South China Sea oil and gas exploration - Vietnam vs. China, S. China Sea Options

[Liang1a]

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/7598163.html

India makes waves with South China Sea oil and gas exploration

(Global Times)09:49, September 18, 2011

India's External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna began a 3-day visit to Vietnam on Friday as reports claimed that an Indian state-owned oil producer is set to undertake joint exploration of gas resources in the South China Sea with Vietnam, in spite of protests from Beijing.

The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) was reported on Thursday to have cemented a deal with Vietnamese firms to exploit oil and gas in two offshore South China Sea oil blocks with Krishna expected to discuss the issue in Vietnam.

The Indian External Affairs Ministry also reportedly claimed on Thursday that the project has been approved by Vietnam, which claims sovereignty over the two blocks, according to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Responding to a question concerning these plans, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu responded Thursday that the UN Convention did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf into other countries' territories. Jiang also warned countries outside the region to support the resolution of this dispute through bilateral channels.

-------------------------------------------

Liang’s comment:

This is the first time I’ve seen the Chinese government responding with a legal counterpoint based on UNCLOS to refute the baseless claims by other countries that UNCLOS’s provisions gave them the right to invade Chinese sovereign territories. As Jiang Yu rightly pointed out, UNCLOS does not give any country the right to unilaterally extend its EEZ and continental shelf into other countries’ EEZ, continental shelf, territorial seas, internal seas and sovereign territories. Any island that qualifies under UNCLOS’ Article 121 has its own EEZ and continental shelf. This means that every Chinese sovereign island in the S. China Sea has its own 200 nm of EEZ and 350 nm of continental shelf. And where the EEZ of two countries overlap, the right of EEZ of each area belongs to the country that is closest to it. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation for Vietnam and other invading countries to argue that UNCLOS allow them to claim 200 nm of EEZ that includes China’s sovereign islands. Furthermore, China has demarcated its sea boundary by the 9-Dotted Line Map that predates the UNCLOS by many decades and cannot be superseded by any ex post facto laws of UNCLOS. Therefore, Vietnam and other invading countries cannot justify their invasion of Chinese sovereign territories by referring to the UNCLOS. And China has the right to evict any invaders from its sovereign territories with force. Specifically, India’s oil agreement with Vietnam is null and void and subject to seizure by the Chinese government according to China's laws. I'm glad to see the Chinese government responding skillfully with refutations based on international laws. I hope it will follow up with military actions justified by international laws.

It should be quite obvious by now that war in S. China Sea is inevitable. If the Chinese government persists in deluding itself that by presenting an image of benevolence it will ultimately wear down its enemies with loving kindness then it will be taking China down the path of destruction. China's policy has not yielded good results as everyone can see. The reality is China is actually losing long time allies. Even N. Korea is now inching closer to Russia and Russia itself is becoming more inattentive to China's interests. The fact that Russia is increasing its arms sales to India and Vietnam is a slap in China's face that signals the serious failure of China's diplomacy. It is time for the Chinese leaders to stop their self-delusion and show the world that China can and will fight to safeguard its sovereign territories and that the international community has better respect China's sovereignty or face the consequences.

At the same time, the Chinese people should learn a few simple facts such as a war against Vietnam will not collapse China's economy if China confines the fighting to the S. China Sea and not attack Vietnam mainland itself. The Chinese people should also know that combat radius of China's fighters such as J-10 and J-11 can all reach the farthest areas of Nansha A. and therefore China does not need aircraft carriers to begin fighting. The Chinese people should also know that fighting Vietnam and Philippines will not cause world war or turn all the world against China. The world needs China more than China needs the world. At least for now. It has been suggested that EU is facing collapse and only China has the money to bail it out. Specifically, Italy has a debt of some $2 trillion. It is suggested that a consortium be formed to provide $750 billion to the IMF to be distributed to Italy to bail it out. China is expected to contribute half of the money. The importing countries need China's cheap exports while China can expand its economy much more sustainably by phasing out exports. Therefore, China is in a very good position to go to war now to regain its lost sovereign territories while at the same time create a new image of a powerful nation willing to defend itself. Such a powerful image will go a long way toward discouraging further aggressions from puny countries.

The cost of war is minimal and the international community needs China's money and exports. Everything is now favorable to China going to war. Such an opportunity may not come again. China must "take the tide while it serves."

Those who are interested in reading more about China's evidence for claiming sovereignty in S. China Sea can go to the following link:

"S. China Sea - possession is nine-tenth of the law."

http://www.network54.com/Forum/238054/thre...enth+of+the+law.

