Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "China denies building ‘artificial island’ in South China Sea" video.

@user-xh8oc1jn5s I dont think you understand what an economic zone is. Economic zone is not your sovereign territory.
5
@SoldierZHornet Theres no law that prohibits such action
4
@AhmetTekin101 "The Philippines has sovereignty over its EEZ" This is why youre always wrong. You need to learn how to read properly. NO country has sovereignty over EEZ. If you insist you are right, show me where in UNCLOS does it say any country has "sovereignty" over EEZs.
4
@AhmetTekin101 "The Philippines has jurisdiction over its EEZ. China doesn't" Every country has jurisdiction over its EEZ, including China. But that does NOT mean that they have sovereignty over their EEZ. You are so confused that its not even funny. Heres a tip, dont try and be a law expert when you have poor comprehension skills. Youre misinterpreting words every step of the way. Moreover, all these SCS incidents are within 12nm of and island/shoal. So all these incidents are outside of any countrys EEZs jurisdiction, because islands have territorial water rights (some even have EEZ rights). "What chapter that says when you ratify UNCLOS, you agree to forfeit all of your previous claims that are not within UNCLOS laws?" There is no chapter in UNCLOS that states when you ratify UNCLOS, that you must forfeit all your previous claims not within UNCLOS laws. You really need to learn to read properly. And by read, I mean truly understand the legal definitions of words you are reading. Just because you THINK it means XYZ, doesnt mean it actually means XYZ.
4
@AhmetTekin101 "What does article 309 (Part XV, Section 3, Article 309) of the Convention say about your previous claims that are not within UNCLOS laws?" Article 309: No reservations or exceptions may be made to this Convention unless expressly permitted by other articles of this Convention. This has got nothing to do with what you, I or anyone had previously said. Nothing about "ratifying" UNCLOS, nor "forfeiting" any claims. Try again.
4
@deancafe4739 Only country? There are 3 countries. Vietnam, Philiphines, and China. You dont hear about the Vietnamese and PH ones because they did it WAY back and at a much smaller scale.
3
@deancafe4739 Yes, artificial. Learn English. They all make land reclamation on rocks. Land reclamation is considered "artificial" since its not natural. Thats the very definition of "artificial".
3
@AhmetTekin101 Economic Zone is not sovereign territory. No one needs PHs "permission" to be in that area.
3
@AhmetTekin101 I know everything about UNCLOS. Is this another person using your account? Ive spoke with you many times before, and proved you wrong each and every single time in the past yet you still keep making the same mistakes.
3
@AhmetTekin101 Just saying "you are wrong" does not mean Im wrong. If you want to prove me wrong, then state the exact clause in UNCLOS that says countries need "permission" to enter into EEZs. And I said I know everything about UNCLOS already. Ive corrected you many times before about UNCLOS. And you still ask me whether Ive read UNCLOS?
3
@AhmetTekin101 And I see you still have that bad habit of liking your own comments. You that desperate for likes?
3
@keurikeuri7851 Which specific law was violated?
3
@setrocodrog7708 Well, lets be real here, if China wanted to build an artificial island there, the would be ships dredging nearby or itd be completed already. Right?
3
@WuMao18 Whats a Iie, Mr Wumao?
3
*Mainland. You do realise they have islands in the SCS right? Whereas PH legally has none as per the sovereign handover treaty from the US.
3
@kathibaba7665 Its not "PH waters". The only "PH waters" is 12nm of territorial waters off their coast. Else its considered "international waters"
2
@tobiellucas8765 Wrong. There is no law that prohibits that under international law. And its not "PH waters". The only "PH waters" is 12nm of territorial waters off their coast. Else its considered "international waters"
2
@deancafe4739 Those so-called "islands" are legally called "rocks" under international law. Everyone is contributing to harming the environment, including you and me. As long as you buy anything with metals inside, youre paying for companies to harm the environment for your own benefit. So you are not qualified to criticise other in also harming the environment. Moreover, Vietnam, PH and China ALL built artificial islands. Whether that number is 100% of the island or 10% of the islands thats artificial, they all require dredging of some sort thats harmful to the environment. Where was your criticism on them when they did it?
