China LOSES claim on South China Sea at UN-backed Tribunal, threatens WAR

Discussion in 'China' started by Martian, Jul 13, 2016.

  1. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    UNCLOS/ITLOS is a sub-department of the United Nations.

    China is ignoring UNCLOS/ITLOS for the following reasons.

    1. UNCLOS has no jurisdiction to determine sovereignty.
    2. UNCLOS has no power to impose a binding involuntary arbitration.
    Any dispute resolution must be voluntary to be binding.
    3. China specifically exempted itself in writing from UNCLOS in matters of sovereignty.
    4. To achieve effect, UNCLOS must pass the United Nations Security Council which is impossible.
    China's permanent veto at the UNSC renders the UNCLOS/ITLOS opinion null and void.
    5. China was not a party to the proceedings and did not participate. Therefore, the opinion is irrelevant.

    Nothing has changed in the South China Sea.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2016
    Bahamut, SANITY and Neo like this.
  2.  
  3. aditya g

    aditya g Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    657
    Likes Received:
    784
    Location:
    India
    China is ignoring UNCLOS/ITLOS for the following reasons.

    1. UNCLOS has no jurisdiction to determine sovereignty.

    Yes: only China has the jurisdiction to determine sovereignty. Everybody should toe the line or else...:shoot:

    2. UNCLOS has no power to impose a binding involuntary arbitration.
    Any dispute resolution must be voluntary to be binding.


    Communist Party is the sole arbitrar of all disputes!

    3. China specifically exempted itself in writing from UNCLOS in matters of sovereignty.

    Yep, we can invade anybody we want because we have a huge army!

    4. To achieve effect, UNCLOS must pass the United Nations Security Council which is impossible.
    China's permanent veto at the UNSC renders the UNCLOS/ITLOS opinion null and void.


    China's precious vote is used for good deeds of the world like preventing Masood Azhar from being declared terrorist. No wonder the UNSC is disfunctional.

    5. China was not a party to the proceedings and did not participate. Therefore, the opinion is irrelevant.

    We only consider US published Atlas from 1994 as correct.:crying:

     
  4. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    The UNCLOS/ITLOS opinion is invalid, because it violates China's terms of acceptance in joining UNCLOS.

    China sent a written notice exempting its territorial sovereignty from UNCLOS purview in 2006. This is allowed under UNCLOS Article 298.

    "In 2006 China made a Declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS indicating that it did not accept certain compulsory dispute resolution procedures under Part XV of the convention, including disputes with respect to ‘historic bays or titles’."
     
    Bahamut and Neo like this.
  5. Neo

    Neo Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    801
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Much ado about nothing. There's not much anyone can do about it. Philippines should have known better.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2016
  6. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Definitely not. This is a huge diplomatic victory against China. With this ruling China has lost any legitimacy on its 9-dash line claim. Now it cannot browbeat smaller countries in ASEAN in talks regarding the issues in SCS. China's ony claim now to these area is one based on naked force a.k.a. bullying. It just became even harder now for China's allies (a.k.a. paid stooges) in the ASEAN to support China on this issue.
     
  7. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    No. You are wrong.

    Read the American newspapers.

    They say The Hague's opinion is UNENFORCEABLE.

    ----------

    China, U.S. Vie for Supporters Before South China Sea Ruling | Bloomberg (second paragraph)

    "While the international tribunal’s decision on the case brought against China by the Philippines isn’t enforceable...."
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2016
    Neo likes this.
  8. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    Nobody talks about enforcing the UNCLOS decision against China. The existence of a legally binding decision alone that clearly says that China's 9-dash line claim is rubbish is the real victory, morally, legally and diplomatically. China cannot now go to bilateral or multilateral talks in the ASEAN claiming that it is entitled to the SCS and thus everybody must respect its sovereignty there. China has just lost legal basis for its expansionist policy in the SCS. Now ASEAN countries with overlapping claims in the SCS against China will be even bolder. I can already see the Indonesians sinking more Chinese "fishermen's boats."
     
    pent, raja696 and A chauhan like this.
  9. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    You're just saying garbage.

