Chinese Ships Ram Vietnamese Vessels

[Ray]

yes, i know that ordinary people wont be directly involved in the policy making process, not even in a democracy.

but it's true that in a real democracy what ordinary people want will always be reflected in the policies made by the representatives the people elect into power. that is the whole point of having election right, isn't it?

Sent from my HUAWEI T8951 using Tapatalk 2

In a democracy, even though there would be a variety of views, nay thousands of different views, it is the majority which calls the shots. Even this majority may have differences in views, but accept a middle path to elect their representative.

When the representatives veer off too divergently from the will of the people or their aspirations, then you have the civil movements as was done by Anna Hazare that forced the Govt, even though they had the majority of MPs, to accede to the will.

And finally, if the populace is totally disgusted that those who they elected has failed them as a political party, they are routed.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

In 1951, the then Vietnamese premier wrote a letter to China, in which he officially recognized Chinese sovereignty over the SCS.

Sent from my HUAWEI T8951 using Tapatalk 2

can you provide link ?

 

[lion]

PLA should have a party in Delhi. PLA armored division is just 300 km from Delhi.

Oh then what would you like to have in pary, your a***s,,,

 

[Peace]

@ T_CO

[/QUOTE]

Real? Read this !

Situation:

On September 4, 1958 Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai declared to the world China's decision regarding the 12 nautical mile territorial waters from mainland China, which also included a map clearly depicting sea borders and sea territories (which also included the two archipelagos Paracel and Spratly or Hoang Sa and Truong Sa).

Prime Minister Pham Van Dong representing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) affirmed this declaration from China regarding Chinese ownership of the archipelagos in the Eastern Sea (South China Sea). The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper on September 22, 1958.

The content of the letter is as follows:

We would like to inform you so that you may be clear that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has noted and support the September 4, 1958 declaration by the People's Republic of China regarding territorial waters of China. The government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision and will direct the proper government agencies to respect absolutely the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China in all dealings with the People's Republic of China on the sea. We would like to send our sincere regards.


Analysis in Modern Journal:

The above declaration is not valid because before 1975, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) did not control these islands. At that time, these islands were under the control of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) who always asserted Vietnamese sovereignty over these two archipelagos. The Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Vietnam also made no declaration that jeopardized this sovereignty. According to the lawyer and author Monique Chemillier-Gendreau:
"In this context, declarations or any viewpoints given by the North Vietnamese government is not effective when it comes to sovereignty. This was not a government that had authority over these archipelagos. One may not renounce what one has no authority over"¦."

A second reason from a legal perspective is that at that time North Vietnam was not a party in the conflict. Before 1975, the countries and territories involved in the conflict included: China, Taiwan, South Vietnam, and the Philippines. Therefore, declarations made by North Vietnam may be seen as declarations of a third party, which had no effect on the conflict itself.

Supposing that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North) and the Republic of Vietnam (South) were one country, then based on international law, this declaration is also invalid. However, some has espoused the doctrine of "estoppel" in order to argue that this declaration has validity and Vietnam cannot go back on its words.

According to international law, there is no other legal bar that creates obligation for those who make unilateral declaration other than "estoppel". Estoppel is a principle in which a country cannot say or do in contrast to what was said or done before. In other words, "one cannot at the same time blow hot and cold." However, estoppel does not mean that a country is obligated to whatever it declares.

The estoppel doctrine had its beginning in English law, and was later brought into international law. The main purpose is to prevent countries from benefitting from its dishonest actions, and hurting other countries. Therefore, estoppel must meet the following criteria:

1. The declaration or action must be taken by a representative of a country in a clear and unequivocal manner.

2. The country that claims "estoppel" must prove that based on that declaration or action, there are actions or inactions being carried out by that country which constitutes "reliance", as is called in English and American law.

3. The country claiming "estoppel" also has to prove that based on the declaration of the other country, it has suffered damage, or that the other country has benefitted when making that declaration.

4. Some judgments demand that this declaration must be made in a continous manner over time.

In addition, if the declaration has the characteristic of a promise, which means that the country declares that it will or will not do something, it must have true intention of wanting to be obligated by that promise, and truly wants to execute that promise.

The estoppel doctrine has many precedents in international courts and countries who have made certain declarations have found to not be obligated to follow them because not all the conditions are met.

