Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Beijing, Manila trade blame over collisions in South China Sea" video.
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zeke860 "Here is a map produced by a dutch that proves there is no legal nor occupation of chinese in the said island"
Oh look! Lets trust some Dutch guy that has absolutely no authority in determining another countrys sovereignty to prove your point! If I drew a map that show there was no occupation in the PH, that MUST also mean PH was not occupied, right?!
And why you looking at something so far back? Its already been ruled by some tribunal that there is no legal basis for China (and by extension other countries) to claim territory based on historical rights.
"Amazingly, none of it was produced by the Philippines itself, I wonder why?"
You wonder why? Because PH simply did not have the expertise to draw maps? Duh!
"Care to share your evidence and proofs? YouTube scholars."
My evidence in the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US, and from the US to PH. Its specifically stated. If you bothered reading it, youd realise that the islands/reefs in the SCS were NOT transferred to the PH. In other words, PH has absolutely ZERO sovereignty to ANY of the islands/reefs in the SCS. Its already been set in stone. If you want more territory you need to conquer it. What has PH conquered?
China was the first country in the region to make sovereign claims to the islands/reefs in the SCS in the 1940s. PH, Vietnam etc made their first claim in the 1970s after oil was found. Theyre 3 decades too late! Its already been owned by China.
Whos the "YouTube scholar" now? Youre talking about yourself are you not, Youtube scholar?
Heres a tip, its unwise to say things that can so easily backfire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "You're forgetting one thing, China's still a signatory to UNCLOS"
I didnt forget anything at all. Sovereignty has NOTHING to do with UNCLOS. UNCLOS is about maritime boundaries, not which country has sovereignty over what territory.
"They have just as much right to use those waters as China does"
Sure, but to be within 12nm from the said territories? Who says? Try venturing into 12NM of the US or something, see how you will be dealt with. Every country has the legal right to defend their own sovereign territory, China is not exception.
"But the area hasn't seen exclusive use by a single nation, nor has China even respected the environment or it's neighbors enough to even help their own case"
Its the others than need to respect Chinas sovereignty over the islands/reefs. They were the first country in the region to lay claims to the territories in the 1940s after all. PH, VN etc laid claims to those same territories 3 decades too late in the 1970s. If one claims a piece of territory as theirs, anyone else that claims it AFTERWARDS are the thieves.
"This is 2023, not 1323"
Exactly, so dont claim territory thats not yours. You can claim any unclaimed territory that exists, just dont claim territory thats already been claimed.
"There's a science to this stuff now"
Science? Whats that suppose to me? What science? You mean laws?
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "1. Sovereignty does have to do with UNCLOS when China's one of the very first nations to have ratified it. That means that on an official level, they put themselves under the self-created impression that they'd follow international law. However, the second they lose, they wanna act like it doesn't apply to them and continue to violate it."
Ratifying first or last has NOTHING to do with "sovereignty", so not sure what point youre trying to make there. As mentioned earlier, UNCLOS is about maritime boundaries and their rights, not which country has sovereignty over what territory. If you say China has violated international law, then state the law that they have broken. Its PH that has violated international law.
"2. The US won't do anything if foreign ships don't sail into it's territory"
Lies. If ANY ship sails within 12NM from ANY countrys territory, they will seize their ship and detain the people on it. If NK sails their warships into US territory and you think theyll do nothing?
"Have you ever heard of the US aggressively patrolling the ocean like China does? Probably not."
Of course. The US has been aggressively patrolling the Taiwan strait for many years with their warships and warplanes. Thats an act of provocation on many fronts.
And not only "patrolling", the US has also aggressively stirred up many conflicts behind the scene to fuel their military industrial complex all around the world.
"And the Spratlies aren't "12NM" away from China, their 400NM, far away from the coast"
Youre right, its not 12NM from China. Its 0NM from China. The whole Spratly are theirs. They claim it as their SOVEREIGN territory, not just a mere "EEZone" that they can exploit resources from. And like I said in another comment, distance is not what dictates sovereignty. There are many countries around the world having islands half way across the world.
"3. That's literally not how claiming territory works"
Prior to international law existing, thats exactly how it works. If you claim it first, its yours. If contested, theres war to fight for it.
"There's historical use that has to come into play as well as ownership and occupational issues"
Prior to international law, might is right. Nothing comes into play other than through force.
"China claims that they've used the Spratlies since the Ming, yet have never produced anything proving that, nor have they shown any long-lasting historical military installations or settlements"
What do you mean never? Everything is documented in Chinese history, and its been documented that they have exercised jurisdiction over those islands over many dynasties. Or were you referring to the tribunal that China wasnt even there to defend themselves with?
Its already been ruled that there is no legal basis for any country to claim territories based on historical rights, so no point talking about "historical use".
"China's destroying the reef system with a project to create manmade military islands because they just wanna win and claim it, which is illegal to do in international waters"
Stop making things up. State the exact law that prohibits a country from doing so. Bet you cant. Because there is none. Go on. Im waiting.
