.
The Tribunal's STUPID verdict will cause legal problems for Israel/Palestine and UK/Falklands and India/Kashmir
The Tribunal's STUPID verdict also imply that Israel was created ILLEGALLY in 1948.....giving the Palestinians a openning to apply to the ICJ to challenge the legality of Israel's formation in 1948
The Yanks and the japs think that they are smart to scheme this trickery KANGEROO COURT but they had given Israels some headaches
NB.. China supported the creation of Israel in 1948 and today, China enjoys good relationship with Israel
....
Chicoms be havin' a valid claim on stupidity and on nothing else.
Why waste precious time an' resources on this nonsense?
Let 'em escalate their'n whinin' an' whingin''till push comes to shove an' then we'll shove 'em all the way back to the Pleistocene era.
Done an' dusted...
So, your solution is start WWIII... interesting.
Tell me, are you a Trump supporter?
Wars are not readily started by those that resist the greed of rising militarists. In WWII both Germany and Japan had a few years of conquest, before other powers got together to remove them from their greedy spots and return them to their own shores. The World can still do the same in WWIII.
As sayings goes there is no honor among thief. China is a signatory to the UNCLOS ang gave up historic rights when they signed it. Now it is a contract they are binded to follow it.
"restarting construction works in Scarborough Shoal, which is something of a red line for the United States"
We know what the consequences of crossing a US Red line are after Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria. Nothing.
Crossing "something of a red line" will presumably lead to an even less significant response. Which is exactly why the Chinese know they can ignore the rulings of the UNCLOS.
During their reign as hegemon the US didn't accept the jurisdiction of the UN. See for example the war in Iraq. Now that we're back in to a multi-polar world, we are reaping the lack of respect for international law which we sowed.
China is defending UNCLOS from being abused and misused. Many countries signed on to UNCLOS owing to the assurance afforded by Article 298 on matters relating sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. The Philippines’ arbitral tribunal is now threatening to render Article 298 meaningless that could cause an exodus from UNCLOS.
The Philippines’ arbitral tribunal cannot invoke any power or authority under Article 288(4) or any other Article under UNCLOS unless it is an Annex VII UNCLOS arbitral tribunal. For the reason as pointed out in my post below, the Philippines’ arbitral tribunal has failed to be constituted as an Annex VII UNCLOS arbitral tribunal.
Too cool - Han-thugs against the whole world.
My what a corner Xi & Co. have painted themselves into - all the nations of the world arrayed in opposition to them ... and so much inflammatory domestic rhetoric under the bridge that trying to back away from it could cost the Reds everything. You just gotta love it.
I don't know what you are talking about. The Chinese are safely ensconced on Scarborough Shoal. They could start building yet another airstrip tomorrow and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
In fact they could use this judgement as an excuse to do just that.
I don't expect this though, they prefer to make small moves, never big enough to provoke a big reaction.
I fail to see any rational way that this judgment can be used as an excuse to develop Scarborough Shoal. It might be used as a political smokescreen, but nothing more.
Sorry TE - I'm still not getting it.
Was isn't China pulling out of UNCLOS if it disagrees with it?
And if they accept and remain under UNCLOS why are they refusing to accept the ruling by the recognized court that rules on the UNCLOS?
And why do they feel this 'nine dash line' gives them historic rights that trump UNCLOS?
And will China be officially laying out their case in some way?
This case seems like it's an example of how China plans to conduct itself in the world so I hope TE is planning to explain more.
China is exploiting 'nine dash line ' bcos of
1.fishing rights in these waters. it extends all the way to south east asia.livelihood for their fishermen. recently chinese fishermen have been spotted as far away as Indonesia.
2.Mineral deposits (eg underwater oil deposits etc) in those waters claimed belong to the countries claiming it. China wants this for itself instead of having to buy it from its neighbours if they are allowed their respective claims.
3. Strategic land for defense etc.By covering this entire expanse on its own, it guarantees China's claim on Taiwan,Hong Kong who may be tempted to secede from China in the future.Also, it ensures China's regional power in the area by controlling the sea lanes.