Applying these criteria of estoppel to the declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, we can see that conditions 2 and 3 are missing. In the years 1956, 1958, and 1965, China did not have any attitude or make any changes in its attitude based on North Vietnam's declaration. China also cannot prove that it suffered damage for relying on that declaration. North Vietnam did not benefit in any way from making that declaration. At that time, Vietnam and China saw themselves as close comrades and friends. The declaration made by PM Pham Van Dong was based on that friendship. Moreover, the wording of the declaration does not clearly and unequivocally affirm Chinese ownership of the Paracel Islands. The letter only states: "The government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision (the decision to determine the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China), and will direct the proper government agencies to respect absolutely the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China"¦."

The declaration of PM Pham Van Dong may also be understood as a unilateral promise, a declaration of intention. In fact, this is a promise to respect the decision of China in its determination of sea territories, and a promise to order national agencies to respect Chinese territories.

If it is a mere promise, then it is even more difficult to obligate a country to follow that promise. The International Court has provided one more condition to make a promise obligatory: the true intention of the country making that promise. That is, whether that country really wants to be obligated to its promise or not. In order to determine this intention, the court examines every event surrounding the declaration, to see in what context and circumstances was the declaration made. Moreover, if the court sees that the country can obligate itself through signing agreements with the other country, then the declaration is not needed, and the court will conclude that the country making the declaration does not truly want to be obligated to that declaration. Therefore, the declaration does not have an obligatory characteristic.

In this case, when PM Pham Van Dong declared that Vietnam will respect Chinese sea territories, he did not intend to speak of ownership of the Paracel and Spratly Islands. He made this declaration in urgent circumstances, in which the war with the United States was escalating, American Fleet 7 was carrying out activites on the Taiwan Strait threatening China. He had to immediately voice support of China in order to counter against American threat.

The 1965 declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was in the same manner. The motivation for that declaration was an urgent situation of danger in Vietnam. This is a declaration that has political not legal characteristics.

Even the condition of making declaration continuously and over time is not satisfied when it comes to the three declarations of North Vietnam. Estoppel doctrine is only applied if we consider North Vietnam and The Socialist Republic of Vietnam as one; and even France during the colonial period, and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) as the same entity as the present Vietnam. If we consider the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) as a separate country, then estoppel cannot be applied because, as stated above, the declaration will be seen as a declaration made by a country that does not have authority over territories being disputed. Therefore, if Vietnam is seen as one single entity from history until the present, then the three declarations made by North Vietam are only statements that carry political meaning during wartimes, compared to the attitude and viewpoint of Vietnam in general from the 17th century until the present.

In summary, the declaration that we are analyzing is missing many factors that allow for estoppel to be applied. The factors of reliance and intention are very significant. If the reliance factor does not exist in order to limit the application of estoppel, countries will be prevented in making their foreign policies. They will be forced to follow out-dated ways to execute their foreign policies. When conditions change, the foreign policy of the other country changes, the foreign policy of this country must also change. It is normal for countries to be friends one moment and then turn into enemies the next.

As for unilateral promises without true intention of following, they are no more than empty promises, similar to those of politicans and candidates in political elections. In the international arena, the principle of sovereignty is very important. Outside international procedures and the articles of Jus Congens, there is no law that obligates a country contrary to its wishes, when it is not causing damage to another country. Therefore, the intention of the country has a decisive role in determining obligation of a unilateral promise.

I dont discard your language so you shouldnt intend to misunderstand my language !

 

[Peace]

@t_co
I dont want to be offensive but your leader tried to unclearly declare, and you know what ! Pham Van Dong is not stupid, he knew your leader's traps. Because AID FROM RUSSIA GO THROUGH CHINA, he DINT WANT TO FALL into your leader's traps and DONT WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER ENEMY at the same time. Fight with French, US, South Vietnam at that time and unite the country is not an easy task you know.

The letter you showed just proved Pham Van Dong is a very talented Vietnam's Leader

 

[Peace]

Extract from UNCLOS 1982

Article 56
Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:
(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine
environment;
(c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.
2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this
Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due
regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner
compatible with the provisions of this Convention.
3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and
subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.

Article 57
Breadth of the exclusive economic zone
The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles
from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured

" Đường cơ sở " means " baselines(sea)"

China ! Stop lying !

 

[t_co]

Extract from UNCLOS 1982

Article 56
Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:
(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine
environment;
(c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.
2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this
Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due
regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner
compatible with the provisions of this Convention.
3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and
subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.

Article 57
Breadth of the exclusive economic zone
The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles
from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured

" Đường cơ sở " means " baselines(sea)"

China ! Stop lying !

