War in South China Sea?

[herples]

The point that you are missing is that criticism does not make the ruling on the rules wrong. It is equivalent to a judge dismissing a murder charge on appeal because the police did not follow the rules. The murderer may not technically get convicted but the original finding of guilt is still a valid statement of facts even if it has no legal relevance.

By arguing procedural errors you are saying China wants to be vindicated by a technicality.

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.

[TimG]

Well rest assured this isn't a murder trial let alone a trial at all. It's an arbitration not criminal court.

It is an arbitration related to the rules defined in the UNCLOS treaty. China may try to argue for an exception because of the bizarre way the rules are written. That does not change the fact that China needs an exception to the rules because it is violating them. Edited August 12, 2016 by TimG

[herples]

It is an arbitration related to the rules defined in the UNCLOS treaty. China may try to argue for an exception because of the bizarre way the rules are written. That does not change the fact that China needs an exception to the rules because it is violating them.

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.

[TimG]

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.

And it did not want to go to arbitration because it knew it was violating the rules. THe UNCLOS confirmed that China has no valid claim under the terms UNCLOS. Make all of the pedantic arguments you want about how a guilty party cannot be found guilty unless it agrees to let the court make a such a finding (imagine if all courts had this rule - no one would be convicted ever). Pedantic arguments don't change the facts: China is violating the rules of UNLOS. Edited August 12, 2016 by TimG

[herples]

And it did not want to go to arbitration because it knew it was violating the rules. THe UNCLOS confirmed that China has no valid claim under the terms UNCLOS. Make all of the pedantic arguments you want about how a guilty party cannot be found guilty unless it agrees to let the court make a such a finding (imagine if all courts had this rule - no one would be convicted ever). Pedantic arguments don't change the facts: China is violating the rules of UNLOS.

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

[TimG]

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

I am explained: nitpicking about the process does not negate the findings of the arbitration panel.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Edited August 12, 2016 by TimG

[herples]

I am explained: nitpicking about the process does not negate the findings of the arbitration panel.

Why is this so hard to understand?

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?

[TimG]

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?

Procedural rules and statutes are different. I gave you the example of a convicted murdered having the verdict overturned on appeal because of violation of process. That does not mean the court was incorrect in its determination that the person did murder someone. It just means the person cannot be convicted of this crime because of the process violations.

Your complaints about process don't change the fact that the arbitration panel did rule on the merits of the case and found all of China's claims to be in violation of the UNLOS. China can argue that, as with most UN bodies, the UNCLOS gives signatories huge loopholes to exploit and China intends to exploit the loopholes to justify ignoring the ruling. But that does not change the substance of the ruling: China's claims have no merit.

[herples]

Procedural rules and statutes are different. I gave you the example of a convicted murdered having the verdict overturned on appeal because of violation of process. That does not mean the court was incorrect in its determination that the person did murder someone. It just means the person cannot be convicted of this crime because of the process violations.

Your complaints about process don't change the fact that the arbitration panel did rule on the merits of the case and found all of China's claims to be in violation of the UNLOS. China can argue that, as with most UN bodies, the UNCLOS gives signatories huge loopholes to exploit and China intends to exploit the loopholes to justify ignoring the ruling. But that does not change the substance of the ruling: China's claims have no merit.

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.

[TimG]

Your criminal court example isn't relevant since this isn't a criminal case or a court case for that matter.

It is relevant because it is illustrates how objections over procedural details do not make the finding of the court untrue. The findings of the panel show China has no legitimate claim under the UNCLOS treaty. Claiming the panel had no right to make a ruling does not change the truth of the findings.

[herples]

It is relevant because it is illustrates how objections over procedural details do not make the finding of the court untrue. The findings of the panel show China has no legitimate claim under the UNCLOS treaty. Claiming the panel had no right to make a ruling does not change the truth of the findings.

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.

[TimG]

It is impossible for the PCA to make any ruling with only one side of the case being presented.

"Amicus Curiae" briefs were made available to the PCA. The PCA was completely aware of the Chinese arguments and addressed them in its ruling.

What is a mystery to me is why anyone can believe this is anything other than a greedy land grab by an immature China desperate to expand its territory.

Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[herples]

"Amicus Curiae" briefs were made available to the PCA. The PCA was completely aware of the Chinese arguments and addressed them in its ruling.

What is a mystery to me is why anyone can believe this is anything other than a greedy land grab by an immature China desperate to expand its territory.

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

[Hudson Jones]

I am explained: nitpicking about the process does not negate the findings of the arbitration panel.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I agree with TimG. The UN and ICJ has made a ruling and it's pretty clear.

