Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Philippines builds coast guard station in disputed waters" video.

When the US transferred sovereignty to PH, it was crystal clear on what was transferred. No islands in the SCS was given to PH. So PH legally owns NO islands/reefs/rocks/anything in the SCS. Moreover, China was the first modern country in the region to make sovereign claims over islands in the SCS in the 1940s. PH made their first sovereign claims over 3 decades later in the 1970s after oil was found. That says everything already.
9
Bot
5
@jeremymonroe7892 When the US transferred sovereignty to PH, it was crystal clear on what was transferred. No islands in the SCS was given to PH. So PH legally owns NO islands/reefs/rocks/anything in the SCS
5
@mohammedkumar473 What does the ruling say? It says China (and by extension other countries) has no legal basis in making territorial claims based on historical rights. Well theyre right, there is no law that supports that. Except China made their territorial claims BEFORE international law existed. Just like how the US/CA made their claims over NA before international law existed. Thats why its theirs. PH on the other hand made their claims AFTER international law existed, over 3 decades after Chinas claims
4
@Hkchinese888 "so chyna can claim the before International Law exist? It doesn't make sense at all...No, it does not work like this" What do you mean doesnt make sense? Not just China, but all countries could. And if there was a dispute, then the rule "might is right" is applied. Thats exactly how the world worked prior to international laws existence. "that being said, indian can claim indian ocean before the law exist or Japan can claim the Japan sea" They couldve. But they didnt.
3
@simonriley118 "your comment says you know nothing. Scarborough waa already part of the PHL way back 1700 during Spanish occupation with Velarde map as a solid evidence" Oh I know everything alright. Your Verlade map included Borneo. Was Borneo part of PH? No! So why was Borneo there? A map is a map. It includes all territories whether is yours or not. A map of any country could include their neighbours territory. And according to the Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Washington, NEITHER of the treaties mentioned anything in the SCS when they transferred sovereignty from Spain to US, or US to PH. So what does that say? I means PH does NOT have sovereignty over anything in the SCS as no sovereignty was ever handed over to them. "Chyna on the other hand only claim the entire SCS on 1940's and some chynese politicians created the 9 dash line map. How about that?" And you speak so proudly about your colonisers lol. Spanishs achievements got nothing to do with PH. Stop trying to claim credit for their work. PH dont even have the expertise to even draw maps. Not even sure why you like to claim your owners work as yours. "How about that?" And we are talking about modern countries here, not ancient history. If you want to talk about ancient history, China already has records from far beyond your imagination. But under UNCLOS, there is no legal basis in making territorial claims based on historical rights. Thats why ancient history holds no ground. So no point talking about ancient history.
3
@riiiby3050 There is no law in UNCLOS that prohibited China from doing what theyre doing
3
@OneNewsPhilippines Elaborate how stating facts from documented treaties is a "scam". Oh and not everyone that speak facts is Chinese.
3
@riiiby3050 "The said features are not your teritory thats why it is a contested region not because you say you own the place makes it yours" "My" territory? Of course its not "my" territory. I dont claim it as mine, nor does my country. What? Did you think everyone speaking for China must be Chinese? Its a contested region because countries like PH made claims over the territory AFTER China claimed it for over 3 decades. Prior to PH and other countries claims in the 1970s it wasnt a contested region at all. "We have international laws that you disregard and claim "null and void" because it does not fit your current interests" China made sovereign claims to the region PRIOR to international laws existence. Just like Europeans made sovereign claims to North American prior to international laws existence. Shall we revoked US and CA claims over NA now based on your international law logic? "Artificial islands of the area are not grounds for the territorial seas...so where is the said 0NM where it is not the rightful place to start the count" Half correct. The artificial man-made extensions are not grounds for territorial seas, but the natural islands/rocks itself that they are built upon are. China only extended these islands/reeds/rocks above sea level surface area. So their territorial seas still holds ground. "Lets say a country said they own half of China then is it theirs even if they ratified a law in their own terms and say hey your in our land get out does that mean you'll give the land?" It means either negotiate, or war. "Try reading the laws you've signed in both the Agreement and the Convention" Dont make it personal. Ive signed nothing. "especially the article 57 and try stating again that you own the place. Where is the basis of your teritorial waters nothing??" As mentioned earlier, the natural formation of above sea level islands/rocks/reef etc have territorial sea rights. China just built upon them expanding their above sea level surface area. Doesnt mean these artificial islands dont have territorial waters, because they do, as their base island/reef/rock theyve built upon does. So your point bringing up article 57 is another mute point. "Laws are there to be clear and objective" Clear? Lawyers in the US would disagree. And there are many "subjective" laws around the world. Its only clear and objective for the most part, but not for 100% of it. Thats why theres grey areas. "let me ask you where the stated teritorial sea is as a basis of your teritorial sea, which is explicitly stated as a 12 NM stated in article 3. China released that the baseline is only at parecel Island...Please read first before placing any nonsense of an argument" Huh? Every single above sea level island/rock/reef/etc is entitled to 12NM of territorial sea based on UNCLOS. Read up Article 6 & Article 13. How about YOU "read first before placing any nonsense of an argument". And where on Earth did China say say that their ONLY baseline is at Paracel Island? I would like your source to that.
