What happens when an international body prejudices national sovereignty by exceeding its own authority?
The international arbitration tribunal, constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), issued its final Award on July 12th in the so-called “compulsory” arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People’s Republic of China. The Philippines had sought rulings on a number of issues, including the source of the parties’ rights and obligations in the South China Sea and the effect of UNCLOS on China’s claims to historic rights within its claimed ‘nine-dash line.’ The tribunal’s decision found in the Philippines’ favor on these two key issues, and most others that had been raised by the Philippines.
The tribunal’s decision on the merits of the case followed its jurisdictional decision last October to hear the case in the first place. It had rejected China’s exercise of its right under UNCLOS to opt-out of the arbitration. China continues to reject the tribunal’s findings on several grounds, including China’s contention that the heart of its dispute with the Philippines was over competing sovereign claims to territory that was beyond the authority of the tribunal to resolve.
We often hear sanctimonious talk about the importance of abiding by the rule of international law and respecting the decisions of duly constituted international bodies. However, what happens if an international body itself goes astray and exceeds its legal authority in contravention of national sovereignty? That is precisely what happened when the UNCLOS arbitration tribunal disingenuously turned what essentially was a territorial sovereignty dispute between the Philippines and China into one solely about ocean rights, and ignored the limits on its authority set by UNCLOS itself. Even the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General declined to endorse the legal findings of the tribunal in applying the terms of the UN treaty to the dispute before it. When asked whether “every concerned” country—presumably, including China—should be “advised to abide by the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague,” he responded that “the UN doesn’t have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims.”
As I discussed in a previous article, the tribunal should not have taken the Philippines’ case in the first place. Article 298 of UNCLOS explicitly gives UNCLOS state parties the right to opt out of compulsory arbitration for disputes concerning, among other things, the interpretation or application of certain treaty provisions “relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles.” Both China and the Philippines referenced the compulsory arbitration opt-out provisions of Article 298 when they entered into UNCLOS as state parties or in submissions provided thereafter, as well as their respective historical claims. Although China acted within its rights to reject the jurisdiction of the tribunal, based on its exercise of its Article 298 opt-out provision, the tribunal acted like many transnational bureaucracies do in seeking to expand its authority over sovereign states. It decided to accept jurisdiction over what is essentially a territorial dispute, including a sea boundary delimitation dimension.
Now the tribunal’s final Award in favor of the Philippines compounds its original jurisdictional error. The tribunal’s decision on the merits of this case sinks under the weight of its fallacious assumptions of law and fact.
The tribunal’s lengthy decision attempts to rationalize its refusal to acknowledge the relevance or legitimacy of China’s historical claims that predate UNCLOS. The tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had any historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished if incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in UNCLOS. The tribunal has no such general authority to retroactively extinguish historical rights claims of sovereign nations that pre-existed UNCLOS.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties lays out as a matter of basic international law the presumption against retroactivity in applying the terms of a treaty. It states that “Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place…before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.”
The text of UNCLOS itself does not express any intention to reverse the presumption of non-retroactivity. In fact, it explicitly recognizes the continuing validity of historical claims. There is no other credible basis on which the tribunal can rely to establish an intention for UNCLOS to extinguish a member state’s historical rights in the sweeping fashion that the tribunal suggests. China’s historical claims, going back many centuries, are well recorded both in Chinese and non-Chinese documents. China has consistently exercised sovereignty over the islands and reefs as well as the surrounding waters in the South China Sea, which the Philippines has only lately disputed.
In entering UNCLOS as a state party, China made clear that it was not waiving its pre-existing claims to land and maritime territorial rights, which it believed to be preserved under customary international law, within demarcated areas of the semi-enclosed waters of the South China Sea. Nearly seven decades ago—following the Republic of China’s reassertion of control over the islands after Japan’s surrender in World War II, without any apparent objection from the United States or the newly independent Philippines—the Republic of China published a map depicting segments (dashes) encircling waters, islands, and other features of the South China Sea as to which China has asserted historic territorial and maritime rights. Notably, this occurred more than two decades prior to the discovery of any major oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. With some slight revisions, the People’s Republic of China has since re-published this map, showing its ‘nine-dash line,’ to reinforce China’s continued assertion of its sovereign rights.
The Philippines has tried to change the facts on the ground and in the water, so to speak, in order to justify its grab for the rich oil and gas resources in the area after they had been discovered in the 1970’s.
After fallaciously concluding that UNCLOS extinguished any historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea if incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in UNCLOS, the tribunal went back on its own journey through time anyway. It claimed that prior to UNCLOS, the waters of the South China Sea beyond the territorial sea were legally part of the high seas, in which vessels from any state could freely navigate and fish. Therefore, the tribunal declared, any historical navigation and fishing by China in the waters of the South China Sea represented only the exercise of the same “high seas” freedoms shared by other countries.
However, the South China Sea itself is not purely the “high seas.” The South China Sea is a semi-closed sea, adjacent to the open ocean, extending from northeast to southwest connected by narrow straits and waterways with the Pacific Ocean to the east and the Indian Ocean to the west. It was partially enclosed by islands and archipelagos before UNCLOS came into effect and remains so today. UNCLOS has a separate Part IX entitled “Enclosed Or Semi-Enclosed Seas,” which it defines as “a gulf, basin or sea surrounded by two or more States and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow outlet or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States.”
The arbitration tribunal was mistaken in characterizing China’s actions in the South China Sea as nothing more than exercising “high seas” freedoms that granted China no special historical rights. In fact, China is the only state that has such a long, consistent record of exercising sovereign control over the South China Seas Islands as a whole, constituting a single archipelago as defined in Article 46(b) of UNCLOS, as well as its component parts, in the semi-enclosed waters of the South China Sea.
The tribunal then compounded this grievous error with a preposterous conclusion. It claimed that, because it had found “no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters of the South China Sea or prevented other States from exploiting their resources,” there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources in the sea areas falling within the ‘nine- dash line.’ In other words, the tribunal is in effect saying that China’s decision not to take unilateral action to block other nations from sharing in the waters or their resources of the South China Sea for the purpose of enforcing its “exclusive control” means that it automatically forfeited any sovereign claims. Such a bizarre conclusion would lead to the exacerbation of tensions among neighboring countries. It runs completely counter to two core goals set forth in the United Nations Charter: promoting “friendly relations among nations” and “international cooperation.”
The tribunal is punishing China for having cooperated with other countries bordering the semi-enclosed South China Sea. Such cooperation is what Article 123 of UNCLOS says all such countries should do.
The decisions of the UNCLOS “compulsory” arbitration tribunal are not enforceable in the conventional legal sense. Their weight depends entirely on the moral force behind the tribunal’s decisions and the influence they may have in moving the parties to reach a diplomatic resolution. Unfortunately, the UNCLOS arbitration tribunal in this case acted irresponsibly by reaching a winner-take-all result that may only serve to place a diplomatic solution further out of reach.
Poorly researched article. Joseph Klein quotes. “China is the only state that has such a long, consistent record of exercising sovereign control over the South China Seas Islands as a whole…” I bet Mr Klein hasn’t even done a rudimentary study of the historical facts of this dispute. Perhaps if he reads feedback to his articles he could read some of Mr Hayton’s respected research.
http://www.billhayton.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-AsiaSent-Importance-of-Evidence.pdf
https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CO14169.pdf
http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/fact-fiction-south-china-sea/
http://theses.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/11023/955/6/ucalgary_2013_chung_chris.pdf
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/chinas-false-memory-syndrome
http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-century-of-humiliation-is.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-cb2DR83BM
Let us examine the studies credited to Mr. Bill Hayton. While the completeness or correctness of the cited references may be worked on by others interested, I will simply like to correct some of the statements (
http://www.billhayton.com/wp-c… ) that start-off Mr. Hayton’s dissertation.
“International judges will begin to consider the legality of China’s ‘U-shaped line’ claim in the South China Sea. The venue will be the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague”
• If the arbitration tribunal is to claim as based on UNCLOS Annex VII, Mr. Hayton will need to correct himself by using “ARBITRATORS” not “judges”.
• If Mr. Hayton simply refers to the 5 arbitrators using the PCA for secretarial services like the UN ICJ clarified, then whatever came out from them can be called “LEGAL OPINION” but has not legal right to claim any judgement.
“China is not formally participating in the case but it has submitted its arguments indirectly, particularly through a ‘Position Paper’ it published last December.”
• There is no “HALF PREGNANCY” as Mr. Hayton will like to believe, China DID NOT PARTICIPATE. Thus, there is no such thing as participation “indirectly”. That is legal fantasy used by the five arbitrators.
• In all of UNCLOS sections for DISPUTE SETTLEMENTS: All of them requires the CONSULTATION with both parties. There is no written provision (there is no such thing as inferred procedures as Mr. Yanai chosen to use) to allow anyone, not even the UN Secretary General to appoint a complete set of arbitrators or any form of adjudicators to settle disputes.
“China increasingly seems to regard UNLCOS not as a neutral means of resolving disputes but as a partisan weapon wielded by other states in order to deny China its natural rights.”
• Mr. Hayton’s attitude seemed to be showing here. All of the 5 permanent UN Security Council members know that there is no benefits for them to join the UNCLOS. British actually have to deny the UNCLOS ruling that they actually participated.
• Unlike the US congress that did not allow US to participate, the other 4 countries participated with some exceptions so as to promote the peace in the long-term. The fact that China and Russia choose to stay in UNCLOS while being the receiving end of the harassment by the legal somersaults from ONLY TWO ONE SIDED ARBITRATION IN UNCLOS more than 30 years history (both are done under Mr. Yanai’s reign as President of ITLOS), represents their commitment to the causes of UN to settle any disputes peacefully.
• UNCLOS like any conventions can be used properly for good cause or can be misused for by under special circumstance such as Mr. Yanai happened to be the President of ITLOS in 2013. He could have asked both parties to use the full 21 member panel of ITLOS, or UN ICJ to see if they would have agreed. Or better yet, Mr. Yanai could have assign the request to be first rule on the procedure matters by the Seabed Disputes Chamber to determine if anything can be done or how to establish the tribunal when China told that that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matter. (Article Article191, Advisory opinions: “The Seabed Disputes Chamber shall give advisory opinions at the request of the Assembly or the Council on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.”)
May be Mr. Gwangya needed to re-examine the studies credited to Mr. Bill Hayton while discrediting Mr. Klein’s article?
