politics

China says it is closing off part of South China Sea for military exercises

102 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

102 Comments
Login to comment

Declaring ADIZs and conducting 'show of force' military exercises..just doing what the US does for so long and getting away with all the time. Nothing to see here.

-32 ( +8 / -40 )

Here we go ... China is already flexing its muscles following the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling against it in this area. The court says this area does not belong to China ... so let's see what China's new military actions will bring. One of these days tensions are going to start exploding in the South China Sea..

16 ( +18 / -2 )

That didn't take long...

11 ( +11 / -0 )

RE: GaijindesuJul. 18, 2016 - 04:36PM JST Declaring ADIZs and conducting 'show of force' military exercises..just doing what the US does for so long and getting away with all the time. Nothing to see here.

Where is your proof that the US has done this for so long, I have yet to see where the US created any man made islands near or around Asia or anywhere else. The US continues to be our ally. China is the only one stirring up a fire where there is no smoke.

22 ( +25 / -3 )

Hopefully the MONSTER will come to its senses & we don't have to put it down!!!

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Here we go ... China is already flexing its muscles following the Permanent Court of Arbitration's ruling against it in this area. The court says this area does not belong to China ... so let's see what China's new military actions will bring. One of these days tensions are going to start exploding in the South China Sea.

It's obvious why China is doing this. It just wants to thumb its nose (or show the middle finger to put it more bluntly) towards the international community and the Permanent Courts of Arbitration to say, we don't care and we will do what we want and try and stop us, but yes, one of these days tensions will erupt and that might come a lot sooner than you think.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Gaijindesu is spot on !

-23 ( +2 / -25 )

GW

Hopefully the MONSTER will come to its senses & we don't have to put it down!!!

The monster will come to its senses after getting a good kicking in a low level sea and air war.

This war is inevitable, before China comes to any sensible compromise and so is the result, China against the USA and Japan, the first and third biggest navies in the world, plus a gaggle of Philippine, Vietnamese and Malaysian support vessels. China might well be tempted to take the war to the next level, but I doubt it.

This is Asia's Munich 1938 moment and Asia finds the cajonnes or just let things go from bad to worst with China.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

re: ozziedesignerJul. 18, 2016 - 07:20PM JST Gaijindesu is spot on !

Where is the proof? Comments are cheap if there is nothing of substance to back them up. Q: When has the US made any man made islands around it's own territories? Asia? If anything over the years the Americans have asked for nothing yet put everything on the line. When has China ever done so? Never as history has shown time and time again. The US and Japan alliance remains strong.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

The only cure to this problem is the overthrow of the CCP dictatorship, all else is a shadow boxing game, delusional. May the day come soon.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

All they need now is for Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei to also file their grievances to the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration. It would anger China but also show international opinion!!!

7 ( +9 / -2 )

I agree that the only real long term solution is the elimination of the CCP one-party totalitarian dictatorship. But with the Chinese PLA existing to protect the CCP rather than the "country", the Chinese population brainwashed by government controlled media and censorship, and most insidiously an army of "China supporters" residing outside of China flooding the internet and western media outlets with CCP propaganda, I fear that there is little to no chance of a change without conflict. The CCP has and continues to quickly quash any possible threat, both real and perceived, to it's power and control. They would kill their own people before letting go. Just as there were those who failed to recognize the rise of Hitler's Germany in the 1930s and advocated appeasement to a dictatorship, there are those who today fail to see the significance of current events in the SCS and the massive effect it will have on our lives and generations to come.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Chinese communist government is really a pain in the ass. Acting like a boss, hmmmmm, never understimate small countries, they might unite and challenge you, not in military means but economically. CCH must learn a lesson and take their own medicine!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I'd like to know the exact area that they're doing this in. If it's south east of Hainan and within the EEZ generated from Hainan's coastline, then despite it appearing to be a show of defiance it's actually a fairly weak one. Which would indicate that it's more for domestic consumption than any sort of strong challenge to the international community. If it's right out in the middle of the SCS or just off the Spratlys, then that is another matter and that would be much more worrying.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

China is simply doing all this to keep the home team focused externally rather then internally where the actual problem of an UNELECTED REGIME sits. Its for domestic consumption. Like Nazi Germany with its claims that it invaded its neighbours simply to re-unify Germans we must be vigilant with China who has already begun this same process. Appeasement was not the answer then and it is not the answer now. The ENTIRE world outside of China needs to stand up and put its foot on this serpents head before a third world war erupts. China needs political change and its unlikely it will come from within. Somebodies going to have to shake the hornets nest sooner than later.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Since the USA is not part of the Law of the Seas also called UNCLOS. We have no legal justification in any of these disputes. The Senate keeps blocking it from happening since 1982 By Raygun Ronald and has been blocked ever since. This is just another issue is that it just proves the USA is an outlaw and has no respect for the laws of society and therefore should just stay out of it. We are not the Sheriff of the Hague as we refuse to partake and be part of the World and then we can be the Sheriff for the Hague. Till we join we just sit-back and enjoy the fireworks as the new Prez of PI is ready to surrender and not take the actions as he can as per the International Court. But he will lose the land and fish and even more will be taken now just as a show of WE BAD! When its time to foreclose you call in the Sheriffs and deputies to evict them But First the Sherriff needs to join UNCLOS for anything to be legal for Uncle sam and the Boys to come charging in! To really worry China we need to Join and then they know we will uphold the Law of the International courts ruling.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Let the games begin its going to be a interesting...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bjohnson23:

I believe they're referring to imperialist actions in the past by the US (not relinquishing parts of Cuba, overthrow of democratic regime in Iran circa 1950s, taking over Philippines - US had owned them, etc) and supposed international interventions today (sending US senators to Ukraine just before coup, etc), not necessarily creating islands. That being said, both are wrong.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What China cannot buy will steal. And in too many cases, won't want to buy in the first place.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The PCA verdict is so flawed, one can only conclude it is politically motivated and vengeful. Vengeful because China did not showed up in court and the judges obviously want to punish China with a negative verdict.

By declaring Taiping Island a rock, PCA have completely discredited itself. Ask the Philippines if Thitu Island with over 200 people permanently staying there whether they live on Thitu island or Thitu Rock. If people still have doubt Taiping Island is an island, just have one or two people there with simple means to collect water and grow veggies and animals. This can easily prove it is an island, able to sustain life. Same with Thitu island and other smaller islands the Vietnamese occupied.

So one can also say Nine Dash Line ruling is seriously flawed as well given the rock classification of Taiping Island.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

So one can also say Nine Dash Line ruling is seriously flawed

Given that the nine dash line blatantly has no legal basis whatsoever, I would say it is the nine dash line that is flawed rather than the ruling.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

Why should anybody believe the PCA judges who are really Tainted Jurors? In US jury system, these jurors are disqualified from jury duty as they will most likely issue biased verdict. PCA judges were bombarded with soundbites, lies about China for at least three years so they cannot be trusted. I would give them benefit of doubt if they don't issue such an erroneous verdict against Taiwan island as rock classification.

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

PCA judges were bombarded with soundbites, lies about China for at least three years so they cannot be trusted

The judges didn't make their decision by reading Japan Today! They considered China's arguments in full, and rejected them because they're rubbish arguments. A country can not simply draw a line on a map and claim everything within it, or dig out an old map showing that their ships went there a long time ago and claim that as proof of ownership.

In US jury system, these jurors are disqualified from jury duty

The US jury system is completely irrelevant to the matter.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Now is the time for Abe to act and stop talking!

He should send Japan's most modern hsubs and helicopter destroyer to teach China a lesson!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Yoshitsune

The US jury system is the Gold Standard to produce an unbiased collection of people who make life and death verdicts. Why should anybody believe in the PCA judges who are tainted from day one? I would give them the benefit of the doubt if they are not selected by the Japanese chief judge, no completely flawed rock designation of Taiping island.

It is morally offensive for them to make a rock designation of Taiping island without making a first hand visit to the island to confirm for themselves it is not sustainable for humans. They will be surprised it is sustainable. It is easy to sustain a few people with simple water collection system, taking advantage of the humidity and frequent rain/storm. Simple solar powered and cooling system to extra water from atmosphere can sustain at least a few inhabitants and grow veggies and rear animals.

Further why should matters in Asia be decided by judges from Europe and an African who reside in Europe? A fair panel will have at least two judges from Asia from neutral countries. There are many capable Asians!

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

< The only cure to this problem is the overthrow of the CCP dictatorship, all else is a shadow boxing game, delusional. May the day come soon.>

Yes, the final nail in the coffin for the internal communist oppression and external aggression of red china. May it happen soon, for the future of all of East Asia.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This has been appalling behaviour by the Chinese govt., but par for the course in global power politics. I just wish Western commentators here and elsewhere would actually take a look at their own govts. actions as well. The US and UK have not have built artificial land because they havent neededl to. They have aircraft carriers and 1000+ bases around the world in 'allied' , coerced or puppet regime countries. But I'm sure America commentators on here will say it's all friendly and the local populace wants us there. I could give many examples showing this is just fantasy based wishful thinking, but check out the case of Diego Garcia for instance - A British owned Island in the Indian Ocean, leased to the Americans, covert military base, special renditions, etc, and the primary issue is the native islanders being kicked off the island with no hope of return to accomadate all these shinanegans . See the related article below (unless you adhere to the intellectually moribund "my-country-right-or-wrong" school of patriotism, then don't bother, nothing will change your non-acceptance of the reality based universe): http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/the_truth_about_the_us_military_base_at_diego_garcia_20150615

Someone else here has thankfully also mentioned the far from heroic and noble history of America foreign policy from Mexico, the Phillipines, South America, the banana republics, Vietnam, Iraq, and so on. In most cases, when a foregn govt refused to bend to Uncle Sam's will, regime change made in the US image was the inevitable outcome, even in democratic countries (where the elected govt was overthrown with CIA help, and replaced by the dictator General Pinochet - and we know how that turned out...... or perhaps you 'choose' not to so your 'America is noble' narrative is not disturbed.)

All these cases as well as the bases mentioned above are exactly for the same purposes as the Chinese actions. So we are rightly up in arms about their blatant and unlawful projection of state power, but we have to be consistent. They belive their bu£&@^*%, do we really have to believe ours? Is this not really all about big alpha male types - in the west or China - with one dimensional thought processes, fighting each other for status and hegemony because that's all the know how to do. The rest of us get sucked into their idiotic jingoism at our peril.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Fre Okin So...no Japanese judges but they must be Asian. Philippine judges are OK? Taiwanese and Vietnamese? Hmm...You might not like those decisions either. But suppose these same judges had decided in China's favor. Would you still say they were biased? No. You would say it was fair. What's going on is clear. You see bias because you don't like the result not the other way around. I wonder if you would grant that China is wrong in ANY of its territorial disputes in the region? Your comments on JT generally seem 100% pro China. You see, if you believe China is right in everything, then none of your arguments appear very trustworthy and you are the one with the bias. Perhaps something in your background disqualifies you from producing a fair opinion on the matter. Is THAT possible? Every country is terribly wrong some of the time. That's the nature of the delusion of nationalism.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The US jury system is the Gold Standard to produce an unbiased collection of people who make life and death verdicts

This wasn't a life or death verdict, this wasn't a jury trial, in fact this wasn't a trial full stop. The US legal system is of no relevance whatsoever to the matter.

It is morally offensive for them to make a rock designation of Taiping island without making a first hand visit to the island to confirm for themselves it is not sustainable for humans.

I was actually expecting that Taiping might get island status and an EEZ. The fact the ruling did not agree with my (or your) expectation does not invalidate the entire ruling as you seem to think. And it has nothing to do with morals. The judges apparently didn't agree that Taiping can sustain an economic life of its own - and that is one of the requirements for an EEZ. Merely being survivable for human habitation isn't enough.

Further why should matters in Asia be decided by judges from Europe and an African who reside in Europe? A fair panel will have at least two judges from Asia from neutral countries. There are many capable Asians!

The nationality of the judges s completely irrelevant to whether or not their ruling is consistent with the UNCLOS treaty.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@bjohnson23

Read my post again. I mentioned declaring ADIZs and conducting 'show of force' military exercises. Where in my post did I mention building man-made islands? Which, by the way, Vietnam, one of the supposedly victim in the SCS, is also doing. But they get to fly under the radar without much bad press.