    The Chinese government has said it will ignore the UNCLOS/ITLOS opinion.

    The net effect is zero.
     
  10. SANITY

    SANITY Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    229
    Location:
    NCR
    After South China Sea Ruling, China Censors Online Calls for War
    [​IMG]

    July 12 was a dark day for fervent Chinese nationalists. An international court based in the Hague issued a long-awaited ruling, rejecting many of China’s territorial claims in the hotly contested South China Sea, where China has clashed with the Philippines, Vietnam, and other countries over land features and fishing rights. After the tribunal announced its judgment at 5 pm Beijing time, declaring that China’s historical claims in the region have no legal basis, massive wave of anger erupted across Chinese social media, where grassroots nationalism flourishes. But to the ruling Communist Party, such sentiment is a double-edged sword: official censors moved quickly to curtail online discussion that seemed to overstep the bounds of acceptable nationalist discourse.

    Within hours of the announcement, “South China Sea arbitration” wastrending on Weibo, China’s heavily filtered Twitter-like microblogging platform, and hundreds of thousands of comments poured in. Many expressed anger at the ruling itself, at the United States — China’s perceived great power rival in the South China Sea — and the Philippines, which filed the case against China in 2013. One user described the tribunal’s decision as “waste paper and nothing else,” echoing former Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo’s comments at an event in D.C., the week before the ruling; Beijing has repeatedly statedthat it will not accept or implement the arbitration. “Struggle for every inch of land,” wrote another, echoing a phrase widely repeated online in the aftermath of the ruling. Another usercalled for a boycott of the iPhone 7, presumably because it is the product of Apple, a U.S. company.

    Other comments expressed anger towards the Philippines. The tribunal did not rule on the sovereignty of land features in the sea, but rather that land features such as reefs and atolls in the Spratlys, near the Philippines, are not large enough to merit their own 220-mile exclusive economic zone. The court also ruled that China had illegally blocked Filipino fishing boats from fishing around the Spratlys. “Does Philippines Island want to become Philippines Province?” challenged one Weibo commenter, who also included an emoticon of a fist punching in the air. “Those who sell bananas should keep selling bananas, don’t keep concerning yourselves with my fish,” wrote one Weibo user in a comment, referring to the common Filipino export to China, which garnered more than 35,000 likes. “Bringing the United States with you won’t work.”

    Similar discussion dominated other online platforms. One article called “War in the South China Sea Starts Tonight” received more than 100,000 views on mobile messaging platform WeChat; similar articles were widely shared as well. One popular meme on both Weibo and WeChat showed a map of China with the distinctive Nine Dash Line dipping below it; a slogan beneath the image read, “China: We can’t lose even one dot.”

    Phoenix, a Beijing-friendly media outlet based in Hong Kong, evenposted Chinese web game called South China Sea Adventure. Users play a Chinese fisherman who gets lost in a storm in the South China Sea. Whether facing demands from the U.S. navy or imprisonment by armed Vietnamese, players are inevitably saved by the powerful Chinese military — and its well-equipped bases built on artificial islands in the sea.

    But a wave of censorship also accompanied this outpouring of online commentary. Unsurprisingly, censors removed Weibo posts that contradicted the party line, such as one July 12 post that read “The South China Sea does not belong to China,” with an attached photo of a Filipino protesting China’s actions in nearby waters. But, according to information collected by anti-censorship websiteFreeweibo, most deleted posts were not anti-nationalist but ultra-nationalist, calling for military action against the United States or the Philippines to defend China’s territorial claims. “War is finally going to break out in the South China Sea,” wrote one user, whose post was later removed. “I was so damn excited last night that I couldn’t sleep!” Another wrote, “The South China Sea arbitration itself is an insult to China. Why would we wait for the result for this kind of crap? With such a large military, why don’t we just go fight to get back [what is ours]?” The post that was later removed. “We’re definitely going to fight,” wrote another user in a deleted post. “’We can’t lose even one dot’ means that we must take back the reefs and islands that Vietnam and other countries have occupied. How can we take them back? We can only rely on fighting.”