"4. Again, not how it works. Can I claim the sidewalk adjacent to your house? No"
You cant do that once laws have been established. But before law was established, you can. And if there were any parties that disagree with that, then might is right. Thats exactly how the world works prior to laws existing. And China made their SOVEREIGN claims prior to international law existing. PH and VN etc made their claims AFTER international law existed when China already owns those islands for over 3 decades already. Claiming something that others already owns is theft.
"5. Yes, Law is a science"
No its not.
No one with a law degree will say their degree is a science degree.
No one will refer a to lawyer as a scientist.
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "1.UNCLOS ruled in favor of the Philippines and the correct order of international waters"
Wrong. It was also not in favour of the PH. Why? Because PH also made claims based on historical rights. Ive repeated multiple times what the ruling was already: based on UNCLOS, China, and by extension other countries, have no legal basis to claim territory based on historical rights. And that includes the PH. So how is that "in favour" of the PH again? If anything it was neutral, no party wins, neither China nor PH.
"The Philippine's are not putting installations outside of their EEZ, so you can't say they violated any international law"
0:35 Right here, PH violated international laws on collision avoidance at sea and threatened the safety of the navigating vessel.
And China claims sovereignty over those islands/reefs. And there is NO LAW that prohibits building artificial islands or installations in their sovereign territory. You keep speaking about EEZ, Im not talking about EEZ, Im talking about SOVEREIGNTY. Its 2 different things here.
"And if you try to bring up fishing, people are allowed to fish in international waters, but not in other countries' EEZ, which is what China let's their fishermen do"
Well first of all, China is not prohibiting fishermen from fishing in the SCS. Theyre prohibiting fishermen from conducting any activities within 12NM from their sovereignty territory. Youre conveniently omitting that important piece of information. This is what causes disinformation.
'2. Again, no they don't. And they don't "patrol" the Taiwan Straight'
At this point youre arguing semantics here. Just because the patrols are not as frequent as youd like, doesnt mean theyre not patrolling the area. What theyre doing falls under the definition of patrol.
"They sail through it to deter potentially violent action by the CCP against the ROC"
You really think that sailing warships between them will deter anything? If PRC wants to attack, they would do it regardless. Having warships and warplanes halfway across the world in a place that they have no business with is a blatant sign of provocation if you ask me.
"to enforce the concept of free transit(since the Straight is another international waterway disputably claimed by China)"
They dont have the right to "enforce" anything outside of their jurisdiction. Heck, they havent even ratified UNCLOS!
"And the US does not shadow foreign ships if they go by us in this day and age"
If its near US territory, yes. Yes they will. Even aircrafts they will shadow, so I dont see why they wont with ships.
"So again, the US doesn't act like China when it comes to maritime behavior"
Say that again when NK sails a warship 13NM off US territory. Just because they havent (because no one has done it) doesnt mean they wont.
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "3. This is the modern day, not the Three Kingdoms or the Roman Empire. Again, that's a mute point"
I keep talking about the 1940s, just prior to international law existing, yet you conveniently pull out history from thousands of years ago?
Its certainly not a mute point, but I can see you trying very hard in attempt to make it one by conflating 1940s with something that happened a couple thousand years ago.
My point still stands right up to WW2. So not sure what youre playing here.
"How childish do you have to be to claim an entire ocean for China?"
I cant speak for China, but I can speak for myself. What I spoke of are the islands specifically, not the seas. So dont go talk about something thats got nothing to do with me.
You keep conflating things together.
"They are 400NM away from China and nothing will change that, so face the facts. That area belongs to no one"
Distance is not what dictates sovereignty. Sovereignty is claimed by the first claimant. If contested, then what usually happens is a fight over the territory. Not advocating for it, but an observation.
"Again, the Spratlies aren't China's sovereign territory. If it was, why don't they occupy it? Wanna know why? Because..."
Unlike you I dont speak on others behalf. But I will speak logic. Territory belongs to the first claimant. If another party wants to claim it, there will be a fight for it.
"I'm talking about the 2016 ruling and modern day claims. China always says they've used that place since the Ming, and are yet to produce even a scrap of paper referring to it as territory. Not a letter nor a map"
Ive done my fair share of reading in the past, and Ive indeed seen plenty of evidence of archaeological evidence and age-old documents which mentions their jurisdictions and activity over the islands not just from Ming (1400), but also from Jin (300 CE), Liu Song (450), Tang (650), Song (1000), and Qing (1650).
These evidence are much stronger than PH evidence. But I stopped looking further into it since there is no legal basis on historical rights as the tribunal has ruled.
Chinas strongest point now is that they has made sovereign claims over the islands since the 1940s and were uncontested for over 3 decades. Its PH and VN thats needs to stop the provocation.
