Comments by "DailyBeatings" (@DailyBeatings) on "" video.

This is standard procedure to alert the aircraft to change direction as they are on course to enter regulated air space (FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Chapter 5 - Section 6. National Security and Interception Procedures - Subsection 5-16-3 Interception Procedures Paragraph b)
9
@TheConsigliere09 Unauthorized aircraft entering regulated airspace of a foreign country without permission are grounds for the use of force, therefore intercepts of these aircraft before they enter regulated air space is a common and regular occurrence. You can't win on this one...🤣
7
@TheConsigliere09 What part of "before they enter regulated air space" did you not understand? These are standard procedures for intercepts, especially if they enter a country's ADIZ. You should probable stop talking about things you don't know. Capisci pagliacci?
7
@mudshovel289 The intent of the intercept is to have the unauthorized aircraft change course and leave the area because they are about to enter regulated air space. It's not to modify their behavior like you would with a bad dog pooping on the rug. If you RTFM you would understand this...🤣
3
@TheConsigliere09 Once again what part of "before they enter regulated air space" did you not understand? You're obviously trying to obfuscate the issue by claiming the aircraft was not in Chinese airspace when the intercept procedures do not require the unidentified aircraft to be in Chinese airspace. It only requires that the unidentified aircraft have course and speed that will enter regulated airspace. Definition of regulated and international airspace falls under the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944). UNCLOS does not supersede this convention. Pretty basic concepts here, not very hard to understand...🤣
2
This is standard procedure to alert the aircraft to change direction as they are on course to enter regulated air space (FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Chapter 5 - Section 6. National Security and Interception Procedures - Subsection 5-16-3 Interception Procedures Paragraph b)
2
@TheConsigliere09 Unauthorized aircraft entering regulated airspace of a foreign country without permission are grounds for the use of force, therefore intercepts of these aircraft before they enter regulated air space is a common and regular occurrence. You can't win on this one...🤣
2
@mudshovel289 US does the exact same thing when Russian aircraft enter their ADIZ, so stop acting like the Chinese are somehow the big bad meanies...🤣
2
@pangga_mo China has numerous territories in the South China Sea. Some are disputed with other nations and some are not disputed. You should know this...🤣
2
This is standard procedure to alert the aircraft to change direction as they are on course to enter regulated air space (FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Chapter 5 - Section 6. National Security and Interception Procedures - Subsection 5-16-3 Interception Procedures Paragraph b)
2
This is standard procedure to alert the aircraft to change direction as they are on course to enter regulated air space (FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Chapter 5 - Section 6. National Security and Interception Procedures - Subsection 5-16-3 Interception Procedures Paragraph b)
1
@TheConsigliere09 Unauthorized aircraft entering regulated airspace of a foreign country without permission are grounds for the use of force, therefore intercepts of these aircraft before they enter regulated air space is a common and regular occurrence. You can't win on this one...🤣
1
@TheConsigliere09 Come stai pagliacci? What part of "before they enter regulated air space" did you not understand? Intercept procedures are a pretty basic concept. Maybe you should read up on the subject before you show everyone your ignorance...🤣
1
This is standard procedure to alert the aircraft to change direction as they are on course to enter regulated air space (FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Chapter 5 - Section 6. National Security and Interception Procedures - Subsection 5-16-3 Interception Procedures Paragraph b)
1
@TheConsigliere09 This is completely false. Intercepts are routinely done when the unidentified aircraft has a course and speed that will enter regulated air space. An intercept does not require the unidentified aircraft to be in regulated air space. US routinely does this when aircraft enter their ADIZ. You can't win on this argument, so give it a break pagliacci...🤣
1
@pangga_mo China has numerous territories in the South China Sea. Some are disputed with other nations and some are not disputed. You should know this...🤣
1
@pangga_mo China opted out of the PCA settlement mechanism with a signing statement, which is allowed under UNCLOS. Therefore they are not bound by the PCA decision. In addition there are also military installations on some of those territories, which obviously have an ADIZ around the perimeter. China imposing aviation protocols is consistent with their obligations under UNCLOS with regards to national security interests.
1
@pangga_mo China made a declaration under article 298 opting out of the dispute resolution mechanism, therefore they are not bound by the ruling. Australia also has a similar declaration under article 298 regarding disputes, so they should completely understand China's position...🤣
1
@pangga_mo A total of 40 countries have declarations under article 298 with most pertaining to national security issues. Declarations under article 298 are allowed, therefore opting out of sections of UNCLOS is completely valid and consistent with the convention.
1
@pangga_mo China is not bound by the PCA ruling due to opting out of the mechanism for dispute resolution with their declaration under article 298. If the declaration was invalid then UNCLOS would not have allowed the declaration in the first place. PCA is not a United Nations court, therefore there is no legal binding under international law.
1
@TheConsigliere09 PCA is not a United Nations court, therefore there is no legal binding under international law. The ruling is only binding on the parties to the convention, and since one of the parties opted out of the arbitration mechanism the ruling is not binding on that party. This concept is well established in contractual law.
1
@pangga_mo Article 9 reads as following: "If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its case, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to make its award." - As you can plainly see this only allows for an award to be made, but it does not bind China to such award due to the prior declaration China made under article 298. In other words the PCA can make an award, but China can ignore it due to the declaration allowed under UNCLOS.
