Hague tribunal: None of the Spratly islands grant China an exclusive economic zone

As expected, the UNCLOS Tribunal at The Hague ruled favorably to the case filed by the Philippines.

By extension,  the ruling also favors the geopolitical intentions of the United States in the region.

Incidentally, while the United States is citing legal issues against China, the former has not ratified the UNCLOS treaty yet.

“Every day, the New York Times has an interactive feature on its website. You can look at these Chinese islands they’re building in unbelievable detail, supplied by the United States military. But you’ve got to go outside the major media to see the 1,000 American bases ringing the globe.”

In the legal case against China, the United States cites the United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea. But the US has refused to ratify that agreement.

“Suddenly, the United States is standing on international law. It’s sheer opportunity, that’s all there is to it,” Lawrence says. “We [the US] have no grounds whatsoever. We surrendered all claims long, long ago to any prudence or rectitude in international law. We have nothing to stand on.

“I think the only people who are fooled by this are Americans.”

http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160711/1042797052/loud-clear-china-philippines-ruling.html

Sputnik reports,

Hague-based permanent court of arbitration ruled that China has no legal basis to claim historic rights to South China Sea resources.

The Hageu tribunal found no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within nine-dash line.

“The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’,” the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration said in a statement.

China has no historic title over water of South China sea, the Hagoue tribunal decided.

The court also ruled that Chinese law enforcement vessels created serious risks of collision, dangeer to Phillipine ships in South China Sea.

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160712/1042813786/hague-tribunal-south-china-sea.html

The newly installed Duterte government will review first the tribunal’s decision, but has expressed willingness to engage in bilateral talks with China.

He implored everyone not to flaunt any favorable verdict, but should rather use it as a leverage for the return of fishermen access to the area, among others.

Some backgrounders from The Guardian:

Why is that important?

Control of the South China Sea is the most contentious and explosive diplomatic issue in east Asia, with China asserting sovereignty over maritime areas that span 3.5m square kilometres but are also claimed by Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Japan. Washington has become deeply involved, backing those against China and conducting military patrols.

Although the case was raised by the Philippines, it will affect all these countries as it questions the legality of China’s “nine-dash line”, a dotted marker in Chinese maps stretching hundreds of miles south and east from the mainland.

The South China Sea is thought to have significant oil and gas reserves and is a route for about $4.5tn (£3.4tn) in trade. There are giant fisheries and lanes for half of all commercial shipping. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has vowed to “resolutely defend” his country’s interests in the region.

The lead up to the ruling has been fraught. China’s foreign minister called the US secretary of state, John Kerry, by telephone last week and warned against moves that infringe on China’s sovereignty. And Beijing conducted military drills, deploying at least two guided missile destroyers and a missile frigate.

Bonnie Glaser, the director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) thinktank in Washington, said a ruling that questioned or rejected China’s “nine-dash line” would not invalidate all of Beijing’s claims to land or maritime zones in the South China Sea. “[But] it would really limit the amount of water that the Chinese could have any legal sovereignty claim to.

“My sense is that their biggest fear is that there is an explicit finding that the ‘nine-dash line’ is contrary to international law. That is something that they just cannot not abide, that they could not accept. And that would be very difficult for them to manage going forward.”

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/jul/12/south-china-sea-dispute-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-hague-court-ruling

From China mouthpiece Xinhuanet,

TOKYO, June 25 (Xinhua) — China always insists direct and peaceful negotiation with relevant countries to resolve the South China Sea issue, Chinese experts said on Friday at the Japan’s National Press Club.

Wu Shicun, president of China’s National Institute for South China Sea Studies, told a press conference that the core of the South China Sea issue is disputes over sovereignty and maritime administration of parts of Nan Sha Islands between China and other claimant countries.

He said China endeavors to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea and calls for adherence to the principle of “putting aside disputes and seeking joint development” in the region.

Wu pointed out that the unilateral arbitration filed by the Philippines breaches consensuses reached by the Chinese and Philippine governments in the last century on the issue and the move is not aiming at resolving the disputes between the two sides, but making new troubles.

The South China Sea issue is not only a legal but a political one with historical and geopolitical factors, he said, adding that territorial disputes are not covered by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-06/25/c_135465573.htm

China has refused to participate in the proceedings and declared that it will never recognize the verdict, stressing that the tribunal has no jurisdiction because the case is in essence related to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation.

Beijing has pointed out that territorial issues are not subject to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and that as early as in 2006 it declared — in line with UNCLOS — to exclude disputes concerning maritime delimitation from mandatory dispute-settlement procedures. Some 30 countries have also filed declarations of this kind.

… Although Manila asserted that its submissions do not concern territorial sovereignty or maritime delimitation, the Philippine Foreign Ministry, a day after launching the arbitration, described the purpose of the case as being to “protect our country’s territory and oceanic area” and vowed not to “give up our country’s sovereignty.”

Abraham Sofaer, a former legal adviser to the U.S. State Department, said last month that the tribunal’s ruling “will broadly undermine the potential utility of international adjudication.”

Meanwhile, Beijing, whose stance on the arbitration case has drawn support from more than 60 countries and international organizations, insists that the South China Sea issue should be resolved through negotiations and consultations between the directly involved parties.

Many in the Philippines share this view. Rosario Manalo, a former Philippine foreign affairs under-secretary for international economic relations, said the best thing for both the Philippines and China is to “sit down and talk.”