I like to point out some of the errors for the first cited references: (http://www.billhayton.com/wp-c… ). The following are the leading points that start-off Mr. Hayton’s dissertation. (As to the completeness or correctness of the cited references, I will leave them to others more capable researchers.)
“International judges will begin to consider the legality of China’s ‘U-shaped line’ claim in the South China Sea. The venue will be the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague”
• If the arbitration tribunal is to claim as based on UNCLOS Annex VII, Mr. Hayton will need to correct himself by using “ARBITRATORS” not “judges”.
• If Mr. Hayton simply refers to the 5 arbitrators using the PCA for secretarial services like the UN ICJ clarified, then whatever came out from them can be called “LEGAL OPINION” but has not legal right to claim any judgement.
“China is not formally participating in the case but it has submitted its arguments indirectly, particularly through a ‘Position Paper’ it published last December.”
• There is no “HALF PREGNANCY” as Mr. Hayton will like to believe. China DID NOT PARTICIPATE. Thus, there is no such thing as participation “indirectly”. That is legal fantasy used by the five arbitrators.
• In all of UNCLOS sections for DISPUTE SETTLEMENTS: All of them require the CONSULTATION with both parties. There is no written provision (there is no such thing as inferred procedures as Mr. Yanai chosen to use) to allow anyone, not even the UN Secretary General to appoint a complete set of arbitrators or any form of adjudicators to settle disputes.
“China increasingly seems to regard UNLCOS not as a neutral means of resolving disputes but as a partisan weapon wielded by other states in order to deny China its natural rights.”
• Mr. Hayton’s attitude seemed to be showing here. All of the 5 permanent UN Security Council members know that there is no benefit for them to join the UNCLOS. British actually have to deny the UNCLOS ruling that they actually participated.
• Unlike the US congress that did not allow US to participate, the other 4 countries participated with some exceptions so as to promote the peace in the long-term. The fact that China and Russia choose to stay in UNCLOS while being the receiving end of the harassment by the legal somersaults from ONLY TWO ONE SIDED ARBITRATION IN UNCLOS more than 30 years history (both are done under Mr. Yanai’s reign as President of ITLOS), represents their commitment to the causes of UN to settle any disputes peacefully.
• UNCLOS like any conventions can be used properly for good cause or can be misused for by under special circumstance such as Mr. Yanai happened to be the President of ITLOS in 2013. He could have asked both parties to use the full 21 member panel of ITLOS, or UN ICJ (11 judges) to see if they would have agreed. Or better yet, Mr. Yanai could have assign the request to be first rule on the procedure matters by the Seabed Disputes Chamber to determine if anything can be done or how to establish the tribunal when China told that that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matter. (Article Article191, Advisory opinions: “The Seabed Disputes Chamber shall give advisory opinions at the request of the Assembly or the Council on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.”)
• If someone sidestep or skirt all of the relevant procedures, what would you have thought about the “legal proceeding”? There may be a name for that.
I too would like to correct a few things…
* The more precise legal term for a member of an arbitral tribunal is “arbitrator”, that’s true. But it is also correct English to refer to arbitrators judging a case as “judges”. The word “arbitrator” may be confusing to someone not familiar with international arbitration.
* China’s non-participation has no effect on the legal status of the award. It ought to be obvious that a State can’t get out of compulsory dispute settlement by not showing up. They even spelled it out in the Convention, in Annex VII Article 9, “Default of appearance”:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/annex7.htm
Annex VII Article 3 (e) requires the President of ITLOS to appoint arbitrators if one party doesn’t appoint 1 arbitrator (as per subparagraph [c] ) and/or if the parties don’t reach an agreement about the remaining 3 (as per subparagraph [d] ). Since China refused to participate, the President of ITLOS had to do his duty according to the treaty.
Like the UNCLOS Commentary (Vol 5, page 427) says about Annex VII arbitration, “no opening is given to the possible frustration of the arbitral proceedings through the failure of a party to take the requisite action”.
Thus, the arbitrators had no need for any “legal fantasy” involving China’s participation. If you read the awards you will discover that the tribunal is crystal clear about China’s non-participation. However, as you can see from the Annex VII Article 9 quote above, the tribunal still had to “satisfy itself not only that it has jurisdiction over the dispute but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law”. In order to do that, the tribunal went out of its way to find and discuss arguments in support of China’s position, including arguments from the Position Paper written by China in connection with the proceedings.
* China was “consulted” about the selection of arbitrators.
From the 25 April 2013 ITLOS press release about the first appointment of the arbitrators.
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_191_E.pdf
I’m guessing China didn’t reply with an opinion after being consulted, but that’s China’s decision to make.
* You’re implying that China would have been willing to accept a decision by the ITLOS or the ICJ. In reality, China’s choice of procedure in UNCLOS Article 287 means that Annex VII arbitration is the only way to bring an UNCLOS case against China without China’s (current) agreement. And China has not in any way indicated that they would have preferred and agreed to a different type of dispute settlement.
* The President of ITLOS has no authority to, for some bizarre reason, involve the Seabed Dispute Chamber (!?) or ITLOS in a jurisdictional dispute. Article 191 is not even remotely relevant.
The President is obligated to appoint the arbitrators if it proves necessary.
Then who decides a jurisdictional dispute? According to UNCLOS Article 288 (4), “[i]n the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.” That’s the rule China agreed to. Just as China agreed to the rules in Annex VII.
What?
Correct English? In legal matters.
Again, what?
Trying to pick apart this argument, by picking on breadcrumbs, is possibly a good time to stop.
China=most wanted creatures in HELL.
I am sorry for your childhood problems.
Excellent article by a Harvard graduate. I mean if you read this, you the reader decide.
This guy up top is a racist, bigoted troll.
Using some obscure Canadian institute as cover. Read on the comments below.
So racist bigot trolling nobody is telling you the Harvard scholar has done poor research.
Ive just encountered him before, so please excuse me trolling the racist bigot troll.
jepp,thats right.
not hard to understand for any that can read.
Mr Klein also states the Chinese “published” their 9- Dash Line map after WWII. The truth is China’s Ministry of the Interior created this map. It was not even public. So of course it wasn’t contested.
It wasn’t until the late 50s (I think in 1958) that the Chinese announced their bogus boundaries. As soon as 1959 the US Navy told the Chinese to take a hike when they complained about US Naval vessels sailing near the Paracels.
Nearly seven decades ago—following the Republic of China’s reassertion
of control over the islands after Japan’s surrender in World War II,
without any apparent objection from the United States or the newly
independent Philippines …
The above statement is from the article. ROC had published the map in 1940s and PRC only slightly revised the map with 9-dash line. So you are wrong to say China only announced the map in late 50s ( you think is 1958 ) There are many records that ROC had published the map in 40s. and even US warships were used to reclaim the islands from Japan after WWII
Nobody is saying China didn’t publish maps. The point is, the map mentioned are simply just charts. The 1947 map was an internal document not an international declaration of the intent to incorporate land. Nor is it an expression of effective control nor ownership.
Well before the 40’s both Vietnam (Under France) and Japan were contesting ownership over various features. So for this Mr Klein to utter such nonsense that China had exercised sovereign control over the South China Sea is rubbish.
Japan contested the islands as part of China’s claim against France. The Republic of China and France openly contested the islands against each other in the 1930s. After Japan invaded China, Japan claimed that since it occupied mainland China’s Hainan island, that the Paracel and Spratly islands were part of China so that France needed to surrender them to Japan since Japan considered itself to be the occupying power in China and China’s islands (spratlys and paracels) to belong to the occupied territory and not part of France.
France (Vietnam) incorporated the Paracels and Spratlys through notification, and official incorporation in 1933. China had no prior claim. Her supposed claim was created by postdated stone markers that were proven as fake. France ruled the islands from 1933~1939 until the Japanese military expelled them. At that time France contested.
Did China contest? Maybe But had they incorporated and continuously occupied the islands prior. No.
China has no historical records proving they occupied the islands long ago. The 9 Dash Line is a fraud. ICJ Arbitrators were correct to throw out China’s bogus historical claims.
Japan claimed the islands under the JURISDICTION of Taiwan as part of the Japanese Empire NOT China.
You stated “Japan surrendered the Paracels and Spratlys to Republic of China forces after World War II.”
Nonsense, The Japan Peace Treaty made no decision on the Paracels or the Spratly Islands. Here is the map from the Japan Peace Treaty (note the status of the Paracels and Spratlys) “sovereignty undetermined” —-lower left.
https://3scsd23qbzvh2huoxy4223ti-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/15.jpg
You are a liar who is deliberately conflating the Paracel and Spratly islands.
Japan claimed the Paracel islands were part of China’s Hainan island.
Japan claimed the Spratly islands were part of Taiwan. Taiwan was taken from Qing China by Japan in 1895 and returned to the Republic of China in 1945.
Japan rejected France’s claim that the Paracel and Spratly islands were part of French Indochina.
Not to mention that Vietnam was not even run was one country by France. France chopped it into three pieces called Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina. France annexed Cochinchina as a direct part of its empire and later incorporated Annam and Cochinchina separately.
The Republic of China received the surrender of Japanese forces on Spratly and Paracel islands.
No I’m not lying. Can’t you read the map above? Allied Command was empowered under the terms of surrender to define the territory of Japan and to make ultimate determinations of sovereignty over former Japanese territory and islands.
The fact Japan used Hanain Island for administrative purposes has nothing to do with sovereignty or post WWII disposition by Allied Powers. Only Allied Command via the Cairo Convention, Potsdam and the Japan Peace Treaty or further amendments has the legal authority to make territorial decisions on behalf of the former Japanese Empire.
The Japan Peace Treaty and Treaty of Peace (Japan and China) specified that Japan was to “renounce” the Spratly and Paracels. Renounce simply means to have claim. HOWEVER Allied Command did not grant sovereignty to China. Ommision does not amount to ownership.
Again the Allies agreed to drop the issue of the Paracels and Spratlys under the terms of the Japan Peace Treaty. It was decided the issue of sovereignty was not important and would be better resolved through other solvents.
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1950v06&entity=FRUS.FRUS1950v06.p1342&q1=spratly
If you wish to assert the ommission of the Paracels and Spratlys allows China to claim the islands the same could apply for any other claimants such as Vietnam or the Philippines. But to say the Japan Peace Treaty granted sovereignty to China is nonsense.
Vietnam wasn’t contesting anything under France, except of course Vietnam itself.
The only one uttering nonsense here is you.
I personally think your “map is just charts” is an excellent example.
BUT
You trump yourself straight after with, “international declaration of intent to incorporate land” which obviously must be issued through a map?????