Except extensions of the continental shelf / extensions of the baseline are par for the course; there have been 44 submissions and 8 accepted recommendations in the past 14 years. The Paracel Islands fall into that legal bracket and therefore China has a legal precedent that they generate their own EEZ.

 

[Ray]

Looming Street Protests a Test for Vietnam

Vietnamese anger toward China is running at its highest level in years after Beijing deployed an oil rig in disputed waters. That's posing a tricky question for Vietnam's leaders: To what extent should they allow public protests that could morph into those against their own authoritarian rule?

At one level, the ruling Communist Party would like to harness the anger on the street to amplify its own indignation against China and garner international sympathy as naval ships from both countries engage in a tense standoff near the rig off the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.

But Vietnam's government instinctively distrusts public gatherings of any sort, much less ones that risk posing a threat to public order. And they also know that members of the country's dissident movement are firmly embedded inside the anti-China one, and have used the issue to mobilize support in the past.

On Saturday, around 100 people protested outside the Chinese Consulate in the country's commercial capital, Ho Chi Minh City, watched on by a large contingent of security officers. Dissident groups have called for larger demonstrations on Sunday in Ho Chi Minh City and in Hanoi, the capital.

The two Asian nations have a history of conflict going back 1,000 years, and the streets of Vietnam's cities are named after heroes in those fights. In the more recent past, the navies have twice had deadly engagements in the South China Sea. There was a brief but bloody border war in 1979. All have a created a deep well of mistrust toward China among ordinary Vietnamese.

Yet the two countries share a Communist ideology and close economic ties, making the China-Vietnam relationship highly sensitive topic. The latest round of tension — the worst since 1988, when 64 Vietnamese sailors were killed in a clash with the Chinese navy — had led to fresh and awkward questions over that relationship, a normally taboo topic in the state-controlled media.

"It's time for the Communist Party of Vietnam to reconsider all its policy toward Beijing ... Vietnam should immediately abandon Beijing as an economic and a political model," Huy Duc, one of Vietnam's best known bloggers, wrote in a recent post. "Hopefully, the drilling rig 981 incident will awaken the Communist Party of Vietnam to be on the side of the people and drive out the Beijing expansionists."

A statement widely circulated on Facebook and dissident blogs called for protests on Sunday morning in Hanoi outside the Chinese Embassy and a Chinese cultural center in Ho Chi Minh City. In past years, authorities have only allowed anti-China demonstrators to walk around a lake in downtown Hanoi.

"Facing the danger of Chinese aggression appropriating the sacred East Sea, the source of livelihood of the Vietnamese over generations, we are determined not to compromise," according to a statement posted alongside the protest call that used the Vietnamese term for the South China Sea.

"We cannot continue to compromise and be vile and sinful to our heroic ancestors and feel ashamed before our future generations," it said.

The last time there was a flare-up in the South China Sea in 2011, anti-Chinese protests lasted weeks, and some protesters voiced slogans against the government. Authorities used force to break them up.

Looming Street Protests a Test for Vietnam - ABC News

 

[Ray]

First it was Philippines and now it is Vietnam.

China surely is upsetting their neighbours with its aggressive designs.

 

[Ray]

US concern over South China Sea 'dangerous conduct'

The Vietnamese Coast Guard has released footage showing what they say are Chinese ships intentionally ramming Vietnamese vessels

The US has spoken out over "dangerous conduct and intimidation" in the South China Sea, after ships from Vietnam and China collided in disputed waters.

The collisions came as the Vietnamese ships tried to prevent China setting up an oil rig near the Paracel islands.

The incident is the most serious between the countries at sea in years, with dozens of boats now in the area.

The US state department called Beijing's move to introduce an oil rig in the area "provocative".

"This unilateral action appears to be part of a broader pattern of Chinese behaviour to advance its claims over disputed territory in a manner that undermines peace and stability in the region," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.

"We are also very concerned about dangerous conduct and intimidation by vessels operating in this area," she said, calling on all parties to operate in a "safe and professional manner".

The events, she added, highlighted the need for claimants to disputed areas to clarify their claims in accordance with international law.

The incidents - of which there are reported to have been at least three - took place close to the Paracel islands, which are controlled by China but also claimed by Vietnam.

They came after China announced last week that it was moving a drilling rig into the area.

Vietnam said it had sent maritime police and fisheries vessels, and showed footage at a news conference of Chinese ships ramming its vessels. Six officials had been injured, it said.

China, meanwhile, said the "disruptive activities by the Vietnamese side are in violation of China's sovereign rights".

