Here it is, in full legalese: “China’s claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the ‘nine-dash line’ are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention.”
Well, nothing is black and white in such an immensely complex case. The Philippines were advised by a powerhouse Anglo-American legal team. China had “no agents or representatives appointed.”
Beijing argues that all the attention over the South China Sea revolves around conflicting sovereign claims over islands/rocks/reefs and related maritime delimitations – over which the court has no jurisdiction. Attributing territorial sovereignty over maritime features in the South China Sea goes beyond the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Beijing does abide by Article 298 of UNCLOS – which excludes compulsory arbitration on maritime boundaries. This, by the head of the Chinese mission to the EU, Yang Yanyi, is a fair summary of the Chinese position. And in fact the court did not allocate any islands/rocks/reefs/outcrops to disputing nations; what it did was to point towards which maritime “features” are capable – under international law – of generating territorial rights over surrounding seas.
What transpired in The Hague certainly won’t solve the riddle, as argued here. Beijing had already made it very clear, even before the ruling, it would fiercely reject all findings.
Yet now the narrative is being calibrated; Beijing is open for talks, as long as Manila sets the ruling aside. Jay Batongbacal, from the University of the Philippines, cuts to the heart of the issue: “Publicly stating that junking the arbitration is a condition for resuming negotiations gives no room for face-saving on either side.”
And face-saving – the Asian way – must now be the name of the game. New Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte – a.k.a. ‘The Punisher,’ due to his stint as a crime-busting mayor of Davao City – does have an agenda, which is to improve his country’s appalling infrastructure. And guess where crucial investment would have to come from.
So Duterte’s domestic reform agenda points to economic cooperation, not confrontation, with China. He already gave – contradictory – signs he would be willing to visit Beijing and strike a deal. Undoubtedly, however, he would have a hard time convincing Beijing to stop military-related construction in the South China Sea, as well as not imposing an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).
But he might have a shot at proposing the sharing of natural resources, as in the vast South China Sea wealth of unexplored oil and gas. Yes, because once again the South China Sea is all about energy – much more than the roughly $4.5 trillion of shipping trade that traverses it every year; “freedom of navigation” has always been more than assured for all. For Beijing, the South China Sea is an all-out energy must have, as it would constitute, in the long run, another key factor in the “escape from Malacca” master plan of diversifying energy sources away from a bottleneck that can be easily shut off by the US Navy.
Now, with the US Navy already intruding and over-flying the South China Sea, the stakes cannot but get higher.
It’s… a rock!
The absolute majority of the islands/rocks/rocky islets/reefs/shoals claimed by China, Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan in the South China Sea are uninhabited – with some of them underwater at low tide. They may cover a total of just a few square kilometers – but are spread out over an immense 2 million square kilometers of sea, and included in China’s ‘nine-dash line’, which claims sovereignty over the majority of island chains and nearby waters.
So in this key department regarding the question: ‘Who’s the rightful, sovereign owner of certain islands in the South China Sea,’ the ruling was a major blow to Beijing. Justification had always relied on historical texts, ranging from the 4th century BC to the Tang and Qin dynasties. During the – short – Republic of China period, 291 islands, reefs and banks were mapped and qualified as part of the ‘nine-dash line’ in 1947.
So ‘Red’ China, in 1949, actually inherited a claim made by the rival Republic of China. Fast forward to 1958, when China under Mao issued a declaration framing its territorial waters within the ‘nine-dash line’ – encompassing the Spratly Islands. Adding to historic irony, North Vietnam’s then prime minister, Pham Van Dong, agreed with then Chinese premier Zhou Enlai.
Now it’s a completely different story. Even though Beijing and Taipei continue to agree, China and Vietnam are on opposite sides. The Hague ruled, “There was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.” An extra problem is that Beijing never really explained what the line meant, legally.
The Hague also downgraded what could be seen as islands to the status of a bunch of rocks. Thus they are not territory-generating. Most of the South China Sea in fact is declared as neutral international waters.
So if we’re talking about rocks, their surrounding territorial sea stops at a mere 12 nautical miles. And they obviously don’t qualify for exclusive economic zone (EEZ) status, with a radius of 200 nautical miles.