What?
Was logic not your strong point in class?
China only announced her bogus international border in 1958.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/58832.pdf
American geographers threw it out the window because the boundary China unilaterally declared was impossible to define given the ambiguity of it. Also China attempted to draw a coninuous 12 mile baseline from features that don’t exist from low tide.
In 1959 the Chicoms told the US Navy to leave the Paracels and the Americans said then what they say now. International Waters allow for free navigation.
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS195860v19&entity=FRUS.FRUS195860v19.p0608&q1=south%20china%20sea
When America and South Vietnam attempted to attack and evict China out of the Paracels in 1974, China delivered a crushing defeat to South Vietnam and the Americans and captured the American Army advisor Captain Gerald Emil Kosh after gutting the South Vietnamese naval invaders. China maintained control of the Paracels and totally evicted the Vietnamese and American invaders.
America had nothing to say after the humiliation.
What are you babbling about? And what does any of your “information” have to do with the legitimacy of China’s claim to the entire South China Sea?
BTW here is another “crushing defeat” by the Chinese in the Spratly Islands…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2ZrFphSmc
Cool story bro. So the military transport full of armed Vietnamese soldiers on their way to try to attack Chinese forces on Johnson South Reef was a civilian target who China “massacred”. LOL.
An armed military transport ship? Does that look like a naval combat vessel? It’s more like a Vietnamese garbage barge. The Chinese sent in full military frigates and gunned them down like dogs.
The unarmed Vietnamese soldiers are heroes.They selflessly gave their lives for their country while in an act of sovereignty. The Chinese made martyrs of these men and came out looking like a bunch of gutless cowards. Major Chinese diplomacy screw up. Reminds of China’s creepy Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi.
Only a backward country like China would use a video of slaughtering unarmed personnel with anti-aircraft guns as patriotic propaganda. Any civilized navy would have plucked these pathetic souls out of the water like drowned rats after one night of exposure. That video will haunt China for a long time.
Next time China tries that nonsense, they’ll taste some of those nice juicy EXTRA missiles Vietnam just purchased from Israel. Pretty soon Vietnam will have the supersonic Bramos from Russia-India. No more transport garbage barge ships next time Chicoms.
Once vietnam use those missiles, they will lose the rest of their spratly.
Once China attacks Spratlys. Japan, US and the gang will turn China’s cement islands into coral dust.
Why China would want to start an arms race in her back yard is beyond me. But it seems China has succeeded in pissing off all her neighbors.
Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, US. Does China even have any friends any more.
Oh wait, just Russia and North Korea. Nice!
I dont agree. As with sino viet war , no one will aid vietnam.
Its china that is piss off with neighbours taking her spratly when she was weak.
Unlike uk that forcefully retake falkland from argentina, china makes a more peaceful way of building her own island which eventually will control spratly.
No one will aid Vietnam? Vietnam just acquired new subs from Russia. Vietnam just deployed new missiles from Israel. Vietnam will meet with India soon to sign a deal. It is expected to sell supersonic missiles with India-Russia technology.
Of course China can take the some of the Spratlys. My point is there will not be another Spratly Island turkey shoot like in 1988. Chinese blood will spill. Lots of it.
Even so, if China tries to enforce the 9 Dash Lie, there will be war and China will lose. The Japanese, Koreans, Aussies, Euros and Americans will not allow China to control. trillions of dollars worth of trade.
China should not be “piss off” her neighbors about the Spratlys. China has no historical, geographic or legal title to the Spratlys. If she does, please post some information proving China has any historical evidence of ownership.
I bet you can’t. Read this article below, written by a Chinese researcher.
http://theses.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/11023/955/6/ucalgary_2013_chung_chris.pdf
You are v naive. Soviet do sell weapon to viet but did not aid them in sino viet war .
The fact that spratly was return to china after ww2 already proog
…proves its chinas.
why not return to viet?
Why not return to philipine?
Pse answer.
China already enforces the nine dash with their maritimes patrol vessels.
Is there any danger to the trillion dollars trade?
Which country has more interest to protect this trillion dollars trade?
Is there war as you predict?
Perhaps you will have a clearer picture by answerimg these questions. Rather than listening to white propaganda.
Again please tell us about China’s historical claim to the 9 Dash Lie. After all the Chinese say it is historically theirs.
If China’s claim is no better than Vietnam’s then they should leave them alone in the Spratlys. Spratlys were returned to China and you proved it?? In your dreams.
Here is one of many records showing that China has no historical title to the Spratly Islands. Please read and pass it on to your Chinese friends so they can be educated and not brainwashed by their Chicom Government
http://www.eastasianhistory.org/sites/default/files/article-content/32-33/EAH32-33_05.pdf
There is two thousand years of records of chinas spratly till after ww2 . Even usa ferry chinas claim and gave the naval vessel to taiwan,china.
Then viet foriegn minister admit chinas sovereign in a letter to chairman mao.
Philipines independence treaty specifically stated spratly is beyond their limit of territories.
All this hsppen in 40s prior to unclos.
You own a villa. Someone rob you of your land. He later admit its yours and return to you. Do you still need to prove its yours?
Its v clear then it belongs to china.
I agree, China has records of the South China Sea. But there are two problems.
1. The records are very unclear. They do not accurately describe the location size and name of the Spratlys. 1000 ri sands etc. Chinese maps look like a 2nd grade student drew them. It’s impossible to draw modern national boundaries from such unclear records.
2. They are only records proving China was aware of islands in the South Sea. Chinese documents only tell us they were aware of some features in the South China Sea. China did not claim, settle on or incorporate the islands. Did you not read any of the numerous records I posted. One of them was even written by a Chinese person.
North Vietnam supported China’s claim to the Spratlys howerver the Spratlys were under the jurisdiction of South Vietnam at the time.
I don’t really support any country’s claim to the Spraltys or Paracels. The South China Sea should remain international waters.
However, you don’t see Vietnam, Philippines etc drawing a big dashed line over 90% of the South China Sea do you?
China is using cold war tactics to try make a colonial era land grab in the 21st Century. What a backward state!
You are still not clear. The two thousand years of chinasdiscovery,usage,administration of spratly supports the return by japan to china, already proofs china ownership.
South vietnam does not exsist anymore, therefore the letter acknowledging china soveriegn still stand.
China did not claim south china sea but the sea surrounding her group of islands as nine dash line.
How do you expect philipine and vietnam to claim nine dash when they dont own them.
china for two thousand years only claim spratly
….You call that colonialist,cold war ?what a backward thinking.
South Vietnam does not exist. True. When they lost the war to North Vietnam, the North inherited the South’s territory. This included the Spratly Islands. In 1975 the new nation of Vietnam (including the former South Vietnam) declared her new country which of course included the Spratlys. get it?
The 9 Dash Lie is non-specific and has changed many times. However, in 1958 China made her boundary clear it reads as follows.
2) China’s territorial sea along the mainland and its coastal islands takes as its baseline the line composed of the straight lines connecting base points onthe mainland coast and on the outermost of the coastal islands; the water area extending twelve nautical miles outward from this baseline is China’s territorial sea. The water area inside the baseline, including Pohai Bay andChiungchow Straits, are Chinese inland waters. The islands inside thebaseline, including Tungyin Island, Kaoteng Island, the Matsu Islands, the Paichuan Islands, Wuchiu Island, the Greater and Lesser Quemoy Islands,Tatan Island, Erhtan Island and Tungting Island, are islands of the Chinese inland waters.
3) No foreign vessels for military use and no foreign aircraft may enter China’s territorial sea and the air space above it without the permission of the Government of the People’s Republic of China.
4) The principles provided in paragraphs 2) and 3) likewise apply to Taiwan and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands, the Tungsha Islands, and Hsisha Islands, the Chungsha Islands, the Nansha Islands, and all other islands belonging to China.
First it is impossible to draw a 12 mile continuous baseline from the Spratlys. They are distant scattered rocks and reefs.
Second at the time of this bogus declaration many of the features were already occupied by Vietnam. China was late in the game.
Third as you can read (I think) China said foreign military aircraft and vessels may not enter the South China Sea without permission. HOWEVER, China allowed foreign military aircraft and vessels ot enter this region for decades. In other words, China has never treated these waters an her internal territory.
Look pal, stop jabbering and just show us some records that show China controlled, occupied and governed over the Spratly Islands will ya?
You are wrong again. North vietnam win meaning they have to acknowledge the letterwritten thay acknowledge chinas south islands.
Yes you are right china jas made known nine dash is chinas territory. The 12km does not apply as they were claim prior to unclos.
Again you are wrong tp say since china allows innocent passage means she dont own them.
If you cannot understand let me explain. If you have v huge villa with huge land, i can take the corner of yoir land claiming i had innocent passage and
…take your land. And this is exactly what philipine and vietnam malaysia is doimg.
Violating their independence treat to take chinas spratly.
As i have said china have thousand years of evidence, the burden of proof have been solve by the return of spratly to china, not the theives ,after ww2.
Witness by the whole world with usa navy acting in bringing chinas representative to retake them.
You still did not answer me why dont they return to vietnam or philipine? Instead you babble round the bush so to speak.
All have said were event of history that verified chinas spratly . This cam
…easily be verified byanyone. They including me need not be a mouthpiece of china.
True. North Vietnam won the war. Then North Vietnam no longer existed with the formation of the Republic of Socialist Vietnam. There were new territorial limits set and RSVN inherited the former South’s Islands.
The new country is not bound to past county’s policy.
Is the former East Germany still obligated to her agreements with the Soviet Union? Also remember this was not a territorial agreement involving the Spratlys, it was acknowledgement of the North to respect China’s borders. China did not have effective control over the Spratlys nor all the Paracels at the time.
First the document sent by the North did not even mention the Spralty or Paracel Islands. Second the Prime Minister did not have the authority to make territorial declarations without an act of parliament. Third North Vietnam did not even own the islands. They couldn’t give islands that weren’t theirs.
Even if you want to say North Vietnam lied you can. But it was not illegal. China does not have the right to define Vietnam’s territory. Being they already own and administer some of the Spratlys, that is just too bad for China…
China’s history in the region is simple. 1. They were aware of some features. 2. Some Chinese fishermen and merchants visited this area. That’s it. But this could be said for many other countries as well.
You say for me to verify China’s ownership. This is the classic Chinese response. It’s not up to me to prove your lies. Put your money where your big mouth is and put forward some evidence on behalf of your country Mr Patriot.
