Beijing’s claims to South China Sea rejected by international tribunal

[Rogue Valley]

Beijing’s claims to South China Sea rejected by international tribunal

July 12, 2016

BEIJING — China's expansive assertion of sovereignty over the South China Sea suffered a major blow Tuesday when an international tribunal ruled that those claims have no legal, historical basis, throwing up the possibility of a new period of tension and confrontation in the region. Beijing fiercely rejected the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, which sided unequivocally with the Philippines against China and stunned experts across the world. The United States urged calm. China is now faced with a dilemma: It can signal its displeasure at the ruling by extending that program and militarizing the islands it controls, risking confrontation and even conflict with emboldened Asian neighbors and the United States. Or it can suspend the program and adopt a more conciliatory approach, at the risk of a loss of face domestically.

The tribunal also ruled that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights by constructing artificial islands there and had caused “permanent irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem.” The decision was hailed as a landmark victory for those worried that Beijing was extending its military control over waters with key strategic and commercial significance. But Chinese President Xi Jinping signaled that he was in no mood to back down. "The islands in the South China Sea have been Chinese territories since ancient times," he said, according to state media. "China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on these awards." The Foreign Ministry said China “solemnly declares that the award is null and void and has no binding force.”

Good. International and Maritime Law were upheld. The full 478 page PCA court decision can be accessed below.

PCA Case Nº 2013-19 | IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION | THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES - and - THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

 

[Tigerace117]

Beijing’s claims to South China Sea rejected by international tribunal



Good. International and Maritime Law were upheld. The full 478 page PCA court decision can be accessed below.

PCA Case Nº 2013-19 | IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION | THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES - and - THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

China doesn't care, unfortunately.

 

[longview]

Beijing’s claims to South China Sea rejected by international tribunal



Good. International and Maritime Law were upheld. The full 478 page PCA court decision can be accessed below.

PCA Case Nº 2013-19 | IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION | THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES - and - THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Why is China required to adhere to the ruling?

 

[Rogue Valley]

China doesn't care, unfortunately.

True enough. But with this ruling, China cannot *legally* forbid/deny international navigation in the Sea of China.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Beijing’s claims to South China Sea rejected by international tribunal



Good. International and Maritime Law were upheld. The full 478 page PCA court decision can be accessed below.

PCA Case Nº 2013-19 | IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION | THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES - and - THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Russia and China both have been aggressively seizing lands and people in an imperialist expansion of their powers. At least now, legally, China has been shown that if they try military intervention in the South China Sea like Russia has been doing in Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea, Macedonia, and threatening in the Balkans and the rest of the Baltics, that the world will not give them, at least, a pass like they unfortunately have Russia.

Have you heard that Macedonia is now asking that the Russian troops in the pro-Russian break-away province be replaced with either UN or EU peacekeeping troops?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Have you heard that Macedonia is now asking that the Russian troops in the pro-Russian break-away province be replaced with either UN or EU peacekeeping troops?

Hi there Beaudreaux ... I believe you are referring to Moldova...

Moldova wants international observer mission in Transnistria instead of Russian forces

 

[Beaudreaux]

Hi there Beaudreaux ... I believe you are referring to Moldova...

Moldova wants international observer mission in Transnistria instead of Russian forces

You know, I originally typed Moldova, and then changed it to Macedonia for some reason... don't know why?

Anyway, you got the point and understood what I meant.

 

[Samhain]

Russia and China both have been aggressively seizing lands and people in an imperialist expansion of their powers. At least now, legally, China has been shown that if they try military intervention in the South China Sea like Russia has been doing in Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea, Macedonia, and threatening in the Balkans and the rest of the Baltics, that the world will not give them, at least, a pass like they unfortunately have Russia.

Have you heard that Macedonia is now asking that the Russian troops in the pro-Russian break-away province be replaced with either UN or EU peacekeeping troops?

Doubtful anyone will stop them. Nobody has the appeitite for traditional war on that scale.

 

[joG]

Beijing’s claims to South China Sea rejected by international tribunal



Good. International and Maritime Law were upheld. The full 478 page PCA court decision can be accessed below.

PCA Case Nº 2013-19 | IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION | THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES - and - THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

They were not yet upheld. At present the perp is armed and in contempt of court with no redress in sight.

 

[joG]

Doubtful anyone will stop them. Nobody has the appeitite for traditional war on that scale.

But would the Chinese attack a broad based international force?

 

[Chomsky]

Beijing’s claims to South China Sea rejected by international tribunal



Good. International and Maritime Law were upheld. The full 478 page PCA court decision can be accessed below.

PCA Case Nº 2013-19 | IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION | THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES - and - THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

And Pinoy everywhere, raise a glass ...

 

[Northern Light]

Why is China required to adhere to the ruling?

They aren't... but they signed conventions which agreed to subject themselves to the Hague in such matters. The ruling also signals to the world that if China behaves to the contrary, they're in the wrong.

