Philippines wins South China Sea case against China

[Night Watchman]

Source: The Guardian

China has lost a key international legal case over strategic reefs and atolls that it claims would give it control over disputed waters of the South China Sea. The judgment by an international tribunal in The Hague chiefly in favour of claims by the Philippines will increase global diplomatic pressure on Beijing to scale back military expansion in the sensitive area.

By depriving certain outcrops – some of which are exposed only at low tide – of territorial-generating status, the ruling effectively punches a series of holes in China’s all-encompassing “nine-dash” demarcation line that stretches deep into the South China Sea. It declares large areas of the sea to be neutral international waters.

The findings by the Hague tribunal contain a series of criticisms of China’s actions and claims. The court declares that “although Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other states, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources.

“The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china

[GeoWilliam750]

1. Now the world gets interesting

[uawchild]

9. Very interesting indeed. n/t

[7962]

2. And the decision will be backed up by the force of........what?

A sternly worded telegram to the Chinese?

[joshcryer]

3. Probably this:

As the first poster said, things just got interesting.

[Ex Lurker]

5. The last time we had to put our carriers in harm's way vs someone who could sink them

was 71 years ago. Losing a $5 billion ship and 5000 sailors would be a presidency-ending event, or lead to calls for all-out war, or both. Could the Chinese do it? Probably not, but anything can happen once the shooting starts. And SEATO is every bit as binding as the NATO pact. We're obligated to come to the defense of the Phillipines and other signatories.

[joshcryer]

6. The Chinese have no fortitude to defend their fake sholes.

Just being present to our ally, the Philippines, is enough.

[rock]

15. What about fortitude to defend

their real ess-holes? (joke)

[NWCorona]

16. I'm not so sure they couldn't do it. I'm not praising China

But there tech is impressive. Not surprising as it's mostly clones of other countries systems.

[7962]

18. But China WILL continue to do what they want until someone actually gets in the way

They're not much different from russia in that respect.
Yes, we are obligated. And if we ignore that obligation, then no other treaty we've signed will mean anything to any opponent

[uawchild]

20. "But China WILL continue to do what they want until someone actually gets in the way"

I agree. So, what are we going to do to stop China? What do you suggest? Sail some more task forces around they artificial islands?
Please be specific, I think you are on to something here.

[7962]

23. To start, we need to immediately partner with all the other nations in the area,

and have ships of ALL those countries sail continuously around the "disputed" area, as close as they want. The areas nearest each nation mostly sailed by ships of that nation. At the same time, dont go anywhere NEAR the actual recognized Chinese territory, eliminating the chance that China does something saying a ship from "X" entered their territory illegally.

[uawchild]

27. Sail around? Ok

Show solidarity? Good idea, what next?

China is continuing to build up its military infrastructure on those islands. How will you stop that?

[7962]

28. Just for appearances, get a UN resolution telling them to knock it off

Then when China vetoes the resolution, blockade them.
They're not going to run a blockade of tiny islands. Too easy to enforce.
Otherwise, the UN is shown to be more useless than we already know.

What is your answer? Just let them take over the entire South China sea? Then the Indian Ocean? No longer allow any other Asian nations to sail outside of 3 miles?

[uawchild]

29. I don't know what to do

I am afraid of military conflict escalating into s nuclear war. Hence, since you call for action, I asked for your ideas.

So, ok, blockade the islands China occupies. And if they try to run the blockade with there numerous Chinese Coast Guard boats, what would we do? Sink them? Let me see if I can find that coast guard story for you, it's interesting.
-------------

Prior to World War II, the Japanese navy seized hundreds of Pacific islands in an expansionist land grab that was brutally rolled back by the United States.

Wary of sparking a similar conflagration, China has begun to lean on its civilian maritime law enforcement agencies to more gently press its influence on areas of the South China Sea and other regions.

China’s reliance on law-enforcement instead of military assets to assert its regional dominance has created a conundrum for the U.S. Navy, which risks sparking an international incident by using warships to check China’s westward advance.

The situation calls for increased U.S. Coast Guard presence in the western Pacific, said Capt. David Adams, commander of the Navy’s 7th Fleet.