Here is my proof that China’s claims are fake. It was written by a Chinese person in Canada. He did his research and came to the same conclusion. Now you can do some research by reading this. I know the truth hurts so please don’t cry too much. Enjoy this article.
http://theses.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/11023/955/6/ucalgary_2013_chung_chris.pdf
Before we proceed to discuss your above illogical reply.
You seem to be unable to answer me why usa and the whole world witness and participate in the return of spratly to china? Not philipine or vietnam?
…after ww2
And this is a solid proof of china soveriegn in contrast to your canadian opinion.
This truth hurt you so much that you did not reply for this third time.
Hello again. I already responded to Chinese claims that Japan gave China the Paracels above please read my response to Sans Meyrs above. If you don’t understand maybe this can help.
Two Post WWII Allied, Taiwanese and Japanese treaties deal with the Spratly and Paracel Islands. Both the Japan Peace Treaty (Allies+Japan) and the Treaty of Peace (China+Japan) have the same clause.
Treaty of Peace with Japan-China Article 2.
Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/taipei01.htm
Treaty of Peace with Japan-Allied Nations Article 2, (f)
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm
Chinese say the Japan+China Peace Treaty states China gets the Spratly and Paracel islands but as you can read, it just repeats the fact that Japan had already “renounced” the islands during the Japan Peace Treaty signed in San Francisco.
Please remember “renounce” means Japan no longer had ownership of the Spratly and Paracel Islands it DID NOT say China was granted title of the islands
Lets contrast this to other statements from the Japan Peace Treaty with other territorial dispositions.
Example.
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
Can you see the difference? In Article 2 (a) Japan not only was required to “renounce” Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet Islands, Japan also gave ownership to Korea (title and claim).
Allied Command was under pressure to have Japan conclude a peace treaty quickly. This was because other nations were beginning to quarrel over some of Japan’s territorial limits. (UK, Aus, Can) John Foster Dulles who helped draft the Japan Peace Treaty decided some other contested islands (Dokdo-Takeshima etc) would be better resolved through other agreements. Remember this was intended to be a peace treaty.
So you see, when we carefully read the Japanese WWII Peace Treaties nobody was granted the Spratly or Paracel Islands. Please read the map I posted above. lower left corner
Now you understand the truth. So I would really like if you gave me some accurate Chinese historical maps and records that prove China occupied, administered and incorporated the Spratly Islands.
Is that to much to ask?
You still did not answer my question.
What you said everyone knows japan was defeated and reounce all occupie d
..territory.
paracel,spratly was retuen to taiwan,china.
Why not to philipine or vietnam????
Four question marks represent the forth time i ask you this simple question.
..i will give you the proof, maps,records of chinas spratly once you have answered.
Hello again. America’s navy did not “ferry” China to claim the Spratlys. China had just acquired used ships from the Americans.
I did not say Japan had a right to give title. Only Allied Command had that right. The Potsdam Declaration defined Japan’s territory after WWII. China also signed the Potsdam Declaration.
It states:
“Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine,”
The Potsdam Declaration was ratified by the Japan Peace Treaty (Allies) and the Treaty of Peace. (China) Neither of these agreements gave ownership of the Spratlys or the Paracels to any country. Ownership was left undecided. Read the map above as I said before.
John Foster Dulles wrote the Japan Peace Treaty. He also signed it. In San Francisco he stated the following.
“…What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II deals with that. Japan formally ratifies the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms, provisions which, so far as Japan is concerned, were actually carried into effect 6 years ago.
The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound. There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term…”
Even so, remember, even America did not have the right to give territory to China. Only ALL of the nations who signed the Japan Peace Treaty could give former Japanese land to another country. It’s not my opinion Lee, it’s exactly what John Foster Dulles stated in San Francisco on September 5th, 1951.
Again, only a clear amendment of the Potsdam Declaration signed by Japan and all Allied Nations can give former territory or islands to Japan. Japan’s Terms of Surrender on September 5 1945 stated Japan must follow the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.
It’s not my opinion Lee, it’s exactly what John Foster Dulles stated in San Francisco on September 5th, 1951.
Its irellevent whether the ship was borrowed lend or bought, the fact that it was return to china. Why not philipine, viet?????
You stated treaties that china is not represented.
China and japan had their own treaties where spratly and paracel is specifically stated.
why not to philipine?????
Why not to viet?????
Lee, calm down, take a deep breath, OK?
First, China signed the Potsdam Declaration that limited Japan to the main islands and left other islands for future determination.
Then, China signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan. Neither of these give China ownership of the Paracels or the Spratlys. Even if they did, these are bilateral agreements and have no legal effect on Vietnam etc., I’ve given you all the information. Read the attached map to the Japan Peace Treaty “sovereignty undetermined”
Why not Vietnam, or the Philippines? Because the Allies decided the problem would be dealt with later by other agreements. So as I’ve said, nobody was granted the Spratlys or Paracels after WWII. This is why there are still many disputes in Asia over former Japanese territories. (Dokdo-Takeshima, Senkaku etc.,)
Chna used former US Navy boats to visit the Spraltys. You tried to tell me this meant the US supported China and that is wrong. By the time China finally visited the Spratlys other nations had long since made their claims. China was the last country there.
Pyou think by denying china was the first to discovered and name spratly, and for subsequent two thousand years up till after ww2 when china recovered them and claim china is the last country there. Who would belieive you?
If you have done proper research you would not have made such conclusion.
I find the author writing more reasonable
Again, there is no proof China discovered the Spralty Islands or the Paracel Islands as we know them today. There is no proof they settled on the the islands. There is no proof they administered over the islands and there is no proof they incorporated them as Chinese territory.
China just knew some rocks and reefs existed in the South China Sea. Even Arab traders knew this.
Lee don’t ask the world to accept China’s interpretation of these unclear maps and records. Don’t ask the world accept China’s claim she owns 90% of the South China Sea.
Chinese fishermen may have been the first to sail around this region. However, China was the last country to name, occupy and claim these islands as part of her territory under accepted international law during modern times.
In other words, don’t ask the world to accept China’s claim to the South China Sea just because a couple of fishermen from Hainan took a pee on one of the rocks 2000 years ago.
The world caneasily check that you have done poor research .
You do not lnow china first discovered and name the islands.
You do not know china had administer them with anti piracy operation.
You do not know china recovered them from japan and file claim of the surrounding sea.
You do not know there wete records of chinese settlement.
Yes, I do not know China discovered the islands.
Yes, I do not know China administered and named the islands.
Yes I do not know China recovered the islands from Japan.
Yes I do not know there were records of Chinese settlement.
….Because China didn’t do any of the above.
This is not my research Lee. It is from authors like Bill Hayton, he is author of the book “South China Sea, Struggle for Power in Asia”
Authors like Chinese Canadian Chris Chung.
Here is a great article from a professor named Ulises Granados in Tokyo. Maybe he is Mexican?
More recent research into Chinese history in the South China sea has debunked nationalist authors like Jianmin Shen.
http://www.eastasianhistory.org/sites/default/files/article-content/32-33/EAH32-33_05.pdf
You claim you dont know yet in earlier post you said you know but china lie.
Its clear you are lying.
Well you want to live in denial is up to you.
As i said there are two views pro china and pro vietnam, but the fact that the owner china borrowed a naval vessel to claim backspratly already is enough to show its her soveriegn.n.
You do not go to police station to claim whats not yours.
Thats the reason why viet did not claim spratly after ww2.
Even though the french with superior navy cane easily do. It.
Namviet was a province of china for thousand of years, the only legitimate reeason to say china was once vietnam too!
You do not know that china once gave an island to vietnam as token of communism brotherhoodCan china give whats not hers? Can viet take a gift and later say the rest belongs to her?
Vietnam being a benefactor of chinese culture for thousand of years, assistance to fight french and usa return the favor by prosecuting chimese viet,taking chinas spratly.
china call them ingrate.
If i am the leader of china , i will take over vietnam and divide th into three.
North vietnam a perovince of china. Middle vietnam with one china two system policy. And south vietnam
…for pro usa faction. There will then be peace.
Lee in order for China to claim the Spratlys (as you say) in after WWII. They must have some legal reason.
Legal reason 1. Prior occupation. Did China occupy the Spratlys first?
No in fact, Japan and France did. In the 1930s Japan and France were contesting ownership. Japan was using the Spratly Islands for phosphate mining as far back as the 1917s. Japan called the islands Sinnan Islands.
Read link
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS193141v02.p0345&id=FRUS.FRUS193141v02&isize=M&q1=spratly
Legal reason 2. Continous Effective Control. Did China control the Spratly Islands
No, China only landed on Itu Aba. Other nations occupied many features of the islands before China announced her boundary in 1958. China’s boundary drew a continuous 12 marine boundary around the Spratlys. Because of the wide dispersion of the islands and reefs this boundary follows no rule of law, geographic, historical nor legal. It’s just a unilateral land grab.
Legal reason 3. Discovery and naming. Did China discover and name the Spratly Islands and name them?
We don’t know. The records and maps are too unclear. Chinese records do not precisely and consistently name the Spratly Islands. Chinese records use toponyms. These are names of features like “sand of a thousand ri”. It was not until China copied western maps that the Chinese even had clear names to the islands rocks and shoals. That’s why the names are in strange “Chinglish”
Legal reason 4. Treaty. Did the Japan Peace Treaty grant the Paracels and Spratly Islands to China
No. The Japan Peace Treaty and Treaty of Peace between China and Japan left the issue of the islands’ sovereignty undetermined. No matter how much the Chinese kick and scream the Japan Peace Treaty gives the islands to nobody. The attached map to the Japan Peace Treaty proves this.
Lee, you failed. This is because your argument is that China’s neighbours “stole” her islands. But in able to prove your point, you must show us that the Spratlys belonged to China by some legal reason before 1946. But you can’t. This is the real reason China ran away from ICJ jurisdiction. This is why China lost big time at the Hague. This is why China is the laughing stock of Asia right now.
Again after ww2 china regain her spratly undisputed as the owner reclaim his stolen wallet.
I just google and almost immediately i found article from straits times artcle pertaining to unclos dated31st. Aug 2016 .
go read to see how you try to lie us.
Again, China can’t “regain” what she never owned.
Nobody stole the “wallet” because China never owned it. I asked you numerous times to give any proof and just like China’s shabby MOFA, you can’t provide any evidence.
The article you are talking about is an opinion editorial. It doesn’t support China at all. In fact Mr Beckman is very critical of the fact China refuses to follow international law.
