Comments by "DailyBeatings" (@DailyBeatings) on "Historical, Legal Records Articulate China’s Sovereignty over South China Sea Islands: Scholar" video.

The Spanish-American Treaty of 1898 clearly stated that the western limit of the Philippines did not include the Spratly Islands. When the Philippines gained independence in 1946 the US government told the nationalists not to include the Spratlys in their territorial claim for fear of running into conflict with the Chiang Kai-Shek regime in China.
12
@ronniedizon3349 Truth hurts, doesn't it?
9
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
7
China made a declaration in 2006 in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS that excludes acceptance of compulsory dispute settlements concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, as well as military and law enforcement activities from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in UNCLOS. In other words China does not accept the PCA settlement because it excludes acceptance as provided in the UNCLOS convention.
6
"The Convention, however, does not address the sovereignty of States over land territory. Accordingly, this Tribunal has not been asked to, and does not purport to, make any ruling as to which State enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal." - Section 5 , PCA Case 2013-19
5
@biboyumandar1538 Don't they understand that calling someone a liar with facts that can easily be verified is so childish...🤣
5
@biboyumandar1538 Don't they understand that calling someone a liar with facts that can easily be verified is so childish...🤣
4
@ronniedizon3349 Truth hurts, doesn't it?
4
@QuantumBits0 No it doesn't because China made a declaration in 2006 in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS that excludes acceptance of compulsory dispute settlements concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, as well as military and law enforcement activities from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in UNCLOS. In other words China does not accept the PCA settlement because it excludes acceptance as provided in the UNCLOS convention.
4
@QuantumBits0 "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 [compulsory dispute settlement] with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes: 1) Compulsory Third-party Adjudication 2) Compulsory Conciliation 3) Optional Conciliation 4) Exclusion from dispute settlement" - Article 298, Section 2, UNCLOS
4
@biboyumandar1538 Don't they understand that calling someone a liar with facts that can easily be verified is so childish...🤣
4
China made a declaration in 2006 in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS that excludes acceptance of compulsory dispute settlements concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, as well as military and law enforcement activities from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in UNCLOS. In other words China does not accept the PCA settlement because it excludes acceptance as provided in the UNCLOS convention.
3
"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 [compulsory dispute settlement] with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes: 1) Compulsory Third-party Adjudication 2) Compulsory Conciliation 3) Optional Conciliation 4) Exclusion from dispute settlement" - Article 298, Section 2, UNCLOS
3
@ronniedizon3349 Truth hurts, doesn't it?
3
@SK-lt1so How can China lose to a dispute settlement procedure it didn't recognize in the first place? China did what was perfectly legal under article 298 of UNCLOS...🤣
2
@ronniedizon3349 Truth hurts, doesn't it?
2
@QuantumBits0 "This underscores the need for China to adhere to international norms and respect neighboring nations' rights, rather than expanding territory under dubious historical pretenses." - The historically record shows that in 111 BC Emperor Wu Di of the Han Dynasty actually started claiming the islands and archipelagos of the region. Other than the brief period of French interdiction there is an unbroken line of control and administration of the islands and archipelagos by China for over 2,000 years.
2
@QuantumBits0 "The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which decisively rejected the legal basis for China's 'nine-dash line' claims, remains fully applicable." No it doesn't because of the exclusion China availed under article 298 of UNCLOS, which reads as follows: "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 [compulsory dispute settlement] with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes: 1) Compulsory Third-party Adjudication 2) Compulsory Conciliation 3) Optional Conciliation 4) Exclusion from dispute settlement" - Article 298, Section 2, UNCLOS
2
@QuantumBits0 Please, whether it was a tactical decision by the US or not the fact remains that the Philippines never claimed the territory. The historically record shows that in 111 BC Emperor Wu Di of the Han Dynasty actually started claiming the islands and archipelagos of the region. As for more recent history the video clearly illustrates citing multiple sources the islands and archipelagos of the region have never been the territory of the Philippines. Attempts to obfuscate these inconvenient facts makes your response even more pathetic.
2
@makeshift722 ...and as such the US cannot derive benefit from a treaty that it is not a party to...🤣
2
The Spanish-American Treaty of 1898 clearly stated that the western limit of the Philippines did not include the Spratly Islands. When the Philippines gained independence in 1946 the US government told the nationalists not to include the Spratlys in their territorial claim for fear of running into conflict with the Chiang Kai-Shek regime in China.
1
@QuantumBits0 "The ruling is a significant check on attempts to alter maritime boundaries through vague historical claims." - The historically record shows that in 111 BC Emperor Wu Di of the Han Dynasty actually started claiming the islands and archipelagos of the region. Other than the brief period of French interdiction there is an unbroken line of control and administration of the islands and archipelagos by China for over 2,000 years.
1
@QuantumBits0 "This position is legally strategic and grounded in UNCLOS, which defines an island as a landform capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of its own." - Except the problem is that those islands had the following features as determined by France, in its Government Bulletin issued Jully 25, 1933: a) There are Chinese people from Hainan living on the Nansha Islands who fish for their living. b) At that time, there were Chinese living on the Islands. c) On the Islands, there were houses made of leaves, and there were statues of God and photos of the deceased for worship. d) Every year, the Chinese on Hainan carried food by sailboat to the Chinese living on the Nansha Islands.
1
@SK-lt1so It's a lot longer time than the US pointing their finger and claiming it's "theirs"...🤣
1
@SK-lt1so How can it be criminal when it's perfectly legal under article 298 of UNCLOS?🤣
1
@SK-lt1so China didn't lose anything because they're excluded from the dispute settlement procedures. You conveniently keep forgetting about article 298 of UNCLOS...🤣
1
@SK-lt1so Mafia government? Last time I checked Bongbong was under a contempt judgement in the US for failure to pay a 353 million dollar fine...🤣
1
According to his Wikipedia entry Anthony Carty has a very impressive CV. Anyone outright dismissing what this gentlemen has to say on the subject is basically an idiot...🤣
1