Comments by "D W" (@DW-op7ly) on "DW News"
channel.
-
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
27
-
16
-
15
-
11
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
8
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
3
-
3
-
Vietnam posts record 2022 trade surplus with U.S. as China deficit rises
* Vietnam's trade surplus with the United States widened to $94.9 billion last year, the highest level on record,
* Meanwhile, a trade deficit with China, which is the largest supplier of materials and equipment to Vietnam's labour-intensive manufacturing sector, widened to a record $60.2 billion in 2022 from $54.0 billion a year earlier,
Zawya
👇
In 2022, Mexico's imports from China exceeded its exports by more than 100 billion U.S. dollars. In that year, the value of products imported from this Asian country reached approximately to 118 billion dollars, whereas exports totaled to about 10.8 billion dollars.
statista
👇
In 2022, trade between Mexico and the United States reached USD 738 billion, with Mexico posting a surplus of near USD 208 billion.
TradingEconomics
3
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
3
-
What most people don’t get is the Philippines had every right to ask for arbitration
It’s just China has every right not to accept arbitration
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299
Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
3
-
3
-
3
-
What most people don’t get is the Philippines had every right to ask for arbitration
It’s just China has every right not to accept arbitration
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299
Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
3
-
3
-
Says the American living on indigenous land probably arguing how they were not the first and how they fought each other before the white man showed up
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
2
-
UNCLOS????
Philippines under UNCLOS had every right to request a tribunal as a resolution
But
China under UNCLOS had every right not to accept the tribunal as a resolution
No one other than Taiwan accepts that 9 dash line claim.
But what the tribunal did state was ... No one exhibited continuous control over the islands, reefs, water in dispute
That means all the other countries who also have their land and water disputes including China and the Philippines
Have dug into the land and water they control. And are basically saying talk to us in few hundred years
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299 Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
2
-
I don’t think Filipinos with a grade 10 graduation (when you are 16 or some cases 15 )
can grasp what they are being told because once again
Philippines under UNCLOS had every right to request a tribunal as a resolution
BUT
China under UNCLOS had every right not to accept the tribunal as a resolution
You Filipinos went to shop for a sympathetic court once again
That’s like the Chinese going to a Russian court to see if by international law they can drop
A few nukes on you
No one other than Taiwan accepts that 9 dash line claim.
But what the tribunal did state was ... No one exhibited continuous control over the islands, reefs, water in dispute
That means all the other countries who also have their land and water disputes including China and the Philippines
Have dug into the land and water they control. And are basically saying talk to us in few hundred years
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299 Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
2
-
2
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah the last few years just like your claim came about 50 years ago
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Malaysia clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines (In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines (off the shores of Malaysian land) if we are arguing strictly “proximity” Malaysia wins in their dispute with the Philippines
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute in the SCS with China stems from the fact they made a formal proximity claim against China in 1971 on those disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE “historical claim” that the Philippines formally dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal that the Filipinos unilaterally brought forth themselves
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What most people don’t get is the Philippines had every right to ask for arbitration
It’s just China has every right not to accept arbitration
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299
Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
2
-
Yeah and you lost the appeal
Fact Fact Filipinos
Talk about a Bully
Imagine an unprovoked attack on Malaysia, killing Malaysians then seeking a court case against them
👇
How Malaysia ended up owing $15 billion to a sultan's heirs
* KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Malaysia is scrambling to protect its assets as the descendants of the last sultan of the remote Philippine region of Sulu look to enforce a $15 billion arbitration award in a dispute over a colonial-era land deal.
In 1878, two European colonists signed a deal with the sultan for the use of his territory in present-day Malaysia – an agreement that independent Malaysia honoured until 2013, paying the monarch's descendants about $1,000 a year.
Now, 144 years later after the original deal, Malaysia is on the hook for the second largest arbitration award on record for stopping the payments after a bloody incursion by supporters of Sultan Mohammed Jamalul Alam's heirs in which more than 50 people were killed.
For years, Malaysia largely dismissed the claims but in July, two Luxembourg-based subsidiaries of state energy firm Petronas were served with a seizure notice to enforce the award that the heirs won in February. read more
The arbitration ruling in France followed an eight-year legal effort by the heirs and $20 million in funds raised for them from unidentified third-party investors, according to interviews with main figures in the case and legal documents seen by Reuters.
*Malaysia did not participate in nor recognise the arbitration - allowing the heirs to present their case without rebuttal - despite warnings that it would be dangerous to ignore the process.