Maybe you should be the leader of China. Anyone is better than this idiot below.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chinese-foreign-minister-berates-reporter-1.3611510
Lee, you need to study English. It’s clear you don’t understand about 90% of what I’ve written because you keep avoiding the big question.
Again, you are asking strange unrelated questions. You are going off in strange directions. Either you have mental problems or you can’t answer question.
Which Chinese historical records are proof of China’s historical discovery, precise naming, occupation and administration.
If you can’t answer the question then why are you even here?
You may have superior english but poor judgement because of your racism and hatred.
You are blind to the fact that china claim spratly after ww2 unoppose is already a proo and acknowledgement of her two thousand years of soveriegnty..
Lee’s second language, English. Is better than only speaking one like you.
My fourth language English is superior to yours. Which says something.
Lee…his English isn’t superior. It’s only what a racist anglo can attack when he can’t answer anything because he knows nothing.
Funny you mention “brainwashing”.
The chinese dude is polite, yet the anglo is arrogant and self centered.
Who’s brainwashed here???
Me thinks it’s you.
Maybe the French didn’t claim the Spratlys and Paracels because they respected the terms of the Japan Peace Treaty. Did you ever think that? Unlike Chinese who just grabbed the islands first without consulting other nations!
China didn’t formally announce her the 9 Dash Line until 1958. Long before that France contested China’s claim. Unilateral boundary declarations mean nothing Lee.
China gave an island to Vietnam. Was that before they invaded Vietnam or after?
Where did you think of such idea as grab the island! Boy, you must be desperate to think of such idea. After the war, everyone is sick of fighting. They just take what they have lost. China took back spratly and subsequently made known her claim in the
Ysirrounding sea.
Your hatred for china which may arise from your rm
Dude he’s right calm down. Of course he won’t answer.
He is a troll.
I’ve encountered him before. His style of writing is his signature.
Best thing to do is, to wait and reply much later. And then rip into his lies.
Besides what are you arguing with a bigoted racist?
Vietnam is united by war. Germany is union by agreement. New germany was formed but for vietnam communist still exsist and have to honor the letter.
Unfortunately as you said they became ingrate andtook some of spratly.
Yes i agree with you too bad for china that vietnam became thief
..But china have taken step to take control of spratly by a more peaceful method of building her own island and soon vietnam outpost will be surrounded by overwhelming forces.
Yeah, and destroying huge ecosystems by burying reefs under tons of cement and sand.
Other countries pile sand too, but its china choice rather than pile more human bodies if she retake the rest of stolen island.
This “letter” is not an “agreement” to give China the Spratlys. It was the prime minister promising to respect China’s boundary. China did not own and administer over the Spratly Islands at the time of this letter. (1958) The letter doesn’t even mention the Spratly or Paracel Islands.
In fact China STILL doesn’t administer over the Spratly Islands to this day.
War or agreement has nothing to do with Vietnam’s declaration of a new state. It is an internal matter and China has no right to define Vietnam’s territorial limit.
Although the letter is not an agreement, its an acknowledgement of spratly belonging to china.. As i said china already made known her claim that is important.
Its vietnam that acknowledge its not her territory..and that gov still exsist.
Wow you pull a date 1958″you think”, out of your racist ass.
Now it’s gospel, really?
Dude, nearly everything you said has been a deliberate lie.
But, you know the truth is still here.
Wanna hear one?
Know who doesn’t have a claim, or owns the Scs islands?
Imperial united states of freedom and democracy land, or any of it’s vassals.
Nor will they ever get it back.
Navigate freedomly, if they will for maybe 10-15 years. Then if China decides it will close them up.
And no one will do a thing about it. Lol
The chinese have a name for these islands. Use it.
The islands name is NOT sprite.
South China Sea islands.
For anglo’s with no cultural respect.
You say you own a villa. You have no deed or proof your bought the villa. You have no picture or record of the villa. You just say you visited a villa once. In fact you can’t even prove you have even visited or lived in the villa but you have some old drawings of a villa but it looks really different.
Some other guys come and move into the villa so you start screaming and shooting at them. The other guys say they own the villa too. So the police (ICJ) ask you to prove you own the villa….
But you got nothing. So you start screaming like a six year old and the whole world laughs at you and your silly crude villa drawings. So you get a huge gang of thugs with weapons and you bully everyone out of your villa.
Enjoy your villa China.
NThefact that the theif return and admit he stole from china already is the title deed.
The fact that one other claimnant wrote a letter to admit china owns the villa is chinas title deed.
The fact that the other claimnant have treaty to show its not his territory also shows its china title deed.
After about thirty years when the chinas weak the two claimnant started to take chinas villa and claim chinas is richer and stronger so jes a bully.
I ask you richer and stronger is title deed or the letter of ownership and treaty of independence more important?
If thats so argentina can claim back falkland and claim uk is bully.
japan can claim guam and say usa is bully.
Your racist mentality have clout your ability to think rtionally.
There is no letter of ownership to your villa.
During the Vietnam conflict, (1958) North Vietnam agreed upon China’s boundary because they were allied to China and Russia.
The problem is these islands were under the jurisdiction of SOUTH VIETNAM. NORTH VIETNAM did not have the authority to grant ownership of the islands because they did not administer over them.
After the Vietnam conflict ended, with the new nation of unified Vietnam, the new Vietnamese nation declared the Spratlys as part of Vietnam.
Now I’m still waiting for your Chinese proof of 2 thousand years ownership of the Spratlys!
Proof provide proof immediately. Immediately proof.
What?
The north won the war. Besides under reunification, or in the event of a dissolution, previous political engagements, treatise, arrangements etc aren’t automatically scrapped.
Your the same troll under the name hansoloist. I can tell by your writting loser.
Besides, you don’t care about Vietnam or anyone else outside anglo land. And that’s ok.
But i would love to hear some more juicy, nasty, racist comments about other countries you don’t like outside your anglosphere.
Im sure you even imagine to like some countries.
Problem is, im certain they don’t like you.
Keep that in mind. Leave your cash (like you do with China anyway) and leave asap, is what they think of a loudmouth racists like you.
So, indirectly your saying that all anglo countries and their vassals are fascists that only care for money. Will start war for it.
Thanks dude.
Yeah, you know the problem with that???
Anglo saxons are all for humanitarian murder and theft of smaller countries.
As long as it doesn’t impact the loan repayments.
BUT, when it’s a strong nuclear country.
All of a sudden these humanitarian heroes, couldn’t care less.
China takes in extra juicy Vietnamese prostitutes and women every single day.
What’s wrong with you hansoloist dude. Your lies deteriorated quite quickly into racism and blatant trolling.
Cant you see your doing yourself and your employer a disservice.
correct, however the claim was formally made in 1912. there are official japanese document that support the chinese claim, because the japanese didn’t want US or France to control SCS, they prefer China’s weak navy to control SCS, this is why when Japan claim SCS, they claim it as part of China. and why after the war, China assumed control of SCS.
US can be a prick all it want, however they still have no legal basis in SCS.
1) & 2)Ancient map of Vietnam recorded by Westerner authors showed Paracel and Spratly (majority of small islands) belonged to Vietnam.
2) Map of China 1904.
The Paracel islands and Spraly islands are nowhere close to Vietnam as shown on that map.
A map of the continental United States does not show Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, the American Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and other islands under United States rule.
A map of France does not show French Guiana, Reunion, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and other islands under French rule.
A map of the United Kingdom does not show the Falkland islands, South Georgia, St Helena, Bermuda, Gibraltar and other islands and lands under British rule.
Does that mean all those territories are not part of the United States, France, and Britain? Is this fiction what Vietnamese learn in school?
The difference is the countries you mention all incorporated their related territories, islands etc under internationally accepted procedures.
With regard to China’s 9 Dash Lie, there is no historical, geographical or legal basis for China to unilaterally declare this bogus national border. This is why the Chicoms refuse any legal challenges to the 9 Dash Lie.
China cannot give any justification for her claim to the entire South China Sea.
You have zero evidence that China said the 9 dash line represented a national maritime border. China claimed the islands. China never said the 9 dash line was a maritime boundary. Its a map device which shows which islands are claimed by China.
China used the Spratly Islands as a baseline to draw her national maritime boundary in 1958. This is geographically impossible as pointed out by US State geographers in the 1970s.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/58832.pdf
That is why China refuses to give precise co-ordinates to the 9 Dash Lie. It has no historical, geographic or legal basis. It’s just a rubbish line some nationalist Chicom nutbar drew on a map with a red crayon.
When the US Gov’t asked China on what historical basis the Chinese claimed the South China Sea. The Chinese Foreign Minster said “…..Duh….” Read the wikileaks
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08BEIJING3499_a.html
What historical basis does usa own guam?
You cannot even [duh]
News flash dumbass, the 9 dash line comes from the 11 dash line drawn in 1947, by the anti-Communist National government of the Republic of China before the Communists took power. It was not a Communist creation.
Vietnamese communists who are mass murdering innocent Montagnards need to look in the mirror.
Mr. Joseph Klein is one the few Western legal experts that are BRAVE ENOUGH to openly disagree with the tribunal arbitration claimed to have been constituted under Annex VII of the UNCLOS. The perspectives he provided are refreshing that focus on the correctness of the ruling-opinion of the tribunal.
Correcting the errors of the ruling-opinion legally is important and will probably take many years of more discussion. It may be even more important to examine if the arbitration tribunal is properly formed under Annex VII of UNCLOS. Before we get to the details as to legality of constituting the arbitral tribunal, it is important to point out some of the common errors that are used by the media without doing any research on the topic.
• Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said “The UN doesn’t have a position on the legal and procedural merits”.
• ITLOS with 21 elected judges that is one of the four dispute settlement jurisdictions was also not involved or claimed any credit.
• UN through its International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated that it has nothing to do with the arbitral tribunal that used the secretarial services of PCA. So, it is not clear if we should say the ruling is coming from PCA.
• If the arbitral tribunal is to claim to be constituted under UNCLOS Annex VII, the 5 members are supposed to be referred to as ARBITRATORS, NOT JUDGES.
• That is, it is NOT as often quoted in Western media as UN RULING, UN-BACKED RULING, OR UN-BACKED PERMANANT COURT OF ARBITRATION IN THE HAGUE.
Now, let us examine if China has a point when they claimed that the arbitral tribunal is illegal?
