China Anger At Philippine UN Move

[desicanuk]

China has reiterated its claim to a group of islands in the South China Sea, saying it has "indisputable sovereignty" over the area.

The move comes after the Philippines said it had exhausted diplomatic avenues and was seeking UN arbitration over the competing territorial claims.

Beijing accused the Philippines of illegally occupying the area.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21163507

 

[Impluseblade]

Read this:

Philippines, China, UNCLOS and the South China Seas | Hidden Harmonies China Blog

Recently, we hear a growing chorus how the China – Philippines dispute in the South China Seas ought to be settled by binding arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 3 We already have dealt with some of the political dimensions of this (see, e.g., our South China Seas tag), and I won't rehash them here. But I do want to bring up a couple of points that seem lost in the current fray.

While UNCLOS does allow nations to claim Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) that extend 200 nautical miles out from a nation's territorial sea, the UNCLOS is not the basis of the dispute between China and the Philippines.

One way to view the dispute is as a dispute over maritime boundary. Since the South China Seas is populated with hundreds of islands and rocks, the question is how to disentangle the overlapping claims to the seas arising from the various claims to the islands. This would clearly be a dispute involving UNCLOS.

The problem with this analysis is that China and the Philippines do not even agree over which islands and/or rocks belong to whom. The UNCLOS might be the appropriate forum to assess extent of various claims over the seas when there exists clearly delineated and accepted claims to land territories, but when it comes to disputes over actual claims over land (islands or rocks), there is little that the UNCLOS provides.

Another problem with appealing to the UNCLOS is that the the UNCLOS is really a red herring, as far as the South China Seas and China and the Philippines are concerned.

Under International Law, nations generally have the right to ratify treaties in parts – by ratifying treaties with reservations. This is the case with UNCLOS. Neither China nor the Philippines ratified the UNCLOS in full. In fact, few of nations that ratified the UNCLOS did so without some sorts of qualifying statements or declarations (see UNCLOS delcarations and statements upon ratification).

 

[roma]

Read this: Philippines, China, UNCLOS and the South China Seas | Hidden Harmonies China Blog
.

your "source" is of highly doublful integrity as to its impartiality - a hitherto unheard of source ...... likely and possibly a pro-CCP "source" ....i dont expect any university -educated person on this forum to take such a "source" seriously ....especially in relation to the one above your post which is from the bbc

 

[Impluseblade]

Now you are questioning my education? I am just providing members here a different opinion. Are you a legal expert? Could you tell me which points in the article are questionable?

When someone quotes articles from japancrush or NDTV, I didn't see any Indians make a fuss over the source.

your "source" is of highly doublful integrity as to its impartiality - a hitherto unheard of source ...... likely and possibly a pro-CCP "source" ....i dont expect any university -educated person on this forum to take such a "source" seriously ....especially in relation to the one above your post which is from the bbc

 

[cinoti]

Now you are questioning my education? I am just providing members here a different opinion. Are you a legal expert? Could you tell me which points in the article are questionable?

When someone quotes articles from japancrush or NDTV, I didn't see any Indians make a fuss over the source.

these two are just bunch of uneducated jokers without any common sense and basic knowledge, teach them and enlighten them if you have time, ignore them if you don't.

 

[Impluseblade]

(Reuters) - China said on Wednesday that a request by the Philippines for a U.N. tribunal to intervene in its longstanding South China Sea territorial dispute with China would only complicate the issue, and denounced Manila's "illegal occupation" of islands there.

Manila has asked the tribunal of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to order a halt to China's activities that the Philippines says violates the Southeast Asian nation's sovereignty.

China's claims over islands, reefs and atolls in resource-rich waters off its south coast and to the east of mainland Southeast Asia set it directly against Vietnam and the Philippines, while Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia also lay claim to parts.

Asked about the Philippines' move, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said its southern neighbour was occupying some of China's islands in the South China Sea.

"China has consistently opposed the Philippines' illegal occupation," he told a daily news briefing.

China supports talks, but only on a bilateral basis with the countries directly involved, as previously agreed on by China and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Hong added.

"We hope that the relevant country honours its promises, and ... does not take any action to complicate or expand the problem," he said, without elaborating.

It was not clear how the tribunal could help. While all its decisions are binding on countries concerned, it has no power to enforce them.

----
We just need to wait and see the next episode of the clown show.

 

[Oblaks]

Read this:

Philippines, China, UNCLOS and the South China Seas | Hidden Harmonies China Blog

Recently, we hear a growing chorus how the China – Philippines dispute in the South China Seas ought to be settled by binding arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 3 We already have dealt with some of the political dimensions of this (see, e.g., our South China Seas tag), and I won't rehash them here. But I do want to bring up a couple of points that seem lost in the current fray.

While UNCLOS does allow nations to claim Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) that extend 200 nautical miles out from a nation's territorial sea, the UNCLOS is not the basis of the dispute between China and the Philippines.

One way to view the dispute is as a dispute over maritime boundary. Since the South China Seas is populated with hundreds of islands and rocks, the question is how to disentangle the overlapping claims to the seas arising from the various claims to the islands. This would clearly be a dispute involving UNCLOS.

The problem with this analysis is that China and the Philippines do not even agree over which islands and/or rocks belong to whom. The UNCLOS might be the appropriate forum to assess extent of various claims over the seas when there exists clearly delineated and accepted claims to land territories, but when it comes to disputes over actual claims over land (islands or rocks), there is little that the UNCLOS provides.

Another problem with appealing to the UNCLOS is that the the UNCLOS is really a red herring, as far as the South China Seas and China and the Philippines are concerned.

Under International Law, nations generally have the right to ratify treaties in parts – by ratifying treaties with reservations. This is the case with UNCLOS. Neither China nor the Philippines ratified the UNCLOS in full. In fact, few of nations that ratified the UNCLOS did so without some sorts of qualifying statements or declarations (see UNCLOS delcarations and statements upon ratification).

The submission of claims is crafted in a manner that will exclude all of China's reservations. For instance, the submission asked the tribunal to rule on the validity of the controversial "nine-dash line," since it does not constitute either China's internal waters, territorial sea, or exclusive economic zone. This asks the tribunal to rule, as an issue of interpretation of the Unclos, whether the nine-dash lines comply with the Convention.Likewise, China has built permanent structures on reefs, which are permanently under water. The submission prays that the tribunal declare that since these are neither "rocks" nor "islands," these should be declared as forming part of the Philipines continental shelf, or the natural prolongation of land mass.On scarborough, submission asks the tribunal to declare that the six very small rocks permanently above water can generate only 12 nautical miles of territorial sea. This declaration, if made, will clarify that the waters surrounding the small rocks still form part of our 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone.While this submission bodes well for a peaceful resolution of the dispute, it will still not completely resolve the West Philippine Sea disputes. The Unclos, after all, being the applicable law on the seas, cannot be utilised to resolve conflicting claims to islands. This aspect of the dispute will still be resolved on the basis of which claimant-state has the superior evidence of effective occupation. Nonetheless, a legal clarification on China's claims to alleged islands and rocks that are under water, as well as the issue of which state can exercise sovereign rights on the waters surrounding Scarborough, will simplify resolution of the entire dispute.