Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Philippines removes Chinese ‘floating barrier’ in South China Sea" video.

@Joe-qm4yv "they annex hong Kong now they want Taiwan which has never been ruled by China they are clearly no different than Russia" Firstly, the sovereignty of HK was formally handed back to China from UK in 1997. They dont need to "annex" HK, its theirs already. And secondly, the issue of Taiwan is a matter of civil war. Civil war meaning war within the SAME COUNTRY. Every single power on this planet recognise that Taiwan is a part of China, including yours AND the UN. Thats the difference.
10
@tluangasailo3663 How can China "annex" a territory that doesnt legally belong to anyone prior to that?
8
@jakerio8 Youve been brainwashed to think thats PH territory. When the US handed over sovereignty of PH to the PH government, they SPECIFICALLY stated that it DID NOT include the adjacent outlying islands. Only the mainland. So tell me, how is that "PH territory" again?
4
@jakerio8 Baseless assumption. It doesnt belong to China because it has its name in the sea, thats just ridiculous. But China has the strongest SOVEREIGN claim to the islands compared to all other claimants in the region. Moreover, UNCLOS DOES NOT speak anything about "sovereignty". It speaks about maritime boundaries. What China is claiming is SOVEREIGNTY over the islands/reefs. Not mere EEZ only. Also, just because its within PHs EEZ, does NOT mean its PH "territory" - my main point of my comment. EEZ only means you can exploit its economic resources, it doesnt mean that territory "belongs" to you.
2
@darthbiker2311 "@jakerio8 wasn't referring to Bajo de Masinloc when he mentioned the Chinese-flagged vessel ramming a PH fishing vessel in PH territory" If he wasnt referring to it then why mention it? I didnt mention that either. All irrelevant. Next. "the exclusive economic zone of any country with a coastline has been defined as the area extending 200 NM from the country's coastline...Bajo de Masinloc which is only 120 NM is definitely WITHIN that zone. China's nearest coastline on the other hand is 800 NM away" The "Bajo de Masinloc" you mentioned is what the world calls Scarborough Shoal, so lets use that name instead of confusing everyone. Firstly, you dont understand how EEZ works. What happens when another partys sovereign territory is within that 200NM? Thats exactly what we have here. China claims Scarborough Shoal as their sovereign territory, and what they did was safeguarding their territorial integrity, a legal term in international law that gives them the right to use force to defend their territory. So that 800NM figure means nothing when if they claim thats their sovereign territory, it becomes 0NM. And the tribunal you cited has no authority in determining or revoking a claimants sovereignty, especially when China wasnt even there to defend themselves, it was all just a show. It has been ruled that the laws in UNCLOS are incompatible when it comes to dealing with a countrys sovereignty, as UNCLOS only speaks about maritime boundaries, not who has sovereignty over what.
2
@jakerio8 "Actually much of the entire SCS. On what internationally compatible legal basis?" Just because one supports the US, does not mean they support and agree with 100% of all US actions. Likewise, just because one supports China, it also does not mean they support and agree with 100% of Chinas actions. 'Why "protect" its unilaterally declared territorial claim and be a co-signor in agreement to the UNCLOS whose clause is to respect each state's EEZ?' Hold up, since when are EEZs more important than sovereign territories? EEZs are DETERMINED OFF sovereign territory. Sovereign territory trumps over any economic zone of any sort any day. When China declared the islands/reefs in the SCS as their sovereign territory, PH didnt even exist as a sovereign state. And the fact that you worded your wordings as such, shows exactly how much you know about international law, extremely limited. UNCLOS does NOT determine a states EEZ, it merely defines those boundaries. It didnt say PH has this, or China has that. Moreover, just because China signed and ratified UNCLOS, that doesnt mean it contradicted Chinas SOVEREIGN claims over the islands/reefs. 'Your arguments appear to be needlessly hung up on specific definitions of "territory", whereas usage on EEZ was loosely meant for the purpose by claim and enjoyment of the term as defined. Hence "Exclusive"' See, this is how I know you dont know what youre talking about. You accused me of being "hung up" on certain words, and yet here you are being "hung up" on the word "exclusive". Please, dont be a hypocrite. Law is law and needs to be defined and interpreted properly. Otherwise this is how dispute arises. What happens when 2 of more countrys EEZ overlaps, what happens then? Its not so "exclusive" now hey? "Side note: no other country of Earth brazenly stakes an entire sea as their own sovereign territory. 🤭 So the world continues to watch China's "legitimacy" acrobatics on this one" Vietnam is half way there. They claim half of the SCS as their sovereign territory. And besides, there is no law that prohibits that action. If you want to talk about "legitimacy", whats the "legitimacy" on your US buddy invading and taking over North America? Anything that happened prior to International Law existed is legitimate? Then Chinas claims over the SCS is also legitimate then since they made that claim prior to international law even existing.