2
@philipcapitulo9858 Where is proof? Just look at Thitu island. You see that long airstrip? That requires land reclamation. Land reclamation is artificial, not natural.
2
Who said theyre all under sea? Most of these islands/reefs are ABOVE sea level at HIGH TIDE! You can see the before and after pictures. And if you bothered reading the 2016 SCS tribunal, the tribunal concluded that Johnson reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef are all legally considered "rocks". Excerpt from the Tribunal: 554. In the Tribunal’s view, Scarborough Shoal is a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3) 557. In the Tribunal’s view, Johnson Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 560. In the Tribunal’s view, Cuarteron Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 563. In the Tribunal’s view, Fiery Cross Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 566. In the Tribunal’s view, Gaven Reef (North) is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 569. In the Tribunal’s view, McKennan Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). Whos the one thats "malinformed, or deliberately spreading misinformation. A propagator of false information in the internet" now? YOU!
2
@eg8343 Do you not understand what the word sovereignty means? Sovereignty trumps EEZ any day in term of rights. This video is about an "artificial island", not "natural resorces". And islands are not considered "natural resources" under international law. China claims all the islands, reefs, rocks etc in the SCS as part of their sovereign territory. And every country has every right to be defending their sovereign territory in any way necessary, including the use of force. All these incidents you hear are within 12nm of these claimed territories. If anything, its PH thats H'sing China. Why? Because China was the first claimant in the region to make claims on those islands. So they have the strongest claims. As for PH, in PHs sovereign handover treaty from the US, it clearly states PH has zero sovereignty over ANYTHING in the SCS. Since they have zero sovereignty over anything in the SCS, then stop making claims to islands/reefs/etc and illegally sending people over. Theyre the ones truly H'sing. "You understand now?"
2
@AhmetTekin101 Check again. I never run away. Why would I run away when Im always right and youre always wrong? Just look at what you said. You think ships need "permission" to be in international waters. Thats wrong. And yes, EEZ is in international waters. No matter which country any ship goes into any EEZ, they do NOT need any countrys permission to be there. Read up UNCLOS again. Ill say your words right back at you "you know nothing about UNCLOS". You only "think" you do.
2
@kathibaba7665 Have you never heard of the concept of sovereignty? Sovereign rights trumps EEZ rights any day. Any nation can construct anything in their sovereign territory.
1
@brianburgess3231 I mean, lets be real here, if China wanted to build an artificial island there, the would be ships dredging nearby or itd be completed already.
1
@brianburgess3231 Im sorry but what youve said did not make any sense? Thats not evidence of China. That could be evidence of another country. And are you saying China "tried" building an island but failed? Wheres the evidence for that too?
1
@arjen20 Who said theyre all under sea? Most of these islands/reefs are ABOVE sea level at HIGH TIDE! You can see the before and after pictures. And if you bothered reading the 2016 SCS tribunal, the tribunal concluded that Johnson reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef are all legally considered "rocks". Excerpt from the Tribunal: 554. In the Tribunal’s view, Scarborough Shoal is a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3) 557. In the Tribunal’s view, Johnson Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 560. In the Tribunal’s view, Cuarteron Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 563. In the Tribunal’s view, Fiery Cross Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 566. In the Tribunal’s view, Gaven Reef (North) is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 569. In the Tribunal’s view, McKennan Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). Whos the one thats "malinformed, or deliberately spreading misinformation. A propagator of false information in the internet" now? YOU!
1
@arjen20 Who said theyre all under sea? Most of these islands/reefs are ABOVE sea level at HIGH TIDE! You can see the before and after pictures. And if you bothered reading the 2016 SCS tribunal, the tribunal concluded that Johnson reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef are all legally considered "rocks". Excerpt from the Tribunal: 554. In the Tribunal’s view, Scarborough Shoal is a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3) 557. In the Tribunal’s view, Johnson Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 560. In the Tribunal’s view, Cuarteron Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 563. In the Tribunal’s view, Fiery Cross Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 566. In the Tribunal’s view, Gaven Reef (North) is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). 569. In the Tribunal’s view, McKennan Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3). Whos the one thats "malinformed, or deliberately spreading misinformation. A propagator of false information in the internet" now? YOU!
