "water" are generally excluded except under very narrow conditions. The text and drafting history of the Convention make clear that, apart from a narrow category of near-shore "‘historic’ bays" (Article 10) and "historic title" in the context of territorial sea boundary delimitation (Article 15), the modern international law of the sea does not recognize history as the basis for maritime jurisdiction.

In other words, the nine dash line has no international legal foundation to stand on, and precisely why China has been asked to lay out its legal premise regarding its claim. As is, China is making up its own rules but at the same time not explaining what exactly is its premise.
Click to expand...

Great, in that case, China is probably seeking to put its historically based claim in the few exceptions.

In other words, there is no "legal basis" as such rather it is based on history. I think China has phrased it similarly themselves in recent years (the fact that its claim is related to history and ancient times and what not)

(Remember what we discussed a few pages back about accepting, enforcing and/or challenging laws present at a time and/or interpretation of such a law?)
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
SamuraiBlue said:
Here is a map of SCS with the nine dash line and how UNCLOS defines each nation's territory.
1004px-South_China_Sea_vector.svg.png

Where are the islands that can make claim near the shore of Vietnam for example?
How about the claim near the coast of northern Philippines?
There are none that is why this claim is disturbing to say the least.
Click to expand...

Clearly you've misunderstood the meaning of my post. Um, the 9 dash line idea is that the islands within the 9 dash line were inherently Chinese to "begin with".

So the application of UNCLOS means that the "Chinese islands" in SCS will abide by UNCLOS, but doesn't mean that the sovereignty/claimed sovereignty over those islands are dependent on UNCLOS. So it is a historically based claim to begin with and UNCLOS was never a reason for the nine dashed line.

However brumby's reply regarding the basis of historical claims is a better one which I have addressed above.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
SamuraiBlue said:
Here is a map of SCS with the nine dash line and how UNCLOS defines each nation's territory.
1004px-South_China_Sea_vector.svg.png

Where are the islands that can make claim near the shore of Vietnam for example?
How about the claim near the coast of northern Philippines?
There are none that is why this claim is disturbing to say the least.
Click to expand...
OK SamuriBlue, for just one minute, put away your bias and look at it this way. If PRC doesn't claim the waters inside the red 9-dash line, but it does claim the various land features inside the 9-dash line, then the argument is about land sovereignty, right?
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Bltizo said:
Great, in that case, China is probably seeking to put its historically based claim in the few exceptions.

In other words, there is no "legal basis" as such rather it is based on history. I think China has phrased it similarly themselves in recent years (the fact that its claim is related to history and ancient times and what not)

(Remember what we discussed a few pages back about accepting, enforcing and/or challenging laws present at a time and/or interpretation of such a law?)
Click to expand...
Your mistake is framing China as the only one claiming historical rights. Vietnam's claim is based on French theft of some of the SCS islands, as well as old maps from the 18th Century, or there abouts. So, not only is Vietnam's claim history-based, it's also fruit from the poison tree.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
Your mistake is framing China as the only one claiming historical rights. Vietnam's claim is based on French theft of some of the SCS islands, as well as old maps from the 18th Century, or there abouts. So, not only is Vietnam's claim history-based, it's also fruit from the poison tree.
Click to expand...

I thought it was simpler to just talk about China in this case, but yes absolutely, the entire SCS is a cluster-mess of claims due to historical reasons.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Blackstone said:
The problem is you use a straw man fallacy to argue your position. Which is wrong. So, let's get to the bottom line. Prove me wrong if you can: I offer two thesis, 1) UNCLOS doesn't deal with sovereignty issues, so the land features under dispute by various SCS claimants has nothing to do with UNCLOS, and 2) to date, there's no evidence PRC officially claimed water as sovereign territory except traditional 3, 6, 12. or whatever miles land features get.
Click to expand...

Actually Samurai Blue knows what he is talking about and is not straw man. There is a misunderstanding on the role of the LOS convention because parties in dispute are sovereign states. There are only 2 ways to legalise, either (I) by an international court provided both parties agree; and (ii) through a formalised international agreement. The role of the LOS convention is not to decide on sovereignty issues but is to provide the framework and mechanism to resolve disputes. In this manner it has set out definitions; rules; inclusions and exclusions. Historic claims unfortunately (and the root of disputes) is specifically excluded except under narrow conditions. Nine dash line doesn't have a leg to stand on if you understand the provisions of the LOS convention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top