“We have no white hulls in the Pacific, hardly,” Adams said. “We are going to have to fund the Coast Guard, not to do their conventional missions, but to come and help with the white-hull problem out in the Pacific.”

Aircraft carriers and other symbols of U.S. naval might that are popular with Defense Department war planners are not effective against China’s soft-power expansionism, Adams said. While Navy officials are preparing for a high-end anti-access, area-denial style conflict, China is pursuing a hybrid approach to war that includes legal, economic, high-tech, cyber and other veiled offensive maneuvers that are unlikely to provoke a high-scale war, he said.

“Navy culture is one that envisions itself primarily conducting sweeping fleet actions across the Pacific,” Adams said. “That is not the war we are going to fight. … And we have to be cautious that selling the United States Navy on that concept is akin to selling drinks to an alcoholic. Somebody is going to have to pay the tab.”
-----------

Sorry if this is formatted badly, I am doing it on a phone. Interesting article, no?

[7962]

30. Yes, it is.

But as I said, it really wouldnt be that hard to blockade these tiny "islands"; you can see across them! And I dont think China is going to push it once they see actual resistance. And we have treaties that must be followed as well
Otherwise, if China sees NO resistance to their plans, they will just continue to expand. Just as Russia did. Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia promising their independence if they gave up their nukes. We see how that went. HAd they kept their nukes, I doubt Russia would have invaded them

[uawchild]

33. I disagree somewhat with this point about nukes and Ukraine

"Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia promising their independence if they gave up their nukes. We see how that went. HAd they kept their nukes, I doubt Russia would have invaded them."

True, such a treaty was signed and was violated. But I disagree that Russia would not have still annexed Crimea even if Ukraine kept its nukes. The coup/revolution in Kiev put Russia's naval base in Sevastopol at risk and Russia so smoothly engineered the annexation of Crimea that only 6 people were killed in the process, 3 on each side.

For these reasons I feel Russia would still have annexed Crimea at the very least -- it was simply too easy to do. Ukraine was not going to nuke Russia over a "land grab" that only killed 6 people.

Would Russia still have funneled arms into the Rebels in the Donbas? That's a harder question to answer. Personally, I think they would have. What would Ukraine do? Start a nuclear war over a 10-15 mile wide "rebel" territory? In short, I think Russia saw the stakes in Ukraine as being high enough that they would have rolled the dice and done the same actions even if Ukraine had nuclear weapons.

[7962]

34. Quite possible. nt

[Nihil]

32. Not really a problem ...

> Losing a $5 billion ship and 5000 sailors would be a presidency-ending event ...

From the contents of post .3, you've got plenty of spares so why make such a fuss about
losing the odd one or two?

[uawchild]

10. Really?

You think we will use military force to implement the ruling? Really?

When is the last time fought a fellow nuclear power? Never?

[Statistical]

25. Exactly. Nuclear powers don't go to war with each other

or at most then only do it once and that is all she wrote.

[anigbrowl]

24. The US Navy. We have a defense treaty with the Phillipines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(United_States_%E2%80%93_Philippines)

Yes, that means we are obliged to defend their interests. A promise is a promise.

[Ex Lurker]

4. China has already said they don't recongize UN jurisdiction

and they're holding a huge live-fire exercise in the South China Sea this weekend.

[uawchild]

11. Exactly

They have stated unequivocally that the ruling changes nothing in regards to their action in the South China Sea.

What exactly are we, or rather, what exactly can we do sbout it? War? Impose sanctions? Nothing?

I expect we will do mostly nothing.

[7962]

19. Do nothing and China will extend their claims to hawaii

[uawchild]

21. Ok, tell us what to do.

I think you are onto something here. Tell us what you think we should do, please be specific.

[carburyme]

7. What to do with China

They are already showing defiance towards the ruling...like you guys said, this world just got interesting!

I'll be watching how this ruling will get forcibly enforced...

[uawchild]

13. Me too.

My money is on we will just complain and sail more naval task forces in circles around those islands, oops, pardon me, those "rocks"

[riversedge]

8. MAP......

Bloomberg ?@business 4h4 hours ago

BREAKING: China has no historic rights to South China Sea resources, ruling finds http://bloom.bg/29E0069




Bloomberg ?@business 3h3 hours ago

Read the full tribunal ruling on China's claims to more than 80% of the South China Sea http://bloom.bg/29L5CNi

[uawchild]

12. Ruling states: NO ISLANDS in the Spratly islands

And I don't mean just the artificial islands. The ruling has stated that there are simply NO naturally occurring islands in the Spratly Islands.