2
@AhmetTekin101 "The Hague tribunal stated that China has no ownership in the SCS. Do you understand what that means?" Wrong. The Hague tribunal stated that countries (China, and by extension other countries) have no "legal basis" in making territorial claims based on historical rights. Ill say your words right back at you: "do you understand what that means"? That DOESNT mean that China has "no ownership", it means there is no "legal basis" for Chinas (and by extension other countrys) claims. Why is there no legal basis? Because UNCLOS is not something that determines SOVEREIGNTY of a country, it only determines things like maritime boundaries, NOT sovereignty. Moreover, China made their claims BEFORE international law existed. So there needs no "legal basis" for them to make their claims. Just like how US and CA claimed NA as theirs. Wheres the "legal basis" there? Term "legal basis" means that there needs to be "laws" for something to have "legal basis". Prior to international laws existence, there needs no and is no "legal basis" for making any sovereign claims.
2
When the US transferred sovereignty to PH, it was crystal clear on what was transferred. No islands in the SCS was given to PH. So PH legally owns NO islands/reefs/rocks/anything in the SCS. Moreover, China was the first modern country in the region to make sovereign claims over islands in the SCS in the 1940s. PH made their first sovereign claims over 3 decades later in the 1970s. Its already been Chinas, stop trying to steal Chinese territory PH!
2
@Hkchinese888 Ill take your words as "you win, okay?". Alright then, Ill take that
1
@AhmetTekin101 You think you know everything. But I always have the last words with you. Its YOU that needs to read and learn more.
1
@riiiby3050 "Well, in the very essence of the EEZ, shows that china does not have legal jurisdiction in the area as it is not within the 200 nautical miles of China" China claims sovereignty over the islands. That means theyre 0NM from China. If my maths is correct, 0 is within 200. Moreover, sovereignty trumps a mere "economic zone" any day. "Thus, all of the radio challenges stating that they own the place shows that they are in complete disregard in the convention. Seen in part V article 60..." Be specific, what radio challenges stating they own what place? Moreover, owning something does not mean they're interfering with "recognised sea lane". Ships dont navigate so close to islands/reefs/shoals. They can so easily defend that, this is basically a mute point. "Construction of military outposts, use of militia vessels, and rejection of entry for humanitarian aid (Philippine RoRe) are these your “normal,” “lawful,” “reasonable,” and “justifiable” mentioned when the islands were being developed where multiple states were clearly against?" What "humanitarian aid"? PH deliberately placed themselves in that situation and refused to leave that place. I bet you anything if they wished to leave that place, China would be more than happy to help them leave. But no. It was a deliberate attempt to victimise themselves. Another mute point. In fact, the action of deliberately crashing the ship onto Chinas sovereign territory in itself would violate Article 19 2(a), (d), and (g). And yes, defending your sovereignty territory is normal, lawful, reasonable and justifiable. They asked them to leave, they refused to leave. I would argue its PHs actions are the ones thats not “normal,” “lawful,” “reasonable,” and “justifiable”. PH does not have sovereignty over the territory after all. You think deliberately crashing a ship on another countrys sovereign territory (that China claimed 3 decades before them) is “normal,” “lawful,” “reasonable,” and “justifiable”? "To top on that the very construction of the artificial islands are against it as they have no right to the features as they are more than 400 NM away from the said features" What 400NM? Its 0NM as mentioned earlier. China is the first modern country in the region to make sovereign claims over the islands/reefs/shoals, so its theirs. They have every right to. Its others that are infringing upon Chinas sovereign territory.
1
@y-dr3yb "Aside from the treaty of Paris, there is treaty of Washington which included the Spratly islands" What utter nonsense. Have you even read those treaties? I have. And let me tell you, they both DONT include the Spratly islands in the treaties. Dont believe everything you hear without verifying. If you insist you are right, then provide the exact lines in the treaty thats says that. "China even acknowledge it before, now they're claiming it again without any legal basis" More nonsense. PRC made their first claims in the 1940s. PH made their first claims in the 1970s 3 decades after China. So how can China "acknowledge it before"? Can you even back your words with evidence? I would like to see when China "acknowledge" it.
1
@45641560456405640563 You are entitled to your opinions. And treaties are not nonsense. Plus PH made their first sovereign claims in the 1970s. We are talking about modern history here, not ancient history. So tell me, whats "nonsense" again?
1
@45641560456405640563 Theres nothing wrong about what I just said. If you insist I am wrong. Then Im open for you to prove me wrong with facts and figure. But can you do that?
1
@45641560456405640563 Theres nothing wrong about what I just said. If you insist I am wrong. Then Im open for you to prove me wrong with facts and figure.
1
Theres nothing wrong about what I just said. If you insist I am wrong. Then Im open for you to prove me wrong with facts and figure. But can you do that?
1
Cant? Yeh thats what I thought
1
You are talking to yourself here. Not once did I speak about any dashed lines.
1
Nice try what? That I spoke about dashed lines? How about you quote me where I supposedly spoke about such thing? I only spoke of facts. And look, Im open to counterarguments, but you have provided nothing of such. You need to back your claims up with facts and figures. Not personal attacks. Only people that lack substance opt for personal attacks.
1