This post has been edited by Liang1a: Sep 19 2011, 03:44 PM

[reutty]

directky cxonfronting another country is a very stupid thing

the smart thing would be to arm rebel insurgents like hill tribes in vietnam

and by the way, you still havent answered us disproving your moronic notion of mining your own country to death

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...20&start=20

[SengokuJedai]

China is mining the Indian Ocean...

http://www.chinamining.org/News/2011-08-04...6296d48608.html

In reality, the South China Sea is the only immediate waters where Chinese nuclear subs have deep enough waters to hide and provide China with a second strike nuclear deterrent. China's coastal waters are too shallow for Chinese nuclear submarines, so that's why unimpeded access to South China Sea's deep waters is absolutely essential for China's nuclear deterrence strategy. Other nations should worry since Malaysia, Phillipines, and Vietnam doesn't even have submarines they need to hide, much less nuclear submarines.

[Mid-Night_Sun]

i like your commentary. agree with everything.

[ivy20]

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/7598163.html


-------------------------------------------

Liang’s comment:

This is the first time I’ve seen the Chinese government responding with a legal counterpoint based on UNCLOS to refute the baseless claims by other countries that UNCLOS’s provisions gave them the right to invade Chinese sovereign territories. As Jiang Yu rightly pointed out, UNCLOS does not give any country the right to unilaterally extend its EEZ and continental shelf into other countries’ EEZ, continental shelf, territorial seas, internal seas and sovereign territories. Any island that qualifies under UNCLOS’ Article 121 has its own EEZ and continental shelf. This means that every Chinese sovereign island in the S. China Sea has its own 200 nm of EEZ and 350 nm of continental shelf. And where the EEZ of two countries overlap, the right of EEZ of each area belongs to the country that is closest to it. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation for Vietnam and other invading countries to argue that UNCLOS allow them to claim 200 nm of EEZ that includes China’s sovereign islands. Furthermore, China has demarcated its sea boundary by the 9-Dotted Line Map that predates the UNCLOS by many decades and cannot be superseded by any ex post facto laws of UNCLOS. Therefore, Vietnam and other invading countries cannot justify their invasion of Chinese sovereign territories by referring to the UNCLOS. And China has the right to evict any invaders from its sovereign territories with force. Specifically, India’s oil agreement with Vietnam is null and void and subject to seizure by the Chinese government according to China's laws. I'm glad to see the Chinese government responding skillfully with refutations based on international laws. I hope it will follow up with military actions justified by international laws.

Responding to a question concerning these plans, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu responded Thursday that the UN Convention did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf into other countries' territories. Jiang also warned countries outside the region to support the resolution of this dispute through bilateral channels.

@'Liang1a,

Are you working on AsiaFinest for China Communist CUNNING PROPAGANDAS???

Both you & Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu are CHEATING people about UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION LAWS of the SEA (UNCLOS) in order to STEAL SOUTH CHINA SEA from Philippine, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia & Vietnam!

1. Did UNCLOS recognized GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea belongs to China???. The answer is: NO!

2. GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea is VIOLATED UNCLOS seriously!

3. Is there any country in United Nations recognized CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea??? The answer is : NO!

4. While there is NO country recognized GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea belongs to China, how can Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu responded on Thursday that "the UN Convention did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf into other countries' territories."???. There is NO COUNTRY RECOGNIZED S. China Sea belong to China, how can GREEDY CHINA claims Vietnam violated UNCLOS???, both you & Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu CAN CHEAT stupid people, but CAN NOT CHEAT people who know UNCLOS! (It's so bad for both Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu & you PRETEND DON'T KNOW China VIOLATED UNCLOS in order to tell lie for China cunning propaganda!)

5. According to UNCLOS, the UNINHABITED Islands in Paracel & Spratly islands in S. China Sea have the sea territory ONLY 12 nautical miles around the islands, the UNINHABITED Islands CAN NOT have EEZ 200 nautical miles as you LIE in order to CHEAT people for China cunning propagandas!

6. According to Anthropology, DNA tests, Human Migration Map & Archaeology evidences, S. China Sea had BELONGED TO South East Asia people at least 15,000 years BEFORE Han Chinese were born!

7. India explores oil in Vietnam's Exclusive Economic Zone, which WAS RECOGNIZED BY United Nations Convention Laws of the Sea and by MANY COUNTRIES in all over the world. Greedy China is trying to STEAL the sea territory of Philippine, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia & Vietnam when China claims 90% of S. China Sea belong to China. China is too greedy! China DID SIGNED UNCLOS 1982, but China DOES NOT RESPECT what China already signed!