"Articles Article 209, 211, 217, and even 235 of Part XII of Convention"
I skimmed through it. All of them require China to have THEIR OWN laws and regulations on the protecting the environment. My question to you is, how do you know China violated their own laws on the?
"They made their claims after WW2. But even back then there were treaties that harkened to an early form of international law"
Did China sign it? If China didnt sign it then why bother mentioning it? China made their sovereign claims to the islands in the SCS prior to international law even existing with the help of the US. Even if they did sign it, if their claims violated anything, it wouldve been brought to light.
"Law is a Social Science"
And now you wish to add a "social" in front of science.
That is not how the English language is used. No one calls law a "science". If you want to get down to is, then literally everything and every subject in this world is a "science". Everyone will just get a Bachelor/Master of "Science" degree. Forget about "Law degrees", its a "science degree". Lets not get ahead of ourselves and use the language everyone uses. Otherwise one can say that you a manipulative person and your relationships are transactional, because technically it is. Just that no one uses those words in such a way.
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "Well, UNCLOS didn't say the Philippines can claim the entire sea either, just their EEZ, which is why the area outside of the Philippine's EEZ is international water"
Wrong. Legally speaking (which I assume youre talking about since you speak of UNCLOS), there is no such thing as "international waters", theres only "high seas", which is any water outside of the 12NM territorial waters of any territory, not outside EEZ of 200NM.
And course they didnt say that. UNCLOS has no authority to determine what is is and what is not part of a countrys sovereignty territory.
"which is why the argument of historical rights can't come into play regarding the Spratlies"
So its not in the favour of the PH as you said. PH also cannot claim the islands based on historical rights.
"That ship was bringing supplies to the Sierra Madre, which is inside the Philippine's 200NM EEZ. China has no right to be there, are interfering with foreign military operations and the Philippine's sovereignty"
What do you mean China has "no right" to be there? Sierra Madre is located in Second Thomas Shoal, a reef that China claims sovereignty over. Remember, China were the FIRST in the region to make that sovereign claim. PH has ZERO sovereignty over ANY islands in the SCS as per their stated in the sovereign handover from the US to PH. If they want to suddenly claim sovereignty over islands/reefs China already claims then they must fight for it.
"and intentionally sailed in a path towards the smaller Fillipino ship while the smaller one turned at the last minute. You can clearly tell by the direction of the bows"
Under UNCLOS, every country has the right to defend their territorial integrity, even by use of force if necessary. So even if China blew them up, it wouldnt be illegal.
"Also, EEZ's are directly connected to the issue of sovereignty, which China seems keen on violating in regards to the Philippines"
When sovereignty was handed over the PH, it was very clear, it DID NOT include any islands in the SCS. So PH does NOT have any sovereignty of ANY territory in the SCS. So dont try any dance around with words with me. China violated nothing in regards to sovereign claims.
"I know China doesn't prohibit fishing in the SCS, but they let their fishermen poach from the waters of other nations"
Sure, I dont agree with that as well. But thats irrelevant to what we are speaking about right now.
"4. It's international waters. Any ship from any nation absolutely has the right to sail through there, even passing warships"
Funny how you considered "international waters" as outside the EEZ when if comes to PH, but when it comes to China, inside their EEZ is considered "international waters".
And my point isnt about their "right", my point is that thats a provocation. Like, just because you have freedom of speech to say what you want, doesnt mean what you say cannot be considered provocation.
"And I know that the US hasn't ratified UNCLOS, but they consider it an official guideline to international maritime behavior and use it as such"
Rules for thee but not for me. Typical American mindset. Doesnt matter if they "consider" it as a guideline, they are in no position to "enforce" anything that they themselves refuse to be legally bounded by it.
"And no, sailing warships in this context isn't provocation, it's deterrence"
When Russia sailed warships to Cuba and armed Cuba with capabilities to defend themselves as deterrence of an invasion, thats provocation? But when US arms Taiwan and sails warships there its not?
Such double standards.
"Provocation would be claiming Taiwan as theirs or something to that extent, which the US doesn't"
Thats not provocation only, thats a declaration of war.
Provocation is defined as; action or speech that makes someone angry, especially deliberately; stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone; deliberately make (someone) annoyed or angry.
What the US did falls under the definition of provocation to the Chinese. Not sure why youre so adamant in defending somethings thats clearly provocation to them.
"Again, no they don't....But they've never intercepted over international water or airspace"
Again, just because it hasnt happened before (because no one dared to) doesnt mean they wont. Even Australia did when China came close to them.
"Besides, they have radar to track them, so shadowing or aggressive action isn't necessary...NK doesn't have the capability to do that, lol. Their tech is still stuck in the Cold War-era, which some of it being even more outdated"
You missed the point. My point is that when a threat is at your doorstep, you will be closely monitoring it.
Radars alone just doesnt it cut it, they will send ships and even warn them via radio that theyre approaching their territory.
P.S not sure if deliberate but just FYI you didnt touch on my 2nd post of my last comment in case you missed it
1
-
1