.oh and some sea related court of arbitration in the Hague, (they decide all international disputes about sea borders etc), declared a few years ago that all the chinese claims to the SC Sea were invalid.... so china does what it always does with decisions it doesn't like... it ignores the
China has beef with Japan and Taiwan.... both have mutual defense treaties with the USA...... booooooom in my life time i think
Firebrand Philippine president pushes the US to send the entire 7th Fleet into the South China Sea
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, a strongman leader known for his rough-and-tumble rhetoric, dared the US on Monday to send the entire 7th Fleet, roughly 70 to 80 ships and submarines, into the South China Sea to drive out the Chinese military.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte dared the US on Monday to send the entire US 7th Fleet into the South China Sea to confront China if it really wants to drive Chinese forces from the disputed waterway.
His comments follow another speech, in which he accused the US of “egging on” the Philippines and using his country as bait.
Duterte has expressed doubt about America’s willingness to defend the Philippines, while his defence secretary has warned that the country’s mutual defence pact with the US could draw it into an unwanted war.
The latest rhetoric from the firebrand leader appears to be a message to the US, as well as those in the Philippines who have been critical of Duterte’s hesitancy to stand up to China.
Full story: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/dute ... sea-2019-7
- Posts: 28009
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:13 am
- Reputation: 1261
- Location: CEO Newsroom in Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Disputes in the South China Sea are not as complicated as they may seem.
By Pham Ngoc Minh Trang
October 22, 2019
Most observers usually look at the South China Sea disputes with pessimistic eyes. After capturing the attention of the world in 2009, when China for the first time officially introduced the nine-dash-line map, the conflicts in the region has continued to grow, tensions between the interested parties increasing. Furthering tensions, China ignored the judgment of an international tribunal in a 2016 suit against Beijing’s expansive claims. Thereafter, some observers have claimed that the disputes are too complicated to settle by law. But such pessimism ignores the fact that Southeast Asian countries have a culture of heeding international law. Whether judging from a realist lens or not, the law remains a useful tool for small countries to protect their interests.
Not So Complicated
From a legal perspective, disputes in the South China Sea are not as complicated as they may seem. There are two reasons for that statement.
First, all the claimants in the South China Sea – Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam – are parties to the two most important legal mechanisms dealing with multilateral disputes: the United Nations Charter (UN Charter) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Under the regimes of these conventions, state parties have the obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, regional arrangements, international arbitration, or courts/tribunals. Unlike the UN Charter, UNCLOS goes a step further and prescribed detailed methods of solving conflicts at sea for its parties in Chapter XV. In general, the consent of states is placed at the center of all dispute settlement mechanisms. However, UNCLOS particularly opens a chance for a state party individually to bring its conflict with another state before an international court or arbitration when it comes to certain types of disputes. These are called compulsory procedures, entailing binding decisions in section 2 of chapter XV of UNCLOS. When a state signed and ratified the Convention, it is understood that it has agreed with this settlement means in advance. This was the strategy the Philippines employed in its litigation against China in the South China Sea arbitration.
The second reason is that the whole situation in the South China Sea can be classified into specific legal categories, which could be settled separately by law.
The first category is related to conflicting claims of sovereignty over offshore maritime features. China and Vietnam claim sovereignty over all the features in the Paracels. For the Spratlys, the claimants include China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam.
The second category concerns normal maritime boundary demarcation exercises of littoral countries. Coastal states usually have maritime zones overlapping with their opposite and/or adjacent neighbors, and so do the claimants in the South China Sea. For example, Vietnam and Malaysia have overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and continental shelves, or Brunei when extending its EEZ and continental shelf has recognized the future delimitation of boundaries with neighbors in the future. And there is China, which claims a maritime zone comprising 80 percent of the South China Sea within the infamous nine-dash-line. This claim, however, was rejected by the arbitral tribunal in the case between the Philippines and China in 2016.
https://thediplomat.com/2019/10/south-c ... ional-law/
Have a story or an anonymous news tip for CEO? Need advertising? CONTACT US
Cambodia Expats Online is the most popular community in the country. JOIN TODAY
Follow CEO on social media:
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 16 Replies
- 1005 Views
Last post by shnoukieBRO
Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:20 pm
- 9 Replies
- 834 Views
Last post by whatwat
Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:20 pm
- 68 Replies
- 18272 Views
Last post by pczz
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:11 pm
- 1 Replies
- 240 Views
Last post by CEOCambodiaNews
Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:42 pm
- 10 Replies
- 864 Views
Last post by CEOCambodiaNews
Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:05 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 153 guests