Meanwhile, Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters on Thursday that Japan - which is also involved in a territorial dispute with Beijing over East China Sea islands - was "strongly concerned about heightened tensions in the region due to China's illegal exploration".

"We urge [China] to refrain from taking unilateral actions that would escalate the tensions, and exercise restraint in accordance with international law," Mr Suga said, according to Japanese news agency Kyodo.

China claims a U-shaped swathe in the South China Sea that overlaps areas claimed by several of its neighbours.

The Philippines is currently taking China to the UN court over maritime territorial disputes between the two.

There have been at least three incidents reported between Vietnam and China in the disputed waters
On Wednesday, Philippine police seized a Chinese fishing boat and detained its 11 crew in another disputed part of the South China Sea, prompting a protest from China.

China has called for the immediate release of the fishermen and their boat. During the daily press briefing on Thursday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying warned the Philippines to "make rational explanations" and "take no more provocative action".

She added that a Chinese maritime police boat had arrived in the area.

Meanwhile, the Philippines said the fishermen would be investigated to see if they broke the law, including one on endangered species. Several hundred turtles were reportedly found in their boat.

National Police Chief Alan Purisima told media the fishermen's arrest was made in Philippine territory.

Paracel Islands

Called Xisha in Chinese, Hoang Sa in Vietnamese
Claimed by China, Taiwan and Vietnam

More than 30 islands and reefs, including two main groups: the Amphitrite group and the Crescent group
Woody (Yongxing) Island, the largest island in the archipelago, now hosts the City of Sansha with a small community of fishermen, civil servants and soldiers

Vietnam maintains 'historical claims' to the Paracels without physical presence there
It controlled several islands within the Crescent group, where it had a weather station, until 1974, when after a brief but bloody clash China gained control over the entire archipelago

BBC News - US concern over South China Sea 'dangerous conduct'

***************************************************

Chinese aggressive action instead of solving disputes through dialogue is indeed upsetting the world & the international community.

 

[t_co]

@t_co
I dont want to be offensive but your leader tried to unclearly declare, and you know what ! Pham Van Dong is not stupid, he knew your leader's traps. Because AID FROM RUSSIA GO THROUGH CHINA, he DINT WANT TO FALL into your leader's traps and DONT WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER ENEMY at the same time. Fight with French, US, South Vietnam at that time and unite the country is not an easy task you know.

The letter you showed just proved Pham Van Dong is a very talented Vietnam's Leader

Actually, Pham was merely executing Ho Chi Minh's decision to forego what he felt was a 'worthless' territorial claim in return for Chinese aid.

Also, most Soviet aid to North Vietnam went through Vladivostok, through international waters, and then to Haiphong, not through China.

 

[t_co]

I'm not discarding your language - I'm going easy on you because you yourself don't understand it.

The text in question is just a copy-paste from a book the government of Vietnam paid Monique Chermilier Gendreau to write without any other explanation from @Peace.

There are four issues with her argument:

1. This was not a unilateral declaration from Vietnam. This was a mutual declaration - first from China, then from Vietnam. Ergo, this means that estoppel is not the only legal principle that can be applied here - these mutual declarations have the force of a binding international contract (c.f. the set of mutual declarations that founded the United Nations, for example).

2. It can be proved that North Vietnam was benefited from (and China incurred costs) from that declaration, as China cited that declaration as proof of North Vietnam's friendly attitude and then justified its arms shipments (and thirty thousand Chinese military advisers, three thousand of whom died) on the basis of that friendly attitude.

3. When China took control over the Paracels from South Vietnam in 1974, North Vietnam was silent. There was no immediate counter-declaration from the North Vietnamese side.

4. The Dem Rep of Vietnam cannot state that it was a different jurisdiction while it was only North Vietnam, since while it was North Vietnam, it called itself the Dem Rep of Vietnam and claimed to represent all of Vietnam - a stance that has not changed post 1975. A claim that the PRGSVN is not the same de facto authority as the DRV is invalid.

@ T_CO

Real? Read this !

Situation:

On September 4, 1958 Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai declared to the world China's decision regarding the 12 nautical mile territorial waters from mainland China, which also included a map clearly depicting sea borders and sea territories (which also included the two archipelagos Paracel and Spratly or Hoang Sa and Truong Sa).

Prime Minister Pham Van Dong representing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) affirmed this declaration from China regarding Chinese ownership of the archipelagos in the Eastern Sea (South China Sea). The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper on September 22, 1958.