You know why? Because big brother the USA gets to decide who is the bad guy and who plays the victim in all of these conflicts. So why does the US single out China as the bad guy? Because it feels threatened by China, but not the lesser players. So much so that it (US) is willing to get in bed again with the enemy that once humiliated the mighty empire back in the 60s and 70s and slaughtered 50,000 Americans. Yes, that is the USA you think is going to be BFF with Japan tiil the end of time.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Yoshitsune

"The judges apparently didn't agree that Taiping can sustain an economic life of its own - and that is one of the requirements for an EEZ. Merely being survivable for human habitation isn't enough."

Ask the Filippinos in neighboring Thitu Island. If the 200+ people say their island is a rock, so be it. In that case Philippines should rename Thitu island as Thitu Rock. Every Vietnamese island should be renamed as a rock as well.

"Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm

Now who have the authority to say Taiping Island is definitely a rock? Is there any evidence it cannot sustain human habitation or economic life all of it's own? Vietnam have numerous smaller outposts where together they have over 2500 plus troops in the Spratlys. Is the PCA trying to say VN have to bring in fresh water, veggies, animals from mainland VN to sustain all of these islands? It is so obvious the PCA judges never do Discovery Process, never visit any of these islands,outpost, whatever and just make a broad judgement to classify Taiping island as a rock. This alone completely tarnished their credibility, so why even waste time talking about Nine Dash Line?

I say Neutral judges from Asia. Can't find any that are not in dispute with China?

You can brand it as not a trial but the outcome is always a Verdict. What is relevant is the process is Tainted, so why give credibility to this verdict against China? PCA is basically a kangaroo court, much like how people accuse the Chinese judiciary system. So is PCA Made In China?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

@gaijindesu

by the way, Vietnam, one of the supposedly victim in the SCS, is also doing. But they get to fly under the radar without much bad press. You know why? Because big brother the USA gets to decide who is the bad guy and who plays the victim in all of these conflicts

A little disingenuous. Is Vietnam reclaiming land? Yes. Is it reclaiming land on the same scale as China? Absolutely not, not even close, and we are talking by two orders of magnitude. China has reclaimed 3,200 acres to Vietnam's 20-something acres. While I don't personally think Vietnam's claims are inherently any stronger than China's, it is beyond doubt that China's reclamation is a far greater problem than Vietnam's.

So why does the US single out China as the bad guy?

Because China has reclaimed 3,200 acres of land where none previously existed and upon that land it has built and installed military facilities, and is trying to claim not just the islands but the entire sea. None of the other claims cover the entire sea and none of the other claimants have built up so much land or placed so much hardware there. That is why.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I love China , they're just ring-fencing their patch on the planet . It will all come out in the wash and when the time comes, the fat chap next door in North Korea who is getting excited at the moment will be swallowed up by China .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@shallots

"Your comments on JT generally seem 100% pro China."

I am playing Devil's Advocate. I am not interested to be like Sheep People aka Sheeple who only follow the Masses. Why not Think Outside The Box? I think it is Harmful to just follow what political leaders try to deceive their citizens. People have to Think, better to be a Contrarian than just being Lazy, follow the crowd. Of course China is not perfect. What is needed is Indisputable Evidence she is the only party with flawed claims. What about others? It is Offensive to me to see China only get bad press while others are given a free pass.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

@fre

Ask the Filippinos in neighboring Thitu Island. If the 200+ people say their island is a rock, so be it. In that case Philippines should rename Thitu island as Thitu Rock.

According to this ruling, Thitu island is indeed a rock under UNCLOS. It doesn't matter if the people there call it rock or island.

Every Vietnamese island should be renamed as a rock as well.

The names of the features (and they have multiple names in multiple languages) are irrelevant to whether they qualify for 'island' status under UNCLOS. It doesn't matter if we call them rocks or islands in any of our languages; what matters is whether they qualify as islands under UNCLOS.

Now who have the authority to say Taiping Island is definitely a rock?

The PCA, according to UNCLOS.

Vietnam have numerous smaller outposts where together they have over 2500 plus troops in the Spratlys. Is the PCA trying to say VN have to bring in fresh water, veggies, animals from mainland VN to sustain all of these islands?

No, the PCA days they are not islands; it doesn't matter if Vietnam brings water from the mainland. Makes no difference, they're not islands either.

It is so obvious the PCA judges never do Discovery Process, never visit any of these islands,outpost, whatever and just make a broad judgement to classify Taiping island as a rock.

You seem to be under the impression that the ruling said Taiping alone is a rock. But the ruling actually was that none of the features in the Spratlys are islands with EEZs. Taiping is not, Vietnam's are not, RP's are not, China's are not.

This alone completely tarnished their credibility, so why even waste time talking about Nine Dash Line?

Consideration of the legitimacy of the nine dash line is not connected to the seperate issue of classification of islands / rocks.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Yoshitsune

So there's some kind of cut off point that determines one is acceptable or not? Which is what? Under 30 acres and you get a free pass? Otherwise you're a big bad wolf?

Maybe it's on a sliding scale, depending on the physical size of the country or population?

If you do it you're guilty. But big brother, the US decides that Vietnam can do it but China can't. That's the hypocrisy. Just like US allows itself and Japan to draw up ADIZs but when China did the same a few years ago, they whine and cry like a baby. THIS is precisely the kind of hypocrisy that makes folks like me and some others here seem to be siding with China, when it fact, we are just pointing out how phony the US, and sometimes Japan can be in their judgment. Do as I say, not as I do.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I agree that the only real long term solution is the elimination of the CCP one-party totalitarian dictatorship.

Ain't gonna happen. You need to learn that.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

it seems the ccp party is losing grip on the hardline militarist and nationalists. as you can see many contradictory behaviors from this country

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Gaijindesu

So there's some kind of cut off point that determines one is acceptable or not?

Maybe it's on a sliding scale, depending on the physical size of the country or population?

The best thing for you to do would probably be to read the award for yourself (which Yoshitsune seems to have done). The Tribunal considered all of the relevant factors and clearly explains how they came to their findings based on UNCLOS and the sum of historical international law that UNCLOS was meant to codify. With regards to size:

[Para. 538] The Tribunal considers that the travaux make clear that—although size may correlate to the availability of water, food, living space, and resources for an economic life—size cannot be dispositive of a feature’s status as a fully entitled island or rock and is not, on its own, a relevant factor.

You can download the award in the link below. The part you are interested in starts at paragraph 473 on page 226.

https://pca-cpa.org/en/news/pca-press-release-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-the-republic-of-the-philippines-v-the-peoples-republic-of-china/

About ADIZs, it's probably worth pointing out that they are not governed by international law or any treaty. Anyone can set up an ADIZ anywhere. Whether airlines and pilots comply is entirely up to them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Yoshitsune

Vietnam and Philippines just put on a brave face and Stay Silent hoping the Insult to them, calling their islands as rocks does not matter. If they got guts, they should voice their displeasure, especially the residents in Thitu island. They Forfeited their 200 NM EEZ just because they obediently let PCA take away their rights to 200 NM EEZ, Like those in Taiping Island. Factually it is ICJ who have the authority to decide if they are rocks or islands, Not PCA. ICJ determine Status of land, sovereignty. PCA is subordinate to ICJ.

By keeping quiet, PH and VN give Silent Consent validating PCA rock ruling. The implication is Chinese ships, fishermen can sail Up To 500 Meters of these 'rocks' and fish, do Freedom of Navigation. I am sure PH, VN residents will be very very upset and complain the Chinese are coming in to take away all their fishes. They better start complaining PCA ruling or they will soon be out of fishes to feed them!

Further, notice the PCA judges all reside in European countries where there are four seasons. This means about half a year, comparable islands there do not have living things, atmospheric conditions to help sustain human living. This is the yardstick they use to determine islands in the SCS as rocks.

Compare with the islands in the Tropical Climate in the South China Sea, the islands there are Teeming With Living Things All Year Round. Coconut trees can grow there by the hundreds to provide extra water if needed. Seaweed, aquaculture can easily grow there. So it is very very easy for even one acre worth of island there to be Habitable by humans. These judges obviously have never set foot in a tropical paradise where living things grow easily and water is Plentiful, either below ground or available from rainstorm and Humid air filtration easily powered by cheap solar panels.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I agree that the only real long term solution is the elimination of the CCP one-party totalitarian dictatorship.

With two parties, it's more likely they'll try to out-hawk each other, since the Chinese public is at least as hawkish as the government.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm not a fan of ANY "war games" or military exercises but it's quite funny and hypocritical to single out China for doing exactly what the U.S. does all over the world.

It's a fact that the U.S. practices "war games" and military exercises more than any country, and it's also a fact that they close off ALL of these areas while doing so.

Someone please tell me how this is any different? As far as I can see, the only difference is that the U.S. USUALLY does this practice as a joint effort rather than going solo.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

China is clearly following America's move in the 1986 USA VS Nicaragua case.

The Yank's refused to respect and follow the ICJ's verdict when the court ruled in favor of Nicaragua.

Beijing should thank Washington !

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Fre Okin "What is needed is Indisputable Evidence she is the only party with flawed claims. What about others? It is Offensive to me to see China only get bad press while others are given a free pass." This is a bit hard to follow. How and why would anyone show this? If you are saying that someone is making the claim that only China has faults then that would be an obvious straw man fallacy. I do see this as a feature of nationalism in Japan (and most everywhere) also: the victim mentality. This doesn't mean that China is never unfairly criticized. The fact that you are so personally offended by a fairly well-reasoned decision, agree with it or not, makes me think that nationalism could be humanity's undoing.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

YoshitsuneJUL. 19, 2016 - 03:10AM JSTAccording to this ruling, Thitu island is indeed a rock under UNCLOS. It doesn't matter if the people there call it rock or island.

How do you define "island"? Okinotori is nothing but a piece of rocks. If Japan can define this piece of rocks as a boundary for EEZ, China and all other countries can do the same to thousands of islands in South China Seas. You cannot see from the air. The latest photo of Okininotori that is completely submerged atoll that surrounds the area, the man-made buildings propped up on stilts, and circular man-made structures ringed with rocks and encased in concrete. The actual islands which are above sea level at high tide are to be found within these concrete structures which protect them. And Japan calls this islands?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@sfjp300 It seems to me that your argument is self-negating. If A can do X, then anyone can do anything.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

shallotsJUL. 19, 2016 - 02:59PM JST It seems to me that your argument is self-negating. If A can do X, then anyone can do anything.

How do you define fairness to the law?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@gaijindesu

Which is what? Under 30 acres and you get a free pass? Otherwise you're a big bad wolf?

It isn't only about size. Yes, Vietnam has done some reclamation work to increase the size of a few features it controls, but has not made any attempted changes to the UNCLOS statuses of those features (submerged vs rock vs island) i.e. if it already had 12-mile territorial waters and no EEZ, it continues to have 12-mile territorial waters and no EEZ. What China is doing is different, and not just as a matter of scale - China has transformed submerged features with no 12-mile territorial waters under UNCLOS into islands large enough for runways, and has then started trying to claim 12-mile territorial waters for which they do not qualify under UNCLOS (as UNCLOS makes the classification based on a feature's natural state before any reclamation work). The US is therefore right to point out that China can not claim 12-mile limits around features that didn't naturally qualify for them. This isn't a double standard, because Vietnam isn't doing that.

But big brother, the US decides that Vietnam can do it but China can't. That's the hypocrisy.

The US hasn't decided that or said that. Try to find me one single quote in which the US said that Vietnam is allowed to reclaim land but China isn't. Also, are you aware that when the US conducts freedom of navigation exercises in the SCS it doesn't limit those exercises only to waters around Chinese features? It does exactly the same thing to Vietnam and Philippines - so, perhaps instead of asking why the US singles out China, you should be considering the question of why China kicks up such a fuss about US FNEs yet VN and RP do not.

Just like US allows itself and Japan to draw up ADIZs but when China did the same a few years ago, they whine and cry like a baby.

