So ROC came first and Philippines came late.
South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
Blackstone
Brigadier
Oh really? Might is right is always been the case of past history? Your claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. All of China's land boarder settlements, that's 12 out of 14 of its continental neighbors, were concluded peacefully. In fact, China used its disproportional power and bullied itself into giving more concessions than received. In the SCS, China avoided trouble and was only compelled to act after other claimants took actions to upset the status quo. That doesn't sound like a "might is right" great power, bent on conquest.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
Since you agree China opted out of UNCLOS' involuntary dispute settlement mechanism, it follows you also agree Beijing hasn't violated the treaty by refusing to deal with Manila in the ICJ. That leaves "obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means," and there's scant evidence China isn't peaceful; assertive, to be sure, but not violent in the traditional nation vs. nation perspective.
Last edited:
joshuatree
Captain
Sure but what China has done so far hasn't violated this section and article. It has, as you've said yourself, opted out of dispute mechanisms for certain disputes afforded by UNCLOS itself. Now has China pushed to the limits? Sure, but it hasn't initiated any form of invasion of features occupied by other claimants nor inflicted any casualties by its military nor CG. On the other hand, we've already seen one claimant's CG kill on the issue of EEZ/territorial claims. And the land reclamation is something already done by the other claimants so if that is considered non-peaceful, well everyone else is guilty at this point.
solarz
Brigadier
They're also being dishonest as at the end of WW2, the ROC was the government of the entirety of China, not just of Taiwan as the article implies. The PRC inherited the SCS claim from the ROC, so it wasn't just "Taiwan" that was asserting sovereignty, it was, in fact, China.
Brumby
Major
Since both of your comments are somewhat similar I will respond to them in one reply.
The issue is not who is guilty or has lesser guilt in this debacle. It is geopolitical manuevering and lawfare at work. They are just pieces in a chess game and chess moves within the board. Article 283 of UNCLOS states “When a dispute arises between States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, the parties to the dispute shall proceed expeditiously to an exchange of views regarding its settlement by negotiation or other peaceful means.” It can be argued that the PRC has not acted expeditiously and in violation of UNCLOS and international law for being guilty in denial of justice and engaging its international responsibilities. Secondly it can also be argued that PRC has not acted in good faith in accordance with international law. This concept is rooted in fairness, equity and consistency. It can be pointed out that while PRC is a signatory to the 2002 Asean accord, it has violated the agreement through its actions in the Scarborough and with its massive land reclamation. This is the same legal argument that the PRC has invoked In its December 2014 position paper regarding the actions of the Philippines in proceeding with international arbitration.
What is now important is that the issues are before the International Arbitration Committee and the initial hearing is set next month.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The problem with your post is you hold China responsible for current state of affairs, even though it was generally reacting to actions by other claimants or non-neutral powers. I think even you might agree it's fundamentally unjust to hold one party to higher standards, simply because it's richer or more powerful.
joshuatree
Captain
I have to agree with Blackstone's opinion. You talk about equity and fairness, and you are right, the issue isn't about who has more or less guilt. But it is an issue on who is guilty. If all are guilty and they all are, it is not equitable nor fair to simply single out China and paint China as the bogeyman.
As counterpoint, it can be equally argued that nations like the Philippines have not acted expeditiously and not in good faith because it refuses to continue bilateral discussions. A case filed under UNCLOS does not prohibit continued discussions. Furthermore, other claimants such as Taiwan that has presented an equitable, trust building measure in the form of shelving the overlapping claims and jointly using the resources was flat out rejected by the Philippines. That would be a denial in engaging its international responsibilities to peacefully resolve the dispute. The latter has also dragged on even establishing a fishing agreement with Taiwan despite continued clashes on where respective fishermen can operate. Instead, it focuses its efforts on forging to its best ability military alliances that raises the tension and could induce a cascade of events much like World War I with the myriad of alliances triggered by one incident.
On the other side of the sea, Vietnam has steadfastly violated the 2002 ASEAN accord as well. However, I will say all violation is in spirit as it is legally nonbinding. But it is definitely inequitable to hold China to this accord and not nations like Vietnam that had continued to expand occupation of features and conducted land reclamation even before China started its reclamation projects last year.
Considering there are multiple claimants, the fair and equitable case that should have been filed by the Philippines would be against all claimants as it isn't only China operating within the theoretical maximum of 200 nm EEZ from the main Philippine islands. It's ironic that the Filipinos argue bilateral discussions cannot work because it is a multilateral issue yet its case is basically bilateral in nature pitching only one party vs another and ignoring all the other parties.
Brumby
Major
In your assertion you are implicitly making the point that I am acting unjustly by holding the PRC to higher standards because it is richer and more powerful. In order for your assertion to hold water I believe it must fundamentally past two tests. Firstly, there are two standards and that the PRC is being disadvantaged because of a higher standard. Secondly, the PRC is disadvantaged because it is economically and militarily more powerful. Let's deal with the facts connected to the Scarborough Shoal issue and the Spratly land reclamation between the Philippines and the PRC in context of those two tests.
The dispute between two countries over the Scarborough Shoal came to a head in 2012 and after a series of standoffs, PRC successfully muscled and fenced off the area from the Philippines. This was only possible on the back of economic intimidation and military coercion. It is hard to argue that the PRC was disadvantaged because of its military and economic strength. It was reported under a deal mediated by the US to de-escalate the standoff that both would withdraw. The Philippines did but the PRC did not. Was there two different standards in which a higher one was set for the PRC?
In the Spratly islands with the land reclamation, there are plenty of evidence on the Godzilla size effort by the PRC. Qualitatively and quantitatively there is just no comparison between the PRC and the Philippines. Based on the principle of proportionality, we have one State that is conducting a set of activities that are way off the scale compared to the other. We have only one scale of measurement except one is registering earthquake proportion and the other is hardly worth mentioning in relative terms. One State is able to accomplish such effort because of it's economic strength. The facts hardly suggest the PRC is being disadvantaged.
The PRC is attracting attention because of the magnitude of its activities. As evident by the movie "Godzilla", size does matter.
Brumby
Major
Frankly I am not familiar with the issues between the Philippines and Taiwan and so given that I am uninformed on the issues I would rather not comment. I am happy to accept whatever comments you have regarding the behaviour of the Philippines viz a viz Taiwan. As to the Vietnam/PRC disputes, the issues are more muddled in my view. I think there is a credible story to both sides.