The content of the letter is as follows:

We would like to inform you so that you may be clear that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has noted and support the September 4, 1958 declaration by the People's Republic of China regarding territorial waters of China. The government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision and will direct the proper government agencies to respect absolutely the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China in all dealings with the People's Republic of China on the sea. We would like to send our sincere regards.


Analysis in Modern Journal:

The above declaration is not valid because before 1975, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) did not control these islands. At that time, these islands were under the control of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) who always asserted Vietnamese sovereignty over these two archipelagos. The Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Vietnam also made no declaration that jeopardized this sovereignty. According to the lawyer and author Monique Chemillier-Gendreau:
"In this context, declarations or any viewpoints given by the North Vietnamese government is not effective when it comes to sovereignty. This was not a government that had authority over these archipelagos. One may not renounce what one has no authority over"¦."

A second reason from a legal perspective is that at that time North Vietnam was not a party in the conflict. Before 1975, the countries and territories involved in the conflict included: China, Taiwan, South Vietnam, and the Philippines. Therefore, declarations made by North Vietnam may be seen as declarations of a third party, which had no effect on the conflict itself.

Supposing that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North) and the Republic of Vietnam (South) were one country, then based on international law, this declaration is also invalid. However, some has espoused the doctrine of "estoppel" in order to argue that this declaration has validity and Vietnam cannot go back on its words.

According to international law, there is no other legal bar that creates obligation for those who make unilateral declaration other than "estoppel". Estoppel is a principle in which a country cannot say or do in contrast to what was said or done before. In other words, "one cannot at the same time blow hot and cold." However, estoppel does not mean that a country is obligated to whatever it declares.

The estoppel doctrine had its beginning in English law, and was later brought into international law. The main purpose is to prevent countries from benefitting from its dishonest actions, and hurting other countries. Therefore, estoppel must meet the following criteria:

1. The declaration or action must be taken by a representative of a country in a clear and unequivocal manner.

2. The country that claims "estoppel" must prove that based on that declaration or action, there are actions or inactions being carried out by that country which constitutes "reliance", as is called in English and American law.

3. The country claiming "estoppel" also has to prove that based on the declaration of the other country, it has suffered damage, or that the other country has benefitted when making that declaration.

4. Some judgments demand that this declaration must be made in a continous manner over time.

In addition, if the declaration has the characteristic of a promise, which means that the country declares that it will or will not do something, it must have true intention of wanting to be obligated by that promise, and truly wants to execute that promise.

The estoppel doctrine has many precedents in international courts and countries who have made certain declarations have found to not be obligated to follow them because not all the conditions are met.

Applying these criteria of estoppel to the declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, we can see that conditions 2 and 3 are missing. In the years 1956, 1958, and 1965, China did not have any attitude or make any changes in its attitude based on North Vietnam's declaration. China also cannot prove that it suffered damage for relying on that declaration. North Vietnam did not benefit in any way from making that declaration. At that time, Vietnam and China saw themselves as close comrades and friends. The declaration made by PM Pham Van Dong was based on that friendship. Moreover, the wording of the declaration does not clearly and unequivocally affirm Chinese ownership of the Paracel Islands. The letter only states: "The government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision (the decision to determine the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China), and will direct the proper government agencies to respect absolutely the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China"¦."

The declaration of PM Pham Van Dong may also be understood as a unilateral promise, a declaration of intention. In fact, this is a promise to respect the decision of China in its determination of sea territories, and a promise to order national agencies to respect Chinese territories.

If it is a mere promise, then it is even more difficult to obligate a country to follow that promise. The International Court has provided one more condition to make a promise obligatory: the true intention of the country making that promise. That is, whether that country really wants to be obligated to its promise or not. In order to determine this intention, the court examines every event surrounding the declaration, to see in what context and circumstances was the declaration made. Moreover, if the court sees that the country can obligate itself through signing agreements with the other country, then the declaration is not needed, and the court will conclude that the country making the declaration does not truly want to be obligated to that declaration. Therefore, the declaration does not have an obligatory characteristic.

In this case, when PM Pham Van Dong declared that Vietnam will respect Chinese sea territories, he did not intend to speak of ownership of the Paracel and Spratly Islands. He made this declaration in urgent circumstances, in which the war with the United States was escalating, American Fleet 7 was carrying out activites on the Taiwan Strait threatening China. He had to immediately voice support of China in order to counter against American threat.