    To understand why Chinese authorities would want to suppress speech that supports Beijing’s official line, it’s important to understand the risks that unbridled nationalism pose to the party. “Grassroots reactions represent an opportunity and a challenge for the Chinese government, which wants to harness public opinion but fears its power to destabilize the regime,” said Jessica Chen Weiss, a professor of government at Cornell University who studies Chinese nationalism. “The Chinese government tends to suppress grassroots nationalism when it wants room for maneuver in handling foreign incidents.” Weiss told Foreign Policy, “However tough the Chinese government’s response, it is unlikely to satisfy these ultra-nationalist demands for war.” Weiss said that “censoring extreme voices is part of China’s risk management strategy.”

    Beijing has made its position uncompromisingly clear to both domestic and international audiences that land features within the Nine Dash Line are its sovereign territory. In 2012, China revised its passports to include a map which claimed the South China Sea as Chinese territory. In 2014, the government issued a new vertical map that portrayed the South China Sea as a continuous part of China, replacing previous horizontal maps that included the sea only as a pop-out. Chinese state media outlets have repeatedly emphasized that China has “indisputable sovereignty” over islands and reefs in the South China Sea.

    While likely intended to strengthen national resolve and put forward a strong face to the outside world, this strategy is risky. If the party is unable to maintain China’s territorial integrity, or if it is unwilling to heed popular calls for tougher measures, it runs the risk of being viewed as too weak to defend China’s national interests. Grassroots nationalists may unleash their anger against the party itself. Beijing has often emphasized that peace in the region is vital for prosperity, indicating that while maritime claims are important, it is unlikely to start a war with the Philippines or the United States. But an ultra-nationalist populace may pressure the government to take reckless measures.

    Territorial sovereignty is a highly sensitive issue in China. During the 19th century, the ruling Qing dynasty was unable to fend off European incursions, resulting in key territorial concessions to Britain, France, and other countries. The Republic of China, which governed mainland China from 1912 until it retreated to Taiwan in 1949, similarly was unable to stop invading Japanese forces in the 1930s. Many Chinese remember the weakness of the Qing and Republicans governments with shame and derision and admire the strength of the current government. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, a major source of legitimacy for the party has been its ability to prevent similar territorial incursions.

    While extreme speech was not completely scrubbed from China’s online spaces, the substantial censorship in the aftermath of the ruling serves as a reminder: Just as China’s internal security budget oftenexceeds its military spending, even in the throes of a major territorial dispute, Beijing continues to view threats to the country as originating more from within than from without.

    Leah Liu contributed research.
     
  11. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    Sore loser eh? Between you and me it's clear who is saying garbage... BTW, the Decision is more than 400 pages long and I have yet to see a more detailed and substantial ruling in any other case than this one. The trashing of China's legal justifications in the SCS is so complete and sweeping that I end up pittying China's foreign ministry officials who must be breaking their heads how they are going to face their ASEAN counterparts in the SCS issue.

    The conversation from now on between China and rival ASEAN claimants will go like this:

    Chinese diplomat: But, but , but, but, Chinese have been fishing that area even before Jesus Christ was born, we have maps you see...
    ASEAN diplomats: Kiss my ass!
     
    TODELU, raja696, swastic_1170 and 5 others like this.
  12. Oblaks

    Oblaks Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    123
    Yeah... Nothing changed that means chinkis still own nothing there
     
    raja696 likes this.
  13. airtel

    airtel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    1,562
    The Chinese government has said it will ignore the UNCLOS/ITLOS opinion.


    Yes you can do that .................and rest of the world will Ignore opinions of chinese government .
     
    desicanuk, pent, raja696 and 2 others like this.
  14. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    6,988
    Likes Received:
    7,514
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    LOL, @Neo liked @Martian 's post.
    Does he even know what's the matter?:rofl:
    If Neo justifies Chinese sovereignty over SCS because of 2000 years old claim, he is justifying Indian Akhand Bharat because of Indian sovereignty on entire subcontinent since 3500 B.C..:p
     
    TODELU, pent, Rahul Singh and 6 others like this.
  15. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    No. India can't do what China does.