I would diplomatically say it was a struggle, a real struggle, to understand the bad rhetoric from the Unit 61398 wumao trolls on this forum. Suffice it to say, YOU LOST. Get over it.
Major difficulty with most of China's claims in land and in sea is that they are historically and legally wrong. Old maps and records China pulls out are all imaginative accounts drawn by officials to flatter the Chinese Emperors. Even the new Communist Emperor Mao, never tried to fill tops of coral reefs with sand and pebbles. China's claims are based on her current military might, such it is, rather than any de facto or de jure explanations. Incidentally, we do note that TE has not yet commented on this ruling 'editorially' ... we can guess can't we "wink..wink..nudge..nudge, say no more" ??!!! How many copies, did you say they sell in China? It is a good compromise, this 'explanation' idea, face-saving, nevertheless.
There are plenty of maps and historical facts controdict your believe. Take a look at thishttp://english.cri.cn/12954/2016/07/11/197s933782.htm
The Vietnamese, the Phillipinos, the Indonesians and the Japanese also have documents and historical facts. Why should I consider yours alone as making up the history of SCS ??? In any case, history does not stand still. If it does, the British had a good title to stay on in Hongkong and the New Territories and the Tibetans had a good title to parts of south west China and the Uighurs to their Republic of East Turkmenistan.
If china wants to behave like Wilhelmine Germany to get it's place in the sun they'll get the same treatment the Germans got.
When the geo-political interests clash, there is no guarantee of peace.
The law is crystal clear and China has zero legal and historical arguments. The issue is what to do with them.
However Obama's strategy is doomed. This is another of his immense failures
The containment side of U.S. policy has gone from merely assembling some of the necessary components, to be activated at a later date if necessary (first gear), to the initial phase of activation (second gear). More emphasis is likely to be placed on China as a serious strategic competitor, if not an outright adversary. But developing any kind of a containment policy against China is almost certain to prove hopelessly difficult. Despite the sometimes inflammatory rhetoric coming from Donald Trump and some other China bashers, the bilateral economic relationship remains quite extensive and crucial. China is America’s second largest trading partner. In 2015, the United States exported $116 million in goods to China while importing $482 million. Disrupting that relationship would be extremely costly and painful for both countries.
a similar situation (intense trade-relations) didn't stop WW1.
However of the many causes of WWI this is the less important and was not really implemented any sanctions or any measures to prevent WWI. At the end WWI was caused by the megalomania of the Kaiser. It could have been prevented....We do not know.
Appreciate that economist don't stand on neither side.
you can ignore the historic truth, we surely can see you as a joke.
as to US, go back watch close your sea court, maybe somedays there is a tribunal by some country like philippine, it is easy to understand and wait
All pre-1948 historical sovereign ownerships will be subsumed by the Hague's UNCLOS rule.
There is the rule of law and there is piracy. China's attempt to claim land, sea & other rights sre in conflict with TEN other countries. (Military) "might does not make right." It's a shame that a country like China,wants to bully its neighbors
First and foremost, there is, in this article, an important error of fact.
The ruling of July 12th on the South China Sea was NOT made by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It was made by an arbitral tribunal unilaterally requested by the Philippines and improperly constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS. The PCA only acts as a registry for the case.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague, Netherlands (PCA) has no jurisdiction in the Philippines’ unilateral case. The PCA, established in 1899, is just an international arbitration tribunal, primarily for the settlement of disputes between states willing to submit themselves to its rulings (arbitration).
The PCA is NOT a UN agency, an Annex VII UNCLOS arbitral tribunal or an international court like the ICJ. So it is not empowered by UNCLOS or any international law to make any binding ruling on any State Party to UNCLOS, without the state first having agreed to submit itself to its rulings.