The 1965 declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was in the same manner. The motivation for that declaration was an urgent situation of danger in Vietnam. This is a declaration that has political not legal characteristics.

Even the condition of making declaration continuously and over time is not satisfied when it comes to the three declarations of North Vietnam. Estoppel doctrine is only applied if we consider North Vietnam and The Socialist Republic of Vietnam as one; and even France during the colonial period, and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) as the same entity as the present Vietnam. If we consider the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) as a separate country, then estoppel cannot be applied because, as stated above, the declaration will be seen as a declaration made by a country that does not have authority over territories being disputed. Therefore, if Vietnam is seen as one single entity from history until the present, then the three declarations made by North Vietam are only statements that carry political meaning during wartimes, compared to the attitude and viewpoint of Vietnam in general from the 17th century until the present.

In summary, the declaration that we are analyzing is missing many factors that allow for estoppel to be applied. The factors of reliance and intention are very significant. If the reliance factor does not exist in order to limit the application of estoppel, countries will be prevented in making their foreign policies. They will be forced to follow out-dated ways to execute their foreign policies. When conditions change, the foreign policy of the other country changes, the foreign policy of this country must also change. It is normal for countries to be friends one moment and then turn into enemies the next.

As for unilateral promises without true intention of following, they are no more than empty promises, similar to those of politicans and candidates in political elections. In the international arena, the principle of sovereignty is very important. Outside international procedures and the articles of Jus Congens, there is no law that obligates a country contrary to its wishes, when it is not causing damage to another country. Therefore, the intention of the country has a decisive role in determining obligation of a unilateral promise.

I dont discard your language so you shouldnt intend to misunderstand my language !

 

[Peace]

@t_co
First of all, thanks for going easy on me !
Then, I would like to clarify a few points
1. "a 'worthless' territorial claim in return for Chinese aid" so you mean Pham Van Dong sold his homeland to China?
2. "a book the government of Vietnam paid Monique Chermilier Gendreau" how do you know that ?
3. You know China used Viet Nam war to occupy Hoang Sa ( Paracel Islands), to shake hand with US, become Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and get out of isolated position ?
4. You know China supported Khmer Rouge(Red Khmer) (from Cambodia) to attack Viet Nam ? Cut-off Vietnamese's head is their favorite action. And when Viet Nam had no choice but wiped out Khmer Rouge. China disagreed, they told "Viet Nam invaded Cambodia". So, in 1979, China attacked Viet Nam ?

China doesnt want an united Viet Nam, "advise" North Viet Nam not to attack South Viet Nam ( they want a situation similar to " North Korea - South Korea which North Korea is put under China's control). But Viet Nam didnt listen to China again.
Thanks to China 's help but WITH WHAT PRICE?

Nowadays, China supports Sam Rainsy ( a Cambodia politician- who really really hates Viet Nam). China always want a weak and chaos Viet Nam. so, China can control Viet Nam easily. For thousand years, China never stop marching to the South.
They desired Viet Nam 's geographical position. Control Eastern Sea ( South China Sea- for what they call), they can secure sea approaches to Taiwan; conduct operations in the western Pacific to deny enemy forces freedom of action; protect Chinese sea lines of communication; and interdict enemy lines of communication. Moreover, they need deep sea area to apply China's submarine strategy.

 

[Ray]

The Lüshi Chunqiu (Lü-shih Ch'un-ch'iu) is an encyclopedic Chinese classic text compiled around 239 BCE under the patronage of the Qin Dynasty Chancellor Lü Buwei.

The term "Baiyue" (Chinese: 百越; pinyin: Bǎiyuè; Cantonese Yale: Baak Yuht; Vietnamese: Bách Việt; Zhuang: Bouxvot) first appeared in this book.

Minyue (simplified Chinese: 闽越; traditional Chinese: 閩越; pinyin: Mǐnyuè; Mindong: Mìng-uŏk; Minnan POJ: Bân-oa̍t) was an ancient kingdom located what is now the province of Fujian in southern China.

Nanyue (Chinese: 南越; pinyin: Nányuè; Cantonese Yale: Nàahmyuht; Vietnamese: Nam Việt[1]) was an ancient kingdom that consisted of parts of the modern Chinese provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, and Yunnan and northern Vietnam.

Therefore, can we say China's claim of North Vietnam is also valid?

Or is it vice versa since the Baiyue were barbarians as per the Chinese (Han) and they were only forced to be Sinicised?

This is just to give an example of how complex and confusing the claims can become.