8. The following are evidences that GREEDY CHINA VIOLATED United Nations Convention Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) SERIOUSLY:

- In 1974, taking advantage while North VN & South VN were busy in civil war, China ILLEGALLY used warships to STEAL Paracel islands from Vietnam. China killed 54 Vietnamese sailors!

- In 1988, China also ILLEGALLY used warships to STEAL Spratly islands from Vietnam. China killed 64 Vietnamese sailors!

- After that, many times GREEDY China KILLED Vietnamese fishermen, BEAT Vietnamese fishermen, STOLE their fishing equipments, DESTROYED their fishing equipments and STOLE all of their fishes on VIETNAM'S SEA TERRITORY, which was RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS & by many countries from the world! It is VIETNAM TRADITIONAL SEA, that Vietnamese ancestors of those Vietnamese fishermen sailed over there for fishing from generation to generation for many THOUSAND YEARS!

- Many times CRUEL China ships HIT to SINK Vietnamese fishermen's boats, causing these boats WERE SUNK, many Vietnamese fishermen WERE INJURED & MISSING on the sea!

- CRUEL Chinese Navy used the LAWS of CHINA BANDIT GANG to SHOOT & CHASE AWAY Vietnamese Fishermen when these fishermen came closer to Paracel islands to hide from the big storm coming from Philippine.

According to International Laws, these fishermen HAVE THE RIGHT to escape the dangerous of the storm by coming closer to any island on the sea. Vietnamese Navy & Vietnamese people always help Chinese fishermen to escape the dangerous storms from the sea. Vietnamese Navy also used ships TO RESCUE Chinese fishermen during & after the storms, HOW CAN CRUEL Chinese Navy treated Vietnamese fishermen that way???! They violated the International Laws seriously!

Did China respect International Laws???!
-

9. China always use cunning propagandas to CHEAT Chinese people that S. China Sea & its islands belong to China in order to steal Paracel, Spartly islands & S. China Sea, but China is ALWAYS AFRAID to go to International Courts to solve the conflict problems of S. China Sea! WHY??? Because China can use FAKE informations to cheat stupid people, but China can not cheat International courts & lawyers!

Vietnam asked China 2 times & Philippine asked China 2 times to solve the problem in S. China Sea in peaceful way by using International Laws in International Courts, but China always refused!
Instead of solving problems by using International Laws & Courts, China used WEAPONS to solve the problems!

In order to have PEACE & JUSTICE in South China Sea, GREEDY China SHOULD RESPECT International Laws UNCLOS 1982 and Exclusive Economic Zones of Philippine, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia & Indonesia; however, because of GREEDY, China has used THE LAWS OF CHINA BANDIT GANG in S. China Sea!

(Not all Chinese are bad, except Chinese Communists & their followers!)

This post has been edited by ivy20: Sep 23 2011, 02:50 PM

[Mid-Night_Sun]

very poorly researched post. ill wait a few days for liang'a to respond since its his thread. if it doesnt happen, i will.

and i will tear your post to shreds. just letting you know now. id recommend reading over very carefully and doing a lot of editing if i were you.

[Liang1a]

i like your commentary. agree with everything.

I take it you're agreeing with me and not the others who have been less than complimentary in their opinion of my post. I'm glad you are agreeing with me in what I said here. I hope we can encourage Chinese government to do the right thing to further the welfare of the Chinese people and the power of the Chinese nation. And if in the future we don't agree with some opinion then I hope we will at least be able to discuss it honestly and civilly with the goal of benefiting the Chinese people and the Chinese nation as a whole.

[Liang1a]

very poorly researched post. ill wait a few days for liang'a to respond since its his thread. if it doesnt happen, i will.

and i will tear your post to shreds. just letting you know now. id recommend reading over very carefully and doing a lot of editing if i were you.

Please feel free to jump in anytime. I'll be happy to hear anything to educate those who are less enlightened.

[Liang1a]

@'Liang1a,

Are you working on AsiaFinest for China Communist CUNNING PROPAGANDAS???

Both you & Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu are CHEATING people about UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION LAWS of the SEA (UNCLOS) in order to STEAL SOUTH CHINA SEA from Philippine, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia & Vietnam!

1. Did UNCLOS recognized GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea belongs to China???. The answer is: NO!

2. GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea is VIOLATED UNCLOS seriously!

3. Is there any country in United Nations recognized CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea??? The answer is : NO!