Unlike EEZs, there is no standard by which ADIZs are determined. Any country can draw up an ADIZ; the complaints about China's ECS ADIZ were not that it made one, but that it made one which encompassed the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands - a very provocative move. Have the US and Japan made a similar move of plonking an ADIZ over disputed territory which they do not control? No, they have not. If they did, you might have grounds to call them hypocrites. But they haven't. And if, for example, Japan stuck an ADIZ over Kunashiri and Eterofu, Russia would react furiously; would that be Russia whining and crying like a baby? Or can you see that placing an ADIZ over disputed territory controlled by another state is an absurdly provocative thing to do?

THIS is precisely the kind of hypocrisy that makes folks like me and some others here seem to be siding with China, when it fact, we are just pointing out how phony the US, and sometimes Japan can be in their judgment.

Exactly the effect that China hopes to achieve by kicking up such a fuss.

@fre

They Forfeited their 200 NM EEZ just because they obediently let PCA take away their rights to 200 NM EEZ, Like those in Taiping Island.

No they didn't. They never had one.

The implication is Chinese ships, fishermen can sail Up To 500 Meters of these 'rocks' and fish, do Freedom of Navigation

Incorrect. Territorial waters for rocks are 12 nautical miles, so Chinese ships can not fish at 500m. Yes, they can do freedom of navigation and pass within the 12-mile limit, but they can't fish there.

Further, notice the PCA judges all reside in European countries where there are four seasons. This means about half a year, comparable islands there do not have living things, atmospheric conditions to help sustain human living. This is the yardstick they use to determine islands in the SCS as rocks.

This is hilarious. That is not the yardstick they used, what on earth are you talking about?! The fact a person works in Europe does not mean that they are incapable of understanding tropical climates. Your argument is irrelevant to the ruling on the 9-dash line and irrelevant to the ruling that no feature in the Spratlys has an EEZ.

@sfjp

How do you define "island"?

I don't. UNCLOS does.

Okinotori is nothing but a piece of rocks.

I agree with you about Okinotorishima. It blatantly doesn't qualify for an EEZ.

If Japan can define this piece of rocks as a boundary for EEZ, China and all other countries can do the same to thousands of islands in South China Seas

Japan can't do that. Japan's Okinotorishima claim doesn't justify claims in the Spratlys; it's the other way around - given the ruling on the Spratlys, it is clear that if anyone challenges Japan's EEZ claim for Okinotorishima, the ruling would be no EEZ.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Yoshitsune Seems like you got this covered. Will all this really help China? Powerful countries can push their way around a bit. But Asian societies, like some societies in other areas of the world, have long memories (perhaps too much so). I doubt the Chinese leadership really cares if any of their arguments have merit. Perhaps they see themselves, as other powers have, as entitled (without having to follow rules). But these are their neighbors. Humans already react strongly to perceived lack of fairness. That's perhaps in our DNA. I think some of this stuff benefits the U.S. military institution, which doesn't necessarily trickle down to advantages for working people anywhere. When I visit countries around Asia, I notice much antipathy towards China. That's sad, since regular folk, whether Chinese or not, want to get, and probably deserve, the benefit of the doubt. The Chinese-government apologists here complain about how China is portrayed in Western media. Cry me a river. Let's see how the Chinese leadership treats Hong Kong, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, Tibet, etc. China has ample opportunity to show some ability to compromise, reform, etc.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

NessieJul. 19, 2016 - 07:06AM JST "I agree that the only real long term solution is the elimination of the CCP one-party totalitarian dictatorship." With two parties, it's more likely they'll try to out-hawk each other, since the Chinese public is at least as hawkish as the >government.

Now why would you say that? http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-south-china-sea-kfc-20160718-snap-story.html

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica Oh the humanity! hmm...I wonder if the stupid of the world make the loudest voice. Maybe not. Chauncey didn't say much and people though he was a genius too (Being There anybody?). As I said before, nationalism is stupid squared and put on parade. Humanity is a destructive lot. We are the only ones who would miss it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@shallots

Seems like you got this covered

Thanks... though I'm merely stating the facts!

I doubt the Chinese leadership really cares if any of their arguments have merit. Perhaps they see themselves, as other powers have, as entitled (without having to follow rules)

Indeed, they do not care if their arguments have merit. The thinking is simply, as is so often the case in international relations, "we are right, you are wrong".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Yoshitsune The experts have spoken. "Robert Beckman and Clive H. Schofield suggest that because they all have vegetation, and in some cases roads and structures have been built on them, the following features are islands under UNCLOS: Taiping Island, Thitu Island, West York Island, Northeast Cay, Southwest Cay, Spratly Island, Namyit Island, Nansha(n) Island, Sand Cay, Loaita Island, Sin Cowe Island, and Amboyna Cay. In January 2010, the U.S. government released a South China Sea Map and Gazetteer, in which Taiping Island, along with other smaller features, are labelled as “islands.” More recently, BBC correspondent Bill Hayton wrote in his book that Taiping Island is “clearly able to support at least minimal human habitation.” https://amti.csis.org/taiping-island-an-island-or-a-rock-under-unclos/

Also be reminded that PCA judges are basically paid for by PH. They are nothing more than 'expert witness' and there is a conflict of interest, siding with PH. PCA is not a UN entity. PH deliberately go this route to confuse the public as if it is a UN body giving weight to the verdict. Now the world can see this PCA is a farce, bought and paid by PH to further her political agenda.

"The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court, but rather an organiser of arbitral tribunals to resolve conflicts between member states, international organizations, or private parties.[1][2] It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice which is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations, while the PCA is not a UN agency.[3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration

@shallots I have consistently stated that PH should have Zero islands in the Spratlys. If she deserve any, US would have given it to her at independence in 4th July 1946 but PH nationalists find it clever to deceive her own citizens by changing the independence date to Declaration of Independence Philippine Declaration of Independence from Spain on June 12, 1898, claiming the Spratlys in the process. This is one sick country trying to deceive the world her actual border. PH use a chinnoy Tomas Cloma to steal Thitu island and others, losing Taiping Island to Taiwan ROC later on. Further proof PH should not have the Spratlys is MDT 1951 does not cover the Spratlys.

http://www.colonia.asia/history%20-%20the%20history%20of%20the%20kingdom%20of%20colonia%20st%20john.htm

Vietnam decimated the Chams people who could help her claim perhaps half of the Spratlys but there are less than 200,000 of them left in Vietnam, living in the hills and VN won't use them as this will put her tainted history in the spotlight. Many fled to Hainan China. Vietnamese Kinh majority people are not seafaring. They are hilly northern inland people, never more than river people, never navigate by the stars to the Spratlys, so they have much less claim to the Spratlys. Their border ends in 200 NM EEZ Vietnam coastline given their lack of seafaring skill. But as a courtesy, China could give them some islands in the Spratlys given their Chams connection.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Philippines vs China is just like Nicaragua vs USA circa 1986.

Beijing is just following Washington's example by also refusing to accept the verdict of the PCA in favor of Nicaragua.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The experts have spoken

Your experts are two academics who made a suggestion (a long time ago). They have no competence to make a ruling under UNCLOS, and you'll find that the PCA ruling counts a hell of a lot more than the writings of a couple of academics i.e. only the ruling counts.

More recently, BBC correspondent Bill Hayton wrote in his book that Taiping Island is “clearly able to support at least minimal human habitation.”

Again, BBC correspondents don't overrule the PCA.

Also be reminded that PCA judges are basically paid for by PH.

Absolute nonsense. Any evidence?

They are nothing more than 'expert witness'

Again, nonsense. They are judges with the competence to make a ruling under UNCLOS.

As for your two paragraphs about the Filippino and Vietnamese claims... what's the relevance to the ruling? The ruling didn't award the Spratlys to Vietnam or Philippines or anyone else; it didn't rule on sovereignty.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

PCA is not a UN body. PH choose PCA to defraud the public as if it carry UN legitimacy. PH pay PCA to get the lawsuit going. You expect them to judge fairly?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

PH pay PCA to get the lawsuit going

Repeating the claim doesn't make it true. What is your evidence for this utterly preposterous claim?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Military exercises on international waters so uncommon

Could do it on their own waters

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is your evidence for this utterly preposterous claim?

There isn't any. This is just something the Chinese are making up to try to take the edge off the ruling.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

ting_m_1999

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/philippines-vs-china-the-south-china-sea-beijing-17014

"PCA is not a UN agency. It is just an international agency set up to resolve disputes. Its rulings are not considered international laws but are narrowly applicable to the parties involved. In this Philippine case, the PCA was set up at the request of Philippine and the expense (30 milliom) was paid by Philippine. The judges were not screened for impartialiity but were appointed. This indicates a flaw in the legal integrity of the court and its deliberations. The PCA rulings violates the UNLCOS mandate of power, illegally distorts facts, violates legal procedures, illegally disregards historical facts that are the foundations of all disputes. For all these, China solemnly and dismissively declared the PCA rulings void and null and considered the rulings as toilet paper. There are more than 66 nations supporting China, a lot more than those that support USA. EU, African Union, ASEAN, Arab League and ASEM don't make announcement supporting the PCA rulings as the basis for settlement. This is a humiliating blow to the self-proclaimed world leader USA and crushes the attempt of USA/Philippine to use the PCA rulings to force China to accept their demand. The laws of the seas is UNCLOS, not FONOP, The America unilateral FONOP has not been approved by UN or any international institutions and is, therefore, illegal. For USA to unilaterally enforce it indicates America is a dictatorial tyrant."

I would add that PCA judges are Hired Hands, Employees and PH is the Employer. PH Feed PH judges. Where do they get Paid for their work? So this is a Biased Verdict, one written up by 'expert witness' who work for their master PH.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@Strangerland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration

Actually one should be grateful to anybody who go digging for truth. You may not agree with the comment especially with regard to how much money is paid to Give Life to the PCA judges. They are just On Standby, a structure set up long time ago.

In a less politicized atmosphere, they work fine but not this PH lawsuit against China. Why do you think she choose PCA and not a Real UN body? It is clear this is a sneaky way to deceive the public, trying to pass PCA verdict as UN verdict. The public now can see this is a fraud PH try to pull on the general public.

When somebody Fund an activity, the members ie the judges doing the deliberation is already 'bought' by PH, their unofficial employer who pay their salary. Without this PH lawsuit they do not have this extra economic and publicity career building benefits. There is simply a conflict of interest as China don't fund their activities. China Rightfully choose not to participate (about six years of notice to UNCLOS she won't allow for UN related arbitration and PH sneak in this one without any complaint way back?) and don't fund this preordained verdict against her.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

I would add that PCA judges are Hired Hands, Employees and PH is the Employer. PH Feed PH judges

The fact that the Philippines has had to cover the costs of the case does not equate to the judges being bribed or compromised, as you are attempting to insinuate. Do you have evidence of bribery? Or is your 'evidence' merely the fact that the Philippines had to cover the costs because China refused to pay its share?

There are more than 66 nations supporting China

Only according to China. In most cases all they said was that they support peaceful resolution to the dispute and did not specifically say that they support China's claims. China has been making bogus claims that this equates to support for them and opposition to the arbitration process, but making up stories about countries supporting China, or misrepresenting their statements as constituting support, makes no difference whatsoever to the ruling that a) no Spratlys features have EEZs and b) China has no historical right to own the entire SCS.

Only 8 countries stated support for China in being opposed to arbitration:

"India has not issued any statement choosing a side, which has been its position right from the beginning.”

http://qz.com/731553/chinas-state-media-is-wrong-to-claim-india-supports-beijing-in-the-south-china-sea/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/beijings-claims-of-south-china-sea-support-may-not-hold-water-1466138014

"Fiji's government insists it has no position on the South China Sea dispute, after China's foreign ministry suggested otherwise. A statement was issued after a meeting between the two countries' Foreign ministers, and Fiji's government was quick to pour cold water on the assertion."

http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/301556/fiji-quick-to-deny-supposed-south-china-sea-support

a lot more than those that support USA

USA? Obviously no one supported the US in this matter, because the US wasn't involved in this matter.

This is a humiliating blow to the self-proclaimed world leader USA

Nothing to do with the US.

crushes the attempt of USA/Philippine to use the PCA rulings to force China to accept their demand

What 'demand'? There was no demand made.