The claimants, including some retirees, are Filipino citizens leading middle-class lives, a far cry from their royal ancestors of the Sulu sultanate that once spanned rainforest-covered islands in the southern Philippines and parts of Borneo island.
Reuters
👇
Malaysia Wins Court Battle Over $15 Billion Sulu Heirs Award
The ruling by the French Court of Appeal questioned the jurisdiction of Spanish arbitrator Gustavo Stampa, who ordered last year’s eye-watering payout.
The “partial award” was subsequently nullified by the Spanish High Court of Justice in June 2021, when it ruled that Malaysia had not been properly served ahead of Stampa’s appointment in 2019. In September, however, Stampa took the seemingly unusual step of transferring the arbitration proceeding to Paris, where he would go on to render the final award.
Critics of Stampa and the Sulu heirs have accused them of “forum shopping” – of “hopping from one foreign jurisdiction to the next to find a court that was willing to hear their claim,” as two Malaysian writers put it in these pages last year.
TheDiplomat
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Malaysia clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines (In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines (off the shores of Malaysian land) if we are arguing strictly “proximity” Malaysia wins in their dispute with the Philippines
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute in the SCS with China stems from the fact they made a formal proximity claim against China in 1971 on those disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE “historical claim” that the Philippines formally dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal that the Filipinos unilaterally brought forth themselves
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
2
-
2
-
2
-
Philippines under UNCLOS had every right to request a tribunal as a resolution
But
China under UNCLOS had every right not to accept the tribunal as a resolution
No one other than Taiwan accepts that 9 dash line claim.
But what the tribunal did state was ... No one exhibited continuous control over the islands, reefs, water in dispute
That means all the other countries who also have their land and water disputes including China and the Philippines
Have dug into the land and water they control. And are basically saying talk to us in few hundred years
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299 Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
2
-
This Week at War: An Arms Race America Can’t Win
The United States has no chance in ship-for-ship showdown with China. Luckily, it shouldn't have to have one.
Of course, counting ships does not tell the whole story. Even more critical are the missions assigned to these ships and the conditions under which they will fight. In a hypothetical conflict between the United States and China for control of the South and East China Seas, the continental power would enjoy substantial structural advantages over U.S. forces.
China, for instance, would be able to use its land-based air power, located at many dispersed and hardened bases, against naval targets. The ONI forecasts China’s inventory of maritime strike aircraft rising from 145 in 2009 to 348 by 2020. U.S. land-based air power in the Western Pacific operates from just a few bases, which are vulnerable to missile attack from China (the Cold War-era Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty prevents the United States from developing theater-based surface-to-surface missiles with ranges sufficient to put Chinese bases at risk). A comparison of ship counts similarly does not include China’s and-based anti-ship cruise missiles, fired from mobile truck launchers. Nor does it account for China’s fleet of coastal patrol
boats, also armed with anti-ship cruise missiles.
The Air-Sea Battle concept began as an effort to improve staff coordination and planning between the Navy and the Air Force in an effort to address the structural disadvantages these forces would have when going up against a well-armed continental power like China. The concept is about creating operational synergies between the services. An example of this synergy occurred in last year’s campaign against Libya,when U.S. Navy cruise missiles destroyed Libya’s air defense system,
clearing the way for the U.S. Air Force to operate freely over the
country.
But Air-Sea Battle still faces enormous challenges in overcoming the"home court" advantage a continental power enjoys deploying its missile forces from hidden, dispersed, and hardened sites. In addition, the United States faces a steep "marginal cost" problem with an opponent like China; additional defenses for U.S. ships are more expensive than additional Chinese missiles. And China can acquire hundreds or even
thousands of missiles for the cost of one major U.S. warship.
FP
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
Talk about a Bully
Imagine an unprovoked attack on Malaysia, killing Malaysians then seeking a court case against them
👇
How Malaysia ended up owing $15 billion to a sultan's heirs
* KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Malaysia is scrambling to protect its assets as the descendants of the last sultan of the remote Philippine region of Sulu look to enforce a $15 billion arbitration award in a dispute over a colonial-era land deal.
In 1878, two European colonists signed a deal with the sultan for the use of his territory in present-day Malaysia – an agreement that independent Malaysia honoured until 2013, paying the monarch's descendants about $1,000 a year.
Now, 144 years later after the original deal, Malaysia is on the hook for the second largest arbitration award on record for stopping the payments after a bloody incursion by supporters of Sultan Mohammed Jamalul Alam's heirs in which more than 50 people were killed.