4. While there is NO country recognized GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea belongs to China, how can Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu responded on Thursday that "the UN Convention did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf into other countries' territories."???. There is NO COUNTRY RECOGNIZED S. China Sea belong to China, how can GREEDY CHINA claims Vietnam violated UNCLOS???, both you & Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu CAN CHEAT stupid people, but CAN NOT CHEAT people who know UNCLOS! (It's so bad for both Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu & you PRETEND DON'T KNOW China VIOLATED UNCLOS in order to tell lie for China cunning propaganda!)

5. According to UNCLOS, the UNINHABITED Islands in Paracel & Spratly islands in S. China Sea have the sea territory ONLY 12 nautical miles around the islands, the UNINHABITED Islands CAN NOT have EEZ 200 nautical miles as you LIE in order to CHEAT people for China cunning propagandas!

6. According to Anthropology, DNA tests, Human Migration Map & Archaeology evidences, S. China Sea had BELONGED TO South East Asia people at least 15,000 years BEFORE Han Chinese were born!

7. India explores oil in Vietnam's Exclusive Economic Zone, which WAS RECOGNIZED BY United Nations Convention Laws of the Sea and by MANY COUNTRIES in all over the world. Greedy China is trying to STEAL the sea territory of Philippine, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia & Vietnam when China claims 90% of S. China Sea belong to China. China is too greedy! China DID SIGNED UNCLOS 1982, but China DOES NOT RESPECT what China already signed!

8. The following are evidences that GREEDY CHINA VIOLATED United Nations Convention Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) SERIOUSLY:

- In 1974, taking advantage while North VN & South VN were busy in civil war, China ILLEGALLY used warships to STEAL Paracel islands from Vietnam. China killed 54 Vietnamese sailors!

- In 1988, China also ILLEGALLY used warships to STEAL Spratly islands from Vietnam. China killed 64 Vietnamese sailors!

- After that, many times GREEDY China KILLED Vietnamese fishermen, BEAT Vietnamese fishermen, STOLE their fishing equipments, DESTROYED their fishing equipments and STOLE all of their fishes on VIETNAM'S SEA TERRITORY, which was RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS & by many countries from the world! It is VIETNAM TRADITIONAL SEA, that Vietnamese ancestors of those Vietnamese fishermen sailed over there for fishing from generation to generation for many THOUSAND YEARS!

- Many times CRUEL China ships HIT to SINK Vietnamese fishermen's boats, causing these boats WERE SUNK, many Vietnamese fishermen WERE INJURED & MISSING on the sea!

- CRUEL Chinese Navy used the LAWS of CHINA BANDIT GANG to SHOOT & CHASE AWAY Vietnamese Fishermen when these fishermen came closer to Paracel islands to hide from the big storm coming from Philippine.

According to International Laws, these fishermen HAVE THE RIGHT to escape the dangerous of the storm by coming closer to any island on the sea. Vietnamese Navy & Vietnamese people always help Chinese fishermen to escape the dangerous storms from the sea. Vietnamese Navy also used ships TO RESCUE Chinese fishermen during & after the storms, HOW CAN CRUEL Chinese Navy treated Vietnamese fishermen that way???! They violated the International Laws seriously!

Did China respect International Laws???!
-

9. China always use cunning propagandas to CHEAT Chinese people that S. China Sea & its islands belong to China in order to steal Paracel, Spartly islands & S. China Sea, but China is ALWAYS AFRAID to go to International Courts to solve the conflict problems of S. China Sea! WHY??? Because China can use FAKE informations to cheat stupid people, but China can not cheat International courts & lawyers!

Vietnam asked China 2 times & Philippine asked China 2 times to solve the problem in S. China Sea in peaceful way by using International Laws in International Courts, but China always refused!
Instead of solving problems by using International Laws & Courts, China used WEAPONS to solve the problems!

In order to have PEACE & JUSTICE in South China Sea, GREEDY China SHOULD RESPECT International Laws UNCLOS 1982 and Exclusive Economic Zones of Philippine, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia & Indonesia; however, because of GREEDY, China has used THE LAWS OF CHINA BANDIT GANG in S. China Sea!

(Not all Chinese are bad, except Chinese Communists & their followers!)