The laws of the seas is UNCLOS

Indeed. So China should follow it; under UNCLOS, the 9-dash line is completely devoid of meaning or legitimacy, and the Spratlys do not have EEZs. Pretty simple.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

PH should come clean and explain why she don't appeal to the highest international body, the ICJ to settle the South China Sea dispute. I will be perfectly happy to see a similar verdict against China if it is done under the ICJ jurisdiction. The beauty of ICJ is there is absolutely no chance for China to blame the verdict based on politicking. Further ICJ will embarrass PH and VN etc for their illegal occupation in the Spratlys.

It is clear PCA verdict is tainted. The whole ecosystem is funded by PH except for the base salary of the judges. The rest, overtime, prestige are all ill gotten benefits.

Again, I would like to stress, calling Taiping island a rock Shocked experts the world over. I seriously suspect PCA judges at the behest of PH And US perhaps to deliberately rule Taiping as a rock. The reason is this will deny All the VN and PH occupations of the Islands they currently occupy.

If for example China and Taiwan team up (China to sponsor Taiwan ICJ membership) and go to ICJ and get the 'rocks' to be ruled as islands, And they belong to both China and Taiwan, Then, China/Taiwan will be entitled to an Expansive 200 NM EEZ around Each of the Nine Dotted Clusters of Islands.

See how serious the implication is? It means Suddenly China have a much bigger EEZ in the South China Sea and this will give China More Control over the South China Sea, so there is this little scheme at work to try to prevent an Island classification of All the Nine Clusters down the road.

I would advise China to work hard to fight for Island classification via ICJ to finally put this issue to rest. Taiwan should put politics aside and join with China to recover the stolen territories from PH and VN in particular. Why give away all the riches of the sea to PH and VN?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I would advise China to work hard to fight for Island classification via ICJ to finally put this issue to rest. Taiwan should put politics aside and join with China to recover the stolen territories from PH and VN in particular.

Please do and let us know how it goes, given China wouldn`t even recognize there is a dispute

Why give away all the riches of the sea to PH and VN?

Why does China claim ALL the riches of the seas belongs to her because of a ridiculous imaginary line and denying Filipino and Vietnamese fishermen access to their traditional fishing grounds?

No matter how you discredit the PCA, the fact is China built fake islands during the 3 years that this case was being heard anticipating that they will be exposed of illegally claiming territories not theirs.

The PCA awarded the Philippines rights to these areas because they are within EEZ of the main island of Luzon and Palawan as defined by UNCLOS.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@dmhondz

China can hear me from my web postings. It is up to them to consider if my opinion make sense.

"The PCA awarded the Philippines rights to these areas because they are within EEZ of the main island of Luzon and Palawan as defined by UNCLOS."

Whatever islands lies within 200 NM of PH main islands, I would Tell China she is only entitled to 12 NM of fishing rights if they are rocks. If islands, they also have 200 NM co share with PH. Just because Luzon, Palawan are larger islands does not give them bigger rights than smaller islands. An island whatever size have same 200 NM EEZ privilege.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

PH should come clean and explain why she don't appeal to the highest international body, the ICJ to settle the South China Sea dispute.

She wasn't trying to settle the entire dispute; she was seeking a ruling on EEZs under UNCLOS. I would personally think it a very good idea for all parties to go to the ICJ together and ask it to rule on the sovereignty of every island and rock in the SCS.

Further ICJ will embarrass PH and VN etc for their illegal occupation in the Spratlys.

If China is so confident of that, why has China not taken its case to the ICJ?

It is clear PCA verdict is tainted.

Only in the opinion pieces of the CCP, such as the one you quoted in your previous reply.

I seriously suspect PCA judges at the behest of PH And US perhaps to deliberately rule Taiping as a rock. The reason is this will deny All the VN and PH occupations of the Islands they currently occupy.

No it wouldn't. The PCA did not rule on sovereignty, and the EEZs it has established don't lead to the automatic loss of territories held by other states within those EEZs. If you believe otherwise i.e. if you believe that "The reason is this will deny All the VN and PH occupations of the Islands they currently occupy", then by your own logic China must now abandon Mischief Reef and the other reefs it occupies within RP's EEZ.

If for example China and Taiwan team up (China to sponsor Taiwan ICJ membership) and go to ICJ and get the 'rocks' to be ruled as islands, And they belong to both China and Taiwan, Then, China/Taiwan will be entitled to an Expansive 200 NM EEZ around Each of the Nine Dotted Clusters of Islands.

While there is a reasonable case to made for Taiping to be classified as an island (which was however just lost), there is absolutely no chance that any of PRC's features in the Spratlys qualify for EEZs. Artificial islands do not generate territorial waters or EEZs - what counts is the natural state of the feature prior to the reclamation work. China holds 8 reefs in the Spratlys, and according to the ruling half of them are rocks with 12-mile territorial limits, and half of them are submerged reefs with no territorial entitlement. As for Taiping; if it had an EEZ, it would extend only as far as the midway point with the coastal EEZs of Malaysia & RP. Anyway if China wants Taiwan to take part at the ICJ, it's going to have to recognise that Taiwan is a separate country - which I doubt China is willing to do.

See how serious the implication is? It means Suddenly China have a much bigger EEZ in the South China Sea

Only in the wildest fantasies of the CCP. PRC's Spratly features - Mischief reef, Subi reef, Fiery cross reef, etc - none of them has an EEZ under UNCLOS. It's delusional to think the ICJ would rule otherwise.

I would advise China to work hard to fight for Island classification via ICJ to finally put this issue to rest.

I would advise China to completely drop the 9-dash line from its maps and vocabulary, and submit its sovereignty claims in the Spratlys to be decided by the ICJ.

Taiwan should put politics aside and join with China to recover the stolen territories from PH and VN in particular.

Taiwan has no wish to join with China for the sake of a dozen rocks.

Why give away all the riches of the sea to PH and VN?

"All the riches of the sea" are not China's to give way.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

PH have no business bringing the Nine Dash Line into PCA. She can dispute Chinese claims to islands inside her 200 NM EEZ Only. Nothing else. It is obvious the excessive memorial 4000 + 3000 pages is designed to Distract the public from her own illegal squatting of the Spratlys. The fraud I have shown takes the form of Tomas Cloma who make a manufactured res nullis which result in PH having Thitu island and other parts of the Spratlys today.

Nine Dash Line can only be disputed by a Class Action of all parties involved, not a Single Party PH. There is No legal precedent for One actor to file a complaint Outside her own interest which Ends in 200 NM EEZ.

http://www.colonia.asia/history%20-%20the%20history%20of%20the%20kingdom%20of%20colonia%20st%20john.htm "Cloma and his associates decided to send an expedition to the territory he claimed. The farewell dinner, held on the 1st of March was attended by Vice President Garcia, Senator Lorenzo Tañada and Auditor-General Manuel Agregado. The Maritime Institute’s training ship left on a 38-day scheduled trip, with Captain Filemon Cloma, Tomas’ brother, in command." Mar 1 1956

Notice PH nationalist Carlos Garcia Senator, VP, President of PH sending him off? This is all a nationalist PInoy crowd using a chinoy as front to grab the Spratlys and this Cloma fella was framed by Marcos, dictator nationalist and forced to give Thitu island back to PH in 1978 "President Ferdinand Marcos, on June 11, 1978, formally annexed the Kalayaan Islands by virtue of Presidential Decree No.1596" "Kalayaan residents have also erected an imposing bust of Tomas Cloma on the island as a tribute to Kalayaan's founder." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_and_the_Spratly_Islands

It is clear PH squat on the Spratlys. Spratlys is not part of PH when US give her independence on 4th July 1946. Her border is defined at that moment, not her imagined border based on her declaration of independence of June 12 1898 which is used to deceive Pinoys and the world. If her border include the Spratlys why don't US defend PH Spratlys as per MDT 1951? See, US can do nothing when China take Mischief Reef. It is not covered by MDT.

The designation of islands as rocks is a politically motivated decision not based on UNCLOS. There is No Legal Authority in UNCLOS that allow PCA to liberally make an Arbitrary determination of what constitute islands and what is not Even though the rocks like Taiping, Thitu islands Can sustain human life and economic activities. Who are they to make Artificial size determination to classify one as rock and others as island? Is there such a provision in UNCLOS?

Some hidden forces at play, most likely US to prevent China having 200 NM EEZ around Each cluster of the Nine Dotted/Dash Line which will Vastly Expand her South China Sea jurisdiction. Taiwan, PH, even VN pay a price for this Legal Mischief. NOW China can come in and fish right up to their 12 NM and drain all the fishes from them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The fraud I have shown

You have not shown any fraud.

Nine Dash Line can only be disputed by a Class Action of all parties involved, not a Single Party PH

Incorrect. The 9-dash line doesn't need to be disputed because it is completely meaningless in the first place; it is nothing more than a fantasy line drawn by the Kuomintang on a map in 1947. Since then China signed UNCLOS and in doing so, it tacitly acknowledged that the 9-dash line was meaningless in terms of EEZs and maritime territory. The 9-dash line doesn't have any meaning under UNCLOS, and the ruling simply confirms what was already clear. China should stop trying to base arguments on it and get on with the far more relevant task of trying to prove their sovereignty in the Spratlys and Paracels.

Your paragraphs about Marcos, Garcia et al are completely irrelevant to the matter of EEZs that has just been ruled upon.

Your paragraph about RP's borer upon in independence is completely irrelevant to matter of EEZs that has just been ruled upon.

There is No Legal Authority in UNCLOS that allow PCA to liberally make an Arbitrary determination of what constitute islands and what is not

Yes there is. That is what just happened, as you are well aware.

Who are they to make Artificial size determination to classify one as rock and others as island? Is there such a provision in UNCLOS?

Yes, there is. UNCLOS clearly defines what is necessary for features to qualify for 12-mile territorial waters. Four of China's reefs do qualify, and four do not. There's no interpretation involved; the ruling merely confirmed what was already clearly defined by the UNCLOS treaty

Even though the rocks like Taiping, Thitu islands Can sustain human life and economic activities.

The treaty doesn't say merely "economic activities", it says "an economic life of their own".

Taiwan, PH, even VN pay a price for this Legal Mischief. NOW China can come in and fish right up to their 12 NM and drain all the fishes from them

No it can't. Or rather, it can do so only in the parts of the Spratlys outside the coastal EEZs of Malaysia and the Philippines. To fish within those EEZs would be a violation of international law and of the UNCLOS treaty to which PRC is a signatory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

PH fraudulent behavior hiding her own criminality, stealing the Spratlys, extra judicial law enforcement of Chinese nationals in EEZ area are evidence of fraud she try to deceive the public as if she have full sovereignty. Filing the memorial lawsuit against China is her attempt to divert attention from her crimes. The standard for fraud here is like the civil case in OJ Simpson lawsuit, a preponderance of evidence against PH which I have written in previous comments and elsewhere.

PH have no legal standing to file the Nine Dash Line case. Your opinion that it is meaningless don't count. You show no legal precedent why one single country can bring this kind of case to a court when other affected parties are not a party to it.

"Yes there is. That is what just happened, as you are well aware."

Where is the legal authority to say one is a rock and the other is an island when both are capable of an economic life of their own? Taiping island, Thitu island can easily provide water, vegetation, aquaculture etc to sustain humans all on their own.

Is there a rule that say there must be a minimum of 50 people for example to determine economic life viability all on its own and lesser population don't count as islands? Who are these PCA judges to make up arbitrary rules as they go along? This fraudulent interpretation of UNCLOS is a stake in the heart of the PCA, forever discrediting their work, thus the Nine Dash Line verdict should also be discredited as well!

Finally the Spratlys does not totally reside outside of 200 NM EEZ. When PH was given independence in 4th July 1946, there is no such thing as 200 NM EEZ. Original maritime law only give 12 NM territorial sea, thus something like Mischief Reef is not part of PH. It is part of Spratlys and it never belong to PH per MDT 1951 non inclusion of Mischief Reef to be defended by US.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

PH fraudulent behavior hiding her own criminality, stealing the Spratlys, extra judicial law enforcement of Chinese nationals in EEZ area are evidence of fraud she try to deceive the public as if she have full sovereignty. Filing the memorial lawsuit against China is her attempt to divert attention from her crimes. The standard for fraud here is like the civil case in OJ Simpson lawsuit, a preponderance of evidence against PH which I have written in previous comments and elsewhere.

