Chitchat Philippines 2 China 0

[mojito]

Heard that filipino sent their legal teams to consult Simon Chesterman son of Tony Tan before sending all their legal papers to The Hague

You are always hearing things. Need a good shrink?

 

[congo9]

I don't see how pinoyland could be the winner here if they don't talk. . If fact it just give china the reason to resume their artificial island constructions. In the end pinoyland could do is to hold on to that paper victory without any tangible gain

Unless Phinoy land can sink most of the warship and send some missle direct to Shanghai, Shenzheng and send one most powerful missile straight into where President Xi Jinping is sleeping.

 

[hugs]

!!! hahah

You are always hearing things. Need a good shrink?

 

[scroobal]

When sovereign states interact it is always political never legal. When the Philippines went to the PCT it is a political move because they have not much to leverage on. It was an attempt to embarrass their much bigger advisory and gain some profile and leverage. Anyone including the Philippines knows that rulings against sovereign states are never binding nor enforceable. When the UN General Assembly repeatedly passes resolution after resolution over 50 years against Isreal, they know full well that it is not meant to be a legal instrument. The fact that 5 permanent members of the UN have veto powers and they are permanent in the Security Council tells you it is not based on natural justice or legal principles but purely on might.

He is a simple example. Many of the diplomatic missions in Singapore regularly bundle their traffic summons and send it back. We do the same in NY etc. When sovereign states are involved even a simple legal instrument for a minor traffic violation has no bearing.

When 2 sovereign states agrees to go down the legal route and agree to be bound by the findings of a tribunal both the states have actually made a political decision. We can advance the debate if we move away from stating the obvious.

Agree. This has been a political issue right from the get-go, not a legal one. Political issues require political solutions, not legalistic solutions handed down by a court.

Since time immemorial, talks and diplomacy have always been the method par excellence to settle deadlocks and disputes. If all else fails, there's always war, which no sane leader in the region would want to see. China holds the upper hand because of its ongoing construction presence on the isles, so it's the Philippines who would have to find face-saving way to come to the table.

Just realpolitik.

 

[yellowarse]

When 2 sovereign states agrees to go down the legal route and agree to be bound by the findings of a tribunal both the states have actually made a political decision. We can advance the debate if we move away from stating the obvious.

The obvious is not so obvious to some, apparently.

The operative phrase is "when 2 sovereign states agree..." The moment the Philippines went to the courts unilaterally, it was a huge political mis-step: whatever moral high ground they gained they've lost it all and more in political mileage because it's now more difficult than ever to for talks between the two sides with the tribunal ruling overshadowing. China will never agree to talks based on the ruling, and the Philippines will never agree without.

Unless you use the ruling as moral justification for military action. In which case why go to court at all? The US didn't need a tribunal when they went fishing for WMD in Iraq.

OTOH, Pedra Branca is a good example of 2 sovereign states making a political decision to settle a political dispute by taking the legal route.

 

[rodent2005]

It was an attempt to embarrass their much bigger advisory and gain some profile and leverage.

And this is a good move to "embarrass their much bigger advisory (sic)" because?

Rather the Philippines is allowing itself to be played like a pawn by the US against China.

 

[yellowarse]

Rather the Philippines is allowing itself to be played like a pawn by the US against China.

Thanks for stating the not-so-obvious.

As I said in the post above, going to court unilaterally in a political dispute only serves one purpose — to back up a favourable ruling with military action. Which doesn't make sense when a David takes a Goliath to court — unless you have Big Daddy behind you.

No prizes for guessing who cho-choed the Philippines into taking legal action.

 

[scroobal]

Again you are stating the obvious. It all about projecting power in politics. Legal strictures have little or no value when dealing with sovereign states.

The obvious is not so obvious to some, apparently.

The operative phrase is "when 2 sovereign states agree..." The moment the Philippines went to the courts unilaterally, it was a huge political mis-step: whatever moral high ground they gained they've lost it all and more in political mileage because it's now more difficult than ever to for talks between the two sides with the tribunal ruling overshadowing. China will never agree to talks based on the ruling, and the Philippines will never agree without.

Unless you use the ruling as moral justification for military action. In which case why go to court at all? The US didn't need a tribunal when they went fishing for WMD in Iraq.

OTOH, Pedra Branca is a good example of 2 sovereign states making a political decision to settle a political dispute by taking the legal route.

 

[scroobal]

And you want Philippines to accept what China wants? Surely not. None of the South East Asian states wth the exception of Laos and Cambodia have acceded to the Chinese's position so by your logic they are US pawns as well. We all know that none of these States are capable of touching China. And thats a given. Why you think China is making so much noise (kpkb in local parlance) if they were not embarrassed.

The reality is no one wants to be anyone pawns. In fact they use the US against the Chinese and vice versa when it suits them.

And this is a good move to "embarrass their much bigger advisory (sic)" because?

Rather the Philippines is allowing itself to be played like a pawn by the US against China.

 

[yellowarse]

Again you are stating the obvious. It all about projecting power in politics. Legal strictures have little or no value when dealing with sovereign states.

Projection of power doesn't come from a legal ruling. It comes from the barrel of a gun, as someone once said. That should be quite obvious, I think.

If anything, the ruling has forestalled future diplomatic & political manoeuvres on the plaintiff's side, short of going to war.

 

[scroobal]

Yet another obvious statement. I have never heard of any other way you project power amongst states other than with a gun.

Projection of power doesn't come from a legal ruling. It comes from the barrel of a gun, as someone once said. That should be quite obvious, I think.

If anything, the ruling has forestalled future diplomatic & political manoeuvres on the plaintiff's side, short of going to war.

 

[yellowarse]

Yet another obvious statement. I have never heard of any other way you project power amongst states other than with a gun.

Good. We agree on what's obvious. Which begs the question: so why 'embarrass China' and 'all about projecting power in politics' by seeking a legal ruling? (Your words in quotes.) Why not use guns?

Your anti-China sentiments have blinkered you into contradicting your own stand.

 

[rodent2005]

And you want Philippines to accept what China wants? Surely not.

What China wants is dialogue. So the Philippines wants to start a war instead?

None of the South East Asian states wth the exception of Laos and Cambodia have acceded to the Chinese's position so by your logic they are US pawns as well.

Can you think logically? If other SEA Countries not against China, then they must be for USA? Can they not be taking a neutral position?

We all know that none of these States are capable of touching China. And thats a given. Why you think China is making so much noise (kpkb in local parlance) if they were not embarrassed.

No one is asking you whether China is embarrassed or not. I asked you how does it benefit you to embarrass someone much bigger and stronger than you?

The reality is no one wants to be anyone pawns. In fact they use the US against the Chinese and vice versa when it suits them.

OK, now u r saying the Philippines is smarter than the Americans. R u a pinoy btw?

 

[scroobal]

Thats what I said in my very post to you and every post - that you are stating the obvious.

Good. We agree on what's obvious. Which begs the question: so why 'embarrass China' and 'all about projecting power in politics' by seeking a legal ruling? (Your words in quotes.) Why not use guns?

Your anti-China sentiments have blinkered you into contradicting your own stand.

 

[scroobal]

You need to read about the SEA states and their position with China on South China Sea.

What China wants is dialogue. So the Philippines wants to start a war instead?



Can you think logically? If other SEA Countries not against China, then they must be for USA? Can they not be taking a neutral position?



No one is asking you whether China is embarrassed or not. I asked you how does it benefit you to embarrass someone much bigger and stronger than you?



OK, now u r saying the Philippines is smarter than the Americans. R u a pinoy btw?

 

[yellowarse]

Thats what I said in my very post to you and every post - that you are stating the obvious.

If that's a tacit admission that you're taking back your words, I'll accept it.

 

[scroobal]

If it helps float your boat, go for it. Clutching straws was never a dying art.

If that's a tacit admission that you're taking back your words, I'll accept it.

 

[streetcry]

Who are the arbitrators?

The Xinhua news agency has accused the US government, the Philippines, the arbitration panel and Japan's prime minister Shinzo Abe of collusion in the recently concluded South China Sea arbitration case.



Four of the five arbitrators of the temporary tribunal were appointed by Shunji Yanai, the former president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The former Japanese diplomat's political stance and speeches went against the principles of the independence of the international judiciary. Shunji Yanai served the Japanese Foreign Ministry for 40 years from 1961. He has been involved in controversial issues, including Japan's 2015 security bill, and the Diaoyu Islands dispute with China. He has a close relationship with Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe.



The fairness of the tribunal's operations was called into question by the personal wishes of Shunji Yanai. The Xinhua news agency commented that it was not surprising that Yanai generally chose arbitrators who were biased against China.



In addition, an American legal team provided help in drafting thousands of pages of legal documents, representing the Philippines presenting arguments to the tribunal. American lawyer Bernard Oxman, who represented the Philippines, had worked with most of the arbitrators and Yanai. He attended the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea as a representative for United States government. Based on the principles of independence of the international judiciary, the impartiality of a judge can be questioned if there are any links to a party involved in a case. Despite that, Oxman was still involved.



There is no doubt the close relationship between Oxman and US government, the Philippines government, arbitrators, Yanai and Abe. These links form a complex network of special political interests. The Xinhua news agency says they took advantage of legal platform and after three years they issued their pre-arranged ruling and finished their political farce.

http://english.cctv.com/2016/07/20/VIDE5Gl2n6vbMtVtmbzFLaZK160720.shtml

 

[streetcry]

US scholar questions arbitration

Graham Allison is the Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School. He says that the Hague tribunal had no authority to make a judgement on the South China Sea arbitration. He also points out the US is not a member of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.



"The court is quite clear about where jurisdiction lies, where it doesn't......US is not a member," Allison said.

http://english.cctv.com/2016/07/20/VIDEA6eVR8cNTgohRMnt37XC160720.shtml

 

[yellowarse]

"The court is quite clear about where jurisdiction lies, where it doesn't......US is not a member," Allison said.

http://english.cctv.com/2016/07/20/VIDEA6eVR8cNTgohRMnt37XC160720.shtml

The 'double standard' Allison was accusing the US of stemmed from the Contras scandal in Nicaragua. The US rejected outright the ICJ ruling which found in favour of Nicaragua.

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[SUP][2][/SUP] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[SUP][3]
[/SUP]
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."​