As Mid-Night_Sun had pointed out this is a very poorly researched response by ivy. UNCLOS does not concern itself with the issue of sovereignty. Therefore, it can neither "give" the South Sea islands to China nor to any other countries. The issue of sovereignty is based on common law based on discovery and formal incorporation into the administration of the sovereign country. Please go to the following link to read more about the legal principles of how title to territory is determined:

http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/inte...ourt-of-justice

After you have read this and have understood the various principles then maybe we can discuss this with some intelligence. Also go to the following link to read about the historical evidence of what China had done to acquire sovereignty:

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/3754/t19234.htm

After you have read these articles, you will have realized that UNCLOS has nothing to do with sovereignty. Therefore, anybody who refers to UNCLOS is simply ignorant and unfit to hold a relevant discussion about the sovereignty of South Sea islands. This is why ivy's post is nothing but an ignorant rant which is beneath contempt and raised no bona fide issue to refute. Such nonsense as DNA and uninhabited island cannot have EEZ is simply foolishness and irrelevant and above all untrue. Nobody who has read UNCLOS would be making such false rants.

[Mid-Night_Sun]

very well, as per your invititation. this is my response to Ivy

1. Did UNCLOS recognized GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea belongs to China???. The answer is: NO!

1. true. it didnt recognize any of vietnams either. take note the blue line is vietnams

http://www.securitylawbrief.com/.a/6a00e55...cab1a28a4-500pi


and it isnt remotely the 200 nautical limit. (note, 200 nautical miles is roughly 370 km) which btw doesnt magically come into fruition if there are disputes. no country agreed to relinquish their claims upon UNCLOS so saying UNCLOS says this in this disputed issue means nothing. but ill go further into that later.

2. GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea is VIOLATED UNCLOS seriously!

2. no it didnt. as i have to keep informing you laymen who never decide to research a topic fully, upon ratification both China and Vietnam said UNCLOS would NOT affect their claims in the South China Sea. thus you cant turn around now and say 'oh your claims violates UNCLOS'.

China Upon ratification (7 June 1996)1/:
The People's Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.

Declaration under article 298:
The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and © of Article 298 of the Convention.


Viet Nam Upon ratification (25 July 1994) 13/:
The National Assembly reiterates Viet Nam's sovereignty over the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agr...eclarations.htm

never has any of the claims in the south china sea been recanted due to UNCLOS. in fact it is the opposite, upon ratification countries reiterated their claims. make sure you understand that.

3. Is there any country in United Nations recognized CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea??? The answer is : NO!

3. wrong, yes there is.


International Recognition Of China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands 2004/04/21
http://id.china-embassy.org/eng/ztbd/nhwt/t87273.htm


Ministry of Foreign Affairs of JAPAN: Statement of the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko, at the Conference in San Francisco (1951)
These agreements recognize the absolutely indisputable rights of China, now the Chinese People's Republic, to territories severed from it. It is an indisputable fact that original Chinese territories which were severed from it, such as Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, the Paracel Islands and other Chinese territories, should be returned to the Chinese People's Republic.
As regards the American-British draft peace treaty with Japan in the part pertaining to territorial questions, the Delegation of the USSR considers it necessary to state that this draft grossly violates the indisputable rights of China to the return of integral parts of Chinese territory: Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Paracel and other islands severed from it by the Japanese militarists.
Meanwhile the fate of these territories should be absolutely clear -- they must be returned to the Chinese people, the master of their land.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia...92/period4.html


Burma:
Burma's general-turned-President Thein Sein managed the one-two punch while leading a large delegation of ministers and officials from the new regime to Beijing last week.
First he announced that his government fully backs China in its long-running dispute with ASEAN members Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia over the ownership of clusters of islands and reefs in the South China Sea.
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Burma+...8900/story.html

Vietnam: THE HOANG SA (PARACEL) AND TRUONG SA (SPRATLY ARCHIPELAGOES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM HANOI — APRIL 1988

Beijing stresses that Vietnam itself has "recognized" the
Xisha and Nansha Islands as Chinese territories. It cites as
evidence a view expressed in 1956 by Deputy Minister for
Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Ung
Van Khiem, a note in 1958 of Prime Minister Pham Van Dong
approving the statement by the People's Republic of China
on her 12-nautical-mile wide territorial waters and the statement
in 1965 of the Government of the Democratic Republic of
Vietnam protesting the United States' delimitation of the
fighting zone of the U.S. armed forces in Indochina and which
said the zone impinged on "the Xisha maritime area of China".
It is true that the above-mentioned facts have occurred.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=...5mQ&cad=rja

now you can say that the first link were lies. the second link is soviets who dont exist anymore. third link is burma and nobody cares about them. fourth link that vietnam isnt the same vietnam is now. its all excuses, simple fact is you lied or were ignorant. btw, show me who supports vietnams claims in south china sea, EVER?