One may also like to see this link

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...storyforum.com/topic/37861-is-nanyue-chinese/

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That`s is an interesting input ..

They desired Viet Nam 's geographical position. Control Eastern Sea ( South China Sea- for what they call), they can secure sea approaches to Taiwan; conduct operations in the western Pacific to deny enemy forces freedom of action; protect Chinese sea lines of communication; and interdict enemy lines of communication. Moreover, they need deep sea area to apply China's submarine strategy.

 

[amoy]

@Peace I'm fascinated by the Vietnamese narrative. Here comes mine -

1. "a 'worthless' territorial claim in return for Chinese aid" so you mean Pham Van Dong sold his homeland to China?

No matter what Pham or which VN historical entities (north or south) have flip-flopped the fundamental remains unchallenged up to date - Republic of China published and enforced the claim over SCS in 1947 ahead of all this.

3. You know China used Viet Nam war to occupy Hoang Sa ( Paracel Islands), to shake hand with US, become Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and get out of isolated position ?

The importance of VN issue is overstated here for normalization of Sino-US ties. It was the same threat Soviet Union that prompted both to cozy up then.

4. You know China supported Khmer Rouge(Red Khmer) (from Cambodia) to attack Viet Nam ? Cut-off Vietnamese's head is their favorite action. And when Viet Nam had no choice but wiped out Khmer Rouge. China disagreed, they told "Viet Nam invaded Cambodia". So, in 1979, China attacked Viet Nam ?

The feud btwn Cambodians (Khmer) and Vietnamese traces back to historically gradual annexation of Champa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - ancestors of Cambodians, needless to mention conflicts incurred by VN immigrants in Cambodia.

Most of South Vietnam was part of a Khmer Kingdom up to 1832

Chinese support for Khemer Rouge and King Sihanouk was driven by multiple factors including VN persecution of Hoa people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China doesnt want an united Viet Nam, "advise" North Viet Nam not to attack South Viet Nam ( they want a situation similar to " North Korea - South Korea which North Korea is put under China's control). But Viet Nam didnt listen to China again.
Thanks to China 's help but WITH WHAT PRICE?

What a distortion! In Korean War case China was exhausted with heavy casualties (180,000 death) hence had to pursue truce with America despite Kim Il Sung's pushes to advance to "reunite Korean Peninsula".

In Vietnam case China was not confident Viet Minh / Viet Cong was strong enough to sweep the whole VN at that time. Meanwhile China was in economic trauma herself. Therefore Zhou advised Viet to nego with first France then with America and South VN. With hindsight u may call a Chinese misjudgement or lack of will since North finally managed to defeat South. But how comes your mud-slinging like "China deliberately kept Korea and VN divided"?? Was Trung Quoc continuing support for VN till the end of war regardless of such a disagreement? What does your textbook say? North VN fought alone for reunification without Trung Quoc aid? Or the genius Vo Nguyen Giap won Dien Bien Phu battle on his own？Ho Chi Minh trail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - the bloodline for Trung Quoc supplies.

The right 3 were Chinese advisers to Minh and Giap

Nowadays, China supports Sam Rainsy ( a Cambodia politician- who really really hates Viet Nam). China always want a weak and chaos Viet Nam. so, China can control Viet Nam easily. For thousand years, China never stop marching to the South.

Sam Rainsy as a Cambodian politician whips up the longstanding anti-Vietnamese sentiments for his political gains. Again it's Cambodia's INTERNAL politics.

Like it or not both Vietnamese and Chinese cultures are legacies of the same civilizationwhich has seeped into your language, your customs and genes, though VN and TP evolved to 2 separate modern states U can't deny or sever these historical ties despite present-day animosity. When u mentioned China u referred to dynasties like Han or Qing including Giao Chi - Jiaozhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia of which present-day Vietnam grew out. Old empires rose and fell. Get over it! Furthermore such historical links shall be viewed positively otherwise u may have to erase all Han/Song/Ming/Qing vestiges or get rid of %% of Vietnamese vocabulary.

They desired Viet Nam 's geographical position. Control Eastern Sea ( South China Sea- for what they call), they can secure sea approaches to Taiwan; conduct operations in the western Pacific to deny enemy forces freedom of action; protect Chinese sea lines of communication; and interdict enemy lines of communication. Moreover, they need deep sea area to apply China's submarine strategy.

This paragraph is agreed except the "approaches to Taiwan" part - pls check a map.

 

[WeNeedTheTruth]

I'm not discarding your language - I'm going easy on you because you yourself don't understand it.

