General Discussion

uawchild

(2,208 posts)

44. So no stated standards? I see. No chance of bias with clearly stated standards.

Tue Jul 12, 2016, 12:36 PM

Jul 2016

The problem with not having explicit standards in the treaty is that it leaves open to the accusation of bias.

China is doing that in this case, declaring that the tribunal was biased against it (and had no jurisdiction, but that's another matter) and that it is absurd to deny that Taiping Island , which has long been recognized as being a naturally occurring island of significant size, is now suddenly a "rock".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There are NO ISLANDS AT ALL in the Spratly Islands, UNCLOS tribunal rules! [View all] uawchild Jul 2016 OP

Yeah, and Pluto is not a planet. malthaussen Jul 2016 #1

Actually, even though I rooted for Pluto, there is logical sense... moriah Jul 2016 #35

There's are reasons why Pluto's been reclassified as a dwarf planet. backscatter712 Jul 2016 #40

A rock with a 3/4-mile runway. nt ChisolmTrailDem Jul 2016 #2

and a forest. uawchild Jul 2016 #3

Strange that you mention trees and airstrip, and not size whatthehey Jul 2016 #4

I showed a picture of the island, duh. uawchild Jul 2016 #6

So you suggest no minimum, duh? Every rock gets 200 miles, duh? whatthehey Jul 2016 #7

Rocks? no. They get a 12 mile zone uawchild Jul 2016 #8

Precedent. Chan790 Jul 2016 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author uawchild Jul 2016 #21

No Precedent apparently uawchild Jul 2016 #25

I never knew that. Chan790 Jul 2016 #28

I wasn't sure either uawchild Jul 2016 #32

Thanks, that's another one too. bemildred Jul 2016 #23

Wrong uawchild Jul 2016 #26

Well that's the point, some do, some don't, some have negotiated local arrangements. nt bemildred Jul 2016 #27

Understood uawchild Jul 2016 #30

Probably not many left nowadays that somebody is not claiming. bemildred Jul 2016 #34

Lol uawchild Jul 2016 #36

"It's good to be King!" bemildred Jul 2016 #37

This message was self-deleted by its author uawchild Jul 2016 #29

PRC concern trolls. n/t PeoViejo Jul 2016 #5

It is just a really flat rock, you may not be as used to seeing those snooper2 Jul 2016 #9

It's not good to get too hung up on nomenclature, which is always arbitrary. bemildred Jul 2016 #10

Any examples? uawchild Jul 2016 #12

They litter the Carribean, or any place with atolls, like the S. China Sea. bemildred Jul 2016 #14

Thanks uawchild Jul 2016 #19

You're welcome. bemildred Jul 2016 #22

China claiming the whole South China Sea........ PlanetaryOrbit Jul 2016 #11

Yes you are right! uawchild Jul 2016 #13

I've got relative in Chicago; they do :D (nt) LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #18

Size doesn't matter; from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #16

According to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, an island has 12 nautical miles of territori LanternWaste Jul 2016 #17

No man is an island rock Jul 2016 #20

It looks like a rock to me GummyBearz Jul 2016 #24

"Trees can grow in the cracks of rocks" uawchild Jul 2016 #38

Np GummyBearz Jul 2016 #43

Quoted from upthread Separation Jul 2016 #47

sustain human habitation OR economic life uawchild Jul 2016 #48

If you would simply look at Google Maps ... DetlefK Jul 2016 #31

The tribunal called it a ROCK uawchild Jul 2016 #33

The standard is whether such islands can "sustain human habitation or economic life of their own" LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #39

I could live there. Just saying. uawchild Jul 2016 #41

"Honestly, how much human habitation?" That's probably why they have tribunals (nt) LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #42

So no stated standards? I see. No chance of bias with clearly stated standards. uawchild Jul 2016 #44

Change the name to the Spratly Rocks Bradical79 Jul 2016 #45

Yeppers. uawchild Jul 2016 #46