OJ Simpson? Haha. This entire paragraph is irrelevant to the matter of EEZs and the 9-dash line.

PH have no legal standing to file the Nine Dash Line case. Your opinion that it is meaningless don't count.

It isn't my opinion. It's the ruling of the court and it's the result of UNCLOS. The 9-dash line has no legal basis or meaning. It's just a fantasy line. China may or may not have sovereignty over this or that rock or island in the SCS, but that has nothing to do with the 9-dash line.

Where is the legal authority to say one is a rock and the other is an island when both are capable of an economic life of their own?

In the UNCLOS treaty which China signed.

This fraudulent interpretation of UNCLOS is a stake in the heart of the PCA, forever discrediting their work

Only according to the Chinese Comunist Party.

Finally the Spratlys does not totally reside outside of 200 NM EEZ.

Indeed. Some of the Spratlys lie within Philippine's EEZ, some are in Malaysia's EEZ, and the rest are not in any EEZ at all.

When PH was given independence in 4th July 1946, there is no such thing as 200 NM EEZ.

Irrelevant.

Original maritime law only give 12 NM territorial sea, thus something like Mischief Reef is not part of PH. It is part of Spratlys and it never belong to PH per MDT 1951 non inclusion of Mischief Reef to be defended by US.

Mischief reef lies within the EEZ of the Philippines according to the rules of UNCLOS and as confirmed by this ruling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

So you use PCA conclusions to justify your position? Your argument is dishonest as you still have not give the Particular Clause in UNCLOS that justify island as rock interpretation with regard to Taiping Island.

I will encourage China to give 'courtesy' fishing rights to Filippinos around Mischief Reef, Scarborough Shoal/Huangyan island. Other than that, China have 200 NM EEZ around them, overlapping PH EEZ. There is no prove they are not island status at 1982 when China signed on to UNCLOS. so it's 200 NM EEZ unless proven otherwise it will be 12 NM. Erosion, man made destruction, rising sea level change their state from island to reef/shoals as we see today.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Your argument is dishonest as you still have not give the Particular Clause in UNCLOS that justify island as rock interpretation with regard to Taiping Island.

Yes I have. I've stated it several times. That the clause in question is not entirely clear, I acknowledge; in fact I told you near the start of our conversation that I was also a little surprised about the judgement on Taiping (but not about anything else).

I will encourage China to give 'courtesy' fishing rights to Filippinos around Mischief Reef, Scarborough Shoal/Huangyan island. Other than that, China have 200 NM EEZ around them, overlapping PH EEZ

Absolute nonsense. Regardless of who it belongs to (and that is not yet settled), Mischief reef does not have an EEZ. This is because in its natural state it was a reef which only protruded above water some of the time. UNCLOS states very clearly that such a feature has no EEZ and no 12-mile limits. You are saying what you want it to be; I am saying what UNCLOS says. And whether you like it or not, China signed UNCLOS. Mischief reef is a reef with no EEZ or territorial waters which lies within the Philippine's EEZ.

Also it makes no sense to talk about 'overlapping' EEZs. There is no such thing. Again, this is clearly dealt with in UNCLOS.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

"Yes I have. I've stated it several times. That the clause in question is not entirely clear..."

Spit It Out. Make a Verbatim copy here so readers can see the dishonest liberal interpretation of rocks instead of islands. People will be able to see a dishonest PCA panel of judges making up stories to fit the political agendas of some countries, namely US and PH in particular. This serious doubt about their impartiality set the stage for shredding their Nine Dash Line ruling as well.

So it goes back to square one: PCA, a Hired Hand, paid by PH making up stories, why should anybody take their verdict seriously? Why don't they ask PH to finance their Discovery Process by making a field trip to Taiping Island and learn first hand rock vs island determination? PH no budget to pay for this necessary part of their deliberation to form an Informed Opinion?

Using The Hague same building as the prestigious ICJ does not confer to them the same degree of authenticity and respect now that I exposed their hidden political agenda against China.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Article121

Regime of islands

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

China's rocks are not islands due to point 1, which is clearly defined and not a matter of interpretation. Mischief reef and a few others don't even meet the criteria to be 'rocks'.

Taiping island (along with all the features held by Vietnam & others) have been ruled as rocks due to point 3. As I have already acknowledged, this does lack clarity and therefore is open to interpretation. That the judges' interpretation doesn't match your own does not render it biased or undermine the entire ruling.

And you can hardly complain that it is biased when it has made the same ruling about RP-held Thitu island, Malaysia-held Swallow reef, Vietnam-held Truong sa, and ROC-held Taiping, and in fact every single other feature in the Spratlys which is above water at high tide. So given that that part of the ruling went against every single claimant in the Spratlys dispute, it's a little absurd for you to try crying bias.

Vietnam and RP each hold half a dozen 'islands' which have been ruled as rocks along with Taiping. Thitu island is almost as large as Taiping, and both have been ruled as rocks. So where is this pro-Philippines bias you're claiming? It appears to be completely absent.

This serious doubt about their impartiality set the stage for shredding their Nine Dash Line ruling as well.

Hogwash. China signed UNCLOS, a treaty which clearly defines the system for demarcating maritime boundaries, defines what an EEZ is, and defines how an EEZ is measured. China signed this treaty, and so the EEZs on the SCS are determined under UNCLOS. The 9-dash line is irrelevant under UNCLOS; this remains the case regardless of the island/rock rulings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

I appreciate you do your homework.

"Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf."

SO? PCA PreOrdain Taiping Island to be a rock. Ditto all the PH and VN islands that are populated with people And Can sustain human habitation and economic life All On Their Own, calling them Rocks, Smacking In The Face Of Reality. Just who are these judges? What are their credentials to prove the islands are not life sustainable all on their own when evidence is they are?

Making island as rock verdict in the face of overwhelming expert opinion to the contrary completely destroy PCA institution. Thus even Nine Dash Line verdict cannot be taken seriously. If you doubt island as rock which I am sure you feel as well, you should Logically also doubt Nine Dash Line ruling. Get another panel to rule and that should be ICJ!

It is not just my layman's opinion Taiping island is indeed an island. I quoted earlier expert opinions. These people are in disbelief PCA rule it as a rock. Something Is Afoot Here and I suspect a much bigger scheme is at play here: What Lies Beneath.

As I said all along, people who think only about fishes, maritime resources are misled, too simplistic. The countries in the South China Sea neighborhood, especially Philippines and Vietnam are Tools of US hegemony. There are schemers in Washington DC who use every trick in the book and diplomatic coercion to deny China Control of vast swath of the South China Sea. Along the way it become convenient to classify islands as rocks so as I noted earlier if China via ICJ manage to validate her Nine Dash/Dotted Lines, she will have 200 NM EEZ on Each of the Nine Clusters.This will Vastly improve her Control of the South China Sea, complicating US Freedom Of Navigation. Chinese military will be able to put her Mobile Floating Platform, other fixtures Far Out, beyond the 12 NM to Control the South China Sea. Now I Blow US Scheme Out Of The Water for all to see and PH and VN are Collateral Damage in this island as rock mind warping classification.

In a nutshell, island as rock classification is part of US scheme to counter China's A2AD Anti Access Area Denial strategy to drive US out of the South China Sea and PCA is US Lawfare tool against China!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

PCA PreOrdain Taiping Island to be a rock

Pre-ordain? Not really; they spent three years considering the evidence.

Making island as rock verdict in the face of overwhelming expert opinion to the contrary completely destroy PCA institution.

What "overwhelming expert opinion" are you referring to? Do you really think that they made their decision without considering any expert opinion or evidence?

Thus even Nine Dash Line verdict cannot be taken seriously. If you doubt island as rock which I am sure you feel as well, you should Logically also doubt Nine Dash Line ruling.

Sorry but that is not logical at all. The 9-dash line and the classification of rocks/islands in the Spratlys are two separate and independent matters which do not affect one another.

Get another panel to rule and that should be ICJ!

As I already said, I think it would be a good idea for the ICJ to be asked to rule on the sovereignty of each and every rock and reef in the Spratlys. It is notable that China is completely unwilling to go down this route - perhaps they're not very confident in their own sovereignty claims.

It is not just my layman's opinion Taiping island is indeed an island. I quoted earlier expert opinions.

You didn't really; you merely quoted from an academic paper written by two academics in which they made some suggestions for how to possibly deal with the Spratlys dispute, in which they talked about hypothetical EEZs that Taiping might hypothetically generate if it was hypothetically an island under UNCLOS. If you think that's conclusive proof of your opinion, that's a pretty good example of confirmation bias. I did read the paper you quoted from; thank you, it was very interesting, but it doesn't constitute proof that Taiping is an island under UNCLOS.

Something Is Afoot Here and I suspect a much bigger scheme is at play here: What Lies Beneath.

Sorry, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.

if China via ICJ manage to validate her Nine Dash/Dotted Lines, she will have 200 NM EEZ on Each of the Nine Clusters.

No, she would not. Even if China had undisputed sovereignty (and she doesn't, so that's a very big if) over the Spratlys she would still not have an EEZ there because the Spratlys are all rocks or reefs under UNCLOS. And to do what you're saying, China would have to be willing to go to the ICJ in the first place - which China does not appear to be willing to do. Again, you have to ask why not?

Now I Blow US Scheme Out Of The Water for all to see and PH and VN are Collateral Damage in this island as rock mind warping classification. In a nutshell, island as rock classification is part of US scheme to counter China's A2AD Anti Access Area Denial strategy to drive US out of the South China Sea and PCA is US Lawfare tool against China!

Given that China doesn't control one single feature in the Spratlys which could possibly be classified as an island under any interpretation of UNCLOS, I don't buy your theory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

We'll see what else will unfold in the legal warfare. China, Taiwan is not done yet and ICJ is the next venue if China and Taiwan can work together and China sponsor Taiwan ICJ inclusion.

As for rock vs island argument, it is clear PCA judges defraud the public with false argument. I said before, there is no UNCLOS baseline that say there is a certain number of people needed as a criteria to determine rock or island status.

For argument sake, if say only three people stay on Taiping island, Thitu island or some other islands occupied by Vietnam, they will put into sharper focus these land masses are indeed islands, capable of sustaining them all on their own economically. They can simply set up a base for aquaculture and sell their stuff elsewhere. They can generate economic activity all on their own. Grow hundreds of coconut trees providing extra water. They don't need to manufacture the water supply with artificial desalination system. Just basic natural primitive methods will do.

As I said before, these judges from Europe don't have the hot humid rainy climate in the South China Sea where water is plentiful all year round. In their mind, they think only of Their Own Environment and conclude it is not possible to have human habitation all year round due to adverse weather condition and dry climate where they are. So they Simply Ignore what is possible. In a nutshell, these judges are Incompetent, Unimaginative and Politically Motivated to go against China and Taiwan like PH and VN are Collateral Damage per the conspiracy theory you think I am trying to cook up.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As for rock vs island argument, it is clear PCA judges defraud the public with false argument.

That is not clear at all.

I said before, there is no UNCLOS baseline that say there is a certain number of people needed as a criteria to determine rock or island status.

Nobody has said that there is.

For argument sake, if say only three people stay on Taiping island

It's a pointless argument to make. As you said yourself, it isn't about the number of people.

As I said before, these judges from Europe don't have the hot humid rainy climate in the South China Sea where water is plentiful all year round.

And I said before, that is a nonsense argument. I am also from Europe. Do you imagine that I don't understand what a tropical climate is like? Ridiculous argument based on no evidence or logic.

In their mind, they think only of Their Own Environment and conclude it is not possible to have human habitation all year round due to adverse weather condition and dry climate where they are

You have absolutely no evidence or knowledge about what these judges know about the tropics. Again, this argument is just too daft to even enter into. I'm interested in facts and logic, not silly conjecture about the judges being clueless Europeans. And I'm afraid that after dozens of posts you haven't given me any logical or fact-based reason for why the ruling is invalid, or any evidence of your US-led conspiracy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

Here, a picture tell a thousand words. Look at the vast number of coconut trees, easily providing extra water. Real Asians are no fools. PCA judges can live in la la land, making flawed decisions in their air conditioned cubicles. Factually to prove Taiping island is an island, even smaller ones, the Only requirement is One Inhabitant, Lowest Denominator to prove the viability. I was being generous with a three person illustration.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/995583.shtml http://www.globaltimes.cn/Portals/0/attachment/2016/2016-07-21/96635445-af14-4b44-b265-069d009599ec.jpeg

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Real Asians are no fools

What on earth is that even supposed to mean?