The text in question is just a copy-paste from a book the government of Vietnam paid Monique Chermilier Gendreau to write without any other explanation from @Peace.

There are four issues with her argument:

1. This was not a unilateral declaration from Vietnam. This was a mutual declaration - first from China, then from Vietnam. Ergo, this means that estoppel is not the only legal principle that can be applied here - these mutual declarations have the force of a binding international contract (c.f. the set of mutual declarations that founded the United Nations, for example).

2. It can be proved that North Vietnam was benefited from (and China incurred costs) from that declaration, as China cited that declaration as proof of North Vietnam's friendly attitude and then justified its arms shipments (and thirty thousand Chinese military advisers, three thousand of whom died) on the basis of that friendly attitude.

3. When China took control over the Paracels from South Vietnam in 1974, North Vietnam was silent. There was no immediate counter-declaration from the North Vietnamese side.

4. The Dem Rep of Vietnam cannot state that it was a different jurisdiction while it was only North Vietnam, since while it was North Vietnam, it called itself the Dem Rep of Vietnam and claimed to represent all of Vietnam - a stance that has not changed post 1975. A claim that the PRGSVN is not the same de facto authority as the DRV is invalid.

Since my countryman (Peace) has fewer knowledge in laws, history and English than me, so I will handle this case.

It's clear that you have not read my #80 so I will post it again

So, you agree that your 'historical proof' is not gonna work, because ours are so powerful, legal, and reasonable.

As I said before to your countryman.
In 1954 there were 2 kinds of Vietnamese and they were different recognized countries, one had the right to negotiate about Paracels and one didn't. One was owning Paracels and the other wasn't? Let's make things clear so you will not be confused.

The Vietnam you are talking about have no right to negotiate about Paracels, they are just the third party in this conflict. The South Vietnam (RVN) was the only one have the right to deal with Paracel Islands, according to Geneva Treaty 1954 (Paracels is in the south of the 17th latitude, it means that the South had the right to administrate it, not the North). In 1975, the RVN was overthrown by the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (PRGRSVN - the Viet Cong), it means that PRGRSVN now have the sovereignty over Paracels from the old RVN. In 1976 North Vietnam and South Vietnam (PRGRSVN) united, so Social Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam today) was born, and the new Vietnam has the right on Paracels from the PRGRSVN..

All number 1, 2, 3 are solved above.
For number 4: No, DRVN didn't represent.
- According to Geneva 1954, it's clear that DRVN was only allowed to administrate the Northen Vietnam. What ever it claimed, it represented only the North Vietnamese.
- DRVN did recognize Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (PRGRSVN - the Viet Cong), as the legal representer of South Vietnamese.
- State of Vietnam, and later Republic of Vietnam (RVN) was largely recognized by many nations, even a lot more than DRVN.
- I know DRVN did claim to be the represent of the whole Vietnam, but according to International laws, when national laws overlap international laws, International Laws is more powerful and then national laws is not recognized. It means that in this case, DRVN did claim the whole Vietnam, but it is illegal, since RVN is largely recognized, so do PRGRSVN.

 

[s002wjh]

Pretty sure china has historical doc on parcel since Ming dynasty. Also Vietnam ram a chinese ship in 2011 so now you complain

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Pretty sure china has historical doc on parcel since Ming dynasty. Also Vietnam ram a chinese ship in 2011 so now you complain

.
.
well then england have historical documents on ruling america, india, pakis, and half of nation, even china was once ruled by japanese and russian
.
in 11 century william the conqueror conquered england so they are french , before england was conquered by julius caesar so england is also roman
.
england is called anglo cause there ancestors are angles ,which are from germany ,
.
so british are also german
.
.
.
now guess what british actually are?
.
so this chinese theory of OUR ANCESTOR RULED THIS AND THAT is practically a stupid thing
.
the boundaries should be decided by wish of local people

 

[s002wjh]

.
.
well then england have historical documents on ruling america, india, pakis, and half of nation, even china was once ruled by japanese and russian
.
in 11 century william the conqueror conquered england so they are french , before england was conquered by julius caesar so england is also roman
.
england is called anglo cause there ancestors are angles ,which are from germany ,
.
so british are also german
.
.
.
now guess what british actually are?
.
so this chinese theory of OUR ANCESTOR RULED THIS AND THAT is practically a stupid thing
.
the boundaries should be decided by wish of local people

I simply reply to Vietnam poster claim Vietnam has more history on parcel. As for local people there aren't civilian live in scs