For years, Malaysia largely dismissed the claims but in July, two Luxembourg-based subsidiaries of state energy firm Petronas were served with a seizure notice to enforce the award that the heirs won in February. read more
The arbitration ruling in France followed an eight-year legal effort by the heirs and $20 million in funds raised for them from unidentified third-party investors, according to interviews with main figures in the case and legal documents seen by Reuters.
*Malaysia did not participate in nor recognise the arbitration - allowing the heirs to present their case without rebuttal - despite warnings that it would be dangerous to ignore the process.
The claimants, including some retirees, are Filipino citizens leading middle-class lives, a far cry from their royal ancestors of the Sulu sultanate that once spanned rainforest-covered islands in the southern Philippines and parts of Borneo island.
Reuters
👇
Malaysia Wins Court Battle Over $15 Billion Sulu Heirs Award
The ruling by the French Court of Appeal questioned the jurisdiction of Spanish arbitrator Gustavo Stampa, who ordered last year’s eye-watering payout.
The “partial award” was subsequently nullified by the Spanish High Court of Justice in June 2021, when it ruled that Malaysia had not been properly served ahead of Stampa’s appointment in 2019. In September, however, Stampa took the seemingly unusual step of transferring the arbitration proceeding to Paris, where he would go on to render the final award.
Critics of Stampa and the Sulu heirs have accused them of “forum shopping” – of “hopping from one foreign jurisdiction to the next to find a court that was willing to hear their claim,” as two Malaysian writers put it in these pages last year.
TheDiplomat
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divesting to where, the companies that did leave China during the trade war
only 5% went back to the USA
The majority went to SE Asia and the majority of those companies to Vietnam
Back in the 1980s tasked to start researching China for the investment banking firm I worked for
I stumbled upon the fact Chinese people and their companies were already leaving China. And going to these SE Asian countries. To the point thaw days ethnic Chinese and their companies economically dominate these economies. And these Countries are dependent on the Chinese economy
When I warned about this and CCP China at the time
people didn’t believe called me a communist against capitalism as the western world wanted free trade, globalization, open markets
These days folks thinking they can run off to countries like Vietnam have no idea what they are talking about
👇
Ethnic Chinese dominate PH economy
by Solita Collas - Monsod on Jun 25, 2012
Truly, a picture is worth a thousand words. The pictures of the top 15 Filipino billionaires (in US dollars, mind you) in Friday’s issue of the Inquirer brought home with crystal clarity the domination of the Philippine economy by ethnic Chinese. This is, of course, not a unique situation, as it seems to be the case in all of Southeast Asia
Philippine Daily Inquirer
👇
Vietnam posts record 2022 trade surplus with U.S. as China deficit rises
* Vietnam's trade surplus with the United States widened to $94.9 billion last year, the highest level on record,
* Meanwhile, a trade deficit with China, which is the largest supplier of materials and equipment to Vietnam's labour-intensive manufacturing sector, widened to a record $60.2 billion in 2022 from $54.0 billion a year earlier,
Zawya
1
-
1
-
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What most people don’t get is the Philippines had every right to ask for arbitration
It’s just China has every right not to accept arbitration
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
1
-
What most people don’t get is the Philippines had every right to ask for arbitration
It’s just China has every right not to accept arbitration
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
1
-
What most people don’t get is the Philippines had every right to ask for arbitration
It’s just China has every right not to accept arbitration
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
1
-
1
-
1
-
What most people don’t get is the Philippines had every right to ask for arbitration
It’s just China has every right not to accept arbitration
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
China trade surplus with the world was 823 billion in 2023
279 billion of it was with you Americans
What most people don’t get? Is it is US multinationals making the lion share of those profits inflating the trade deficit between China to the USA
Where Chinese companies trade with their Belt and Road country partners
US Multinationals using illegal labour from South East Asia. Or more and more automation in their wholly owned factories in China
These are the same companies who got those trump tax cuts you for sure cheered about
Same companies based in China who derived 392 billion in sales in Chinese domestic markets in 2018 when trump started his trade war
Same companies whose high flying stocks are in your 401k/Pensions
Why didn’t China pull the nuclear option and boot these companies you might ask?
