| 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: |
| PH Files Case vs China Before UNCLOS Tribunal; Ph challenges China's 9-dash claims in WPS at UN Tribunal | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 22 2013, 05:03 PM (50,561 Views) | |
| Hong Nam | Jun 8 2014, 12:01 PM Post #361 |
|
Bought by China
![]()
|
And Xinhua (no surprise here) throws in the usual communist party "garbage" response.
For a country who believes so much in the strength of its convictions, they sure feel threatened and irate for something they think is irrelevant and isn't governed by th UNCLOS. I wonder why... Edited by Hong Nam, Jun 8 2014, 05:42 PM.
|
![]() Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90 | |
![]() |
|
| Mckoyzzz | Jun 8 2014, 01:19 PM Post #362 |
|
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
![]()
|
I don't see the point nor the link on the above 3 paragraphs which supposed to show support in each other. They are stating that the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the PH case and then states that they have the right to reject arbitration because of its opt-out clause, then declares that based on this clause, "it is LEGALLY CLEAR that the PH case does not fall in tribunal's jurisdiction"...Yes, they can reject to join but the UNCLOS rules stated that even without the participation of the other party, the arbitration will proceed... even my scientific calculator cannot add it up...
Was it because there's no evidence needed to know that "China indeed has indisputable sovereignty over SCS" or was it because they DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE to prove it?
Is China trying to sway or manipulate or influence the judges of the tribunal?
China is clearly declaring that the UNCLOS tribunal are "irrelevant third party", said possibly by their historians who created the 9-dash line. It's always been re-iterated not just by PH nor US nor Japan nor Australia, but I believe the whole world that participating in the tribunal's hearing will help clear, explain, understand and resolve the already complicated situation not the other way around. Isn't it that when 2 or more nations are involved, it already becomes international?
China kept re-iterating that they are "champions" in international law and zealously abide by it and kept saying that countries involved in the WPS should follow the 2002 DOC. Now the massive reclamation they are doing to several reefs, including blocking fishermens, and drilling oil with their giant rig is a clear violation of it. Nagtetengang-kawali, nagbubulag-bulagan, nagbibingi-bingihan at nagtatanga-tangahan... |
![]() "Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong -- Dandemis" | |
![]() |
|
| dewey | Jun 8 2014, 02:11 PM Post #363 |
|
metro aide sweeper
![]()
|
the chinese live in their own world, they have their own rules and nobody tells them what to do esp now that they are militarily able. they think they still live on the dynasty era. if they accept to participate in any arbitration, its like submitting themselves to somebody else's rules. they avoid to participate simply so they can do whatever they want. them signing the doc and being an unclos signatory is where they erred. so again theyre bending the rules as to say that theyre not violating any rules that they signed in to follow. everything theyre doing now is against everything that they signed in for the world should unite so not to allow such arrogance the bottom line here is, china does not want to subject itself to international law, that everybody follows, because theyre bound to lose. everything is against their claim. even some of their schooled citizens even think that is the case. so their tact now is, "we dont want to participate, what can you do about it?" that wasnt their tact when they were militarily weak. im sure those countries who helped them in achieving military might are now regretful of doing so |
| IDI@T!!! COWARD!!! | |
![]() |
|
| PinoyAko | Jun 10 2014, 10:47 AM Post #364 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Another one from Justice Carpio HISTORICAL LIE | Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal not in China's ancient maps - Justice Carpio By: DJ Sta. Ana, News5 June 10, 2014 1:10 AM http://www.interaksyon.com/article/88736/historical-lie--spratlys-scarborough-shoal-not-in-chinas-ancient-maps---justice-carpio
|
![]() |
|
| gammy322 | Jun 10 2014, 06:03 PM Post #365 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If and only if only our Legislators be in the same mindset of Justice Carpio, there will be more budget given to AFP for their modernization, or maybe their PDAF will go straight to the Modernization program itself... |
![]() |
|
| Hong Nam | Jun 11 2014, 12:45 PM Post #366 |
|
Bought by China
![]()
|
Top Philippine judge uses Chinese maps vs China MANILA, Philippines - Debunking China's "historical lies" about its claims over the South China Sea, a Philippine Supreme Court (SC) justice used China's favorite pieces of evidence - its ancient maps - against the Asian giant itself. "There is not a single ancient Chinese map, whether made by Chinese or foreigners, showing that the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal were ever part of Chinese territory. To repeat, in all these ancient Chinese maps, the southernmost Chinese territory has always been Hainan Island." - Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court No bearing on sea disputes China has cited its so-called historical rights to uphold its 9-dash line, a demarcation mark it uses to claim virtually the entire South China Sea. "Even if true," however, Carpio said these historical rights have no bearing on maritime disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Nothing 'historical' nor 'right' "Historical rights have no place in the South China Sea. Clearly, there is nothing 'historical' or 'right' about China's 9-dashed line claim. The 9-dashed line claim is based not on historical facts but on historical lies. On the other hand, numerous ancient maps made by Westerners, and later by Philippine authorities, consistently showed that Scarborough Shoal has always been part of Philippine territory. China has no historical link whatsoever to Scarborough Shoal. The rocks of Scarborough Shoal were never bequeathed to the present generation of Chinese by their ancestors because their ancestors never owned these rocks in the first place." - Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court View his full presentation here - Trust me... It's worth the time. Rappler |