Factually to prove Taiping island is an island, even smaller ones, the Only requirement is One Inhabitant, Lowest Denominator to prove the viability.

Sorry, but that isn't what UNCLOS says the requirements are; it's just what you say the requirements are. I'm afraid that it is UNCLOS that counts. Again, you are ignoring what UNCLOS actually says about having to sustain habitation and have an economic life of its own. That is the requirement; nothing about how many people, nothing about how many coconut trees, and certainly nothing to do with "real Asians". The explanation given for the ruling is that Taiping (along with every other feature in the Spratlys) is unable to sustain a human community without external aid; it is a fact that Taiping gets regular visits from ROC's C130s and monthly visits from a resupply ship, and that fact is apparently the reason it doesn't qualify for an EEZ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is clear PH is an anomaly. Real Asians don't fall into American trap that easily. PH with colonial history naturally look up to her Uncle Sam to the point of being hypnotized and duped.

While UNCLOS don't have numerical criteria to separate island from rocks, it is clear the PCA judges Discriminate against Taiwan and All other countries with island features that are capable of habitation and support economic activities. It is like punishing people who have ingenuity. How sad! I illustrate with One or even three inhabitants to establish a Self Sustaining environment Without needing external food, water replenishment. You are Diverting Attention from the Baseline of One inhabitant Which Is Good Enough to establish Taiping Island and others to be Actual Island, Not rocks.

In other words, PCA judges try to pull a Massive Fraud over the general public by pointing to Irrelevant details of external water, food when the island itself can Easily support One person permanently. The island have Inherent Capability to support Continuous Habitation All On It's Own and this qualify Taiping Island as an island, not rock. Ditto Thitu and other VN islands of say at least an acre in size.

I strongly encourage a simulation of one acre island somewhere in the tropics, not just South China Sea to embarrass the PCA judges that just this small amount of land can support island status and thus 200 NM EEZ to prove Taiping Island and others are islands without any further confusion.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It is clear PH is an anomaly. Real Asians don't fall into American trap that easily

You are descending into racist arguments. I thought you were just here to play Devil's Advocate? What on earth is a "real Asian"?

it is clear the PCA judges Discriminate against Taiwan and All other countries with island features

Your earlier argument was that the judges were being biased, and that this bias undermined the entire ruling. However you now acknowledge that the ruling was even against all the claimants, completely undermining your original argument. If you don't agree with the interpretation of what makes a feature qualify for an EEZ, fair enough. But you have totally failed to demonstrate any bias, or to undermine the entire ruling.

Now that we have a clear precedent for what doesn't qualify for an EEZ, it is also clear that the UK can't claim one for Rockall and Japan can't claim one for Okinotorishima. If you want to try and convince the world that in fact Taiping, and Rockall, and Okinitorishima, and every island in the SCS, should get an EEZ, it isn't enough to show that the island can support a one-person habitation; because a one-person habitation is not a community with an economic life of its own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

Pointing out Facts equate to racism? How are people supposed to make a Factual argument if everything can easily be brushed off as racism? PH is a real anomaly in Asia as you can see they are the only major Catholic religion while all of Asia is either Buddhism, Islam or Hindus. PH stands out like a sore thumb. It is basically an East vs West clash of culture and PH is the epicenter. That is why you have more terrorism in PH than most Asian countries.

Again, where is the authority for PCA judges to decide if it is a Community or One person to justify island or rock determination? Is there any provision in UNCLOS it got to be a Community? Nope! As long as the island is human habitable with economic activities, you have no business insisting on the community criteria. Follow the letter of the law, not your own Extra demand on what the law says.

Okinotori is a fraud obviously as Japan spend billions of Yen propping up the Atoll with concrete structures, Exactly the template China follow for Mischief Reef. The onus is for Japan to prove an unmolested Okinotori can sustain human life with economic activities. Obviously it can't. From details below, one can see Okinotori Unmolested is just a few protusions above water, most likely even less than an acre, impossible to grow anything. See any coconut trees there pre Japanese construction spree?

"The Okinotori "Islands" (沖ノ鳥島 Okinotori-shima?) are considered a Japanese uninhabited atoll with a total area of 8,482 m2 (2.096 acres). Its dry land area, however, is mostly made up by three concrete encasings; it furthermore has a 100 by 50 m (330 by 160 ft) platform in its lagoon housing a research station." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinotorishima

"Taiping Island, also known as Itu Aba Island and by various other names, is the largest of the naturally occurring[1] Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.[2][3][4][5] The island is elliptical in shape being 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) in length and 0.4 kilometres (0.25 mi) in width, with an area of 46 hectares (110 acres)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island

Look at the Humongous size of Taiping island vs Okinotori 'island'. It is Laughable to compare them as the Japanese 'island' have Zero evidence of human habitation all on it's own. So Taiping Island and Okinotori 'island' are Two Separate Animals you should not try to confuse the public. One, Taiping island with Clear Evidence of human habitation and the other is not. To sharpen the distinction further, look at the other much smaller islands occupied by the Vietnamese, remember in total they have over 2500 troops guarding their islands, Outposts that can sustain life all on their own.

PCA judges as I said is biased against China. There is political motive in the verdict. Of course deny deny deny is always standard modus operandi so one can only infer based on their action. Taiwan, VN, PH are sacrificed to serve the bigger agenda of containing China, to prevent her from having more control of the South China Sea as I explained earlier.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Pointing out Facts equate to racism?

Facts? I'm sorry but the sentence

"It is clear PH is an anomaly. Real Asians don't fall into American trap that easily"

is not factual, it's race-based nonsense. Please stop talking about "real Asians", it's nonsense and it's irrelevant.

all of Asia is either Buddhism, Islam or Hindus

Completely irrelevant and also factually incorrect - South Korea is majority Christian, as is East Timor. But anyway religion is completely irrelevant to the SCS dispute.

Taiping Island and Okinotori 'island' are Two Separate Animals you should not try to confuse the public

There is nothing 'confusing' about the point I made; quite the opposite. The ruling clarifies for the public that if Taiping doesn't qualify for an EEZ, there are many others both in the SCS amd around the world that also don't qualify. That clarification is useful, and Okinotori is only one example among them.

look at the other much smaller islands occupied by the Vietnamese

They also don't have EEZs. If they and Taiping and Thitu all did have EEZs, as you argue they should, that still wouldn't give China control of the sea because a) Taiping's EEZ would only extend to the midpoint with the neighbouring EEZs of all those Vietnamese and Philippino held features, and b) Taiping is controlled by Taiwan, not China. As I already said, if you disagree with the interpretation of 'economic life', fair enough. But you have completely failed to demonstrate bias.

PCA judges as I said is biased against China.

You have already acknowledged otherwise:

"it is clear the PCA judges Discriminate against Taiwan and All other countries with island features"

You said it yourself; the ruling on islands / rocks went against all of the claimants. No bias demonstrated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

So you count Moonees as Christian? Korean cult don't sell in the West. You are desperate to bring S Koreans and Timorese into the discussion. They don't have the colonial hangover like PH do.

So you like to hide behind the skirt of 'everybody else' also declared as rocks. The whole blanket islands as rocks determination is Fraudulent, using the Biggest Island ie Taiping Island as a convenient Fall Guy.

This fraud still cannot overcome my argument these islands can sustain life and have economic activities all on it's own And I have simulated a One Acre min island size as a feasible baseline. You just ignore this possibility and you Penalize Clever People who can Improve on the basic island criteria And make the island much more vibrant. You add Nothing New to your argument, same old recycled rubbish Ignoring the Inherent Capability of Taiping Island to support life and economic activities All On It's Own.

The Big Picture is Nine Dash Line is The Real Target of PCA. Lies, calling Taiping and other islands as rocks is just to Cover Up PCA Real Intention to discredit China. A Dishonest Body have no business determining the fate of the Nine Dash Line. It's That Simple.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You are desperate to bring S Koreans and Timorese into the discussion.

No, I am not. Religion is irrelevant to the discussion we've been having; it was you that brought religion into it, don't try to claim it was me. I'm merely providing some factual correction to your incorrect assertion that RP is Asia's only Christian country.

They don't have the colonial hangover like PH do.

East Timor was a Portuguese colony.

So you count Moonees as Christian?

Irrelevant. They are a tiny percentage; most Christians in Korea are not Moonies.

So you like to hide behind the skirt of 'everybody else' also declared as rocks.

Im not hiding behind it; I'm pointing out that it scuppers your claim of bias.

I have simulated a One Acre min island size as a feasible baseline

Where? On your computer? In your head? I'm afraid this doesn't constitute evidence.

You just ignore this possibility

I'm not ignoring anything. I have repeatedly agreed that the island/rock classification as written in the UNCLOS treaty isn't completely clear-cut, and repeatedly said to you that if you don't agree with that part of the ruling, fair enough. However your attempt to then claim that the rock classification shows bias has totally failed, and your attempt to claim that the rock classification renders the he 9-dash line ruling invalid is totally illogical; those are two different matters.

You add Nothing New to your argument, same old recycled rubbish

I would say the same about your last fifteen posts.

Ignoring the Inherent Capability of Taiping Island to support life and economic activities All On It's Own.

It doesn't though. As I already pointed out to you, the ruling that Taiping doesn't get an EEZ seems to be because it requires regular resupply from Taiwan using ships and military transport planes. So it doesn't do anything "All On It's Own."

The Big Picture is Nine Dash Line is The Real Target of PCA. Lies, calling Taiping and other islands as rocks is just to Cover Up PCA Real Intention to discredit China.

The matter of the 9-dash line and the matter of whether Taiping and the other features in the Spratlys are two separate matters. The ruling on the 9-dash line is not dependant on the ruling on islands/rocks, nor vice versa.

A Dishonest Body have no business determining the fate of the Nine Dash Line. It's That Simple.

The 9-dash line is pure fantasy; its fate is the rubbish bin. China should quietly drop it and get on with the serious business of trying to argue their sovereignty over the Spratlys without relying on this ridiculous line.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Readers, once again we ask you to please not reply to other posts sentence by sentence. A general reply will suffice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

I will simply focus on PCA ruling since 'Real Asians' is off topic and your weak examples refer to people in irrelevant geographical location which US cannot take advantage of in the South China Sea dispute.

Quote: "Foreign ministers from the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) met for the first time since the U.N.-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague handed an emphatic legal victory to the Philippines" http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-ruling-asean-idUSKCN1040GK

Look how desperate Western media is. UN Backed PCA? Here is clearest example of a Fraud by biased Western media. PCA is nothing more than a tenant sharing the same building in The Hague with ICJ, The Real UN body. Western media try to defraud the public making it looks like they have UN legitmacy.

Having Some UN countries backing PCA deliberations does not confer it legitimacy. Put a vote in the General Assembly and see how many actually back this Fake legal institution which is Bought, Funded by PH. PCA is Nothing More than 'Expert Witness' testifying on behalf of their Client PH, their Paymaster with US lurking Beneath The Surface.

As I said elsewhere, it is very easy to simulate and also get real world one acre or more island that sustain human life and economic activities. One is simulating Right Under Your Nose in the artificial island China have created but of course her enemies will say this artificial island cannot be used, so I encourage China and Taiwan to get representative islands in the tropics, near Taiwan island itself, near China southern coast itself and prove it is life sustainable all on it's own.

The other is very simple, locate the islands, outposts held by PH, VN in the Spratlys, Interview the inhabitants there and flush out definitive proof they don't need to import water, food from outside. Also PH have over 7000 islands and very easy to find a few that can prove their Taiping like islands can support life all on their own. This is the best example as they are natural, without special high tech to supply water. With the scenarios I offer, PCA will sooner or later be embarrassed and the whole Nine Dash Line verdict will be thrown into question. People are no dummy. They can see the ulterior motive of PCA to serve a bigger purpose which is to deny China a bigger swath of sea control in the South China Sea.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Thank you for dropping the nonsense about "real Asians" and religion.