They don’t believe in a zero sum game type of thinking
I can show you in the trade vvar how they didn’t pull out their big trade we a pons
In fact when the USA was raising tariffs on countries China was lowering them on Countries instead of the USA of course
For example China dominates the production of the world’s essential ingredients that go into the world’s pharmaceutical drugs. China stops exporting and Americans lose access to Alzheimer’s, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer Drugs etc etc etc etc
👇
Trump’s ‘trade war’ with China won’t be so easy to win
Having learned these value chain lessons, Beijing has worked hard to bring more of the high-value-adding parts of value chains into China, and to build hi-tech industries in which it can establish a globally competitive position. China has successfully done this in areas like high-speed trains (CRRC), digital telecoms networks (Huawei), drones (DJI) and hi-tech batteries (BYD). Trump’s team is not wrong to be worried about China’s competitive emergence here, and to target these new-tech sectors in the latest trade war sortie.But here’s the problem: China exports almost none of these new-tech products to the US, making US tariff threats meaningless. Rather, they go to developing economy markets – many embraced by the Belt and Road initiative – where China has succeeded in building a hi-tech, high-value brand reputation.
As Trump’s team will quickly learn, the challenge of finding China’s pain points is bigger than expected: for a decade China’s priority has been to base growth on the domestic consumer economy and reduce reliance on the low-value-adding export processing industries (many of which are US- or Hong Kong-owned and concentrated in the Pearl River Delta)
SCMP
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No one accepts the 9 dash line except China or Taiwan
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
China is hiding $3 trillion of foreign currency in 'shadow reserves,' adding unknown risks to the global economy, former Treasury official says
Filip De Mott Jun 30, 2023
Half of China's currency reserves are "hidden," a situation that may add risks to the global economy down the road, former Treasury Department official Brad Setser wrote.
While the country's State Administration of Foreign Exchange reported $3.12 trillion in foreign assets last December, Setser estimates that foreign exchange reserves actually sit at around $6 trillion.
"China is so big that how it manages its economy and currency matters enormously to the world," he wrote in The China Project. "Yet over time the way it manages its currency and its foreign exchange reserves has become much less transparent – creating new kinds of risks for the global economy."
A key indicator about China's reserves is a sudden pause in its reported activity. From 2002 to 2012, China's foreign exchange reserves steadily rose as the central bank bought US dollar assets to prevent China's yuan from appreciating too much, allowing exports to remain cheap.
But over the last 10 years, China's reserves stopped rising, which is puzzling as China's trade surplus has continued growing, and currently stands at an all-time high, he said.
BI
1
-
China’s Gold Reserves Unveiled: Investigating Claims of Secret Hoarding and the Alleged Discrepancy
JANUARY 9, 2024
Based on these calculations, Frisby estimates that China has at around 33,000 tons of gold, with at least half being state-owned. That state-owned portion (16,500 tons) is double what the U.S. holds.
If China admits to the U.S., “We got twice as much gold as you,’ that’s tantamount to a declaration of war,” according to Frisby. The yuan would become more valuable, gold would become more valuable, and China would become the leader of both of these assets.
OxfordGoldGroup
1
-
Difference Between Internal Debt and External Debt!
The basic character of an internal debt is quite different from that of the external debt. In external debt, at the time of repayment there is a real transfer of resources.
In case of internal debt, however, since it is borrowed from individuals and institutions within the country repayment will constitute only a re-distribution of resources without causing any change in the total resources of the community.
There can, thus, be no direct money burden caused by internal debts since all payments cancel each other out in the aggregate community as a whole. Whatever is taxed from one section of the community servicing the debts is distributed among the bond-holders by way of repayment of loans and interest; and quite often, the tax-payer and the bond-holder may be the same person.
At the most, to the extent that the incomes of tax-payers (in a sense, debtors) are reduced, so will the incomes of creditors/ bond-holders increase, but the aggregate position of the community will, nevertheless, remain the same.
However, internal debt may involve a direct real burden on the community according to the nature of the series of transfer of incomes from tax payers to the public creditors. To the extent the tax-payers and the bond-holders are the same, the distribution of wealth will remain unaltered; hence there will not be any net real burden on the community.
Yourarticlelibrary
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Talk about a Bully
Imagine an unprovoked attack on Malaysia, killing Malaysians then seeking a court case against them
👇
How Malaysia ended up owing $15 billion to a sultan's heirs
* KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Malaysia is scrambling to protect its assets as the descendants of the last sultan of the remote Philippine region of Sulu look to enforce a $15 billion arbitration award in a dispute over a colonial-era land deal.
In 1878, two European colonists signed a deal with the sultan for the use of his territory in present-day Malaysia – an agreement that independent Malaysia honoured until 2013, paying the monarch's descendants about $1,000 a year.
Now, 144 years later after the original deal, Malaysia is on the hook for the second largest arbitration award on record for stopping the payments after a bloody incursion by supporters of Sultan Mohammed Jamalul Alam's heirs in which more than 50 people were killed.