[TimG]

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

Yes. That is the point. When the Japanese surrendered China simply assumed it could seize whatever territory it wanted. The trouble was this seizure was not recognized by anyone. Now 70 years later it wants to enforce the seizure despite the fact that other countries have legitimate claims to the waters in question.

Now the reality of the time after the WW2 is China probably could have made its claims stick if it enforced the seizure then (Russia still holds islands it took from the Japanese). The problem is it didn't and the world moved on. So we now live in an era where countries are expected to accept the existing borders in the name of maintaining the peace. China thinks it can threaten that peace. That is wrong.

Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

I agree with TimG. The UN and ICJ has made a ruling and it's pretty clear.

It is not the ICJ. It an arbitration panel set up under the terms of the UNCLOS. Edited August 13, 2016 by TimG

[herples]

It is not the ICJ. It an arbitration panel set up under the terms of the UNCLOS.

It's not an UN agency either.

[bjre]

China did not agree because was fully aware that it is violating the treaty. The fact that China did not participate does not make the ruling incorrect.

The question is why doesn't China have the honesty to admit that does not care about such treaties and plans to do whatever pleases. Why does China insist on such silly legalistic games to avoid stating what everyone in the world knows?

China did not agree be to participate is because it knows the PCA is unfair, like a court to judge a black case with all white jury members.

Actually, You are unfair yourself. You know that US and other country ignore international rulings for so many times, but you simple blame China only. You give misleading information by talking all evidence ( no matter if it is true or false evidence) only support you opinion and try to ignore all information that do not support your opinion even when you know that those evidences exist. This clearly show your purpose. This kind of behavior is just like Hilary Clinton, who believes that everything (include truth) is not important when it compares to her own goal.

[TimG]

China did not agree be to participate is because it knows the PCA is unfair, like a court to judge a black case with all white jury members.

The rules of the UNCLOS are quite clear. There is no reasonable interpretation of the rules that would support China's position. Claims of unfairness are simply excuses on the part of China.

Actually, You are unfair yourself. You know that US and other country ignore international rulings for so many times

I am aware of that and the US gets criticized for it all of the time (inside and outside). But the difference is the US has not signed UNCLOS specifically because it did not want to be bound by the rules. China did which makes China's repudiation interesting the sense that China clearly has no interest in abiding by the terms of treaties it signs if they are inconvenient. It is something we need to keep in mind in Canada if we are being sold something based on a promise by China to 'follow the rules'.

[bjre]

The rules of the UNCLOS are quite clear. There is no reasonable interpretation of the rules that would support China's position. Claims of unfairness are simply excuses on the part of China.

Rules are quite clear in the "Article 298 Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2", China has the right to reject it.

I am aware of that and the US gets criticized for it all of the time (inside and outside). But the difference is the US has not signed UNCLOS specifically because it did not want to be bound by the rules. China did which makes China's repudiation interesting the sense that China clearly has no interest in abiding by the terms of treaties it signs if they are inconvenient. It is something we need to keep in mind in Canada if we are being sold something based on a promise by China to 'follow the rules'.

Nixon announce the end of the Bretton Woods System is clear break the system created by US itself. But I never heard of you blame the US not follow the rules made by itself.

[Hudson Jones]

I am aware of that and the US gets criticized for it all of the time (inside and outside). But the difference is the US has not signed UNCLOS specifically because it did not want to be bound by the rules. China did which makes China's repudiation interesting the sense that China clearly has no interest in abiding by the terms of treaties it signs if they are inconvenient. It is something we need to keep in mind in Canada if we are being sold something based on a promise by China to 'follow the rules'.

So if someone is a signatory to one of these international agreements or bodies, you believe they should not reject the findings and should follow the rules?

And if they don't? Then what? Sanctions?

[TimG]

So if someone is a signatory to one of these international agreements or bodies, you believe they should not reject the findings and should follow the rules?

It is naive to expect any large state to follow the rules even though they should. There is not much that can be done about it other than calling the states in question out for their rule breaking. Unfortunately, China prohibits people from expressing any opinion contrary to what the Communist party wants and that makes China's rule breaking much more dangerous because the Chinese population is kept ignorant of the other side of the story,

[TimG]

Rules are quite clear in the "Article 298 Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2", China has the right to reject it.

A plain reading of Clause 298 does not really help China's case. It specifically states that exemptions are only allowed if China agrees to be bound by the decision of a future UN panel assembled under the terms of Annex V, section 2. Are you arguing that China is willing to agree to be bound by a future UN panel if granted the exemption or are you just using this as excuse to justify China's repudiation of treaty?