There are at least two major sections that must be overcome among the two Parts in UNCLOS that relate to “Settlement of Disputes”. PART XI. SECTION 5: SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AND ADVISORY OPINIONS and PART XV: SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. Evening when we get to Annex VII, there are still the Article 1, 2 and 3 in constituting the proper arbitration arbitral tribunal that was not followed when the then President of ITLOS made his one man selections. (Please see the many discussions made on this link: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-big-south-china-sea-dilemma-17097 )
(For example, Article 3-e:……. 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. ) Mr. Shunji Yanai, then President of ITLOS decided to ignore and skirt all these protocols and appointed the members of the tribunal by himself with Philippines without consultation with China.
Mr. Yanai, in his three year term, perpetuated THE ONLY TWO one-sided-arbitration (with the arbitral tribunal formed by one party) between two state parties concerning territorial disputes in the history of UNCLOS: On 22 January 2013, Philippines v. China and On 4 October 2013, Netherland v. Russia. Both cases are in violation of Article 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII of UNCLOS. The Netherland v Russia was to embarrassed Russia on Green Peace activists that no one expected Russia will hold them for any length of time. The case of Philippines v. China is really intriguing and will be an embarrassment for all for many years to come.
Did anyone really think that UNCLOS really created the loophole in jurisdiction to allow one person (Mr. Yanai) to appoint an arbitral tribunal?
Even though China did not use the legal framing for their positions, before one arrive at Annex VII to start forming the arbitration tribunal, one must also ensure that the two Parts in UNCLOS that relate to “Settlement of Disputes”. PART XI. SECTION 5: SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AND ADVISORY OPINIONS and PART XV: SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES are fully exhausted. Only after satisfying section 3 (Article 289…) and section 1, should this Article 286 apply. China had repeatedly claimed that, section 1 provisions have not be followed through. “A general, regional or bilateral agreement” between China and ASEAN and agreement between China and Philippines also applied to section 1 not having been satisfied. Of course, the big elephant in the room is that China claimed exemption from Compulsory Procedure based on section 3 (Article 289).
(Detailed of the processes are outlined: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5c5m9me14xpt1e/DISPUTES%20SETTLEMENT%20FLOW-CHART%20ON%20INTERPRETATION%20AND%20APPLICATION%20OF%20UNCLOS.docx?dl=0 )
• There is no provision other than possibly for the ITLOS and/or one of the four Chambers to determine if the section 1 and section 3 have been satisfied and/or valid.
• Since China object to the jurisdiction, it would seems proper for Mr. Yanai to consult with the full 21 members of ITLOS or the Seabed Disputes Chamber or one of the established chambers to determine if anything can be done or how to establish the tribunal. (Article Article191, Advisory opinions: “The Seabed Disputes Chamber shall give advisory opinions at the request of the Assembly or the Council on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.”)
• Instead, Mr. Yanai basically usurped the authority of ITLOS and decided to bypass all these protocols and appoints the members of the tribunal by himself with Philippines. Besides setting up his own tribunal, Mr. Yanai also disregarded the Article 1, 2 and 3 of the provisions in ANNEX VII. That is, Mr. Yanai was playing loose if not committed fraud in the process of constituting the panel of arbitrators and thus making the ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE UNCLOS IF NOT OUTRIGHT ILLEGAL.
You said: “Mr. Shunji Yanai, then President of ITLOS decided to ignore and skirt all these protocols and appointed the members of the tribunal by himself with Philippines without consultation with China”.
Cite? I think you’re not telling the truth.
The appointments were, in fact, made from the list mentioned in Annex VII Article 2.
And I’ll bet that China was, in fact, formally consulted. China just chose not to offer any opinion. After all, China loudly and officially refused to participate in the arbitration. That’s why the President of ITLOS was forced, by the rules China agreed to in UNCLOS Annex VII, to appoint four arbitrators in the first place.
Obviously China can’t avoid compulsory dispute settlement by not answering letters.
(In the very unlikely event that the President of ITLOS did not send a formal request to China, perhaps out of respect for China’s stated wish not to participate in any way, I hardly think that would be a large problem. China can’t first say that it will not participate and then claim that it is justified in rejecting the arbitration because it was taken at its word. Also, the time to make a procedural objection is long past.)
If you follow the flow chart provided and the relevant sections cited from UNCLOS. You will have no choice but come to the same conclusion.
BTW, CS, you can go through all of the documents in PCA website for all of the documents that they posted, you will also find the same conclusion as well. PCA acts as registry for the arbitral tribunal.
So, your answer is that no, you can’t support your wild claims with facts.
I’ve read UNCLOS Annex VII and I’ve read many of the case documents. My conclusion is that the tribunal was properly constituted according to the rules China agreed to when it became a party to UNCLOS.
Disclaimer: I made this account for anime stuff but my other half in real life is a student of International relations student. (So please don’t mind my name here)
Having read both your arguments…what conclusion can we then arrive at?
I do not wish to add anything more because all I’ve done so far is *scratch the surface of the issue, I believe that you two, fine gentlemen has already dug deep into the core of this conundrum.
However, what I can only say is, as a fresh graduate of International Relations, I see these things with a “realist” perspective in mind.
Nice reply to yourself troll….liar liar racist troll liar here
CS, you seems to want to seek the truth.
If so, follow the links that are provided and you find the same conclusion. The statement is a conclusion from the details provided. It is not cited sentence from others.
The point is DO NOT USE THE FALSE RIGHTS to go to the dead end such as war or long-term strife that do not benefit anyone.
Racist troll liar…over here.
Come have a look
Replying to my own post, because I found the 25 April 2013 ITLOS press release about the first appointment of the arbitrators.
Sure enough:
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_191_E.pdf
China was consulted. I’m guessing China didn’t reply with an opinion, but that’s China’s decision to make.
Liar liar troll liar
Liar…liar troll liar
Mr Klein is off on so many points in this article. From the history of the dispute to the geographical features of the South China Sea. It’s clear his knowledge of this issue doesn’t go beyond a rudimentary study of the problem.
With all the legal non-sense smoke and mirrors here, the truth is clear. There is no legal, geographical, or historical basis for China’s unilaterally drawn 9-Dash Line (9 Dash Lie)
Now there are a few possibilities as to why Mr Klein would publish this garbage.
1. He is a shill for the Chinese Gov’t
2. He hasn’t done his homework.
3. He was been spoon-fed his “research’ via China.
4. He is out to lunch.
NOTE: He may be all of the above.
I do not know Mr. Klein. But to “guess” and “pin” labels on someone is not very ethical or useful for the discussion
It will be better if you argue point-by-point that Mr. Klein written.
Of course, does it even matter if someone is what you say they are if what they say is factual and true?
Here’s some points then.
Mr Klein also states that according to the defintion of an archipelago in Article 46b of UNCLOS the South China Sea constitutes a “single archipelago” Is this guy serious? Read the definition below.
(b) “archipelago” means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part4.htm
The Spratly Islands alone are so dispersed. They cover about 425,000kms sq.
On top of that, even wikipedia itself states that the South China Sea Islands consist of no less that three archipelago not one. Plus Macclesfield Bank and Scarborough Shoal.
Ha, you couldn’t or wouldn’t respond, instead smearing the author. Lol
Except Mr. Klein is a Harvard graduate with a law degree.
While you’re a racist shitkicker.
Wow tough decision here, on who to follow.
Harvard v racist shitkicker……epic battle, impossible choice for freedom. Lol
Carte des Costes de Cochinchine Vietnam Bellin map 1752
Ancient maps of Vietnam.
This article reads like a propaganda piece written by the Chinese government.
There is a lot of nonsense I could comment on, but I’ll try to restrict myself to a few points.
* The UN Secretary-General is not, as far as I know, in the habit of taking a position on behalf of the UN for or against States in ongoing disputes. It would have been quite remarkable and inappropriate if the Secretary-General had actually tried to “order” China to comply with the tribunal’s ruling. The Spokesperson did call on the parties to resolve their disputes “in conformity with international law”. Personally, I read that as directed at China, since the award is legally binding according to international law.
* Klein says that China had the right to “reject the jurisdiction of the tribunal” based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Part XV, Article 298.
UNCLOS Part XV: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part15.htm
China is of course free to present arguments for why China believes that all the disputes submitted by the Philippines were “disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles”, and thus outside of the tribunal’s jurisdiction. But the final decision is not up to China.
From the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – A Commentary, Volume V, Nordquist (Editor), 1989, page 140:
In other words, China can not automatically shut down compulsory arbitration by unilaterally claiming that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction. UNCLOS Article 288 (4) says that “[i]n the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by decision of that court or tribunal.”
This is really just common sense (and customary international law). If one party could decide to end compulsory dispute settlement at will, with no involvement by a court or tribunal, it is obviously not “compulsory”. And UNCLOS is clear that dispute settlement is supposed to be compulsory.
There was a dispute about jurisdiction, and the tribunal settled the matter by making a decision, as per Article 288 (4). The decision is final, and “shall be complied with by all the parties to the dispute”, as per UNCLOS Article 296 (1).
* As for why the tribunal made that decision, this is explained in detail in the reasons for the awards. https://pcacases.com/web/view/7 . (See the 29-10-2015 and 12-07-2016 awards.)
The short version is that:
1. The submitted disputes did not involve a claim of “historic title” as the term is used in UNCLOS.
2. China’s claimed islands in the area do not generate an EEZ according to UNCLOS. So, the submitted disputes, logically, do not involve delimitation of the EEZ between the Philippines and China.
There is nothing outrageous about the tribunal’s decisions here.
The award is legally binding. By ignoring it, China is violating a treaty and breaking international law.
The Republic of China and France openly contested the islands against each other in the 1930s. After Japan invaded China, Japan claimed that since it occupied mainland China’s Hainan island, that the Paracel and Spratly islands were part of China so that France needed to surrender them to Japan since Japan considered itself to be the occupying power inChina and China’s islands (spratlys and paracels) to belong to the occupied territory and not part of France.
Japan claimed the Spratlys are part of Taiwan, and the Paracels as part of Hainan.
Laterwhen Japan defeated the French and conquered French Indochina, Japan did NOT transfer control of the Spratly and Paracel islands to its administration in Indochina, instead keeping them as part of Taiwan and Hainan island of China.
Japan surrendered the Paracels and Spratlys to Republic of China forces after World War II.
America,which ruled the Philippines, did not even contest or claim the islands.Spain did not contest or claim the islands when it ruled the Philippines. In the Treaty of Paris in which Spain ceded Phlippines to America, the Spratly islands are no where within the Philippines limits.
TheFilipino explorer Tomas Cloma claimed he “discovered” the Spratly islands as “terra nullius” in 1946, AFTER, China, France, and Japan all successively occupied and claim the islands. The Republic of China garrisoned the islands after the Japanese surrendered and the Filipino Tomas Cloma had the nerve to lie and claimed he discovered new islands which were never before seen by humans.
