That's why I think Mitsui OSK shall HAVE had
@Compersion 's service, though none of outsiders have access at this moment to any contracts set btwn concerned parties Chung Wei Steamship (Zhongwei), Continental and Mitsui (formerly Daido)
Force majeure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
With or without alleged "PRC leadership" involvement it's good justice has been done to the Chinese firms (and heirs) with compensation.
I am not sure what you are trying to say. Also why you do not use and highlight the rest of the link you use. What is definition of force majeure and also why you are applying German Law. Also in your use of highlighting your point by making bold text that is applying principles of International law. Why do you use German Law and not Japanese Law. In fact why not Hong Kong Law and why not PRC law. Even why not American Law and Indian Law.
Also in the second bolded part you allude to a specific definition contract term for force majeure. Where is the contract term from the contract between the parties. Are you having it with you.
Like i have said there must be reasoning in the judgement
(for example the force majeure principle can be overcome.) How was that done - how was force majeure principle overcome and also what about the 1972 treaty how was the overcome. Even more basically which law was applied and provision in PRC and why the Japanese company that must be operating and doing business in PRC is not complying with it.
You are jumping the ship without the judgement the justice and injustice cannot be judged and analysed to determine if this is a situation where justice is to be analysed if not it is a diplomatic situation where PRC is doing this for other motives. The seizure of the ships needs to be seen according to the judgement. Is there a reason why you cannot get the judgement(s) - is there a delay in issuing them - is there restricted reasons - the judgement is not there. If you can get the main one that would be great.
Frankly i personally do not have any preference and if the judgement is sound - credit to PRC for bringing economic justice to the heirs.
But if the seizure is in lieu of payment until a final judgement and comply of the judgement is done that is creepy and hugely provocative. Where is the legal grounds for seizure of the ships. There must be a legal judgment on seizure also - and why the company is not complying of the PRC law where it is doing business. That is why I am asking where the judgement(s) are.
On Saturday, Shanghai Maritime Court said it had seized "the vessel Baosteel Emotion owned by Mitsui O.S.K. Lines ... for enforcement of an effective judgement" made in December 2007.
"The arrested vessel will be dealt with by the law if Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. still refuses to perform its obligations," the court said.
Japan warns China over ship seizure - Australia Network News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Japan lodges protest against China ship seizure - The Economic Times
Commandeer definition:
officially take possession or control of (something), especially for military purposes.
"a nearby house had been commandeered by the army"
If this is the application of PRC law to bring justice - without principles and gruffly. What is the reasoning.
That means this is a diplomatic incident and this will eventually be resolved in a diplomatic way. The PRC will ask for something from the Japanese and point to the Shrine visit. The way the Japanese will respond will be done in conjunction with the Americans.
Also since there is a Hong Kong element involvement is there a reasons why PRC is doing that. Perhaps to get the Hong Kong area and people to have some intersection and connection together on some point since there is a lot of issues and situations that need to be dealt with and many where the PRC is not viewed favorably in Hong Kong. Perhaps one of the reasons is that this incident allows PRC to get Hong Kong people to connect with it. Sure it can be smart and Hong Kong people can be told that whole relationship with Japan is suffered to defend the Hong Kong justice.
I am not making any critique that what happened to Chinese people by the Japanese was right and wrong. And in the article there is mention of forced labour cases ...
A Beijing court has agreed for the first time to hear a lawsuit by Chinese citizens demanding compensation from Japanese firms over forced labour, their lawyer said last month.
What I am saying is what is the reasons for the judgement and I am sure the PRC foreign office and PRC leadership is leading this from the top and its reasons are not to only bring justice but multi-purpose and involves internal audience and geo-poliical concerns. My belief is that this is a diplomatic incident and was planned and is being directed from the PRC foreign office and PRC leadership.
But with most of these things when people start asking questions on principles and reasoning like in the DK affair a different story comes out. Also when people plan such things they always leave some cracks open.
This can be a huge diplomatic incident and the Japanese are much more economically and technologically powerful compared to PRC. I sure wish the PRC has evaluate the the Japanese will think worse of PRC (that is already there) and also will other nations also think worse of PRC and in a certain way of PRC (probably that is already there also).
Is it worth it - perhaps in view of PRC dealing with Hong Kong yes - since there is a lot of gigantic issues that need to be dealt there.