The country’s new President Rodrigo Duterte also said he will pursue bilateral talks with China, adding he might explore possible joint exploration in the disputed South China Sea.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/12/c_135506930.htm

The full text of the UNCLOS decision is available at PCA, right here.

From the local Inquirer.net,

Below are five key points included in the summary statement released to the media

(1)Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’:

The Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the South China Sea, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention.

The Tribunal also noted that, although 2 Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the South China Sea, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources.

The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’.

(2)Status of Features:

The Tribunal noted that the reefs have been heavily modified by land reclamation and construction, recalled that the Convention classifies features on their natural condition, and relied on historical materials in evaluating the features.

The Tribunal found historical evidence to be more relevant and noted that the Spratly Islands were historically used by small groups of fishermen and that several Japanese fishing and guano mining enterprises were attempted.

The Tribunal concluded that such transient use does not constitute inhabitation by a stable community and that all of the historical economic activity had been extractive. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that none of the Spratly Islands is capable of generating extended maritime zones.

The Tribunal also held that the Spratly Islands cannot generate maritime zones collectively as a unit. Having found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone, the Tribunal found that it could—without delimiting a boundary—declare that certain sea areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, because those areas are not overlapped by any possible entitlement of China.

(3)Lawfulness of Chinese Actions:

Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.

The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access.

The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.

(4)Harm to Marine Environment:

The Tribunal considered the effect on the marine environment of China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands at seven features in the Spratly Islands and found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species.

The Tribunal also found that Chinese authorities were aware that Chinese fishermen have harvested endangered sea turtles, coral, and giant clams on a substantial scale in the South China Sea (using methods that inflict severe damage on the coral reef environment) and had not fulfilled their obligations to stop such activities

(5)Aggravation of Dispute:

Finally, the Tribunal considered whether China’s actions since the commencement of the arbitration had aggravated the dispute between the Parties.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the implications of a stand-off between Philippine marines and Chinese naval and law enforcement vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, holding that this dispute involved military activities and was therefore excluded from compulsory settlement.

The Tribunal found, however, that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands was incompatible with the obligations on a State during dispute resolution proceedings, insofar as China has inflicted irreparable harm to the marine environment, built a large artificial island in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, and destroyed evidence of the natural condition of features in the South China Sea that formed part of the Parties’ dispute.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140947/key-points-arbitral-tribunal-decision-verdict-award-philippines-china-maritime-dispute-unclos-arbitration-spratly-islands-scarborough

Again, while this decision is highly welcomed here in the country, the problem may arise if the Khazarian Mafia controlled United States decides to capitalize the UNCLOS decision even when it has not ratified the UNCLOS agreement itself, just for its own geopolitical ambitions.

Aside from the fiat monetary scam and bloodsoaked petrodollar, another significant source of funds for the Nazionist Khazarian Mafia is the “healthcare” industry which registered a whopping $3.09 trillion in 2014, and is projected to soar to $3.57 trillion in 2017, in the US alone. We believe that this is just a conservative figure.

We can avoid using drugs, defeat any viral attack and scaremongering, like the Zika virus, easily by knowing how to build our own comprehensive antiviral system. Find more about how we can kill three birds with one stone, right here.

5 thoughts on “Hague tribunal: None of the Spratly islands grant China an exclusive economic zone”

  1. Just as the US presidential election circus is completely rigged, so too are all the supposedly independent western created and allied organizations also rigged to the bone — as all these organizations, supposedly performing duty as the scrupulously “fair and just” watch dogs of every country on the planet — from the UN to the Hague — the so-called International Criminal Court — (of which the USA is not a ratified member and can never be held to account by it) — these organisations are all a global sham — controlled by the synagogue of satan (upper case purposely ignored). The USG is rabid for war not only with Russia but also China and it may very well get it, as there’s only so much China and Russia– both common sense countries, geared on global peace and cooperation — can take. What would ordinary humankind prefer, if they’d had but one choice? — A prison planet or a freedom planet? Whether we have a choice or not, if we don’t stand up collectively for our inalienable human rights and freedom, stand up for what is right and just and honourable, war will still come, whether we opted for defending our rights or not.

    Is it not reasonable therefore, that we unite as Citizens of the Planet, to defend our global freedom, as our United People Power, is what these cowardly thieving agents of Satan fear most. We can achieve this with our United Voice and if forced into another war, refuse to fight. They are the few and we are the many — never, never forget that.

  2. Dangerous Results. HAGUE TRIBUNAL is what was used to try and execute Nazi war criminals. There has never been a trial for the war crimes by the US and Briton. So it appears that is why the Philipine government rushed over there knowing they would be biased. Wonder where those judges came from. They should have stayed out of the issue as China said. In the end the ruling will mean nothing or it will mean WWIII since the globalists want to control the world and would send in the US/NATO navy. I will say a prayer for our destroyed navy sailors.Dr. Ronald Cutburth, engineering scientist, intelligence expert.

  3. RT news reported the Chinese reaction to the Hague ruling, a few days ago…….”IT IS JUST SCRAP PAPER”…..is what China is reported to have said.

    Another RT News report stated, Chinese imports from the Phillipines in 2015 amounted to 19 TRILLION DOLLARS and, the Phillipines benefits from a health tourist trade in reference to Chinese holidaying in the Phillipines.

    President Duterte was quoted, on video…. It is in our best interests to make friends with China.

    Many living in the area are staring the obvious…The Spratlys is a local issue….USA keep out.

We do appreciate sensible comments...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s