herples

It's not an UN agency either.

My mistake. It's a dispute that has been going on since after WW II.

Well this isn't a court case based on evidence it's an arbitration seeking a solution between parties in conflict. It is impossible for the PCA to make any ruling with only one side of the case being presented.

PCA is not an UN body and UNCLOS is a treaty not an agency. Your criminal court example isn't relevant since this isn't a criminal case or a court case for that matter.

There is no nitpicking of the process it is simply what the ICJ and UN state. Why would the findings matter if the arbitration does not meet the definition laid out by the UN or ICJ?

Again I have posted what the UN and ICJ considers a valid arbitration go and read it.

And the rules for arbitration are the same as I have said many times already. Doesn't matter if they are discussing UNCLOS treaty or not. China isn't arguing for an exception it simply stated it did not want to go to arbitration and it will not follow the arbitration's ruling.

Well rest assured this isn't a murder trial let alone a trial at all. It's an arbitration not criminal court. I am arguing that China doesn't have to follow anything put out by the arbitration because it didn't consent to it in the first place. That is something they can do as I have posted before of what the UN and ICJ consider to be a valid arbitration.

I have posted before what the UN and ICJ consider to be a valid arbitration. It is valid when both parties agree to arbitration over a matter.

The fact China did not participate makes the ruling nonsense. An arbitration requires that two countries be in agreement for it.

And China did not agree to participate in the arbitration which means there was nothing for the panel to arbitrate if one side isn't at the table. Here are the rules http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/10_1_1958.pdf at the very beginning. Rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, rules the court themselves ignored. https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2015/11/PCA-Arbitration-Rules-2012.pdf

UNCLOS isn't an organization it's a treaty. And the arbitration isn't valid since for one you can't have an arbitration by yourself it involves other parties as well and those parties are Taiwan, Vietnam and China. China refused and Vietnam and Taiwan were not invited. The Philippines has the weakest claim since there is not map in the history of the Philippines that showed it having the Spratley Islands. The islands were not part of the Philippines when it was transferred by Spain to the Americans and not ever when it became independent. http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=Asia&item=/Asia1905h.sid&wid=500&hei=400&props=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl# What is the relevance of your post exactly?

Your post makes no sense at all.

We don't have a lack of innovation. We have a lack people who can take those innovations and make a business out of it.

Specifically it was the Permanent Court of Arbitration that issued the ruling. Even then it wasn't a valid arbitration since Taiwan and Vietnam were not invited as well.

Not even relevant to the conversation since that situation is completely different from Palestinians situation.

That solution isn't environmentally friendly.

I am not sure what you mean, I do not see anyone discounting all of our nations interventions. I do not see nuclear warfare happening, or see conventional and asymmetrical warfare being a threat to Canada.

150 years of our nation doesn't change the fact the scenario you present is extremely unlikely.

An extremely unlikely scenario in other words.

I believe Turkey has given aid to the Yazidi community and so has the Kurdish.

I think it is simply the need to be better equipped than the enemy that pushed the innovation of weapons.

GA 181 isn't a legally binding agreement it is merely a suggestion by the UN. Israel accepting the original map and the Palestinians not accepting it doesn't afford Israel the Palestinians land regardless if a war happened or not.

It's still terrorism and your link to my post fails to show that I rejected anything. It shows me telling you the position you hold is not supported by the links you post.

Again what is your point? What were the Irgun and Lehi when they planted bombs in crowded markets? Are they the Hamas of the day as well?