4. While there is NO country recognized GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea belongs to China, how can Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu responded on Thursday that "the UN Convention did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf into other countries' territories."???. There is NO COUNTRY RECOGNIZED S. China Sea belong to China, how can GREEDY CHINA claims Vietnam violated UNCLOS???, both you & Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu CAN CHEAT stupid people, but CAN NOT CHEAT people who know UNCLOS! (It's so bad for both Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu & you PRETEND DON'T KNOW China VIOLATED UNCLOS in order to tell lie for China cunning propaganda!)

4. again, you lied or didnt know any better. either way as i already showed in the above points you are wrong. there are several examples of countries recognizing China's claim in the past, DIRECTLY QUOTED from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the respective countries. make sure you understand that.

5. According to UNCLOS, the UNINHABITED Islands in Paracel & Spratly islands in S. China Sea have the sea territory ONLY 12 nautical miles around the islands, the UNINHABITED Islands CAN NOT have EEZ 200 nautical miles as you LIE in order to CHEAT people for China cunning propagandas!

5. that is an interesting point but liang clearly stated

"Any island that qualifies under UNCLOS’ Article 121 has its own EEZ and continental shelf. "

now either you cant read or you have trouble keeping your amusing emotions in check but there is nothing wrong with his statement.
as for the EEZ for inhabitants, i already considered that, but it works against vietnam and phillipines. rather it helps Taiwan. theres only 1 island there with NATURAL fresh water. it is also the largest. it is called Taiping Island and it belongs to Taiwan. if anyone in there can generate an EEZ it is Taiping.

6. According to Anthropology, DNA tests, Human Migration Map & Archaeology evidences, S. China Sea had BELONGED TO South East Asia people at least 15,000 years BEFORE Han Chinese were born!

6. that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard. apparently with your logic we all have claim in africa. so start carving it up. no you silly laymen. basis for claim and administration can only come from real records and documents and from a legit governing entity. south east asia people have an amazing LACK of historical record and documents (especially in the time frame Chinese historic claims play around in). probably because China was the one that invented paper in the area.
simple fact, NONE of you have historical records with claims that predate Chinese ones. the only debate is whether Chinese record say what they say or if they are reliable. you dont have a chance as far as time is concerned.

7. India explores oil in Vietnam's Exclusive Economic Zone, which WAS RECOGNIZED BY United Nations Convention Laws of the Sea and by MANY COUNTRIES in all over the world. Greedy China is trying to STEAL the sea territory of Philippine, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia & Vietnam when China claims 90% of S. China Sea belong to China. China is too greedy! China DID SIGNED UNCLOS 1982, but China DOES NOT RESPECT what China already signed!

7. missing the point. as i seem to have to keep reminding people, UNCLOS does absolutely NOTHING for the competing countries claims that they already had. read again, very slowly and very carefully what was stated upon ratification. again, NONE of the countries you mentioned accept vietnams claims either. wishful thinking much?

8. The following are evidences that GREEDY CHINA VIOLATED United Nations Convention Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) SERIOUSLY:

- In 1974, taking advantage while North VN & South VN were busy in civil war, China ILLEGALLY used warships to STEAL Paracel islands from Vietnam. China killed 54 Vietnamese sailors!

- In 1988, China also ILLEGALLY used warships to STEAL Spratly islands from Vietnam. China killed 64 Vietnamese sailors!

- After that, many times GREEDY China KILLED Vietnamese fishermen, BEAT Vietnamese fishermen, STOLE their fishing equipments, DESTROYED their fishing equipments and STOLE all of their fishes on VIETNAM'S SEA TERRITORY, which was RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS & by many countries from the world! It is VIETNAM TRADITIONAL SEA, that Vietnamese ancestors of those Vietnamese fishermen sailed over there for fishing from generation to generation for many THOUSAND YEARS!

- Many times CRUEL China ships HIT to SINK Vietnamese fishermen's boats, causing these boats WERE SUNK, many Vietnamese fishermen WERE INJURED & MISSING on the sea!

- CRUEL Chinese Navy used the LAWS of CHINA BANDIT GANG to SHOOT & CHASE AWAY Vietnamese Fishermen when these fishermen came closer to Paracel islands to hide from the big storm coming from Philippine.

According to International Laws, these fishermen HAVE THE RIGHT to escape the dangerous of the storm by coming closer to any island on the sea. Vietnamese Navy & Vietnamese people always help Chinese fishermen to escape the dangerous storms from the sea. Vietnamese Navy also used ships TO RESCUE Chinese fishermen during & after the storms, HOW CAN CRUEL Chinese Navy treated Vietnamese fishermen that way???! They violated the International Laws seriously!