They just declared the largest natural island, Taiping Island, which by the way is controlled by Taiwan, to be a ROCK. LOL this "rock" has lush vegitation, is tree covered and has an airstrip. But according to the ruling Taiping Island is now a rock and not entitled to a 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Go figure.


Taiping Island, that the ruling states is a "rock"

Honestly, in light of this part of the ruling, its not surprising that China is saying the fix was in and that they will ignore the tribunal.

I think I will start a thread just on this point in General Discussion, it seems so surreal.

[anigbrowl]

31. And the ruling is entirely correct

Perhaps I should not be surprised that you did not consider or at least link to a copy of the judgment so that people could get accurate information for themselves. Here is the official press release of the UNCLOS tribubal: https://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2016/07/12/ph-cn-20160712-press-release-no-11-english.pdf

They interpreted the status of the various land features in accordance with section 121 of UNCLOS: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm

The Tribunal interpreted Article 121 and concluded that the entitlements of a feature depend on (a) the objective capacity of a feature, (b) in its natural condition, to sustain either (c) a stable community of people or (d) economic activity that is neither dependent on outside resources nor purely extractive in nature.

The Tribunal noted that many of the features in the Spratly Islands are currently controlled by one or another of the littoral States, which have constructed installations and maintain personnel there. The Tribunal considered these modern presences to be dependent on outside resources and support and noted that many of the features have been modified to improve their habitability, including through land reclamation and the construction of infrastructure such as desalination plants. The Tribunal concluded that the current presence of official personnel on many of the features does not establish their capacity, in their natural condition, to sustain a stable community of people and considered that historical evidence of habitation or economic life was more relevant to the objective capacity of the features. Examining the historical record, the Tribunal noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen from China, as well as other States, and that several Japanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted in the 1920s and 1930s. The Tribunal concluded that temporary use of the features by fishermen did not amount to inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive in nature. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that all of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands (including, for example, Itu Aba, Thitu, West York Island, Spratly Island, North-East Cay, South-West Cay) are legally “rocks” that do not generate an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Do you have any evidence that 'Taiping Island' has ever supported a stable community in its natural condition? Alternatively, do you have examples of UNCLOS tribunals using some other standard to decide what constitutes an island? If the answer is no, then then why do you have a problem with this?

[uawchild]

35. The UNCLOS doesn't say it has to HAVE a current population

just that the island be able to "sustain human habitation."

Consider the UK overseas territory of Tristan da Cunha. Its part of the same overseas territory of St. Helena and Ascencion Island, I believe, but those are spread over thousands of miles of ocean. Tristan da Cunha itself has a 200 mile economic exclusion zone.

Only 266 permanent residents live on Tristan da Cunha an it can be argued that they also need outside support to be sustained. At least at a nominally civilized life style.

So the question is HOW MANY people must the island be able to sustain, that is not specified in the UNCLOS treaty, its left very very vague.

Can Taiping Island support 100 people with the same amount of outside support that Tristan da Cuhna receives? Yes, I believe it can. Is that enough to qualify? Who knows. The tribunal obviously thinks not, but China and Taiwan both strongly disagree.

Personally, I think Taiping Island meets the definition of being able to sustain human habitation. I think I could live there. lol

[PeoViejo]

14. Paper Tiger.

PRC ships are now fair-game in Philippine waters.

[former9thward]

22. Fair game by who?

[Statistical]

26. Nobody is getting into a shooting war with a nuclear power.

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

That isn't how the game is played. It isn't how the game has ever been played. US and the Soviets managed to not get into a shooting war because no conventional war between nuclear powers would remain conventional. MAD doesn't work if you give the other side nothing to lose.

[cstanleytech]

17. Good thing imo for the Philippians. Hopefully China will wake up and realize that

if there is something in that region they want that they are going to have to make a deal with the people who live in the region and have a far more legitimate claim to it than China does.