The Philippines’ provocative president, Rodrigo Duterte, was courting controversy again this week, asserting casually on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Singapore that China was already in possession of the entire South China Sea.
The contested waters are home to more than 250 land features, variously claimed and occupied by countries including China and the Philippines.
On Friday, Philippine Chief Justice Antonio Carpio corrected the record.
“Factually, China is not in possession of the South China Sea,” Carpio was quoted by ABS-CBN news as saying during a speech.
“About 25% of the South China Sea are high seas. Under UNCLOS, no state can possess or own the high seas, which belong to all mankind. Under UNCLOS, there is freedom of navigation and overflight in the high seas for all nations,” he said, referring to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The territory that China does control accounts for “less than 8% of the total area of the South China Sea,” noted Carpio, who was one of the lawyers who represented Manila in the arbitration at The Hague challenging China’s South China Sea claims.
The back and forth between the two Philippine voices comes as member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are caught between the competing interests of the United States and China, a reality that Singaporean President Lee Hsien Loong articulated this week.
It is “very desirable” for the bloc of Southeast Asian nations to avoid picking sides, but it may be inevitable for countries to “have to choose one or the other,” he said.
Not arguing that. But choose your poison carefully.
Not arguing that. But choose your poison carefully.
Kaye Sibal CHINA hasn’t been the aggressor yet?
Kaye Sibal CHINA hasn’t been the aggressor yet?
Nigel Edwards As opposed to the USA.
Nigel Edwards As opposed to the USA.
…and under the current leadership, Philippines is becoming China’s lapdog
…and under the current leadership, Philippines is becoming China’s lapdog
.
SCS is [NOT] the high seas…
SCS is a domain that lies well within the Chinese border. I.e., as in the the nine dash cow tongue https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/defense_philippines/vietnamese-women-nude-protest-against-china-39-s-3-t2578.html line?
Love’em don’t we?
Dumbbells and idiotic specues..
.
.
SCS is [NOT] the high seas…
SCS is a domain that lies well within the Chinese border. I.e., as in the the nine dash cow tongue https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/defense_philippines/vietnamese-women-nude-protest-against-china-39-s-3-t2578.html line?
Love’em don’t we?
Dumbbells and idiotic specues..
.
After all, China is a hyper power nation, should they intend to full control 100% of South China Sea’s water, nobody can challenge them.
After all, China is a hyper power nation, should they intend to full control 100% of South China Sea’s water, nobody can challenge them.
UNCLOS has nothing to do with territories. The UNCLOS did not provide the Philippines with legal bases to claim Spratly Islands & Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines violated the UN Resolution 2625 sending military forces to illegally occupy some of the islands in the Spratly Islands and militarized the South China Sea in 1971. Carpio knows all about this and just disguises his intentions.
UNCLOS has nothing to do with territories. The UNCLOS did not provide the Philippines with legal bases to claim Spratly Islands & Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines violated the UN Resolution 2625 sending military forces to illegally occupy some of the islands in the Spratly Islands and militarized the South China Sea in 1971. Carpio knows all about this and just disguises his intentions.
" Under UNCLOS, no state can possess or own the high seas, which belong to all mankind. "
Maritime law experts all over the world have concluded that UNCLOS does not address and therefore have no jurisdiction over maritime territory boundaries. There is no chapter, paragraph, sentence, clause nor word in UNCLOS that address this issue. Recall that china published an 11 dashed line in 1947 over the SCS and lodged this with the UN. No one complained. China would not have signed and rectified UNCLOS if it indeed have jurisdiction over maritime boundary delimitation.
There are international laws that deal with land and sea boundary delimitations and the proper venue to argue this out is the ICJ. But because these laws place emphasis on historical facts, seabed features (continental shelf as an example) and tenure of possession, the empire and the japs dared not bring this pinoy case to the ICJ. They knew they would lose for sure and they knew the chinese were just waiting for them to make this move.
Instead, they cobbled up the dog and pony show in a kangaroo court called the PCA tribunal. (The PCA a.k.a. Permanent Court of Arbitration is nothing more than a coffee shop venue for parties involved in a dispute to come to the negotiating table on their own FREE WILL to try to settle the dispute. The fact that it is also housed in the same building as the ICJ in The Hague bears no relationship to the ICJ whatsoever.) The entire panel of judges was picked and chosen by the japs and their empire masters. Therefore, it was no surprise that the chinese claim was totally rejected in july 2016.
In doing so, this kangaroo court also tried to modify the definition of an "island" feature by stating that even islands that can sustain human life with its own source of drinkable water and capability to cultivate food are no longer qualify as "islands". Simply taken, this means; singapore, hawaii, hainan, taiping, fiji, vanuatu, guam, etc, etc are no longer islands. They are uninhabitable pieces of waste lands.
The UN publicly disavowed any involvement in this dog and pony show. Needless to say, it has no legitimacy at all.
Chief justice "Crapio" was just talking crap with regard to the above.
" Under UNCLOS, no state can possess or own the high seas, which belong to all mankind. "
Maritime law experts all over the world have concluded that UNCLOS does not address and therefore have no jurisdiction over maritime territory boundaries. There is no chapter, paragraph, sentence, clause nor word in UNCLOS that address this issue. Recall that china published an 11 dashed line in 1947 over the SCS and lodged this with the UN. No one complained. China would not have signed and rectified UNCLOS if it indeed have jurisdiction over maritime boundary delimitation.
There are international laws that deal with land and sea boundary delimitations and the proper venue to argue this out is the ICJ. But because these laws place emphasis on historical facts, seabed features (continental shelf as an example) and tenure of possession, the empire and the japs dared not bring this pinoy case to the ICJ. They knew they would lose for sure and they knew the chinese were just waiting for them to make this move.
Instead, they cobbled up the dog and pony show in a kangaroo court called the PCA tribunal. (The PCA a.k.a. Permanent Court of Arbitration is nothing more than a coffee shop venue for parties involved in a dispute to come to the negotiating table on their own FREE WILL to try to settle the dispute. The fact that it is also housed in the same building as the ICJ in The Hague bears no relationship to the ICJ whatsoever.) The entire panel of judges was picked and chosen by the japs and their empire masters. Therefore, it was no surprise that the chinese claim was totally rejected in july 2016.
In doing so, this kangaroo court also tried to modify the definition of an "island" feature by stating that even islands that can sustain human life with its own source of drinkable water and capability to cultivate food are no longer qualify as "islands". Simply taken, this means; singapore, hawaii, hainan, taiping, fiji, vanuatu, guam, etc, etc are no longer islands. They are uninhabitable pieces of waste lands.
The UN publicly disavowed any involvement in this dog and pony show. Needless to say, it has no legitimacy at all.
Chief justice "Crapio" was just talking crap with regard to the above.
Perception Vs facts.
Perception Vs facts.
The 8% of the SCS occupied by China must mean China’s EEZ measured from the coast of China’s Hainand Island. The chief justice Antonio Carpio could not mean the articifcial islands built by China because those artificial islands are either in the high sea or in the EEZ of other countries. Besides, according to the UNCLOS, artificial islands have neither territorial waters nor EEZ.
The 8% of the SCS occupied by China must mean China’s EEZ measured from the coast of China’s Hainand Island. The chief justice Antonio Carpio could not mean the articifcial islands built by China because those artificial islands are either in the high sea or in the EEZ of other countries. Besides, according to the UNCLOS, artificial islands have neither territorial waters nor EEZ.