Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chinese actions in the South China Seas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    [QUOTE=tbm3fan;1046026]

    Well it isn't the 1920s anymore it is 2018 and supposedly the world has evolved from seizure

    IVietnam was the first to start occupying disputed islands, so why is'nt the U.S and others censuring Vietnam?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      You do know that those artifical islands do not have fresh waters sources.

      Both China and the US have the veto, meaning China can veto any decision against Chinese claims and the US can veto any decision for Chinese claims. Besides, it would be a bribing contest to see who can bribe the most members in the UNSC, not a legal decision based on merit.
      plus judical bodies dont have the power of enforcement

      Comment


      • #33
        Photos show near collision between US and Chinese warships on South China Sea
        Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
          Who cares , "Posession is nine tenths of the Law"
          Non-Chinese destroyers are saying otherwise. Short of a shooting war, the Chinese cannot stop warships from denying Chinese claims to the area.

          Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
          See my post at 29 about the tribunal awarding territorial rights to four of those islands. Therefore under Unclos definitions, they are not artifical islands.

          eg On 12 July 2016, the tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration concluded that Fiery Cross Reef contains, within the meaning of Article 121(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water at high tide. However, for purposes of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS, the high-tide features at Fiery Cross Reef are "rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly shall be entitled to 12nm of territorial sea measured from its baseline but have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf".[12]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiery_Cross_Reef
          All you've shown here is that this is still disputed territory and Chinese claims based on those islands is still legal horse puckey.

          Comment


          • #35
            I wonder if this can be considered as Trump's China test. Bush had his and Obama too. Obama had his a few months only after entering office.

            Thing with Trump is he's been hammering China all the way through and got their hackles up before he even entered office with that call to The Taiwanese leader : D

            No, it looks more like Xi's America test.

            And the tactics are different.

            US military isn't being used to pass hints.

            Trump himself is leading the charge.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 10 Oct 18,, 12:15.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
              Non-Chinese destroyers are saying otherwise. Short of a shooting war, the Chinese cannot stop warships from denying Chinese claims to the area.
              They are not sailing inside the islands terriotrial which is given to them under UNCLOS By the way,some of those what you call artifical islands , qualify as islands in their own right under UNCLOS guidelines

              All you've shown here is that this is still disputed territory and Chinese claims based on those islands is still legal horse puckey.
              Thats easily solved. All China has to do is claim ownership on what they occupy under the laws of Terra Nullis. ( that is how Captain Cook claimed Australia for Britain despite the place being occupied by Aborignies)


              In international law, any territory which has not been subject to the soverignty of any state or a state has relinquished sovereignty is terra nullis.Soverignty can simply be acquired through occupation.
              Subject to their being more reefs that can qualify as islands in their own right and if China so desires, she can expand her territorial waters to whatever distance by claiming those reefs under terra nullis and develop them.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                Thats easily solved. All China has to do is claim ownership on what they occupy under the laws of Terra Nullis. ( that is how Captain Cook claimed Australia for Britain despite the place being occupied by Aborignies)


                In international law, any territory which has not been subject to the soverignty of any state or a state has relinquished sovereignty is terra nullis.Soverignty can simply be acquired through occupation.
                Subject to their being more reefs that can qualify as islands in their own right and if China so desires, she can expand her territorial waters to whatever distance by claiming those reefs under terra nullis and develop them.
                Again, non-Chinese warships are saying hogwash to Chinese claims. They're still steaming through those waters and the Chinese ain't doing squat about it except bellyaching.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                  Again, non-Chinese warships are saying hogwash to Chinese claims. They're still steaming through those waters and the Chinese ain't doing squat about it except bellyaching.
                  You raised two points. Legal ownership of the islands and Fonops.

                  I was merely adressing the ownership of the island issue. by suggesting
                  China can claim legal sovereignty over those islands by utilising the Terra Nullis approch. So if China obtained legal soverignty through that process, the only way the US can travel inside the 12nm limits is through peaceful transit, which under UNCLOS rules, she has to shut down all her weapon systems with the associated equipment such as targeting computers radar etc.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Clearly the US ship is in the wrong. The Onus is on the following boat to avoid hitting the stern of the other boat.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Taiwan's president calls on Beijing to not be a 'source of conflict' worldwide
                      Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                        You raised two points. Legal ownership of the islands and Fonops.

                        I was merely adressing the ownership of the island issue. by suggesting
                        China can claim legal sovereignty over those islands by utilising the Terra Nullis approch. So if China obtained legal soverignty through that process, the only way the US can travel inside the 12nm limits is through peaceful transit, which under UNCLOS rules, she has to shut down all her weapon systems with the associated equipment such as targeting computers radar etc.
                        The point remains that the USN, RN, RAN, RCN, JSDFN, ROCN do not recognize Chinese soverignty over these waters no matter what kind of bellyaching Beijing is squawking. They are not shutting down their weapon systems and in effect telling the Chinese to fuck off.

                        The US and others are calling these artifical islands and therefore cannot be used to lay claim to these waters. It's he sys/she says. Since neither the US nor China is going to allow the UNSC to decide the matter. The legality portion is mute. Both sides claim they're right and the bigger guns win and that ain't the Chinese.

                        You can do as much wet dreams as you want. Chinese ownership claims are being ignored. Period.
                        Last edited by WABs_OOE; 10 Oct 18,, 13:48.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          in terms of international law, the Chinese default position is that international rulings have no merit whatsoever because that whole area is Chinese territory.

                          i'm sure they can adjust their beliefs if an international tribunal actually rule in the Chinese favor, but so far they have not, most noticeably in regards to Philippines v China.

                          regarding the actual international situation, the situation is moot as OoE precisely states.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            [QUOTE=Funtastic;1046039]
                            Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post




                            My attitude towards mudering terrorists would be pretty similar to yours.

                            So I take it that every last Tibetan and Uyghur is a terrorist is the company line? Cheap out...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                              Thats easily solved. All China has to do is claim ownership on what they occupy under the laws of Terra Nullis. ( that is how Captain Cook claimed Australia for Britain despite the place being occupied by Aborignies)


                              In international law, any territory which has not been subject to the soverignty of any state or a state has relinquished sovereignty is terra nullis.Soverignty can simply be acquired through occupation.
                              Subject to their being more reefs that can qualify as islands in their own right and if China so desires, she can expand her territorial waters to whatever distance by claiming those reefs under terra nullis and develop them.
                              Good god it is still the 1700's! If no one is there, seize it...

                              Finders keepers, losers weepers...

                              Possession in 9/10s of the law...

                              Are you 10 years old?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Funtastic View Post
                                Clearly the US ship is in the wrong. The Onus is on the following boat to avoid hitting the stern of the other boat.
                                Bwahaha

                                Obviously you were never a sailor. A ship never overtakes another ship and crosses it's bow suddenly unless it wants to cause something.

                                However, a car driver doing this shit is not unknown. I suppose you drive this way.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X