For years, Malaysia largely dismissed the claims but in July, two Luxembourg-based subsidiaries of state energy firm Petronas were served with a seizure notice to enforce the award that the heirs won in February. read more
The arbitration ruling in France followed an eight-year legal effort by the heirs and $20 million in funds raised for them from unidentified third-party investors, according to interviews with main figures in the case and legal documents seen by Reuters.
*Malaysia did not participate in nor recognise the arbitration - allowing the heirs to present their case without rebuttal - despite warnings that it would be dangerous to ignore the process.
The claimants, including some retirees, are Filipino citizens leading middle-class lives, a far cry from their royal ancestors of the Sulu sultanate that once spanned rainforest-covered islands in the southern Philippines and parts of Borneo island.
Reuters
👇
Malaysia Wins Court Battle Over $15 Billion Sulu Heirs Award
The ruling by the French Court of Appeal questioned the jurisdiction of Spanish arbitrator Gustavo Stampa, who ordered last year’s eye-watering payout.
The “partial award” was subsequently nullified by the Spanish High Court of Justice in June 2021, when it ruled that Malaysia had not been properly served ahead of Stampa’s appointment in 2019. In September, however, Stampa took the seemingly unusual step of transferring the arbitration proceeding to Paris, where he would go on to render the final award.
Critics of Stampa and the Sulu heirs have accused them of “forum shopping” – of “hopping from one foreign jurisdiction to the next to find a court that was willing to hear their claim,” as two Malaysian writers put it in these pages last year.
TheDiplomat
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Filipino trike driver or bar girl
Or if you a lucky a OFW nanny
👇
Philippines under UNCLOS had every right to request a tribunal as a resolution
But
China under UNCLOS had every right not to accept the tribunal as a resolution
No one other than Taiwan accepts that 9 dash line claim.
But what the tribunal did state was ... No one exhibited continuous control over the islands, reefs, water in dispute
That means all the other countries who also have their land and water disputes including China and the Philippines
Have dug into the land and water they control. And are basically saying talk to us in few hundred years
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
1
-
Talk about a Bully
Imagine an unprovoked attack on Malaysia, killing Malaysians then seeking a court case against them
👇
How Malaysia ended up owing $15 billion to a sultan's heirs
* KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Malaysia is scrambling to protect its assets as the descendants of the last sultan of the remote Philippine region of Sulu look to enforce a $15 billion arbitration award in a dispute over a colonial-era land deal.
In 1878, two European colonists signed a deal with the sultan for the use of his territory in present-day Malaysia – an agreement that independent Malaysia honoured until 2013, paying the monarch's descendants about $1,000 a year.
Now, 144 years later after the original deal, Malaysia is on the hook for the second largest arbitration award on record for stopping the payments after a bloody incursion by supporters of Sultan Mohammed Jamalul Alam's heirs in which more than 50 people were killed.
For years, Malaysia largely dismissed the claims but in July, two Luxembourg-based subsidiaries of state energy firm Petronas were served with a seizure notice to enforce the award that the heirs won in February. read more
The arbitration ruling in France followed an eight-year legal effort by the heirs and $20 million in funds raised for them from unidentified third-party investors, according to interviews with main figures in the case and legal documents seen by Reuters.
*Malaysia did not participate in nor recognise the arbitration - allowing the heirs to present their case without rebuttal - despite warnings that it would be dangerous to ignore the process.
The claimants, including some retirees, are Filipino citizens leading middle-class lives, a far cry from their royal ancestors of the Sulu sultanate that once spanned rainforest-covered islands in the southern Philippines and parts of Borneo island.
Reuters
👇
Malaysia Wins Court Battle Over $15 Billion Sulu Heirs Award
The ruling by the French Court of Appeal questioned the jurisdiction of Spanish arbitrator Gustavo Stampa, who ordered last year’s eye-watering payout.
The “partial award” was subsequently nullified by the Spanish High Court of Justice in June 2021, when it ruled that Malaysia had not been properly served ahead of Stampa’s appointment in 2019. In September, however, Stampa took the seemingly unusual step of transferring the arbitration proceeding to Paris, where he would go on to render the final award.
Critics of Stampa and the Sulu heirs have accused them of “forum shopping” – of “hopping from one foreign jurisdiction to the next to find a court that was willing to hear their claim,” as two Malaysian writers put it in these pages last year.