The Philippines’ arbitral tribunal has failed to qualify as an Annex VII UNCLOS arbitral tribunal because it has failed to comply with all the compulsory procedures necessary to constitute it as an Annex VII UNCLOS arbitral tribunal. This is because, apart from the arbitrator appointed by the Philippines, the remaining four arbitrators (including the President of the tribunal) were appointed by the ITLOS President under the provisions of Article 3(e) of Annex VII WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH CHINA. Article 3(e) of Annex VII expressly requires such consultation:
Article 3
Constitution of arbitral tribunal
“(e) Unless the parties agree that any appointment under subparagraphs (c) and (d) be made by a person or a third State chosen by the parties, the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea shall make the necessary appointments. If the President is unable to act under this subparagraph or is a national of one of the parties to the dispute, the appointment shall be made by the next senior member of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea who is available and is not a national of one of the parties. The appointments referred to in this subparagraph shall be made from the list referred to in article 2 of this Annex within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the request and IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PARTIES. The members so appointed shall be of different nationalities and may not be in the service of, ordinarily resident in the territory of, or nationals of, any of the parties to the dispute.”
Why didn't China make this argument in the proceeding? It speaks volume that China chose not to participate. It is clear that China knows that it has no case in connection with its claim of "historic" rights and the 9-dash line claim, and that's the reason why China calculated that it would be better to refuse to participate based on a claim of a lack of jurisdiction.
Now, China is in an even deeper legal hole and has no recourse other than to essentially go against the whole world by ignoring a comprehensive, 501 page ruling. Anyone who looks at the 9-dash line claim can see the absurdity of China's claim. If left unchecked, what's next? Claim that because some Chinese citizens visited Japan during the Song Dynasty, therefore China can claim to all of Japan based on "historic rights"?
But that's China's logic and the path of a bully-nation.
The best term that I have seen to describe China in this current dispute is of an "outlaw". This is unfortunate and severely damages China's image in the eyes of the world.
Has anyone actually read the "ruling"? Especially regarding Taiping island?
The tribunal has shot themselves in the foot by arbitrarily claiming while Taiping island can be self sufficient in sustaining human lives in the past and present, it is only a reef.
So they invented a new definition of reef. There goes the last oz of credibility.
What happens if America destroys CCP?
Will KMT return back to mainland and
let Taiwan independent?
America cannot destroy the CCP without destroying China and she cannot destroy China without destroying the world together with America.
In the Japs-led conspiracy, the rotten Vege is just another pebble rather than an Island for the US Pivot diplomacy.
As its main feature in the South China Sea, the Western judges led by a Japs from Abe cabinet in the Court has ruled that the Xi dude is a Rock.
The PRC has 3.7 million square miles, but it seems to be
not enough. Time to gobble gobble more than Goebbels.
PRC Pictures Presents
IT IS ALL MINE
大官說了任何什麼都亞洲屬於中國
Gluttony meets Lebensraum
(亞洲告警：中國的惡魔很餓死所以它想要騙偷殺你們的國家)
(A story about the PRC pillaging the SCS
like an Amuck Iberian CON-quistador)
Starring
The PRC and its hurt ego. Xi and the Party needing
to throw their weight around. A monster on a playground
http://lowres.cartoonstock.com/children-monster_movie-monster_film-monst...
Special Guest - Lula
(The fool who authorized his nation to train
PRC pilots on the aging São Paulo Aircraft Carrier ).
"In a May 9 interview with Brazilian defense, strategy and intelligence news website Defasanet, Brazilian Defense Minister Nelson Jobim stated that Brazil and China had reached an agreement to train personnel from the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in Brazil."
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35116
Featuring
Japan
Taiwan
Philippines
Indonesia
Vietnam
Malaysia
Brunei
and many other Asian Nations
Coming soon to a regional war near you.
Soundtrack available thru DF-26 missile Records
Featuring soundtrack songs:
把亞洲控制了 and 我們不管世界法狗屁
Available on all PRC websites
full of viruses, ID thieves, and keyloggers.
Does the author know the fact that this tribunal is not an international institution, different from International Court of Justice or Permanent Court of Arbitration or any other international institutions? this institution is temporary. How can its award be legitimate? The author's article confuses the public with his own political views. Unfair and inappropriate!