America violated the Bates Treaty with the Moro Muslim Sulu Sultanate and illegally invaded them in 1904 and annexed them to the Philippines.
Actually France via Vietnam officially and publicly incorporated the islands in 1933. China didn’t even set foot on the Spratlys until the 1940s
Actually Vietnam did not exist in 1933. There were three colonies ruled by France called Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina. There was no entity called “Vietnam”.
Viet Nam was named starting from the Nguyen dynasty. All the previous Vietnamese dynasties had the name Viet, along with other title attachments. After invading Viet Nam, the French divided Viet Nam and ruled by three different administrations.
Hahaha was going to point something out. But the guy underneath got to it. Lol
You don’t know basic geography but are quoting legal stuff to us, as gospel?
Really?
That’s fishy dude.
France via Vietnam.
Only anglo ignorance could come up with this bs.
France had to cede all claim after WWII because ROC occupied north vietnam. so France had already conceded it right much like UK conceded HK soverighty to China in 1997, it is irrelevent to argue Vietnam has a claim because of France when France has already abandon the claim before Vietnam kick their ass out of their country. one can even say it is ROC refusal to return vietnam to france rule until France conceded on SCS and it other concession in China has having created the north as a stronghold against european imperialism.
No dude, it’s not compulsory obviously.
I’m not a lawyer but understand legal lingo very well.
I’m siding with the original author, since everything he wrote actually makes sense.
Your basic but convoluted reply, trying to, among other things, define arbitrators and judges (which incidentally you didn’t) and pick at bread crumbs does not make sense. At all.
It did showcase something to me though.
Two very different articles, one about Rwanda and this one.
Have both fancy orchestrated criticisms, by self proclaimed experts.
Do you know how rare that is on here?
Valuable time and effort was made to negate both articles.
It’s nice to notice, since there is only one reason to do that.
Good luck with the obvious bs.
Oh and yeah.
Speaking in favour of China, doesn’t automatically mean it comes from China or financially linked parties.
I know it’s hard to understand from a western view point (since that’s normal operating procedure there).
But try it. Might broaden your horizon.
Map of China 1909
There are only a few like Joseph Klein who would take a stand opposed to the propaganda of mainstream media, a coterie disseminating nothing but that which is after the mind of the Democratic Party under the banner of free speech and democratic transparency. This is clearly evidenced in their making a jest of Trump in his election, possibly abetted by the Obama Coalition.
Map of China with agenda of expansion 1954.
The map is of the Qing dynasty and former tributary states of the Qing as its clearly labelled.
While Vietnamese trolls who can’t read Chinese try to present it as something else.
Its like showing a map of the Roman Empire in Italian, and claiming it means Italy wants to conquer the entire Europe and take over Britain again.
The true agenda of expansion comes from Vietnam, which brutally invaded and colonized Champa, the Central Highlands from the Montagnard Degars, and the Mekong Delta from Cambodia.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha, OMG what a dufus. This Joseph Klein is one big bag of dumb………..that is if he truly exists. Harvard law………….MY ASS.
The ccp are desperate. Posting an article purporting to be from a harvard grad, what and no picture……….geeez how low can you get ccp.
Anyways, if this JK is a harvard grad, then UP law is definitely the greatest law school in the world …not. The arguments in the article are clearly of a person who has studied law. All mere statements and nothing to back it up, no reasoning whatsoever.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha and i though this was a serious argument to the decision.
The following is a quote from Wikipedia: a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community…
May be one should be more respectful in such a deadly serious matter?
Here’s one for u. Respect is earned not demanded. Something the ccp has to learn.
Besides, I already stated that the article’s argument is not serious. Flimsy and hypothetical at best. So what serious matter are you talking about?
Must china respect theives.
It was clear from philipines independence treaty spratly was beypnd your territorial limit. And spratly was return to china not philipine after ww 2.
You said respect is earned . Tell that to philipine.
Yeah, all you are saying is lies, how come the PCA did not see that the Ph was the theif…..theif?
Its because they have lost their credibility.
Who says so, you? OMG what a tragedy for the PCA…………..not.
Unclos is not pca. You do not know usa,uk,oz,russia,japan had snub unclos .Now china and taiwan.. Is that not lost credibility?
OMG you are so uninformed. So those countires snub the unclos ruling……..really…are you sure of that? Can you paste links that they categorically snubbed it. Or are they just letting it sink in to the ccp.
I am sure. You just google, its there..
I did, you must be looking at baidu. No wonder.
I use google, not baidu..
You just think you use google.
Same racist troll as before
Hi Canadian spastic studies.
Nice trolling name change on the quick, but your still the same racist troll.
Awe get a life dude.
Hahaha from a troll.
That’s gold
Troll? Well you have your own opinion. Guess what, most people seem to disagree. So, don’t worry be happy.
No buddy it’s not an opinion.
You’re a bonafide bottomfeeding troll.
Usually you expose yourself with hyperbolic statements, which are not grounded in reality.
Eg. “Guess what, most people seem to disagree”.
What???
Who disagrees?
Did you just bring your imaginary friends into your pro troll argument?
Your pathetic. Just like your lack of education and arrogance.
Pathetic, like the rest of your anglo coward race.
Oh wow, and have you showed any semblance of proof that I am a troll. Did you disprove any of my observations?
What a dickwad, you have feces for brains dude. Anglo coward, why don’t you make the first move. Well I know coz you are a yellow chink. Geeez what a dumbass. You are a pitiful excuse for a mind. Get lost and piss off.
Mr Klein also states that according to the defintion of an archipelago in Article 46b of UNCLOS the South China Sea constitutes a “single archipelago” Is this guy serious? Read the definition below.
(b) “archipelago” means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part4.htm
The Spratly Islands alone are so dispersed. They cover about 425,000kms sq.
On top of that, even wikipedia itself states that the South China Sea Islands consist of no less that three archipelago not one. Plus Macclesfield Bank and Scarborough Shoal.
Yet more definitions.
Wow walking typing dictionary.
Leading away from the gist of the article.
Standard textbook misdirection in your profession.
there are “archipelago” in the pacific that covers even a wider area with a smaller land/sea ratio. while i am not sure if I agree with the archipelago definition, your arguement that it is not doesn’t make sense either without disassembling US dependency. maybe this is why US refuse to sign UNCLOS?
This case have done much harm to UNCLOS credibility as a just organisation.
Its laughable that they do not know the difference between rock or island.
UNCLOS makes it clear. An islands must have potable water. It must have material to build housing. It must produce food to sustain a population and have trees. for EEZ purposes it must have an economy of its own separate from outside assistance.
If so should we rename many islands around the world as rocks so that china too can sail outside 12 km as international waters!
UNCLOS was right. There are no “islands” in the Spratlys. Suck on it China!
IBy putting the islands under double inverted coma, you are not certain of applying unclos defination.
China does not care as spratly was return as her soveriegn after ww2.
Philipine new president have drop unclos to negotiate bilaterally.
Thats why i said unclos have lost its credibility.
Suck on it UNCLOS!
No I’m quoting you…”….”
Taiping (Itu Aba) is not an island. Too bad you lose China.
China lose. Are you sure. Its unclos that lost credibility. Now not only usa,uk,japan,oz ,russia..but china and taiwan have snub unclos.
Its a fail srbitration from the beginning when china did not participate and will reject judgments.
Its philipine that wasted time and money on a fail arbiyration
…now the new philipine president indirectly admit failure by dropping unclos to talk bilaterally.
What are you talking about? It’s China that was crying to go to the ICJ with the Senkaku Islands dispute don’t you remember?
There is no way, China will get a favorable ruling from the ICJ on the Senkaku Islands after being so pig-headed about the Spratlys!! Another diplomatic epic fail by the moron Wang YI!
The Philippine pres is smart to deal with China bilaterally. Their case is weak. He can score lots of free construction projects from China. If he never went to the ICJ, the Chinese wouldn’t have given him two cents. It was a good move for the Philippines.
However, China suffered a major embarrassment after the 9 Dash Lie was trashed. Chinese, like most Asians hate to lose face. This ICJ case made China look so foolish. Even though China won’t admit it, the SCS problem is a major mess that will cost them dearly!
Now the whole world knows what China’s neighbors have known all along. The Chinese are incapable of conducting diplomacy and they are horrible neighbors.
I dont think so..
Since you mention diao yu islands. Every historian knew it belongs to china. Okinawa was also a soveriegn republic that will be liberated by china if war breaks out.
China is angry at the unjust judgement but not embarassed because she had not participate and already said will not accept any judgement
What diplomacy you are talking about. China is claiming backher spratly just as uk claim back falkland . And have shown the world how to do it while maintaining stability and peacewith minimum casualty.
Bad anology.
First the British cleary recorded discovering the Falklands. They named the islands and continually used the same name. They accurately mapped and settled on the islands. They planted their flag on the islands and defended them.
China did not even have names for the Spratlys and Paracels for a long time. They have no accurate maps. They did not settle on the islands, incorporate exercise any acts of administration over the islands.
It was technically impossible for any country to continuously exercise any authority over these islands until well into the 1900. There was no water or vegetation to sustain life. Navigation was dangerous in these reefs.
The Japanese were the first to use the Spratlys for any real commercial use by harvesting bird guano on some of the Spratlys.
China was the last country to enter the race for the Spratly Islands. Despite all the trouble they are making, they claim the least amount of features. They should get out I think.
Look at how little territory the Chinese actually have. (read flags)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Spratly_with_flags.jpg
You are wrong again. China discovered and name themwhen you are barbarian.
Even records of chinese name is longer than the exsistence of vietnam, philipine or spratly or paracel.
After ww2 china regain soveriegn and consequently file claim of its surrounding sea even before unclos exsisted. What do you mean by last country?
Yes other countries have stolen chinas spratly and china is taking them back.
What name did the Chinese give to the Spratlys? What was the exact location? How big where the islands? How did the Chinese occupy and administer over the islands?
Here is a Chinese map. Please explain with islands are the Spratlys. Then you can explain how this map proves Chinese owned the islands, occupied and administer over them.
https://imperialchinesecourt.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/wanlishitang.jpg
You dont even know the chinese name of spratly shows your one sided research?
Perhaps i suggest you google to find out.
Maps does not prove ownership.It s event in history that is more important.
china taking over from japan arter ww2 and subsequent claim the surrounding sea as continual claim from two thousand years since the discovery and naming them.