If no EEZs apply to the Spratlys, what may happen in the near future is that Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam could each draw their own EEZ-style lines from their major islands or coastline into that section of the South China Sea – and claim the respective rights.
The ruling does spell trouble for the Mischief and Subi reefs – the two biggest land “formations” in the South China Sea after massive Chinese reclamation. Now they have been downgraded to “low-tide elevations” – they only emerge above water at low tide. This means these two major Chinese bases in the Spratlys would have no territorial sea, no EEZ, nothing, apart from a 500-metre safety zone surrounding them.
Meet the Spratly Rocks
And then there’s the extraordinary case of Taiping – the largest “island” in the Spratlys, with an area of about half a square kilometer. Taiping is occupied by the Republic of China, which as everyone knows is not recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, by the court in The Hague, or by any other Southeast Asian nation for that matter.
Beijing never questioned Taipei’s claim over Taiping. But as Taiwan is part of China, even without physically occupying Taiping, Beijing could still claim the right to draw an EEZ.
The Philippines, for its part, argued that Taiping has neither civilian habitation nor sustainable economic life, because it is a military garrison. The Hague agreed. So Taiping island was also downgraded to “rock” status. No 200 nautical miles EEZ then, which would reach very close to the Philippines’ Palawan province.
So in a nutshell there seem to be no “islands” left among the more than 100 “rocks” in the Spratlys. Time to call them the Spratly Rocks then?
According to the court, none of the Spratlys were “capable of generating extended maritime zones … [and] having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the tribunal found that it could — without delimiting a boundary — declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.”
Ouch. As if this was not enough, The Hague also condemned China’s land reclamation projects – all of them – and the construction of artificial islands at seven “rocks” in the Spratlys, stating these had caused “severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species.”
Since 2012, all of the Paracel Islands have been under Chinese control. As for the Spratlys, they are a mixed bag; Vietnam occupies 21 “features”, the Philippines 9, China 7, and Malaysia 5. The song, though, remains the same; sovereignty issues cannot be settled under international law, as they all fall outside of The Hague’s jurisdiction.
So what happens next – apart from endless haggling about the conclusions? Beijing and Manila must talk – in a manner that Beijing saves face; the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should step up its game and act as a mediator. That does not mean China will cease to create “facts on the sea” – as in most of the South China Sea. After all, they’ve got the (military) power. With or without a ‘nine-dash line’. And be it over islands, reefs, “low-tide elevations” or a bunch of rocks.
An interesting and unusual article from Pepe giving an unbiased view of a difficult subject.
The Hague, of course, is an American puppet and this is an American ruling. While at first sight it appears to be a neutral result, it actually leaves all doors, including the back door, wide open for the US to walk (or exercise their ‘freedom of navigation’) over everyone.
Very clever, almost too clever I would say, and the end result will be the full militarisation of all these rocks by China. With Killary Clinton – let’s nuke ’em – in power soon it will be confrontation, confrontation and more confrontation followed by what Haliburton and all the other merchants of death have been praying (and planning) for.
Or will the US yellow streak start clucking and play chicken. The US doesn’t like a fair fight because bullies like the US are fundamentally cowards, as the Taliban have proved in Afghanistan.
Perhaps it is actually time for the hypocritical US to give up all the islands and rocks they illegally occupy throughout the world. Is the Hague court going to investigate these cases? No! Enough said.
Besides, what kind of ‘elevation’ is (The Hague) Holland? Most of it wouldn’t even emerge above water at low tide (it’s that far below sea level). It was the first to be run by the slave traders/exploiters mafia (since 1609, Bank of Amsterdam), which has terrorized, ravaged the world ever since . . . No one should take these Nazis seriously.
That is an interesting point. As I recall quite a bit of the Netherlands only exists today because of dikes holding of the seas. So it seems now with this Hague ruling ,that that land “couldn’t” be claimed legally by the Netherlands. And I suppose that would mean anyone wanting to take it over, is legally free to do so.The Hague should be very “careful” when claiming to be able to make legal rulings. They might have a Chinese billionaire show up and takeover their “pretty” little building claiming that as part of the free land I mentioned. And with a few thousand armed workmen with him. to make “his claim” legal.