    India does not sit on the United Nations Security Council. If a UN ruling or resolution comes before the UNSC, India does not have a permanent veto. Thus, China's permanent veto can stop any UN action from becoming international law. India cannot.

    Secondly, China has a massive military. China's conventional army is unstoppable on land. China also has a huge thermonuclear-armed Second Artillery (e.g DF-5 A/B ICBMs, DF-31 A/B ICBMs, DF-41 ICBMs, JL-2 SLBMs, with JL-3 SLBM in development and DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicles).

    In conclusion, India lacks China's political (P-5 Veto) and military power.
     
    Neo likes this.
  16. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    Of Course China, Like All Great Powers, Will Ignore an International Legal Verdict

    Graham Allison
    Director, Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
    Jul 12, 2016

    This week the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) will deliver its award in the Philippines’ case against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea. In a bid to thwart Beijing’s attempt to turn the South China Sea into its own virtual lake, Manila contends that China’s claim to exclusive sovereignty over all the islands and shoals within the nine-dashed line – which encompasses 86 percent of the Sea – has no basis in international law. There is not much suspense about what the tribunal will decide: it will almost certainly side with the Philippines. The United States and its allies have already started criticizing China for signaling in advance that it will ignore the court’s ruling, which one Chinese official derided last week as “nothing more than a piece of paper.”

    It may seem un-American to ask whether China should do as we say, or, by contrast, as we do. But suppose someone were bold enough to pose that question. The first thing they would discover is that
    no permanent member of the UN Security Council has ever complied with a ruling by the PCA on an issue involving the Law of the Sea. In fact, none of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court’s ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests. Thus, when China rejects the Court’s decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done for decades.

    From the day the Philippines went to court, China has argued that the PCA has no legitimate jurisdiction on this issue since it concerns “sovereignty” – which the text of the Law of the Sea treaty explicitly prohibits tribunals from addressing. When the Court rejected China’s objection, Beijing refused to participate in its hearings and made it clear that it will ignore the PCA’s ruling. The United States and others have criticized Beijing for taking this stance. But again, if we ask how other permanent members of the Security Council have acted in similar circumstances, the answer will not be one we like.

    When the Netherlands sued Russia after the latter’s navy boarded and detained the crew of a Dutch vessel in waters off of the Russian coast in 2013, Moscow asserted that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter and refused to participate in the hearings. It also ignored a tribunal’s order that the crew be released while the dispute was being resolved. After the PCA ruled that Russia had violated the Law of the Sea and ordered Moscow to pay the Netherlands compensation, Russia refused.

    Anticipating the Court’s ruling in the case brought by the Philippines, UK Prime Minister David Cameron proclaimed: “We want to encourage China to be part of that rules-based world. We want to encourage everyone to abide by these adjudications.” Perhaps he had forgotten that just last year the PCA ruled that the UK had violated the Law of the Sea by unilaterally establishing a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Islands. The British government disregarded the ruling, and the Marine Protected Area remains in place today.

    The United States has never been sued under the Law of the Sea because – unlike China – Washington has not ratified the international agreement and is thus not bound by its rules. Expect Chinese commentators to emphasize this point in the mutual recriminations that will follow the Court’s announcement.

    [​IMG]

    The closest analogue to the Philippines case involving the United States arose in the 1980s when Nicaragua sued Washington for mining its harbors. Like China, the United States argued that the International Court of Justice did not have the authority to hear Nicaragua’s case. When the court rejected that claim, the United States not only refused to participate in subsequent proceedings, but also denied the Court’s jurisdiction on any future case involving the United States, unless Washington explicitly made an exception and asked the Court to hear a case. If China followed that precedent, it could withdraw from the Law of the Sea Treaty altogether – joining the United States as one of the world’s only nations not party to the agreement.


    [​IMG]


    In the Nicaragua case, when the Court found in favor of Nicaragua and ordered the United States to pay reparations, the U.S. refused, and vetoed six UN Security Council resolutions ordering it to comply with the court’s ruling. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick aptly summed up Washington’s view of the matter when she dismissed the court as a “semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.”

