tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1134686792437424928.post1531879215192698485..comments2022-04-10T18:18:17.593-07:00Comments on World News, Pinoy Views: Spratly Islands - What Is China Really Up To?ritchehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14116131981987048788noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1134686792437424928.post-42513445130789401502014-04-10T09:15:45.149-07:002014-04-10T09:15:45.149-07:00Thanks for giving us the obligatory Chinese propag...Thanks for giving us the obligatory Chinese propaganda viewpoint on the subject.Rickyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755399349124733686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1134686792437424928.post-44304223954609143662014-04-10T01:10:28.533-07:002014-04-10T01:10:28.533-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rickyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755399349124733686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1134686792437424928.post-33337880923492257842011-08-01T17:26:14.171-07:002011-08-01T17:26:14.171-07:00Someone posted on why UN is no solution (Paracel I...Someone posted on why UN is no solution (Paracel Islands dispute) and I quoted:<br /><br /> An international court is not appropriate to solve bilateral issues between China and Vietnam for the following reasons:<br /><br /> 1) The international court lacks legitimacy. As the world leader, the United States agrees to accept "the court's jurisdiction only on a case-to-case basis" and at the U.S.'s discretion. If the U.S. refuses to be bound by the international court, why should China behave otherwise?<br /><br /> "The United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and so accepts the court's jurisdiction only on a case-to-case basis. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...urt_of_Justice<br /><br /> 2) As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council (i.e. UNSC) with "veto power," China cannot be bound by any ruling of the international court.<br /><br /> 3) The international court has no military to enforce its decision. Without the cooperation of the UNSC P-5 to muster voluntary military power to enforce a decision, which country will be crazy enough to antagonize China (which has the world's second-largest military budget) over a speck of an island in the ocean?<br /><br /> 4) The international court has no jurisdiction. Ownership of the Paracel Islands is a historical matter, not a legal issue. China will not agree to allow Vietnam to play the legal lottery and pray for a win. China's historical claim dates from at least 618 A.D., which is an unbeatable 1392 years ago.<br /><br /> "Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the Court in contentious cases. (See Procedure below.) The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...urt_of_Justice<br /><br /> 5) The United States wants no part of the China-Vietnam Paracel Islands dispute.<br /><br /> http://paracelspratlyislands.blogspot.com/...-china-sea.html<br /> "Vietnam and China dispute ownership of the Paracel Islands. ... The United States has maintained strict neutrality, refusing to condemn China's actions and ..."<br /><br /> 6) The U.S. National Geographic Society agrees that Paracel Islands are part of China.<br /><br /> http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/BMXParacel<br /> "We are writing this letter concerning the label “China” at the disputed Paracel Islands on the online world map edition published by the National Geographic Society. (*)"<br /><br /> 7) The international court is not interested in disputing China's claim to the Paracel Islands. The international court is not foolish enough to antagonize China, a member of the UNSC that the international court must ask for periodic enforcement support.<br /><br /> "While the Court has, in some instances, resolved claims by one State espoused on behalf of its nationals, the Court has generally refrained from hearing contentious cases that are political in nature, due in part to its lack of enforcement mechanism and its lack of compulsory jurisdiction. The Court has generally found it did not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the use of force." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...urt_of_Justice<br /><br /> Unless you can think of a realistic manner to overcome the seven problems listed above, I think Vietnam should spend its time on more productive matters. Chinese sovereignty over Paracel Islands looks like a closed case.MD6888https://www.blogger.com/profile/17456249297607660785noreply@blogger.com