![]() Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90 | |
![]() |
|
| Hong Nam | Jun 12 2014, 02:29 PM Post #367 |
|
Bought by China
![]()
|
US Urges China To Provide Evidence On South China Sea Claim To Hague Court Thursday, 12 June 2014 Manila Bulletin BEIJING, CHINA: A senior United States diplomat has called on China to provide evidence to back up its claim to 90 percent of the sea, believed to be rich in energy and minerals. US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific Daniel Russel urged China to seize the "significant opportunity" of a call from an international court last week for evidence to back up its claims. "This... opens the door to the removal of some ambiguity regarding China's claim that has helped fuel tension and uncertainty in the region," Russel said in a telephone briefing with reporters in Hong Kong. Russel said he had raised the issue with regional officials at a meeting in Myanmar of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). A judges' panel at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague said last week that it was giving China six months to respond to a case filed by the Philippines in March. China's Foreign Ministry last week restated its refusal to participate. BruDirect |
![]() Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90 | |
![]() |
|
| Hong Nam | Jun 12 2014, 11:17 PM Post #368 |
|
Bought by China
![]()
|
A 900-year-old map isn't the best way to draw borders in the South China Sea By Heather Timmons and Cathy Sizhao Yi 6 hours ago ![]() Hua Yi Tu, a map engraved on a stoneUS Library of Congress This Chinese map, made from rubbing of a stone engraved in 1136 AD, depicts China's reach as described in the Yu Gong, an ancient text that dates back to the fifth century B.C. Even though the drawing is clearly ancient history, it and other maps from dynasties and centuries past are resurfacing in the volatile debate over the South China Sea. It is titled Hua Yitu (华夷图), which directly translated means "Map of China and the Surrounding Countries." (Because the character yi can be read to mean minority groups, or at least non-Han Chinese, the diagram could also be called "Map of the Han People and the Minorities.") An explanation on the map says that the southern border of the empire's reach is the Zhang Sea, which many scholars believe is an ancient Chinese name for the South China Sea. But that doesn't carry much weight in the current territorial dispute, analysts say. When it comes to international law of the seas, most maps are "just information," Francois-Xavier Bonnet, a geographer with Bangkok's Research Institute on Contemporary Southeast Asia told the Voice of America. "They give information for one period and it's not a legal document," he said. By the early 1900s, China had included the Paracel Islands to its maps as the southern-most border, and it added the Spratley Islands in 1935, he pointed out. The ancient stone map is part of a larger carving that is itself drawn from the Yu Gong, which "describes an archaic, unified China defined by rivers and mountains," as Time magazine explains. So even when it was made, the map reflected a "legendary, lost China," not the country's borders at the time. That's probably a good thing for China's neighbors. The map the Philippines is using to try to prove China's territory ends at Hainan Island also claims that "Rinan Jun" belongs to China. Rinan Jun is an ancient Han Chinese prefecture that is now firmly in central Vietnam. Quartz.com Edited by Hong Nam, Jun 12 2014, 11:18 PM.
|
![]() Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90 | |
![]() |
|
| MSantor | Jun 14 2014, 09:34 PM Post #369 |
![]()
|
Interaksyon
|
|
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." - Henry Ford "Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking"- Gen. George S. Patton | |
![]() |
|
| Hong Nam | Jun 16 2014, 12:20 AM Post #370 |
|
Bought by China
![]()
|
The Battle of the South China Sea Editorials by Julian Ku - Vietnam's government has been flooding the Internet with various articles, interviews, and statements accusing China of violating international law by moving an oil rig into waters Vietnam claims as its own. In general, these are pretty effective, although I do think Vietnamese scholars lose a bit of credibility when they insist that China has "no legal grounds" for its actions. - Meanwhile, the Philippines has continued its steady drumbeat of legal articles, including this fascinating essay by Philippines Supreme Court Judge Antonio Carpio. China has struck back with several English-language articles of its own from Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency. These have been much less effective or credible, and not just because China has a weaker (although not indefensible) legal position. "China's repeated rejection of Manila's plea for arbitration in the dispute in the South China Sea is by no means defiance of the tribunal in The Hague. On the contrary, it shows China's respect for international law." I understand what they are trying to say, but this argument just sounds bad. China has no legal obligation to participate in the UNCLOS arbitration, but its non-participation is hardly a sign of respect for international law when that arbitral tribunal has the power to determine its own jurisdiction. - This Xinhua essay on the Vietnam dispute is much better. Most importantly, it relies on China's territorial claim to the Xisha (Paracel) Islands as the basis for China's right to place the oil rig. It does not claim any rights here flow from the so-called "Nine Dash Line" that often gets all the press and is undoubtedly the weakest part of their legal argument. It focuses on the threats to the safety of Chinese sailors and workers, and Vietnam's legal obligations under the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. Of course, international law is not China's strongest suit here. But it is interesting to see how China is using international law to support its actions. Moreover, all China has to do is muddy the waters by establishing that international law does not plainly compel any particular outcome. If the international legal arguments are fought to a draw, China is in a good position to win the overall game. Opinio Juris |
![]() Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90 | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic » |












![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)

8:32 AM Jul 11