[Most of it wouldn’t even emerge above water at low tide (it’s that far below sea level).]
What you’re asserting here is untrue.
The city of the Hague is located above sealevel whilst the city of Amsterdam is not.
http://www.floodsite.net/juniorfloodsite/images/content/onderzeeniveau.png
Surprised the normally excellent Pepe hasn’t looked at the bigger picture.
Since the US “pivot to Asia” it is obvious that the US wants to be able to strangle China by blocking it’s one and only coastline upon which the country completely depends for it’s imports and exports.
Surely everybody can see this.
China is simply trying to prevent this happening by extending it’s zone of military power out to a point where they feel they have a better chance of defending their country from a major aggressive move by the US, the US having recently of course done a deal with India granting it full access to her entire landmass for US military forces as and when they want to use this
Why the fuss about a few rocks and reefs?
China is not preventing peaceful use of this maritime passage way.
We should be asking what the US are playing at going round the world poking everybody with a stick particularly Russia and China, and why the concern about this obviously defensive move when on the subject of US bases garrisoning most of the planet there is silence.
Please, Pepe, do an essay on the extent of US military bases and where they are and the ever mounting military threat China faces.
“Surprised the normally excellent Pepe hasn’t looked at the bigger picture.”
I’m not surprised. He generally fails on big picture analysis. When the zionazis initiated their attack on Libya, he literally played cheerleader for them and their terrorist proxies there. After a couple of months he had to change tracks, somewhat, to avoid getting a chrissy hitchens “legacy”. Until that, I had thought him honestly legit. His initial reproduction of the zpc/nwo Libyan psywar meme kiled that foolishness on my part and I started taking a much more critical look at what pepe pushes. Faulty big picture analysis consistantly leads to misdirection.
[China is not preventing peaceful use of this maritime passage way].
Oh yeah ?
China sure is preventing innocent fishers from neighbouring countries – whose ancestors by the way used to fish in those waters for centuries – to continue doing this by the use of brute force and killing them fishers if necessary.
But perhaps that doesn’t fit in your big picture, does it ?
“China sure is preventing innocent fishers from neighbouring countries….by the use of brute force and killing them fishers if necessary.”
Evidence to back up this claim, especially the killing part, please.
The actions of the Chinese military against small Vietnamese fisherboats in the South Chinese Sea around the contested Islands caused violent protests and « reactions » to take place in nothern Viëtnam against Chinese inhabitants in Vietnam, some of which were killed in revenge ; those events have been reported in extenso in the Vietnamese press and on Vietnamese State television, and probably to a lesser extent been reported in the international press at that moment of time. Do the research yourself if you want to know more about it.
Chinese military is surely very much disliked in Vietnam because they repeatedly violated Vietnamese sovereignty in the region bordering both countries during the last decennia, and if there is one thing Vietnamese people are very attached to, it is their independence and sovereignty. Even Genghis Khan didn’t manage to conquer the regions that currently are considered as Vietnamese territory, whereas he did conquer the bulk of the territory that now ‘belongs’ to China.
It’s worth noting by the way that in nothern Vietnam very few Vietnamese people did even bother to see Barack Obama during his recent visit to Vietnam, whereas a mass has been welcoming him in Ho Chi Minh city where he seems to be more appreciated.
So all things taken into consideration there seems to be little reason imo to assume that Americans have anything to do with the feelings of dislike Vietnamese people in the region bordering China have towards the Chinese regime and their military.
It’s China’s own disrespectful actions that make them very impopular, not American policies in that region.
That’s is more zio-spam, not evidence, wb. You must be embarrassed about what your sources are for this webspam. Or at least a decent human would be. That is fail #2.
I could ask my wife or my family in Vietnam to provide me the ‘evidence’ which you’re asking for, but I refuse to do so, as
1°) I don’t like your tune very much ;
2°) most likely you wouldn’t understand the language in which the articles are written and/or the footage is being commented anyways, and if you would, there is no guarantee you would believe its content anyways;
3°) good, complete footage might not be available for each of the incidents I was referring to; all the other stuff (articles, partial footage etc..) is in itself in my view not pure evidence of what I claimed.