1
This is standard procedure to alert the aircraft to change direction as they are on course to enter regulated air space (FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Chapter 5 - Section 6. National Security and Interception Procedures - Subsection 5-16-3 Interception Procedures Paragraph b)
1
@TheConsigliere09 Once again what part of "before they enter regulated air space" did you not understand? You're obviously trying to obfuscate the issue by claiming the aircraft was not in Chinese airspace when the intercept procedures do not require the unidentified aircraft to be in Chinese airspace. It only requires that the unidentified aircraft have course and speed that will enter regulated air space. Definition of regulated and international air space falls under the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944). UNCLOS does not supersede this convention. Pretty basic concepts here, not very hard to understand...🤣
1
@pangga_mo China has numerous territories in the South China Sea. Some are disputed with other nations and some are not disputed. You should know this...🤣
1
@TheConsigliere09 China opted out of the PCA settlement mechanism with a signing statement, which is allowed under UNCLOS. Therefore they are not bound by the PCA decision. What's the next stray to grasp at?🤣
1
@pangga_mo China made a declaration under article 298 opting out of the dispute resolution mechanism, therefore they are not bound by the ruling. Australia also has a similar declaration under article 298 regarding disputes, so they should completely understand China's position...🤣
1
@pangga_mo A total of 40 countries have declarations under article 298 with most pertaining to national security issues. Declarations under article 298 are allowed, therefore opting out of sections of UNCLOS is completely valid and consistent with the convention.
1
@pangga_mo Why do keep replying in all these threads? You've the one that was thread hoping to begin with...🤣
1
@pangga_mo I'm smarter than you since I actually read the Declarations under article 298 of UNCLOS instead of ignoring them...🤣
1
@pangga_mo PCA is not a United Nations court, therefore there is no legal binding under international law. The ruling is only binding on the parties to the convention, and since one of the parties opted out of the arbitration mechanism the ruling is not binding on that party. This concept is well established in contractual law.
1
@pangga_mo Article 9 reads as following: "If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its case, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to make its award." - As you can plainly see this only allows for an award to be made, but it does not bind China to such award due to the prior declaration China made under article 298. In other words the PCA can make an award, but China can ignore it due to the declaration allowed under UNCLOS.
1
@pangga_mo Regarding declarations under article 298 of UNCLOS: Declaration: A state makes a formal declaration to the United Nations, stating that it does not accept the procedures of Part XV, Section 2 for the specified categories of disputes. Effect of the Declaration: If a state makes such a declaration, it is not obligated to participate in the compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms outlined in Section 2 for the excluded categories of disputes. Example: If State A declares that it does not accept the procedures for maritime boundary delimitation disputes, and State B later has a maritime boundary dispute with State A, State B cannot force State A into arbitration or judicial settlement under UNCLOS's Section 2 procedures. I think this sums up my position on the matter since the interpretation of article 298 I obtained explains the issue in a detailed manner.
1
@bluestar2253 No I'm correct. RTFM...🤣
1
@pangga_mo Once again there are territories in the South China Sea that are claimed by China. Some are in dispute with other nations while other are not. There are also military installations on some of those territories, which obviously have an ADIZ around the perimeter. In additional China opted out of the PCA settlement mechanism with a signing statement, which is allowed under UNCLOS. Therefore they are not bound by the PCA decision.
1
@TheConsigliere09 China opted out of the PCA settlement mechanism with a signing statement, which is allowed under UNCLOS. Therefore they are not bound by the PCA decision. What's the next stray to grasp at?🤣
1
@TheConsigliere09 What part of "before they enter regulated air space" did you not understand? You should probable change your name to pagliacci based on all the nonsense you post...🤣
1
@TheConsigliere09 UNCLOS stands for United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It does not pertain to aircraft, so don't try to throw a red herring into the argument. You obviously don't know anything about the procedures involving aircraft intercepts, so you're just throwing things at the wall hoping something will stick. If you actually read them you wouldn't be posting this nonsense...🤣
1
@TheConsigliere09 Once again what part of "before they enter regulated air space" did you not understand? You're obviously trying to obfuscate the issue by claiming the aircraft was not in Chinese airspace when the intercept procedures do not require the unidentified aircraft to be in Chinese airspace. It only requires that the unidentified aircraft have course and speed that will enter regulated air space. Definition of regulated and international air space falls under the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944). UNCLOS does not supersede this convention. Pretty basic concepts here, not very hard to understand...🤣
1
@TheConsigliere09 You are obfuscating the issue when the intercept procedures DO NOT REQUIRE the aircraft to be in regulated airspace, but only that the aircraft course and speed WILL ENTER regulated air space. You've the loss argument with actual facts I cited directly from authoritative sources...🤣
1
@pangga_mo China opted out of the PCA settlement mechanism with a signing statement, which is allowed under UNCLOS. Therefore they are not bound by the PCA decision. In addition there are also military installations on some of those territories, which obviously have an ADIZ around the perimeter. China imposing aviation protocols is consistent with their obligations under UNCLOS with regards to national security interests.
1
@pangga_mo China made a declaration under article 298 opting out of the dispute resolution mechanism, therefore they are not bound by the ruling. Australia also has a similar declaration under article 298 regarding disputes, so they should completely understand China's position...🤣
1
@pangga_mo A total of 40 countries have declarations under article 298 with most pertaining to national security issues. Declarations under article 298 are allowed, therefore opting out of sections of UNCLOS is completely valid and consistent with the convention.
1
@TheConsigliere09 I really don't care what you think since you have no valid argument...🤣
1