Just as I thought. I even provided you with your own material and you can’t answer the question. You just repeat it’s mine it’s mine!!. Just like a 6 year old.
Map does not prove ownership? Right. But this map proves China did not have accurate naming, location or description of the Spratly or Paracels. On top of that, it shows Chinese voyage routes only. It does not show China owned, settled on or administered over the islands.
You got nothing. You are just spinning your tires Lee!
If you care to do unbias research, you will conclude that china was the first to discovered and name. them.
There were ample records of the two thousand years of usage of the islands,antipiracy,fishery,farming,…for thousand of years…up till the recovery of them from japan and subsequent filing claim of the eleven dash. surrounding seas after ww2.And its absurd to say china is the last to claim them! All this happen prior to unclos.
Even vietnam agreed its china soveriegn.
Lee, If you got these Chinese records that are proof of Chinese ownership, cite them, show them translate them. We are all waiting. I’ve posted pages of data from respected sources that prove China has no claim. Read above.
Don’t ask me to prove your lies. And yes, I’ve done my research already. Even China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs page has no proof!! So please post some historical records and maps for proof and we can all be happy OK?
You are just being a gasbag. You talk but you got nothing. Just like your Chicom government.
You ask for things that you does not know that can be easily search. But you had deny them because you are racist.
There are two sides of peoples views but do you think talk is more important or action.
I ask you many times why not philipine or viet retake from japan?
You cannot answer.
Let me answer then. Its because spratly dont belong to them
If you still dont understand because of your racist bias.I qill give you this example.
Someone stole your wallet.The person that stole it was caught. You dont have transporyt so you borrow from a friend call usa a boat that ferry you to the police station to claim your wallet. The police checkecked and gave it back to the rightful owner.
After twenty years someone said your wallet is a rare piece worth millions.
Two of your neighbours knew you are weak and stole them in the process broke into two.
Somehow you became rich and strong again and wanted it back.
But many neighbours talk that it does not belong to you. Also some research that it belong to you. Thats you and me.
Now i ask you or the judge will think is the opinion of the neighbours talk more important or the action of the ownwer claiming them more important.
Thats the reason i ask you why not philipine or viet claim them from japan.
Lee states..
You ask for things that you does not know that can be easily search.
First, China’s proof of historical ownership cannot “be easily search” Because it does not exist. Second, it’s your opinion (lie) so YOU must prove it.
I already posted articles that exposed your lies. So you lose.
Then Lee says…
“..Someone stole your wallet…”
You are starting with the opinion that the wallet was yours to begin with. As you’ve shown us, China has no proof she accurately mapped, named, occupied, and administered over the islands.
Why didn’t Vietnam or Philippines try to take? I don’t know, but what does that have to do with China’s claim anyway? Just worry about China’s weak claim. OK? You have enough problems proving that Ha Ha Ha!!
When i knew about this dispute i google to find out about them
What you need is easily available.
Again you love to deny.
Do you go to pilice station if you did not lost anything.
Thats why viet, philipine did not take spratly but the owner china did.
Unlike you i have seen prove from both sides but the fact that the owner did go to claim them already shows who speaks the truth.
Lee, even China didn’t have the ships to claim islands after World War 2. Remember they had to get used ships from America.
How well do you think the Vietnamese and Philippine Navies were equipped after being occupied by Japan for years? Think about it…
Again you try to evade the truth. After ww2 france , spain, britain,dutch took back their colony.
China is no match compare to their navy if they think spratly and paracel belong to them.
Its wrong for you to say viet and philipine vannot take them.
Liar liar racist bigot liar here people
China does not accept unilateral judgement from the v begining.
Taiwan still control the island abd china is patroling the nine dash. China lost?
I think you should join a war….maybe against Isis…and get beheaded tough guy.
Liar liar racist troll liar liar
Liar liar racist troll liar
Admittedly, historic territorial disputes must be resolved with wisdom and patience.
The history of South China Sea exposed land mass, islands, atolls, reefs, etc. related as related to China covers more than 2000 years. It will be unreasonable for anyone including China to deny the facts that the fishermen and other explorers in the nearby countries have also used these features over the history as well.
The post colonization and post Second World War territorial demarcation and timeline as related to the neighboring countries of Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei are not necessarily the golden rule for dispute settlement either. However, they are facts and can be useful reference points for starting the negotiation and discussion. The following are summaries and supplements to many others that have written.
VIETNAM AND CHINA:
1) Based on the 1887 Sino-Franco Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-French_War )
• China claims to the Paracel Islands is supported by the 1887 Sino-French convention. That agreement gave China the right to all islands east of the longitude both countries had agreed to in dividing the Gulf of Tonkin.
• While Vietnam holds that this convention pertained only to the Gulf of Tonkin, China interprets it as pertaining to all of the South China Sea.
• The second paragraph of Article 3 of the Treaty of 9 June 1885, are settled as follows: In Guangdong, it is agreed that the contested points situated to the east and northeast of Mangjie [Monkaï], beyond the border as was fixed by the delimitation commission, are assigned to China. The isles which are to the east of the meridian of 105° 43′ longitude east of Paris, which is to say of the north-south line passing through the eastern point of the island of Chagu [Tch’a-Kou or Ouan-chan (Tra-co)] and forming the border, are similarly assigned to China. The Jiutou [Go-tho] islands and other islands which are to the west of this meridian belong to Annam. (CONVENTION CONCERNING THE DELIMITATION OF THE BORDER BETWEEN CHINA AND TONKIN, (http://www.chinaforeignrelations.net/node/167 )
• Annam is now southern part of Vietnam.
• Those folks involved at the time may not be that clear in their geo-location. However, based on the writing, both the Paracel and Spratly would have been belonged to China.
2) China claims a historic presence in the islands as evidenced by artifacts and records of ship visits dating to the Han dynasty. China supports this argument by citing recent discoveries of Chinese pottery and other items in the area.
3) China points out that it was the first country to exercise sovereignty over the Paracels, citing a 1909 claim.
PHILIPPINES AND CHINA:
1) The 1898 Treaty of Paris, signed when Spain handed the Philippines as a colony to the United States, Article III described the western limit of the Philippines as 118 degrees East longitude.
China’s Territories such as the Spratly and Paracel Islands and Scarborough Shoal are all located west of that. http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/10900/10909/10909.htm (1898);
(http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/4500/4582/4582.htm (1899)
http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/1400/1436/1436.htm (1906)
2) http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/7000/7070/7070.htm (1906), Luzon details: Detailed insert of Batanes and Bubuyanes Islands to the North; Scarborough was not in the territory)
3) http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/7000/7091/7091.htm (1906), Palawan details: The coordinate clearly marked the territory off the Palawan and NOT INCLUDING ANY PART of Spratly and east of 118 Longitude also clear the Scarborough)
4) In late as 1933 the Philippines (then a US colony) had wanted to annex the Spratly Island but on 20 August that year, the US Secretary of State, Cordell Hull wrote that, “the islands of the Philippine group which the United States acquired from Spain by the treaty of 1898, were only those within the limits described in Article III”, and “It may be observed that no mention has been found of Spain having exercised sovereignty over, or having laid claim to, any of these (Spratly) islands”.
5) France invaded and occupied China’s Spratly and Paracel Islands in 1938 and in 1939 Japan colonized these two island groups. (In fact, however, the French abandoned the isles in the face of Japanese advances in World War II, during which Japan seized the Paracels. In 1946 China reclaimed the islands but did not occupy them until 1956, and even then, they only occupied the Amphitrite Group. At the time, the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam recognized the Chinese position. Premier Pham Van Dong reportedly stated that “from the historical point of view, these islands are Chinese territory,” and in 1958 reiterated that position: “The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam recognizes and supports the Government of the People’s Republic of China on its decision concerning China’s territorial sea made September 4, 1958.”) http://paracelspratlyislands.blogspot.com/2008/01/land-border-south-china-sea-disputes.html (Dr. Henry Kenny of USA)
6) After WW2, Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores (Penghu), as well as the Spratly and Paracel Islands were returned to the Republic of China (ROC) on 28 April 1952, under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace that Japan signed with the ROC, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration.
MALAYSIA (Brunei is a small entity separated from BORNEO) AND CHINA:
1) Both British and Dutch did not have any claims on the Spratly.
2) The following link to a map of British and Dutch Borneo in 1898 clearly demarcate the Palawan and Borneo (now part of Malaysia) do not include Spratly. In fact, it also demarcate that Philippines territory never cover Spratly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borneo#/media/File:British_and_Dutch_Borneo,_1898.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borneo;
3) Besides the map of 9-Dash line of the South China Sea map, in Sept 1958 China made a 12 nm territorial sea declaration on all her territories and that included the Spratlys. Malaysia, which had her independence from the British on 31 August 1957 did not object. (The historic Malaysia territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melayu_Kingdom )
THE MORE RECENT TERRITORIAL DISPUTES:
1. 1947, Republic of China published the 11-dash line. America helps Republic of China to reclaim the SCS. Republic of China stationed troops in Taiping Island since early 1950’s.
• No countries raised objections until 1970’s or later.
2. 1949, People’s Republic of China was established in Mainland China and Republic of China occupied Taiwan.
3. ECAFE announced the discovery of crude oil in the South China Sea in the late 1960s.
• Malaysia toke control of 6 features in the Spratlys
• Vietnam toke control of 29 land masses
• Brunei toke one
• In 1978 President Marcos of Philippines occupied 8 features.
4. China and Taiwan protested but were mired in internal problems. No military actions were taken.
5. 1970-2016: China and Taiwan both established growth path and become both economically and military strong.
• China continue to protest and request return of the illegal occupied territory.
• China continue to act with extreme patience and restraint.
China seems to recognize the territorial disputes are historical and must be resolved over time with both sides accepting the final results. China insists on bi-lateral negotiation between the parties in dispute only.
May be it is worth a try? It may beat fire-fights over any benefits that may come out of owning the territories.
–China has consistently exercised sovereignty over the islands and reefs as well as the surrounding waters in the South China Sea, which the Philippines has only lately disputed.–
History can be denied BUT cannot be changed. The author has quite reasonably and with arguments justified the China’s case.
It is pretty obvious that the author is lawyering for China and wanted to be the world’s international arbiter on issues arising from UNCLOS, which is the global constitution on the seas. The UNCLOS agreement was signed, ratified and promised to be upheld by China, so China is contradicting itself if it questions the provisions of UNCLOS. Now, if you are a lawyer, you begin with the law as basis for your arguments. You cannot go about questioning the provisions of the law based on your vested interests.