TheDiplomat
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Philippines uses the maps of its 2nd to last colonizer.Spain
It’s current and last colonizer the USA didn’t give the islands to the Philippines until after China stopped being one of the US Allies
Philippines under the USA can stay 3rd world…. Indonesia and Malaysia don’t have the bars like they do in the Philippines
Filipinas will flock to angeles city
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yup, or else we all stole
👇
Why was China erased from Western memory
Introduction
Joseph Needham was an English medical doctor and biologist, teaching in England in the 1930s. By an accident of fate he acquired some Chinese students, and was intrigued to hear their claims of so many medical and scientific discoveries having originated in China,
rather than in the West.
Needham became fully fluent in Chinese, and eventually moved to China in 1942 to investigate these claims and to research the entire history of Chinese invention. That work led to an astonishing voyage of historical discovery.
Needham originally planned to write a book cataloguing Chinese inventions, but his first volume barely scratched the surface of his subject. He slowly gatherred many of his students into this enterprise, and they eventually wrote a collection of 26 books, to
catalog the history of Chinese discovery.
Myth and Misrepresentation
It leaves one speechless to learn the vast extent of things invented by the Chinese many hundreds of years, and often several millennia, before they appeared in the West.
mysingaporenewsBlogspot
1
-
A nation of outlaws
A century ago, that wasn't China -- it was us
One hundred and fifty years ago, even America's closest trade partners were despairing about our cheating ways. Charles Dickens, who visited in 1842, was, like many Britons, stunned by the economic ambition of our nation's inhabitants, and appalled by what they would do for the sake of profit. When he first stepped off the boat in Boston, he found the city's bookstores rife with pirated copies of his novels, along with those of his countrymen. Dickens would later deliver
lectures decrying the practice, and wrote home in outrage: "my blood so boiled as I thought of the monstrous injustice." In the United States of the early 19th century, capitalism as we know it today was still very much in its infancy. Most people still lived on small farms, and despite the persistent myth that America was the land of laissez-faire, there were plenty of laws on the books aimed at keeping tight reins on the market economy. But as commerce became more complex, and stretched over greater distances, this patchwork system of local and state-level regulations was gradually overwhelmed by a new generation of wheeler-dealer entrepreneurs.
Taking a page from the British, who had pioneered many ingenious methods of adulteration a generation or two earlier, American manufacturers, distributors, and vendors of food began tampering with their products en masse -- bulking out supplies with cheap filler, using dangerous additives to mask spoilage or to give foodstuffs a more appealing color.
Boston Globe
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yomajo
There is now a 27 book series on Chinese inventions that says we copied or stole from them,.
And you have successfully been brain…wash .ed…. Rather than t them red book thumping com mies
These days the Chinese lead the world in 37 of 44 critical technologies of the future
👇
The remarkable history of Chinese invention -
Why was China erased from Western memory?
Article by 龙信明
Introduction Joseph Needham was an English medical doctor and biologist, teaching in England in the 1930s. By an accident of fate he acquired some Chinese students, and was intrigued to hear their claims of so many medical and scientific discoveries having originated in China, rather than in the West.
Needham became fully fluent in Chinese, and eventually moved to China in 1942 to investigate these claims and to research the entire history of Chinese invention.
That work led to an astonishing voyage of historical discovery. Needham originally planned to write a book cataloguing Chinese inventions, but his first volume barely scratched the surface of his subject.
He slowly gatherred many of his students into this enterprise, and they eventually wrote a collection of 26 books, to catalog the history of Chinese discovery.
Myth and Misrepresentation It leaves one speechless to learn the vast extent of things invented by the Chinese many hundreds of years, and often several millennia, before they appeared in the West.
MySingaporeBlogSpot
1
-
@AA2639-m9v
There is now a 27 book series on Chinese inventions that says we copied or stole from them,.
And you have successfully been brain…wash .ed…. Rather than t them red book thumping com mies
These days the Chinese lead the world in 37 of 44 critical technologies of the future
The remarkable history of Chinese invention -
Why was China erased from Western memory?
Article by 龙信明
Introduction Joseph Needham was an English medical doctor and biologist, teaching in England in the 1930s. By an accident of fate he acquired some Chinese students, and was intrigued to hear their claims of so many medical and scientific discoveries having originated in China, rather than in the West.
Needham became fully fluent in Chinese, and eventually moved to China in 1942 to investigate these claims and to research the entire history of Chinese invention.
That work led to an astonishing voyage of historical discovery. Needham originally planned to write a book cataloguing Chinese inventions, but his first volume barely scratched the surface of his subject.
He slowly gatherred many of his students into this enterprise, and they eventually wrote a collection of 26 books, to catalog the history of Chinese discovery.