I know what I claim is true, and this knowledge suffices to me.
As far as embarassment is concerned, I might be embarrased if I would hide behind the moniker ‘ Anonymous’ like you and some other people seem to do here so that other readers on this blog never can’t figure out by which one of those different ‘Anonymous people’ a particular comment has been written, but I don’t do that kinda confusing stuff ; I started commenting here with my first name ‘wilfried’ (which is not a common first name at all) and only recently changed my moniker to ‘wilfriedb’ because another person popped up on this blog using the same first name as mine.
Still no evidence for your anglozionist propaganda, wb, just the usual cheesy theatrics. That’s your 3rd strike, btw.
Just a little sample of some international articles reporting on the tensions between Vietnam and China with regard to the South China Sea including the killing part, written in french and english language:
http://fr.vietnamplus.vn/chinemer-orientale-washington-fortement-preoccupe/51650.vnp
http://www.romandie.com/news/Violences-antichinoises-au-Vietnam-500-emeutiers-interpelles/477504.rom
http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Deux-Chinois-tues-au-Vietnam-plus-de-100-blesses-25374.html
http://www.romandie.com/news/Des-milliers-de-Chinois-en-voie-devacuation-du-Vietnam_RP/479140.rom
http://www.voanews.com/content/killing-of-vietnamese-fisherman-in-contested-waters-sparks-outrage/3083175.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-us-energy-geopolitics-the-battle-for-oil-in-the-south-china-sea/27385
There is a lot more information available in Vietnamese sources though.
See also:
What evidence does China offer to substantiate its claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea?
https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-does-China-offer-to-substantiate-its-claims-of-sovereignty-in-the-South-China-Sea?redirected_qid=3883395
Hers is a quoted post on the The Treaty of Taipei (1952) covering China’s claim:
“After going through all the previous answers, I think a few things need to be clarified:
1. UNCLOS, which is applicable to conflicting interests on sea area up to high tide water level and below, is not the law for settling disputes over islands, which are above the highest tide sea water level, according to UNCLOS.
2. Philippine’s filing to UNCLOS with its claim regarding 200 EEZ, which includes the disputed islands, cannot be determined by current status of the disputed islands in the South China sea.
3. China(PRC) claims that the nine segmented line is not a territory cconcept, but one based on customary law, one before and uncoverd by UNCLOS. As the nine segmented line is based on customary law, the decades of time during which the claim of nine segemented line by ROC since 1946 hadn’t been contested entitles China’s(either PRC or ROC) claim. Actually USA, currently the main sponsor against China behind the dispute of the south China sea, was totally fine with the 9 segmented line during 1980s, when US and China were allies against Soviet Union with its little brother Vietnam, and even sent a team over charting the 9 segmented line.
About evidences for the claimed islands, Ronger Nei gave 2 treaties as evidences from ROC’s stand, quoted as below:
” The Treaty of Taipei acts as firm international law evidence to China’s (and Taiwan’s) claim.
The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (signed in Taipei, Taiwan on April 28, 1952):
‘It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at San Francisco, Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan and Penghu as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.’
On the other side, neither the US nor the Philippines, who are both the signing parties of the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, required the Spratlys to be returned to the Philippines. Nor did France in the Treaty.
The Philippines found the Spratlys as ‘owner-less’ in 1956 and based on this it claims its sovereignty over the Spratlys.”
This is corroborative with the fact that ROC has been occupying the largest island, Taipind Island, of the islands ever since. And Philippine’s claim for Spratlys is totally baseless.
The Vietnam’s claim is based on that it is the successor of the French Indochina. As France didn’t require Spratlys in Treaty of San francisco, Vietnam didn’t have the right to claim.
From People’s Republic of China’s stand, there was a territory swap between China and Vietnam. China gave up Bai Long Island and two segments of the 11 segmented line, resulting in today’s 9 segmented line, in exchange for the south sea islands,including but not limited to Spratlys and Paracels, evidenced by the letter from prime minister of Vietnam at that time provided by Xiao Chen in this thread.”