Did China respect International Laws???!

8. do you realize why your earliest incident is 1974? because as i already showed, your own ministry of foreign affairs in 1988 ADMITTED Vietnam recognized China's claims as recent as the 1950s. this is all before UNCLOS. the Soviets did as well as i showed, also by their foreign minister. you are being willfully ignorant of just how strong China's claims actually are.

all you have really shown is not once has China ever given up its claims nor accepted a competitors claim in recent memory. the incidents all support this. something your own Vietnam cannot say.

9. China always use cunning propagandas to CHEAT Chinese people that S. China Sea & its islands belong to China in order to steal Paracel, Spartly islands & S. China Sea, but China is ALWAYS AFRAID to go to International Courts to solve the conflict problems of S. China Sea! WHY??? Because China can use FAKE informations to cheat stupid people, but China can not cheat International courts & lawyers!

Vietnam asked China 2 times & Philippine asked China 2 times to solve the problem in S. China Sea in peaceful way by using International Laws in International Courts, but China always refused!
Instead of solving problems by using International Laws & Courts, China used WEAPONS to solve the problems!

In order to have PEACE & JUSTICE in South China Sea, GREEDY China SHOULD RESPECT International Laws UNCLOS 1982 and Exclusive Economic Zones of Philippine, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia & Indonesia; however, because of GREEDY, China has used THE LAWS OF CHINA BANDIT GANG in S. China Sea!

(Not all Chinese are bad, except Chinese Communists & their followers!)

9. k first, China has ALWAYS said it only supports bilateral discussion. ALWAYS and repeatedly saying this position. then you are like "AHA, China wont go to a third party court system". silly. just silly.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 24 2011, 02:15 PM

[reutty]

Please feel free to jump in anytime. I'll be happy to hear anything to educate those who are less enlightened.

Liang1a does not know anthing about international relations. he thinks sending planes to bomb another countries military would be swell in the eyes of the rest of the world

china and pakistan have funded insurgents in northeastern India like the assamese and manipur separatists. It does not do something stupid like bombing indian airbases on dispute territory, thats called extreme retardation.

likewise, if the PRC wants to put a legitimate claim to the islands in south china sea, it could do something like promote the fact that they originally belonged to the champa kingdom, and that China received cham refugees (now known at utsuls, or hainan hui hui in hainan), during the Ming from vietnamese genocide, and set up a provisional "champa Utsul republic" in hainan where the utsuls live, and include the paracel/spratly as part of the "utsul republic" territory.

like how the Republic of tatarstan is a republic inside of russia, the "utsul republic" would be part of China.

go look up utsul people. they are descended from Cham refugees from vietnam over many centuries, which china allowed to settle in Hainan.

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%9E%E8%BE%89%E4%BA%BA

China also supplied the Afghan mujahideen with tons of type 56 rifles during the Soviet invasion, it did not do stupid things like bombing soviet airbases or invading soviet territory.

also Liang1a has noticably not answered to my responses on any of his other harebrained suggestions,

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...p;#entry4859350
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...p;#entry4880849
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...p;#entry4886089

secondly, in judaism and islam, claiming that god looks like a human is blasphemous. he is not assigned human attributes. only christians did that with Jesus. the line in the torah about god creating man in his image is metaphorical, about him instilling intelligence in man rather than making them look like himself.

[Liang1a]

Below is an article about the legal principles of how nations establish sovereign title to territories. People who are serious about understanding the basic legal principles involved in sovereignty issues shuold read it carefully before they start making ignorant rants.
-------------------------------------------------------

V. Legal Principles: Title to Territory.

With regards to international incidents, the ownership of a territory of land is an issue that is guided by well-established laws. The laws related to title to
territory are among the oldest existing parts of international law. These laws are also of great importance, as the ownership of a territory by a state consequently gives it different rights on this territory. The international laws related to title to territory can be seen as both ancient and modern, as they were first established in early times but have faced different changes to match the circumstances of the respective time periods. The laws related to title to territory are also of great importance because, without them, many of the international law disputes of the past (and the inevitable disputes of the future) would have never reached a peaceful end. Still, as with any other principle of international law, title to territory has been and will always be used by some states to initiate wars and conflicts[22].