1
@arjen20 Cant tag and comment
1
@valcreatives What are you talking about? Ive said a lot of things on this thread. Why dont you quote me and elaborate what youre trying to say?
1
@jamesleeborgonia222 China claims sovereignty over the islands. Sovereignty rights trump EEZ rights. When within 12nm of any countries sovereign territory, they have every right to use force to safeguard their territorial integrity. Again, which SPECIFIC law was violated. You cant just say "EEZ laws". Thats not a law, nor is it specific.
1
@courage3875 China was literally the first modern country in the region to lay claims to those islands in the 1940s. It was 3 decades later in the 1970s after oil was found that Vietnam, PH and the likes started making sovereign claims to those very same islands. You tell me whos stealing whos? And youre conveniently forgetting that some islands also can have 200nm of EEZ. Its just that the current state of these islands are considered "disputed territory" so the EEZ lines are not set in stone. But if all those islands are part of China (since they have the strongest claims) then its not 400nm+ away, its 0nm away, meaning the EEZ lines would have to be redrawn. But this video isnt about EEZ, its about sovereignty over islands/reefs/shoals etc. Its not nothing to do with EEZ at all. Youre talking about something thats irrelevant. Sovereignty and EEZ are not the same thing.
1
@courage3875 I dont think you understood what I said, nor do you understand what you have copied pasted. I spoke about SOVEREIGNTY. Not EEZ. Theyre 2 completely different things. Do you understand what sovereignty means? Sovereignty rules over EEZ anyday. PH does NOT have sovereignty over ANYTHING in the SCS. The sovereignty handover treaty from the US to PH explicated stated what is and what isnt part pf PHs sovereignty. And it shows PH has no sovereignty over anything in the SCS. PHs fate over sovereignty has been sealed since then. But since the 1970s when oil was found, PH now wanted to claim sovereignty over islands/reefs/shoals in the SCS that China already claims. If thats not stealing then I dont know what is.
1
@ToiChutGongFu Theres still no evidence to date that it "originated" from there. If anything, theres actual evidence that showed it existed months before it was first discovered in China in EU and the US. Its confirmed already, theyve been hiding it well.
1
@WuMao18 Alright Mr WuMao. Your heap of evidence has proven me wrong. Everything you say must be true.
1
@tobiellucas8765 Lets be real here, if China wanted to build an artificial island there, the would be ships dredging nearby or itd be completed already.
1
@lanzdy9215 I can tell from your words you know nothing about international law. Anything (natural) with above high tide elevation is entitled to 12nm of territorial waters. Even if China artificially extended the territory, the original plot of territory was still entitled to 12nm of territorial waters. So yes, it does count. And "controlled" does not mean automatically mean its theirs. PH has NO sovereignty over anything in the SCS as per their sovereign handover treaty. And you make it sound like China has no control over non-artificial islands in the SCS, because they do. Ill say your words right back at you "please don't embarrass yourself with false information". And way to assume I get my information from Chinese controlled media. I get my information from ALL sources tyvm. The biggest false information is that PH has sovereignty over those islands, and that China is the "aggressor", because the FACT of the matter is, PH does NOT have sovereignty over anything in the SCS, and PH is the actual aggressor. Why? Because theyre claiming territory thats legally not theirs! Their sovereignty is set in stone already. If they want more territory, they must fight for it. Not cry over it.
1
@lanzdy9215 And you bring up about PH "winning" a case against China. Do you even know what the case was about? What exactly did PH "win? The tribunal didnt even give PH the islands/reefs/shoals etc. PH actually won nothing. Every single time people bring that up and say PH "won", I immediately know you dont know what youre talking about.
1
@franzb69 I mean, lets be real here, if China wanted to build an artificial island there, the would be ships dredging nearby or itd be completed already.
1