For those who read French, see also this piece by Zheng Ruolin, “L’arbitrage sur la mer de Chine méridionale” http://www.legrandsoir.info/l-arbitrage-sur-la-mer-de-chine-meridionale.html
Zengh
The US started fomenting trouble when oil was discovered in the SCS in 1986. The US then began prodding the Philippines (and Vietnam, to an extent)to take up a confrontational stance against China.
A China-ASEAN consultation (informal) summit in 1997 led to an agreement between the countries concerned that they should accept China’s offer of shared in SCS resource exploitation. China’s sovereignty was not questioned.
One shouldn’t throw stones nor nukes at one that holds trillions in Treasuries
Time for something more useful than the Hague.
It’s coming….
What happens when Chinese manufacturers demand to be paid in something other than in worthless US treasuries. What happens when the dollar loses 75% of its value and loses reserve currency status? Under those circumstances, how can the USSA afford to maintain its military bases abroad?
“The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, backed by the UN, essentially ruled that there is no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to vast sections of the South China Sea included in the ‘nine-dash line’.”
As unexpected as the various zionazi Jewish mafia freakshows “arbitrating” international sports events recently coming up with “rulings” saying Russian athelstes can not compete in international sports.
Some zio-quislings from the zionazi colonies decide international affairs half a world away? So what. Is this the 19th century when China was weak and divided? :D
Link:
http://sputniknews.com/world/20160712/1042836916/south-sudan-conflict-united-states.html
The zionazi freakshow, via their colonial quislings, are running their “full spectrum dominance” faggotry on China:
Who Gains From the Conflicts Plaguing Oil-Rich South Sudan
http://sputniknews.com/world/20160712/1042836916/south-sudan-conflict-united-states.html
“Yevseyev specifically drew attention to the fact that South Sudan ranks third in Africa in terms of oil reserves, a fact which has repeatedly turned the country into a hotspot for clashing geopolitical interests.
“Some circles interested in reducing China’s influence in Africa on the whole may be behind the latest events in South Sudan. Given that the US and its allies have repeatedly opposed China’s African clout, it is safe to assume that the US intelligence agencies could add to the deterioration of the situation in South Sudan,” he said.
Currently, 80 percent of South Sudan’s oil exports are sent to China, with Chinese firms remaining the main shareholders of the two major oil consortiums in South Sudan: Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company and Dar Petroleum Operating Company. The China National Petroleum Corporation holds a 40 percent stake in a major joint venture dealing with South Sudan’s oil reserves.”
It bears mentioning that the USA itself has refused to join the UNCLOS.
Slowly but surely, China is walking the same line and style that USA (and UK before that) has always walked – Ignoring the supra-national agencies, world courts, international opinions etc. I had expected this – just not so soon while USA is still significantly powerful than China.
“The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, backed by the UN, essentially ruled that there is no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to vast sections of the South China Sea included in the ‘nine-dash-line’ “
Verdict: Saaaay, I knew I could take bourgeois legality seriously! I sincerely hope the Chinese government does too, especially when The Permanent Court of Arbitration is going to pass its equally irrefutable judgement on Chinese investments in Africa, Chinese cooperation with Russia, the “issue” of Tibet, faggot “activists”, and what-have-you.
George Soros is a busy beaver all right.
What is “bourgeois legality”?
Bourgeois legality = Judicial consent to capitalist imperialism in general and its total lawlessness in particular. The kangaroo court in The Hague is a most convincing case in point.
By mid-century, most of the rocks will all be inundated, submerged for centuries until the next Ice Age reforms the polar ice sheets that are currently melting at break-neck pace.
The Antarctic ice shelf is growing
Here is an interesting article on the subject. It traces the ways in which international opinion can be legalistically and journalistically manipulated.
Making a Mockery of International Law: the Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea Prepares the Way for War by K.J. NOH
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/19/making-a-mockery-of-international-law-the-arbitral-tribunal-on-the-south-china-sea-prepares-the-way-for-war/