Myth and Misrepresentation It leaves one speechless to learn the vast extent of things invented by the Chinese many hundreds of years, and often several millennia, before they appeared in the West.
MySingaporeBlogSpot
1
-
1
-
1
-
@krollpeter
US-China tech war: Beijing's secret chipmaking champions
How Washington's sanctions boosted China's semiconductor sector
CHENG TING-FANG and LAULY LI, Nikkei staff writers
MAY 5, 2021 06:16 JST
Plan B
So far, Yangtze Memory, also known as YMTC, has remained under the radar of the U.S. government. But the company is taking no chances. With the guidance of Beijing, it has launched a massive review of its supply chain in an effort to find local suppliers -- or, at least, non-U.S. ones -- to replace the current dependence on American technology.
The collective effort has occupied over 800 people, full time, and including staff from its multiple local suppliers, for two years. And they have not finished yet.
YMTC is seeking to learn as much as it can about the origin of everything that goes into its products, from production equipment and chemicals to the tiny lenses, screws, nuts and bearings in chipmaking machinery and production lines, multiple sources familiar with the matter said. The audit extends not only to YMTC's own production lines, but also to suppliers, suppliers' suppliers, and so on.
"The review is as meticulous as knowing where the screws and nuts are coming from, the lead time, and if those parts have alternatives," one person familiar with the matter told Nikkei Asia.
Each supplier is assigned a score for geopolitical risk, identified in many pages of documents detailing the components they use in its machines. YMTC has sent engineers to audit local equipment suppliers' production sites to verify that the origins of parts have been truthfully reported, one of the people told Nikkei.
American-made parts are scored highest for risk, followed by parts bought from Japan, Europe and those made locally, the person said. Meanwhile, suppliers are asked to provide corrective action reports to explain how they can together diversify procurement and find alternatives.
Nikkei Asia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This Week at War: An Arms Race America Can’t Win
The United States has no chance in ship-for-ship showdown with China. Luckily, it shouldn't have to have one.
Of course, counting ships does not tell the whole story. Even more critical are the missions assigned to these ships and the conditions under which they will fight. In a hypothetical conflict between the United States and China for control of the South and East China Seas, the continental power would enjoy substantial structural advantages over U.S. forces.
China, for instance, would be able to use its land-based air power, located at many dispersed and hardened bases, against naval targets. The ONI forecasts China’s inventory of maritime strike aircraft rising from 145 in 2009 to 348 by 2020. U.S. land-based air power in the Western Pacific operates from just a few bases, which are vulnerable to missile attack from China (the Cold War-era Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty prevents the United States from developing theater-based surface-to-surface missiles with ranges sufficient to put Chinese bases at risk). A comparison of ship counts similarly does not include China’s and-based anti-ship cruise missiles, fired from mobile truck launchers. Nor does it account for China’s fleet of coastal patrol
boats, also armed with anti-ship cruise missiles.
The Air-Sea Battle concept began as an effort to improve staff coordination and planning between the Navy and the Air Force in an effort to address the structural disadvantages these forces would have when going up against a well-armed continental power like China. The concept is about creating operational synergies between the services. An example of this synergy occurred in last year’s campaign against Libya,when U.S. Navy cruise missiles destroyed Libya’s air defense system,
clearing the way for the U.S. Air Force to operate freely over the
country.
But Air-Sea Battle still faces enormous challenges in overcoming the"home court" advantage a continental power enjoys deploying its missile forces from hidden, dispersed, and hardened sites. In addition, the United States faces a steep "marginal cost" problem with an opponent like China; additional defenses for U.S. ships are more expensive than additional Chinese missiles. And China can acquire hundreds or even
thousands of missiles for the cost of one major U.S. warship.
FP
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Pentagon Is Freaking Out About a Potential War With China
(Because America might lose.)
The war began in the early morning hours with a massive bombardment — China’s version of “shock and awe.” Chinese planes and rockets swiftly destroyed most of Taiwan’s navy and air force as the People’s Liberation army and navy mounted a massive amphibious assault across the 100-mile Taiwan Strait. Having taken seriously President Joe Biden’s pledge to defend the island, Beijing also struck pre-emptively at U.S. and allied air bases and ships in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. managed to even the odds for a time by deploying more sophisticated submarines as well as B-21 and B-2 stealth bombers to get inside China’s air defense zones, but Washington ran out of key munitions in a matter of days and saw its network access severed. The United States and its main ally, Japan, lost thousands of servicemembers, dozens of ships, and hundreds of aircraft. Taiwan’s economy was devastated. And as a protracted siege ensued, the U.S. was much slower to rebuild, taking years to replace ships as it reckoned with how shriveled its industrial base had become compared to China’s.