    Observing what permanent members of the Security Council do, as opposed to what they say, it is hard to disagree with realist’s claim that the PCA and its siblings in The Hague – the International Courts of Justice and the International Criminal Court – are only for small powers. Great powers do not recognize the jurisdiction of these courts – except in particular cases where they believe it is in their interest to do so. Thucydides’ summary of the Melian mantra – “the strong do as they will; the weak suffer as they must” – may exaggerate. But this week, when the Court finds against China, expect Beijing to do as great powers have traditionally done.


    ============================================

    There's many options in hand for China to respond to the fuss.
    1) to commence build-up on Huangyan Reef (Scoborough) like what's done on Diego Garcia.
    2) to support Mindanao freedom fighters like what US did for Nicaragua :biggrin2:

    The role model is US of A so long as Chinese aspire to be as great as America. Chinese are often mocked as copycats therefore just do exactly the same way as America to MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN !

    [​IMG]
     
    Indx TechStyle, SANITY and Bahamut like this.
  17. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    Very simple logic shows The Hague opinion has no relevance.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Mikesingh

    Mikesingh Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,061
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    China should be kicked out as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It's behavior is outrageous and appalling. For this Communist nation, 'it's my way or the highway.' How can it be allowed to sit in judgement on the high table of the UN when it is itself breaking the resolutions of the UN with impunity?

    It's pissed off all the littoral states around the South China Sea, the US, India, Australia, Japan and most of the world, except of course their boot-lickers Pakistan, North Korea and Cambodia. This is actually the Gang of Four!
     
    pent, raja696 and adrenalin like this.
  19. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    260
    Location:
    Boston
    You are expressing a wish.

    However, your wish has no relation to the real world.

    The fact remains that China has a permanent veto at the United Nations Security Council.

    A UNSC permanent veto carries more weight than an opinion from The Hague.

    ----------

    The Hague issued a ruling against the United States on the Contras in 1986.

    Did that have any effect?

    It had zero effect.

    Same thing for The Hague opinion on the South China Sea.

    It has no meaning, because The Hague opinion cannot become international law.

    Both the US and China have a permanent veto at the United Nations Security Council. Some countries have a veto on what becomes international law.
     
    Neo likes this.
  20. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    Paid stooges hmmm, u must be refering to Malaysia now that she's made a strategic Malacca port available for Chinese money.

    How could the Philippines hijack other ASEAN members on its own adventure? Most of them simply have no share in the disputes and would rather stay out of the imbroglios. Who wants to be PHL's pawns for free?


    China, Malaysia to build third port on Malacca
    July 05, 2016

    [​IMG]
    (File photo of Port Klang)
    China may be invited to build a third port on Malacca in cooperation with Malaysia, the Malaysian Minister of Transport has said.

    According to the minister, Liow Tiong Lai, the country plans to work with China to build athird port on Carey Island, which is located between the Strait of Malacca and Port Klang,Kuala Lumpur-based Oriental Daily News reported on Sunday.

    Some 70 to 80 percent of the ships passing through the Strait of Malacca come from China.The ministry is therefore encouraging China to participate in the port construction, which will stretch across 120 kilometers. The construction would be jointly funded by China and Malaysia, Liow said.

    Liow has previously stated that the port administration will be entrusted to local Malaysian authorities.

    The minister said China is Malaysia’s first choice for the project, as the relatively large volume of ships from China will help the port to successfully develop. He added that local port authorities hopes to attract more Chinese companies to be stationed in the free trade zone of Port Klang, Oriental Daily News reported.
     
    Neo and Martian like this.
  21. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    6,988
    Likes Received:
    7,514
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    For military, India itself too is fastly building up conventional military so obviously will get UNSC seat sooner or later. As the economy grows, defense and research budget grows, our capabilities too will grow. For nuclear, we're expertizing many Techs from civilian sector.
    We will do required demonstrations or power projections at correct time.


    And for doing something in South Asia similar to what China is doing in East Asia, India doesn't need to emerge as superpower before execution of plan (unless someone intervenes),
    East Asia has at least countries like South Korea and Japan, India's south Asian neighbors are like small cockroaches.:p
     
    TODELU and raja696 like this.

Share This Page