Yet again; if you want to debate the ruling of island vs rock and the interpretation of what constitutes 'an economic life of its own', fair enough. But your repeated attempts to use this as a way of dismissing the 9-dash line ruling do not logically hold up. Even if you convince me - and I am convincible, should any convincing factual evidence be presented (and no, sorry - the hypothetical speculation in your posts so far isn't convincing factual evidence) - that Taiping is capable of sustaining a human community with an economic life of its own without outside supplies (the existing evidence is actually to the contrary), that still would not throw the 9-dash line verdict into question. The rulings on those two matters do not rely upon one another to stand.

As for your "example of a Fraud by biased Western media" - that is irrelevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

PCA unanimous verdict = unanimous fraud against the general public. Which court issue unanimous verdict? Very very rare for judges to speak in unison. You try to wiggle out of the Nine Dash Line connection but you can't.

If the video and camera technology exist back around 1947 when Taiwan ROC start to exert sovereignty on Taiping island, it will be possible to show Taiping Island itself is capable of sustaining life all on it's own. Back then, Taiwan just put marker stones and flags on the island and left while PH continue to scheme under Tomas Cloma to take over the Spratlys.

Back then, the Cloma clans occupy Thitu and other islands after 1956 manufactured res nullis claim. WHERE do they get the waters from? Import from Manila? If video, camera exist back then, they can prove the island is self sustainable.

It is clear just using the Tomas Cloma history of Occupation of the Thitu and other islands, THEY prove Beyond A Doubt Thitu island is capable of habitation and sustaining economic life all of it's own. SO can the Larger Taiping island where human occupancy comes much later due to Taiwan's Civil War with China back then, she can only put marker stones and flags there initially.

This Tomas Cloma Occupation of Thitu Island should Expose The Fraud PCA try to pull on the general public. Back then there is No Desalination plant, No solar power, No plastic tarp to help collect water, Nothing high tech to help sustain life all on it's own. YET They Managed To Sustain Life Economically All On Their Own. One can therefore extrapolate Taiping Island is indeed capable of life sustaining activities all of it's own as well and should be accorded island status.

I am sure the PCA judges Knew about this reality but due to a Bigger Scheme to shoot down the Nine Dash Line, they resort to Preposterous Taiping Island as Rock argument. Lies Exposed and Dots Connected!

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_Cloma"

"On May 11, 1956, Tomas Cloma Sr. together with 40 men, took formal possession of the islands, lying some 380 miles (612 km) west of the southern end of Palawan and named them Freedomland.[5]"

These 40+ people will die in no time from lack of water on the island itself. It is clear Thitu island is life sustainable, even for 40+ people initially all by itself, So Can Taiping Island.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

What do you mean it's "very very rare for judges to speak in unison"? Complete nonsense. The fact that the verdict was unanimous doesn't weaken the verdict or call into question its validity; rather, it indicates that the evidence strongly supported one side and not the other. Once again; the 9-dash line ruling and the island/rock ruling are not interdependent; arguments against the island/rock ruling do not disprove the 9-dash line ruling. I'm not "wriggling out" of anything; there is no need to do so.

And what are you talking about with your paragraph about "if cameras existed in 1947"? Cameras existed a long time before 1947!

As for Tomas Cloma... you talk as though this wasn't considered as part of the case. But of course it was. The judges spent three years considering all available evidence and considering all sides of the argument. The ruling is 500 pages long for that reason; it is pretty clear by now that you haven't read it though. So here you go:

https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf

613 - 626 in particular deal with your points about availability of water and vegetation on Taiping, and also with the activities of Cloma. The pages in question are far too long for me to quote in full here, but the following passages are relevant and you can read the rest for yourself in the link:

"613. the historical record indicates only a short period of activity by Thomas Cloma of the Philippines and his associates... There is no evidence, however, that Mr. Cloma or his associates ever took up residence in the Spratlys or succeeded in deriving the least economic benefit from them. Malaysia has also established a small resort and scuba diving enterprise on Swallow Reef, but this operation is only possible due to significant land reclamation activities that have enlarged the small high-tide rocks on the reef; it does not represent the natural capacity of the feature. Otherwise, human activity on the Spratly Islands appears to be entirely governmental in nature...On the basis of the evidence in the record, it appears to the Tribunal that the principal high-tide features in the Spratly islands are capable of enabling the survival of small groups of people. There is historical evidence of potable water, although of varying quality, that could be combined with rainwater collection and storage. There is also naturally occurring vegetation capable of providing shelter and the possibility of at least limited agriculture to supplement the food resources of the surrounding waters. The record indicates that small numbers of fishermen, mainly from Hainan, have historically been present on Itu Aba and the other more significant features and appear to have survived principally on the basis of the resources at hand (notwithstanding the references to annual deliveries of rice and other sundries)...The principal features of the Spratly Islands are not barren rocks or sand cays, devoid of fresh water, that can be dismissed as uninhabitable on the basis of their physical characteristics alone. At the same time, the features are not obviously habitable, and their capacity even to enable human survival appears to be distinctly limited. In these circumstances, and with features that fall close to the line in terms of their capacity to sustain human habitation, the Tribunal considers that the physical characteristics of the features do not definitively indicate the capacity of the features. Accordingly, the Tribunal is called upon to consider the historical evidence of human habitation and economic life on the Spratly Islands and the implications of such evidence for the natural capacity of the features....In addition to the presence of fishermen noted above, Itu Aba and South-West Cay were the site of Japanese mining and fishing activities in the 1920s and 1930s. The Spratlys were also the site of the somewhat more adventurous activities of Thomas Cloma and his associates in the 1950s. More recently, many of the features have been transformed by substantial construction efforts and are now the site of installations hosting significant numbers of personnel, generally of a governmental nature. The first question for the Tribunal is whether any of this activity constitutes “human habitation” or an “economic life of its own” for the purposes of Article 121(3). The second is whether there is evidence to suggest that the historical record of human activity on the Spratly Islands is not proof of the natural capacity of the features. Finally, the Tribunal does not consider that the military or other governmental personnel presently stationed on the features in the Spratly Islands by one or another of the littoral States suffice to constitute “human habitation” for the purposes of Article 121(3)."

These groups are heavily dependent on outside supply, and it is difficult to see how their presence on any of the South China Sea features can fairly be said to be sustained by the feature itself, rather than by a continuous lifeline of supply and communication from the mainland...616. The Tribunal sees no indication that anything fairly resembling a stable human community has ever formed on the Spratly Islands. Rather, the islands have been a temporary refuge and base of operations for fishermen and a transient residence for labourers engaged in mining and fishing. The introduction of the exclusive economic zone was not intended to grant extensive maritime entitlements to small features whose historical contribution to human settlement is as slight as that. Nor was the exclusive economic zone intended to encourage States to establish artificial populations in the hope of making expansive claims, precisely what has now occurred in the South China Sea...In the Tribunal’s view, all of the economic activity in the Spratly Islands that appears in the historical record has been essentially extractive in nature... to constitute the economic life of the feature, economic activity must be oriented around the feature itself and not be focused solely on the surrounding territorial sea or entirely dependent on external resources. The Tribunal also considers that extractive economic activity, without the presence of a stable local community, necessarily falls short of constituting the economic life of the feature...625. The Tribunal concludes that Itu Aba, Thitu, West York, Spratly Island, South-West Cay, and North-East Cay are not capable of sustaining an economic life of their own within the meaning of Article 121(3). The Tribunal has also considered, and reaches the same conclusion with respect to, the other, less significant high-tide features in the Spratly Islands, which are even less capable of sustaining economic life, but does not consider it necessary to list them individually...625. The Tribunal concludes that Itu Aba, Thitu, West York, Spratly Island, South-West Cay, and North-East Cay are not capable of sustaining an economic life of their own within the meaning of Article 121(3). The Tribunal has also considered, and reaches the same conclusion with respect to, the other, less significant high-tide features in the Spratly Islands, which are even less capable of sustaining economic life, but does not consider it necessary to list them individually.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which court issue unanimous verdict?

Courts that are faced with very one-sided issues. Of course, it is hardly unknown for legal entities to push the laws. However, legal entities that respect the law generally use lawyers and other experts to track where safety is pretty accurately and then stick one foot out into the grey zone. The end result is that there will be some debate on where the law laid and even in cases like United States v Nicaragua, the US kept enough of its body on shore that judges can have dissenting opinions that didn't sound too stupid.

When you use both feet, like a dumb street criminal, the chances of the court ruling completely against you is significantly increased.

The obvious inability to substantiate the 9-dashed-line in modern international law aside, you are right the PCJ chose a "narrow" interpretation of the island v rock issue that minimizes the number of qualified terrain features. However, that's not the same as bias.

When adjudicating on an issue of law, within the band of legally defensible interpretations there will inevitably be some that are more practical than others. And here, the court will inevitably be influenced by the fact that a "liberal" interpretation will essentially be affirming the current state of unhealthy competition (dominated by the biggest interested power) over tiny rocks - in essence, historically it has been proven it doesn't work well.

And in this, China can only blame herself. Had she been a "team player" rather than a bully, or at least a little smarter and asked for clarification of the EEZ earlier in the game, it is very possible in a more "friendly" environment she might have gotten a ruling that would have included the relatively inhabitable Taiping Island while excluding things like Okitonoroshima from the list of islands. Her refusal to respect rule of law has led to this.

Of course, by the logic of the ruling, Okitonoroshima's EEZ will only last until someone files a claim with the PCA. The trick is that no one but China and Taiwan are at all interested in challenging it. And to challenge it, they'll have to accept jurisdiction of the PCA.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

I'll just say PH filed a Frivolous Lawsuit against China. 3000 plus 4000 More pages of Memorial to Pad the lies! It is Piling On and one can see how desperate PH is to bolster her case.

The PCA Venue is wrong. China will not be able to say No to a lawsuit filed with ICJ, the Genuine UN Body. It is clear PH try to defraud the public by using a so called 'UN backed body' like Reuters have reported at least twice to deceive the public. PCA have no UN authenticity. It is just a bunch of judges operating in the same The Hague building and since China have amply notified UNCLOS No UN arbitration per her UNCLOS statements over six years pre PH lawsuit in 2013, it is clear this so call court have No Jurisdiction to arbitrate. I would Tell China to show up in ICJ if a lawsuit is filed there. The PCA judges 'choose' or rather was pressured to go ahead to deliberate anyway, Especially Nine Dash Line which it have no authority.

If it actually have authority it should take ALL the PH 15 charges against China, not 'making a show' of neutrality and keep the juiciest Nine Dash Line on the table to embarrass China. The whole deliberation is a charade, even the Timing of the Verdict post Aquino admin changeover to Duterte is suspect. It is all Cooked Up to look fair and balanced but underneath there is a hidden agenda against China. Nine Dash Line is More Frivolous than the other charges thrown out, especially since Only PH bring the lawsuit and the Nine Dash Line affect VN, Malaysia as well and they are not Co class action complainants. It Just Don't Make Sense.

Since there is no higher authority to throw out this case as Frivolous, the verdict can only go one way, which is to be a Unanimous Verdict against China, throw in punishment for China for daring not to show up in court, a court with no authority I might add.

In conclusion, since there is No higher authority for China to appeal to, to rule the charges as Frivolous, the Verdict against her is Preordained to be against her, thus it is Null & Void.

@Yoshitsune

Since I can only make one response and this comment is already lengthy, I try to keep it short. Basically I see the PCA judges are ignorant of the real world. People who are seafaring are hardy people and survivalists. PCA judges should watch a few episodes from some famous TV shows that teach people how to survive and make even a One Acre island in a tropical location life sustainable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_vs._Wild

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Survival

Coconut trees in particular are very useful to collect water with the leaves and also the fruit as well. This alone can easily help people to have a foothold on a one acre island. Tropical areas like the Spratlys have frequent rainstorm, so very easy to collect plenty of water.