2
Wow...I almost TLDR this. Since you gave me the time to write for me, the least I could do is respond back. "You didn't answer the question and digressed. You can remove the U.S. out of this..." Oh I answered the question already. Its you that failed to comprehend words once again. Since it doesnt spell it out for you, I DONT AGREE THAT CHINA SHOULD CLAIM THE ENTIRE SCS. Moreover, I can bring it whatever country I want into this if I wish to. If the US is not involved they why they sailing warships there all the time? Clearly they want to be involved. "Your explanation is laughable. You keep on bringing in the sovereign claim and its importance over EEZ when the claim itself does not hold water (no pun)" If youre the first country in the region to lay sovereign claims to the island, then its yours. So how does that not hold water? Its PH and the others that made sovereign claims over 3 decades AFTER Chinas sovereign claims. "I never stated that UNCLOS "determined" the states' EEZ but read it again,,,It's not the wording that's inaccurate but your skill in reading/ comprehension" You said "in agreement to the UNCLOS whose clause is to respect each state's EEZ". That, coupled with the fact that youre so adamant that Chinas within PHs EEZ, implies you meant the states EEZs are already "set" from UNCLOS. If its not "set" then why you complaining Chinas in it? According to you NOW, its not "determined/set" by UNCLOS now right? If its not "set" by UNCLOS, then the 200NM from PH is NOT set in stone. If the 200NM EEZ from PH is not set in stone then why you complaining that Chinas supposedly "in it"?! And here you are trying to mock me of my reading/comprehension skills when its YOU thats lacking in the comprehension and logic department. "You just faceplanted on your attempt at acrobatics or diversion. How the heck does it NOT contradict??" Not at all. Just because you dont understand doesnt mean it contradicts. UNCLOS is incompatible with sovereign claims, theyre 2 completely different things, and UNCLOS does not address that. You could say its a loophole. "This is NOT an exacting analogy but let's try this..." Yeh, poor analogy. You disregarded something called sovereignty. "People" cant claim territories. Its sovereign states that do. And when one sovereign state claims a piece of territory as theirs, it cannot be owned by another. Thats just how the world works. 'The word "Exclusive" is elementarily defined and is not contestible' Oh yeh? So when 2 countries have overlapping EEZs what happens then? Some countries have split their overlapping EEZs into 2. What happened to "exclusive"? What you call "exclusive" has now been split! And what happened to it being "uncontestible" then? Those that dont resolve the overlapping of EEZs will forever be in a dispute. There are many countries in this situation. Hows that for "not contestible"? Looks like it isnt me thats faceplanted themselves...
2
"On this, the last paragraph, building military barracks..." What last paragraph? What are you speaking about? All this is irrelevant to what I have said. "always officially promising dialogue and 'cooperation' but never actually sitting down with other parties to do it, etc. who's being a hypocrite?" What do you mean? They always do. They do it behind closed doors. Just because YOU dont know doesnt mean they dont. You really should stop making baseless assumptions. "Ahah! You've reached the end of the twisted reasoning pandered to you" Context is important. You conveniently left out that my "if" question right before that line. Its a sequential logic of "if XYZ...then ABC"; not a statement. The fact that you failed to comprehend simple reasoning/logic once again really does show your level of IQ no offence. And here you are trying to slander me with "twisted reasoning" by omitting KEY contextual components in a speech. Whos twisting what now? Please, just stop being a hypocrite.
2
"The limits or absence of inclusion in international law does not necessarily make it legal until universally chartered and ratified by all affected and witnessing bodies, or at the least recognizes it by a vast margin" Theres a difference between "not legal" and "illegal". Theyre not necessarily the same. Much like, whats "not right" doesnt always make it "wrong", or whats "not g00d" doesnt always mean its "bad". "There's no law prohibiting claiming the moon as China's 'territory' as soon as it steps on it, will it do it then since the U.S. passed on it? Pls. don't answer that, I haven't recovered from laughing 😅" Like I said, just because you dont know, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. There IS law prohibiting claiming the moon as part of a countrys sovereign territory. Its called the Outer Space Treaty. You can continue laughing at your intelligence. "I'll try to answer for you the main questions you've dodged from the beginning: 1. China didn't defend it in any court as any responsible global citizen would do because..." Youre delusion if you think you or I can speak on behalf of another country. Why should I be representing China to be answering that question? Im not even Chinese. "2. China has NONE of the historical, moral and legal authority to claim the SCS as 'sovereign territory" Actually there ARE Chinese historical artifacts found on the Spratly islands. But no country can make claims based on historical evidence. As for "legal authority", you really dont know what youre talking about. China made their sovereign claims BEFORE international law even existed, just like how the US and every other power claimed their pieces of territory they didnt originally owned before. Got anything to say about their "moral and legal authority" to claim those territory? "the natives surrounding the gulfs and larger bodies of water would have carved out large portions of the seas for themselves, but why hasn't anybody done it?" Thats a g00d question. Why dont you ask them themselves? Oh wait, you already represented them to answer on their behalf...Im not so delusional to think I can represent others. "I didn't learn anything new from you" From our interaction, I can tell youre not a very bright learner.
2
@mohammedkumar473 Wrong. It didnt state it was "illegal" to do what they did, it stated that there was no legal basis to make historical claims over the territory. By extension, that also means that PH and every other country also cant make historical claims over the territory. For something to be deemed "illegal" there needs to be a law that prohibits such actions. There is no law that prohibited what China did.
1
@gotropico "you have a reading problem, what UNCLOS trial stated is that China is not legally allowed to seize that portion of the sea, which means it's illegal." Someone that doesnt know law accuses me of having a reading problem. Thats rich... Quote the EXACT line from the bogus trial that China wasnt even at to defend itself thats says "China is not legally allowed to seize that portion of the sea". China has claimed sovereignty over that area BEFORE international law even existed. So how can China "illegal" seize a piece of territory they already claim to own prior to UNCLOS even existing?
1
@tluangasailo3663 They laid claims to those islands/reefs long before international laws even existed. If youre going to void Chinas claims over those islands/reefs, then whats your stance on Europeans claiming non-European territories?
1
The one that wrote an essay is complaining that I wrote an essay. Gold. You just dont want to respond because you realised I destroyed all your points one by one and you got nothing better to say. As expected.
1