The Chinese “just ran rings around us,” said former Joint Chiefs Vice Chair Gen. John Hyten in one after-action report. “They knew exactly what we were going to do before we did it.”
Dozens of versions of the above war-game scenario have been enacted over the last few years, most recently in April by the House Select Committee on competition with China. And while the ultimate outcome in these exercises is not always clear — the U.S. does better in some than others — the cost is. In every exercise the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion of its planes destroyed on the ground. In every exercise the U.S. is not engaged in an abstract push-button war from 30,000 feet up like the ones Americans have come to expect since the end of the Cold War, but a horrifically bloody one.
And that’s assuming the U.S.-China war doesn’t go nuclear.
Politico
1
-
Can Anyone Talk to China Anymore? Probably Not
Why would China so brazenly challenge the world’s economic powers like this? Because the country’s leaders know what our leaders are only beginning to understand — that China would probably win a global trade war.
In March 2009, the Pentagon for the first time held a series of economic war games exercises. The soldiers were Wall Street traders and executives, economists and academics. The weapons were stocks, bonds and currencies. The participants were divided into teams: the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, the European Union and so on. Then the teams were presented with different scenarios — North Korea is imploding, a major global economy is melting down — and told to do what was in their best interests. Our intelligence experts watched as the economic conflicts played out.
What the exercises showed was that the U.S. consistently lost to China in economic warfare. Part of the reason was that the U.S. could be easily distracted by expensive side conflicts that sapped our economic strength. But the more important reason was that China could inflict real pain on the U.S. without feeling it at home. For instance, by simply moving the maturities of some of its $850 billion in Treasury holdings from 90 days to 60 days, it could cause chaos in the U.S. stock markets. Or China could sell just a trickle of its U.S. financial assets and signal that it didn’t have confidence in the U.S. economy, setting off a panic here.
The overall lesson from the exercise was that, for all of our saber-rattling, in our weakened economic state we have to be careful about poking this dragon. And what’s more, everyone involved knows it.
HuffingtonPost
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Sabah clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines
(In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute stems with the fact they make a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE
Historical claim that the Philippines dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Malaysia clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines (In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines (off the shores of Malaysian land) if we are arguing strictly “proximity” Malaysia wins in their dispute with the Philippines
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute in the SCS with China stems from the fact they made a formal proximity claim against China in 1971 on those disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 BCE “historical claim” that the Philippines formally dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal that the Filipinos unilaterally brought forth themselves
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
To me historical claim, proximity claim
It really does not matter it’s just the reason for the countries claim
I only bring but up because people want to make it out that it was the Chinese who just showed up one day
When it was you Filipinos who didn’t make a formal claim until 1971
2 years after oil was found
To me it’s who controls that land and water now
That tribunal just affirmed the who ever controls that land controls its now
Basically arguing no country has exhibited continuous control
Well all the countries including China and your Philippines had dug into the islands and waters they control and say speak to us in a few hundred years
Just like I am living on Indigenous peoples land who I say tough luck to those people
You are living on Negrito peoples land
You can say tough luck to them
Or give you can give back their land to them if you want
Which my argument is if you want to dispute historical claim like you did in the 2016 ICJ case you unilaterally brought forth
Then Sabah in which you make a historical claim is closer to Malaysia in proximity
As well as a few Island off the coast of Malaysia you Filipinos control
As for Vietnam
👇
Nanyue (Chinese: 南越[1] or 南粵[2]; pinyin: Nányuè; Jyutping: Naam4 Jyut6; lit. 'Southern Yue', Vietnamese: Nam Việt, Zhuang: Namz Yied),[3] was an ancient kingdom founded by the Chinese general Zhao Tuo, whose family (known in Vietnamese as the Triệu dynasty) continued to rule until 111 BC.[4][5] Nanyue's geographical expanse covered the modern Chinese subdivisions of Guangdong,[6] Guangxi,[6] Hainan,[7] Hong Kong,[7] Macau,[7] southern Fujian[8] and central to northern Vietnam.[6] Zhao Tuo, then Commander of Nanhai Commandery of the Qin dynasty, established Nanyue in 204 BC after the collapse of the Qin dynasty. At first, it consisted of the commanderies of Nanhai, Guilin, and Xiang.
Wikipedia
1
-
1