With a little imagination and using the facts on the ground/sea, it is easy to prove even a one acre island is worthy to be called an island with 200 NM EEZ.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You're trying to dismiss the PCA ruling using the evidence that Bear Grylls showed us how to survive when stranded on a desert island? I'm sorry, but as much as I like his show, that is completely laughable. (Note that in the same episode Bear also showed us how to escape the island on a raft, because no person would ever want to remain stranded like that - so, as irrelevant as it is, it's actually evidence that such a tiny island cannot support a community with its own economic life).

You say the "PCA judges should watch a few episodes from some famous TV shows" because "Coconut trees in particular are very useful to collect water with the leaves and also the fruit as well". But actually you should read the actual text of the ruling itself - you don't even have to search for it as I already gave you some of the relevant passages in my last post! Why did you not read them? You're banging on about coconut trees and how ignorant the judges are, but the judges considered all of that and dealt with it in the text. They acknowledge that Taiping etc have enough water and resources for basic survival, and go on to consider the economic life - and the evidence is that Taiping etc are only populated by government and military personnel, require constant resupply from their mainlands, and only have economic activities of an extractive nature. Therefore they do not meet the UNCLOS criteria for an EEZ.

Please, at least actually read the quotes I gave you before replying again, and reply to the arguments therein without waffling on about things (such as coconut trees and water) that they have already dealt with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

There are many many episodes in survivalists shows. You pretend there is none that is applicable to island situations and try to mislead readers into desert kind of situation. Of course I expect you to ask me to show you which episode. Go dig it out yourself!

It is a Game of Numbers. PCA judges talk in general situation scenarios and use Wrong Time Frame to conclude islands are rocks. How Do They Know At Starting Point, they are not habitable & able to sustain economic activities? DO THEY VISIT EVERY ISLAND WHEN INITIALLY POPULATED and confirm island or otherwise? They make up stories without valid proof. I give you Preponderance Of Evidence Islands Are Indeed Islands, Not Rocks as the Fraudulent PCA claim.

In the early years, fishermen come and go without making attempt to have permanency. They don't need or want to back then. With government urging and involvement, civilians and even military people as you say make permanent residency of these islands. The military is there to Protect the civilians and also to Defend the islands of course. The military may bring in potable water. The civilians on the other hand are smaller in numbers and Can Make Do with whatever is on the island to have sustainable economic life. The PCA judges penalize them for their ingenuity. Next thing we know, this genius judge panel penalise them for bringing in a few extra plants, animals, even fresnel lens etc to IMPROVE their living condition. Mind You, they are Creature Comfort Improvement, NOT Required for sustainable human habitation. Of course our genius PCA judges will make issues with this too and equate this to the scale of desalination plants, potable water. Just who are they to put Restrictions on IMPROVEMENTS? Do they do that to 'normal islands' like Diaoyu/Senkaku? Can we call that a rock too and tell the Japanese administrators there is no 200 NM EEZ because it is not self sustainable all on it's own? Nope, you can't bring in tools to dig wells. Just barehand living with no tools.

Again, Show Me Evidence At Inception they are not human sustainable and need to import water, food from outside. The Onus is on the PCA judges to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they don't have island life sustaining capabilities.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Haha, are you seriously still talking about survivalist shows? Dear me. They're very good telly, but they are completely meaningless in this debate.

You say "The Onus is on the PCA judges to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they don't have island life sustaining capabilities", but it really isn't. As I have already pointed out to you, they acknowledged in full in the text of their ruling that Taiping and others have vegetation and whatnot which can sustain life. The key point is 'an economic life of their own', and in the passage I pasted above the judges explained very clearly why Taiping and others do not meet this criteria. You've offered no factual or logical rebuttal of their reasoning at all, just waffle about former SAS soldiers surviving on coconuts for TV shows. And the problem is, you're not arguing against me and my opinions; you're arguing against the ruling. Yo don't need to beat me, you need to convince me. And I'm afraid that the text of the ruling has already very thoroughly dealt with the points you're trying to attack it on. The reasoning within the text of the ruling is far more convincing than your ramblings about survivalist shows and coconuts.

Look, your arguments probably sound convincing to Chinese nationalists. But I am not a Chinese nationalist, and nor are the vast majority of people on the planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

Cheap rebuttal. I notice this is your second ramblings without a Clear Excerpt from PCA rulings. I don't think you can find ANY. You can continue to carry PCA's 'water', but you cannot deny there are hardy people who can sustain survival Continuously on the islands in disputes, all of them in the Spratlys.

Survival shows have enough factual evidence to debunk PCA simplistic notion islands in dispute are rocks. Why don't you put in a kind word for them and also claim Diaoyu/Senkaku is also a rock? Now, mind you, go the most primitive route: No Tools, Not Even Tools Primitive People Have to survive. No tools to dig wells, Nothing. Just go to the islands Empty Handed. Then Many Larger Islands will be deemed as rocks. Is this what your PCA comrades have in mind? Please clarify, then I will encourage China to file a lawsuit to designate Diaoyu/Senkaku and similar small islands as rocks. BTW I pick Diaoyu/Senkaku only because it is most visible to the public due to dispute with China and also the size is rather small, a prime target to prove them to be rocks.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I notice this is your second ramblings without a Clear Excerpt from PCA rulings. I don't think you can find ANY

Two posts ago I pasted a long excerpt from the text of the ruling. Please comment on what that text says, and stop this absurd waffling about TV survival shows! The PCA very clearly dealt with the matter of the availability of water and vegetation; it's just there up the page in black & white. Your failure to answer that speaks volumes, and until you can make a convincing case against what that text says I will continue to be convinced by it and not you.

And yes, the Senkaku is indeed clearly also a rock. So what? Japan does not claim an EEZ around the Senkaku islands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

You do yourself a favor by making just a one sentence excerpt where readers can zero in. I look at your long excerpt and am not impressed. There is Nothing there that is Convincing Enough to support their rock claim. Just an Opinion of people who are not hardy, don't Live In The Wild and see Only Limitations whereas in the real world adventurers, explorers, fishermen, these people they can Tough It Out and turn What The PCA Judges Perceive As Rocks INTO Islands Because THEY Can. WHY should the world be held to THEIR Limited View Of Reality?

It is laughable to say Japan don't claim 200 NM EEZ around Diaoyu/Senkaku. Seems like somebody is living under a rock. If Japan don't claim 200 NM EEZ, why does she complain about Chinese gas drilling in the 200 NM EEZ? Why do Japan give Fishery Quota to Taiwan?

What is not clarified is What Is The Acceptable Tools for explorers, initial settlers to bring to islands, including Diaoyu/Senkaku. Do you think the original settlers in Diaoyu/Senkaku harvesting guano have drinkable water to support themselves? Of course they need tools to dig wells and if Tools, like what Primitive People Need As Well to sustain their existence Where They Find Themselves, Why are they Ruled Out by PCA?

For me, I would say Diaoyu/Senkaku do have island status IF PCA Apply The Same Standard, TOOLS Are Allowed By Initial Explorers/Fishermen to dig wells, to harvest water from the air with fresnel lens, seeds to grow vegetation etc. These are Ordinary Survival Strategies By Ordinary People, NOT military people with special equipment. What right do PCA have to take them away?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Have you still not read the excerpt I posted? Too long for you? If you can't even be bothered to read the ruling, you're not going to be very convincing when you argue about it. The judges don't make the claim that people can't survive there, so you're just wasting your time by attacking the ruling on the basis of something they didn't even say. In fact, as I've pointed out to you repeatedly, the ruling acknowledges in full that people can survive on Taiping and elsewhere. So why do you keep arguing as if they've said otherwise? The ruling went against Taiping for economic reasons, not survival reasons.

If you want to convnice anyone that the ruling is wrong, the point that you need to argue isn't about human survival, it's about 'an economic life of their own'.

Look, here it is again, trimmed down for you, and I'll help you out with some bold:

On the basis of the evidence in the record, it appears to the Tribunal that the principal high-tide features in the Spratly islands are capable of enabling the survival of small groups of people. There is historical evidence of potable water, although of varying quality, that could be combined with rainwater collection and storage. There is also naturally occurring vegetation capable of providing shelter and the possibility of at least limited agriculture to supplement the food resources of the surrounding waters. The record indicates that small numbers of fishermen, mainly from Hainan, have historically been present on Itu Aba and the other more significant features and appear to have survived principally on the basis of the resources at hand (notwithstanding the references to annual deliveries of rice and other sundries)...The principal features of the Spratly Islands are not barren rocks or sand cays, devoid of fresh water, that can be dismissed as uninhabitable on the basis of their physical characteristics alone. At the same time, the features are not obviously habitable, and their capacity even to enable human survival appears to be distinctly limited. In these circumstances, and with features that fall close to the line in terms of their capacity to sustain human habitation, the Tribunal considers that the physical characteristics of the features do not definitively indicate the capacity of the features. Accordingly, the Tribunal is called upon to consider the historical evidence of human habitation and economic life on the Spratly Islands and the implications of such evidence for the natural capacity of the features....In addition to the presence of fishermen noted above, Itu Aba and South-West Cay were the site of Japanese mining and fishing activities in the 1920s and 1930s. The Spratlys were also the site of the somewhat more adventurous activities of Thomas Cloma and his associates in the 1950s. More recently, many of the features have been transformed by substantial construction efforts and are now the site of installations hosting significant numbers of personnel, generally of a governmental nature. The first question for the Tribunal is whether any of this activity constitutes “human habitation” or an “economic life of its own” for the purposes of Article 121(3). The second is whether there is evidence to suggest that the historical record of human activity on the Spratly Islands is not proof of the natural capacity of the features. Finally, the Tribunal does not consider that the military or other governmental personnel presently stationed on the features in the Spratly Islands by one or another of the littoral States suffice to constitute “human habitation” for the purposes of Article 121(3)."

Given the lines in bold, it is clear that the ruling acknowledges that people can survive on those features. So why waste your time trying to argue that they didn't? You need to make your case against the economic angle; anything else is just a waste of your time.

As for the Senkaku:

It is laughable to say Japan don't claim 200 NM EEZ around Diaoyu/Senkaku

Not at all. It is a statement of fact. Japan doesn't claim an EEZ based on the Senkaku islands; but the Senkaku do lie within the EEZ Japan already has from its other islands, just near the edge of the border with Taiwan's EEZ. This should answer your questions about drilling and fishing.

Now, please stop talking about the Senkaku and present your arguments against the tribunal's reasoning why the Spratly islands don't meet the criteria for an EEZ on the basis of not having an economic life of their own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

Just who are these PCA judges to decide on economic activities? People Choose to Stay or just come and go, As They Wish. YES, They CAN have ECONOMIC LIFE all on their own, like the guano harvesting in Diaoyu/Senkaku which you say is a rock. So what are you talking about?

In the case of those islands in the Spratlys, SURE, they can have Economic Life Easily. They can TRADE Coconuts, they can Trade Fishes processed there, even Guano if birds poop there often enough. Greenhouse vegetation, trade with neighboring islands. Sell Excess water to neighbors. Now these are economic activities, aren't they? They can serve as a fantastic one of a kind touristy attraction. Let's deliberately shipwreck Sierra Madre 2.0 there and make that into a touristy site! People are creative and can easily market them as something with economic activities that the PCA dim bulbs cannot imagine. What about the Isles of Man in the UK? Something like that as a Haven for business activities, special Off Shore banking privilege like say Labuan island in Malaysia near Sabah.

So look at the UNCLOS rules carefully as I excerpted below: Human habitation you already say is possible. Economic Life you make an issue about I debunk clearly here it is Easy to do. So Taiping Island IS actually an Island, Not Rock since it Does NOT fail the UNLOS test. So are almost all the other islands in the Spratlys.

"Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf" http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm

As for Diaoyu/Senkaku, go ahead and deny Japan don't exert 200 NM EEZ. Why not just stay calm and let the Chinese ships and jets move within the 200 NM space? Why not just say nothing about Chinese gas field which Japan protest as siphoning off gas from her perceived 200 NM EEZ? Whether Japan actually say it out aloud or not, her actions implies she think she owns the 200 NM EEZ. Do you actually hear Japan using other islands as evidence of intrusion? Nope, that is only your imagination as Chinese activities cover much more than just say Yonaguni island EEZ space.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hello. As you've posted the same response on the other thread, I have replied there. Cheers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites