MERGED: RP-China Territorial Dispute, Related Events and Updates

[messerchtmitt]

Bro, mu.batbat lang ko gamay ha.. ang UNCLOS is not definite. International Law does not bind any country to follow it, it is just an agreement that can be broken in so many ways. Many international law critics argue the fact why common law(local law) supersedes IL. It is not a stupid question. It is actually an excellent question that can be argued both logically and intellectually.

Mao ra na ako.a bro.

Sorry, I'm referring to the question, "Kinsa ang nakaunsa sa ScarShoal?". The word "nakaunsa".

I have read this at GMANetwork.com about the UNCLOS.

What you need to know about the UNCLOS, the ITLOS, and the EEZ | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

When did the agreement come into force?

After eight years of negotiations, the convention concluded in 1982 and came into force as a binding treaty in 1994.


Who are the members of UNCLOS?

As of June 2011, the Convention had 162 signatories. The Philippines signed it on May 8, 1984, while China signed it on June 7, 1996.

[kaspaguz]

lisura aning lalisa oi, magkina unsa man gani alkansi jud ta permi bisag mulaban pa ang UN kita pinoy japun ang magsakit -

[shal213]

Sorry, I'm referring to the question, "Kinsa ang nakaunsa sa ScarShoal?". The word "nakaunsa".

I have read this at GMANetwork.com about the UNCLOS.

What you need to know about the UNCLOS, the ITLOS, and the EEZ | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

When did the agreement come into force?

After eight years of negotiations, the convention concluded in 1982 and came into force as a binding treaty in 1994.


Who are the members of UNCLOS?

As of June 2011, the Convention had 162 signatories. The Philippines signed it on May 8, 1984, while China signed it on June 7, 1996.

Ahhh.. I apologize for my un-educated intrusion.

Regarding sa UNCLOS sir, it may be a "binding treaty" in the same way that Iran has a "binding treaty" with the UN with regards to their Nuclear Program. A binding treaty in international law is not the same with a binding treaty in Philippine law. They can and they are defying it and the UN can not do anything about it aside from economic sanctions and such. But considering that China has the 2nd largest global economy to date, then their sanctions can not amount to anything.

Another point I would like to make is that relying on International organizations is not a wise option as member countries will weight first the possible outcome of each actions and their is a small percentage that they would rather not interfere directly and just be a third party negotiator and if that is the case then we lose as a nation.

[messerchtmitt]

@shal213:

I think there was an International treaty that binds which came into force in November 16, 1994, while the Philippines signed it on May 8, 1984 and China signed on June 7, 1996.

Reference: UNCLOS

I don't think it can be broken.

[shal213]

lisura aning lalisa oi, magkina unsa man gani alkansi jud ta permi bisag mulaban pa ang UN kita pinoy japun ang magsakit -

tinuod jud na brad.. maypa lagi i.husay sa peaceful nga paagi kaysa gubat diretso ang unang ipagawas sa baba... no offense sa mga hardcore patriots..

[shal213]

@shal213:

I think there was an International treaty that binds which came into force in November 16, 1994, while the Philippines signed it on May 8, 1984 and China signed on June 7, 1996.

Reference: UNCLOS

I don't think it can be broken.

Sir, international law is defined as is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations. (Wikipedia)

Isagani Cruz states that for international law to be fully enforced then there is a pre-described requirement that a superior political power with power can punish violators, then international law can never be regarded as true law.

Furthermore, international law are customary laws, treaties and or general principles of the law agreed upon by different states. However, international law does not supersede the sovereignty of a country thus making it not binding legally.

So when I say it can be broken, I assure you sir it can.

[lazaro4ever]

What people do not consider is that China has never been an aggressor. They bully, but they do not attack other countries like the U.S. As long as our soldiers do not fire first, there will be no war. Was there a war with the China-Taiwan dispute? None.. Was there a war when China took over Hong Kong, nada. Was there a war when the U.S. accidentally blasted the Chinese Embassy? Still nothing.

China has always been defensive. Plain and simple. Stop with all this war thing. This is no longer the Golden Years of the 1950's. War in today's economy is nothing but an expense. Unless you are the United States that has a long history of starting wars.

[shal213]

What people do not consider is that China has never been an aggressor. They bully, but they do not attack other countries like the U.S. As long as our soldiers do not fire first, there will be no war. Was there a war with the China-Taiwan dispute? None.. Was there a war when China took over Hong Kong, nada. Was there a war when the U.S. accidentally blasted the Chinese Embassy? Still nothing.

China has always been defensive. Plain and simple. Stop with all this war thing. This is no longer the Golden Years of the 1950's. War in today's economy is nothing but an expense. Unless you are the United States that has a long history of starting wars.

I agree. The name of the game is intimidation. Whoever blinks first, loses. Who ever pulls the trigger first, loses.

[messerchtmitt]

When these treatise be broken due to the fact that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by international law, even through UN arbitration, it means war...

The US has been pressing China, the Philippines and other countries with territorial claims in the West Philippine Sea to resolve their dispute through diplomacy, particularly in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Once again if this will not happen and China pursue its claim then there could be clashes.

The US military's new focus on the Asia-Pacific region, as enunciated by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, putting Marines base in Northern Australia, improving military relationships with Vietnam and much more with the Philippines plus the Singapore.

It sounds that the next world war will be held in the West Philippine Sea. This is like Japan in 1941 nine hours after bombing Pearl Harbor, they attack Philippines and next to other Asian countries.

[bleedingboi]

Now, that is where you are wrong. They have staked their claims and no where does it say that they want the Philippines. Their claims are based on historical documents in which most of the unoccupied islands are part of their sovereignty. The fact of the matter is that these "islands" that China is laying claim to has a huge potential for oil thus they want it that bad. That's the problem, its not about invasion or wanting to expand territory. But the more we aggravate the issue, then the possibility of intent changes drastically. We know what they want, and we know that "us" (middle class going down to lower class) citizens can never fully enjoy the oil that these islands contain. Why should I fight so that a few 10% can be richer? This issue has never been about sovereignty but is about the potential millions of dollars that can be earned and how the US can gain from this hidden wealth. I wouldn't want Iraq to happen in my backyard, do you?

I'm not sure if you're fully aware of the consequences here bro if China take full ownership of these waters.

But a Communist nation taking over a major passageway is a bit uncomforting, expecially to commercial traffics, and trades of Democratic nations. The South China Sea contains major sea-lanes of communications including
some of the busiest shipping routes in the world. It also holds important "vantage point" for Western alliances against East Asia Regimes like North Korea, China, Cambodia, and Laos. This is a very strategic point to set off naval warfare. Just like how the Soviets controlled the Bering strait, the British controlled the English Channel and EGypt the Suez.

The "oil issue " although is another ballroller, is only a small fraction of Western Interest. We can never allow an overambitious, booming, socialist regime to flex their might over these waters. For Pete's sake, we cannot let them take these from us.

What people do not consider is that China has never been an aggressor. They bully, but they do not attack other countries like the U.S. As long as our soldiers do not fire first, there will be no war. Was there a war with the China-Taiwan dispute? None.. Was there a war when China took over Hong Kong, nada. Was there a war when the U.S. accidentally blasted the Chinese Embassy? Still nothing.
China has always been defensive. Plain and simple. Stop with all this war thing. This is no longer the Golden Years of the 1950's. War in today's economy is nothing but an expense. Unless you are the United States that has a long history of starting wars.

I really cannot agree on this.