China doesn't care. Xiping will keep parroting the "historical" pretext to his state media even though he's been proven wrong. It doesn't stop the Chinese propaganda machine from turning. China has already expanded beyond its Qing dynasty borders, something that its original Communist charter said it would never do.

There's no way the U.S. will go to bat against China over some tiny islands, even if they are economically important. There's no strategic interest in us doing so, and China knows it. Our trade agreements with them are way too important. If China pulls out of the U.S. we would be an economic backwater overnight.

 

[JANFU]

Posted this in the other tread.
Chinese are intent in driving the US from that area of the Pacific.
The 9 dotted line crosses into other countries territorial waters.

China from what I recall initially agreed to multi state negotiations. Then backtracked to 1 on 1. This way they can exert pressure on smaller countries.
President Hu Jintao lost no time is ramping up tensions, and whipping up Nationalist sentiment that has penned him in a corner.
He has made statements that many believe were prepping people for a war.

Also using the so called " Century of Shame" where Western countries and Japan had China at a disadvantage. Whipping up Nationalist demonstrations against Japan as we recall, these now need to be fed. AS to what they are fed, will depend upon hardliners in the Elites who also need to be satisfied

China due to plain stupidity has created a flash point.
Many fall prey to the fallacy that China is not an expansionist country. They are wrong.

Now for China to be seen as against International Laws and if they completely disregard this ruling, will pay a heavy price.

 

[braindrain]

They aren't... but they signed conventions which agreed to subject themselves to the Hague in such matters. The ruling also signals to the world that if China behaves to the contrary, they're in the wrong.

China doesn't care. Xiping will keep parroting the "historical" pretext to his state media even though he's been proven wrong. It doesn't stop the Chinese propaganda machine from turning. China has already expanded beyond its Qing dynasty borders, something that its original Communist charter said it would never do.

There's no way the U.S. will go to bat against China over some tiny islands, even if they are economically important. There's no strategic interest in us doing so, and China knows it. Our trade agreements with them are way too important. If China pulls out of the U.S. we would be an economic backwater overnight.

I agreed with you completely up until your last sentence. Sorry but that last statement couldn't be more wrong. Do you honestly think there are not tons of countries that would love to replace China in supplying the worlds biggest economy. In fact a loss of trade would do way more damage to China then us. We can find someone else to sell us cheap poorly made junk. Where is China going to find a new economy as big as ours to replace the US. Not happening.

And if you are talking about the US debt that China owns you do realize they own less then 10% of our debt right.

 

[Northern Light]

I agreed with you completely up until your last sentence. Sorry but that last statement couldn't be more wrong. Do you honestly think there are not tons of countries that would love to replace China in supplying the worlds biggest economy. In fact a loss of trade would do way more damage to China then us. We can find someone else to sell us cheap poorly made junk. Where is China going to find a new economy as big as ours to replace the US. Not happening.

And if you are talking about the US debt that China owns you do realize they own less then 10% of our debt right.

China owns more U.S. treasury bonds than any other country, and they continue to prop up our currency with their black-box account system.

If they dumped even 10% of their holdings, we would enter a recession instantly. We pay them back by accepting their cheap crap at discount in order to support their manufacturing sector.

The umbilical cord between our two countries is large and potentially lethal right now. In the event that the U.S. challenges China's claim to the South Sea, if you think China wouldn't pull that card you're dead wrong.

 

[manise]

There's no way the U.S. will go to bat against China over some tiny islands, even if they are economically important. There's no strategic interest in us doing so, and China knows it. Our trade agreements with them are way too important. If China pulls out of the U.S. we would be an economic backwater overnight.

The U.S. also has another disadvantage; it never ratified the Law of the Sea treaty that is the basis of the Hague's ruling. On top of that, China has grown increasingly powerful in Southeast Asian economies to the detriment of US business. The unpopularity of TPP in the US won't make it any easier for Southeast Asian nations to shun Chinese adventurism in the future.

 

[braindrain]

China owns more U.S. treasury bonds than any other country, and they continue to prop up our currency with their black-box account system.

If they dumped even 10% of their holdings, we would enter a recession instantly. We pay them back by accepting their cheap crap at discount in order to support their manufacturing sector.

The umbilical cord between our two countries is large and potentially lethal right now. In the event that the U.S. challenges China's claim to the South Sea, if you think China wouldn't pull that card you're dead wrong.

Like I said they own less then ten percent of US debt so tell me how you think them dumping 10% of the debt they own so basically less then 1% of US debt is going to destroy our economy. Hell at this time last year Japan owned more US debt then China.
Here you may want to read this.

China Owns US Debt, but How Much? | Investopedia

It might help you understand this topic a bit more.

Furthermore what do you think would happen to the Chinese economy if we stopped importing their crap. We would be fine in a few months to a year when other nation took over selling us the crap we buy from China. How long do you think it would take China to find another market the size of the US to sell their goods to.
The one who has the most to lose is China and that is pretty obvious.