Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
PH Files Case vs China Before UNCLOS Tribunal; Ph challenges China's 9-dash claims in WPS at UN Tribunal
Topic Started: Jan 22 2013, 05:03 PM (50,577 Views)
pachador


an american lawyer is representing us at the ITLOS. he is one of the best if not the best on international law of the sea issues.

as for the bully's sovereignty rights, that is a concern only in their mind but not in the international community because the sovereignty they claim is a manufactured and invented one with no legal basis in today's laws., . on the basis of international support alone, we got EURO, america, japan, australia etc on our side. they wont take our side just because we are friends, but because , we are on firm legal footing.

Edited by pachador, Apr 28 2013, 01:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taz_1
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
If they vacated the place for any reason, just run aground another old ship.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Parastriker
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Taz_1
Apr 30 2013, 09:31 AM
If they vacated the place for any reason, just run aground another old ship.
I don't know how many times have I told this statement already.

Grounding ships aren't going to make the local and international environmentalists to be happy, and I am sure China is going to use that situation to destroy our image; China has many contacts within many such groups, and they can manipulate them with the use of money.
Success through information, victory through disinformation.

"Good leaders make efficient followers. Great leaders make good followers. But true leaders make leaders out of mere followers."

"Measuring the intelligence of a common internet user is as easy as looking at his/her grammar."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seWer Rat
Member Avatar
amateur sewer cleaner

Manila all at sea over islands

On April 26, the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused the Philippines of trying to legalize its occupation of disputed islands in the South China Sea. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China would never agree to international arbitration on the disputed islands, which the Philippines has been seeking.

Earlier this year, the Philippine government called for international arbitration in the South China Sea dispute and notified China of its move. And in late March, the president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea even appointed an arbiter for arbitral proceedings after Beijing "failed to designate its representative within the 60-day deadline".

The South China Sea dispute centers mainly on two aspects: conflicting sovereignty claims over Nansha Islands and maritime delimitation. In both cases, the disputing countries should resolve the issue through peaceful means. By initiating arbitration on the validity of China's claims, the Philippines has actually exposed its lack of legal knowledge and violated the consensus reached on the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

The Philippines has called for arbitration in the dispute by invoking the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but this does not justify its move. According to Article 286 of the UNCLOS, any dispute on the interpretation or application of the convention, in which no settlement has been reached through negotiation or other peaceful means, should be submitted by a party to the dispute to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter.

Therefore, a party to a dispute can invoke the article on the premise that no negotiated settlement has been reached. But by submitting the dispute to the arbitral tribunal that has not yet been fully established, Manila has unilaterally terminated the negotiation procedure and thus should be responsible for the consequences that follow.

Manila's unilateral move has also violated the consensus reached on the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea with Beijing. According to Article 7 of the declaration, "the parties concerned should stand ready to continue their consultations and dialogues concerning relevant issues, through modalities to be agreed by them". Obviously, taking the dispute to the UN is not a modality agreed by the two sides. Since the Philippines has violated the consensus, parties in the South China Sea should henceforth prevent it from participating in the process to develop legally binding documents.

more
To avoid criticism, write nothing, say nothing, do nothing, BE NOTHING.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

seWer Rat
May 6 2013, 10:11 AM
The Philippines has called for arbitration in the dispute by invoking the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but this does not justify its move. According to Article 286 of the UNCLOS, any dispute on the interpretation or application of the convention, in which no settlement has been reached through negotiation or other peaceful means, should be submitted by a party to the dispute to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter.

Manila's unilateral move has also violated the consensus reached on the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea with Beijing. According to Article 7 of the declaration, "the parties concerned should stand ready to continue their consultations and dialogues concerning relevant issues, through modalities to be agreed by them". Obviously, taking the dispute to the UN is not a modality agreed by the two sides. Since the Philippines has violated the consensus, parties in the South China Sea should henceforth prevent it from participating in the process to develop legally binding documents.

more <--- Another "fail" from a Chinese propaganda machine.



Talk about missing the whole picture... Keep on China, and surely you will lose the arbitration case.


"This is really what a jurisdictional challenge would look like, if China argued its case. I think this is the most plausible part of China’s argument, but it is not exactly a slam dunk. First of all, China’s invocation of the “Land Dominates the Sea” doesn’t help their argument much here since the infamous Nine Dash Line doesn’t seem to flow from any land claims, or at least China has usually based the Nine Dash Line on “historic rights,” not land".

"In any event, the Philippines is not rejecting the “Land Dominates the Sea” principle. They are just arguing that the “land” China is relying on is a rock, not an island within the meaning of UNCLOS Art. 121(3), and hence cannot grant China a 12 mile territorial sea even if China did have sovereignty. Since some of these rocks/islands fall within the Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone, this is not a sovereignty issue but a UNCLOS issue".
Edited by Hong Nam, May 6 2013, 11:03 AM.

Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ayoshi
Member Avatar


PH thanks EU for support in territorial dispute with China
www.interaksyon.com
<snipped>
Quote:
 
“The Philippines highly values…especially the EU's commitment that world conflicts including maritime disputes should be resolved in a peaceful manner,” Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Jose Brillantes said in a speech in behalf of Secretary Albert del Rosario.

“The Philippines appreciated the EU's stand for peaceful resolutions during the historic meeting last year between President Benigno Aquino and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso during the ASEM Summit in Laos,” he said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
qb7
Recruit
[ * ]
Has there bee any updates regarding the UNCLOS tribunal on the situation?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wily_pest
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Know you that the Philippines, China, EU, and the world know that the Philippines is the rightful owner of the claim but China does not care for the truth nor the world opinion. All China cares about is ownership (rightly or wrongly) so they can access the natural resources and fishes.

So in the end, it is the military of the Philippines that will be needed to prevent these Communists from occupying the Phil. EEZ.

Let's hope that the Phil. govt. realizes that the piece of paper from the UN arbitrators will not be as important as a fast Phil. military mobilization. And that this military mobilization will made in a timely fashion and with the sufficient quality and quantity.
Management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization. Sun Tzu
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seWer Rat
Member Avatar
amateur sewer cleaner


EU, suportado ang PH sa pagresolba ng territorial dispute vs China


http://bit.ly/Z0Dw4o


Posted Image
To avoid criticism, write nothing, say nothing, do nothing, BE NOTHING.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

The First Serious Defense China's Position on the Philippines UNCLOS Arbitration
by Julian Ku


Professor Stefan Talmon of the University of Bonn and St. Anne's College in Oxford offers one of the first serious attempts to defend China's position on the UNCLOS arbitration brought by the Philippines. In an essay published by the Global Times, China's hawkish state-owned daily paper, Professor Talmon argues that all of the Philippines' claims against China fall outside of the jurisdiction of the UNCLOS arbitral tribunal.


Quote:
 
For example, the claim that China's maritime claims in the South China Sea based on the so-called nine-dash line are invalid, the claim that China has unlawfully claimed maritime entitlements beyond 12 nautical miles around certain insular features and has prevented Philippine vessels from fishing in the waters adjacent to those features, and the claim that China has unlawfully interfered with the exercise by the Philippines of its right to navigation and other rights cannot be decided without touching upon China's claim to historic title and rights within the area of the nine-dash line.

In addition, any measures taken by China against the Philippine vessels may also be subject to the "law enforcement activities' exception with regard to fisheries matters or may be excluded as an exercise of China's sovereign rights and jurisdiction provided by UNCLOS.
The claim that China unlawfully occupies certain low-tide elevations in the South China Sea cannot be addressed without dealing with the question of sovereignty or other rights over these insular land territories.

Finally, declarations that certain submerged features form part of the continental shelf of the Philippines, that China has unlawfully exploited the living and non-living resources in the Philippines' exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and that China has interfered with the Philippines' right to navigation and other rights in areas within and beyond 200 nautical miles of the Philippines cannot be made without engaging in sea boundary delimitations.



Julian Ku's counter analysis:
Quote:
 
I have to admit I am not very persuaded by this analysis. In Prof. Talmon's defense, the essay is very short and not an attempt to provide a deep legal analysis of the problem. But the idea that any challenge to the nine-dash line is excluded from UNCLOS arbitration is hardly obvious to me, since the basis of China's nine-dash line is very murky anyway. It is not an historic bay. I suppose it could be an "historic title" within the meaning of Article 298, but that is hardly obvious. Under Prof. Talmon's reading, any claim of historic title, even if it undermines all of the other principles of UNCLOS, are outside the jurisdiction of the UNCLOS tribunal.

Similarly, when the Philippines argues that something is a "rock" and not an "island" under the definition of UNCLOS, I don't see how that requires a sea boundary determination?

Most importantly, I can't see how Prof. Talmon can avoid the question of why China is not even bothering to make these jurisdictional arguments in the UNCLOS tribunal. It is an oddly disrespectful move, to say the least, for China to essentially boycott the tribunal. Does Prof. Talmon think the Philippines case is so weak that ignoring the arbitration is justified?

Still, it is worth exploring these questions, since the arbitral tribunal will likely do so. I would hope Prof. Talmon has a longer version of his views posted somewhere, and if not, he is welcome to do so here at any time!


http://opiniojuris.org/2013/05/21/the-first-serious-defense-chinas-position-on-the-philippines-unclos-arbitration/

Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic »
Add Reply