Terra Nullius
According to the book “International Law” by the renowned scholar Valerie Epps, “if a land is occupied by no one and not claimed by any state, no state
owns the territory and it is said to be terra nullius.” Terra nullius is defined as land “open to an ownership claim.”[23] Historically, powerful states searched the
globe for empty land to own. In most of these situations, the land would already be inhabited by natives. The powerful state would force the natives to sign treaties of cession or to acknowledge the ownership of the state over the natives’ land. The described process is more commonly known as colonialism. In the Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples established on the 14th of December, 1960, the United Nations stated that, under international law, “the subjection of people to alien subjection, domination and exploitation” is prohibited. The Declaration also states that all people have the right
to self-determination. Therefore, since the 1960s, most of the occupied territories have gained their independence based on international laws of title to territory [24]. Defining the meaning of terra nullius is the basis for understanding the laws of title to territory in the international arena.

Discovery
Historically the most common way in which a state claimed title to a territory was through discovery. Most of the great empires sent discovery missions to find land as to increase their international power. Still the mere act of discovering a land was never enough for a state to have the title to the discovered territory. It has always been required that there would be some sort of ceremonial claiming. This ceremony would for example be the location of the claiming state’s flag on the discovered island. The claim over a territory by a state based on the acts of discovery and the ceremony was seen as a good title against any other claim as long as it was not transferred to another state through conquest or treaty. The title could also be lost if it was abandoned, relinquished or continually being challenged by occupation of the territory by another state. The Arbitrator Huber stated in the case concerning the dispute over the islands of the Palmas the change that took place in relation to the rules of the title of discovery. He states that the title of discovery, as stated above, would only be considered an inchoate title. The stated means that in modern international law the acts of discovery and the ceremony are not enough to give a state definite title but only an inchoate one. This inchoate
title can be changed into a definite one by effective occupation of the land. Huber also states one of the most important evolutions of the rules of title to territory by discovery, which is that continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty over a territory will always prevail as the definite title in comparison to the inchoate title of mere discovery [11].

Occupation
Occupation as a claim to a title can only be done in relation to unoccupied territories which is then occupied by a state. Therefore, title to territory by
occupation in international law can only be done if the territory is terra nullius. This means that territories that are inhabited by tribes or people that have political
and social organizations are not considered terra nullius and therefore cannot be subjected to legal occupation. Hence, land with indigenous people can only be claimed by treaties of cession or conquest, which shall discussed [12].

Conquest
Commonly when a state invades another state and defeats it, the first state had the right to force the vanquished state in ceding its territory to the
victorious state. Before the existence of the United Nations Charter these actions were considered legal in accordance to international law. But since the United Nations Charter prohibited the threat or use of force in international relations, the acquisition of title through conquest is currently seen as illegal, which is another evolution in the laws related to the principles of title to territory [13].

A main paradox in relation to the issue at hand is the fact that the Charter of the United Nations still allows the use of force only in the case of selfdefense.

The paradox appears in whether or not a state using force is the case of self defense has the right to take the land of the other state based on legal
conquest. On one hand, some scholars agree that the state acting in self defense has the right to legal conquest. On the other hand, most of the scholars believe that the state acting in self defense has no right to keep the land. The only situation in which the state acting in self defense has the right to keep the land is when the threat or use of force leading to its self defense still exists. This means that as soon as the threat or use of force ends the state no longer has any legal base for keeping the land [14].

Although it is a known fact in international law that the United Nations Charter is a reflection of existing customary law in the case of its prohibition of the
threat or use of force, and the acquisition of land as a result of so, still there are several places in the world that have been taken by countries by force, even after
the Second World War. An example of these areas is the Tibet which was invaded by China and the Portuguese Goa which was taken by India. It still must be mentioned that both China and India claim to have taken over these areas as to “liberate” the people within them [15].

Cession
“Cession is the process whereby one sovereign gives title to territory to another sovereign.” [16] This process mostly takes place by treaties. In other
situations cession can take place by the purchase of one state territory’s by another state, which was done by the United State of America as Louisiana was
purchased from France and Alaska was purchased from Russia [17].

Prescription
In almost all domestic legislations a person can acquire the ownership of a real property that is officially owned by another person, by continuous use of the property for a number of years, which are most commonly twenty. The application of an equivalent principle in international law in relation to title to territory is questionable. No legal judgments indicate that this process of prescription is possible, still that does not mean that it is an impossible case [18].
The understanding of the modes based on which the claim to title to a territory is made is of great importance. Still other principles should also be discussed for a better understanding of the laws of title to territory.

Abandonment
A land abandoned by a state is definitely open for any other state to claim its title based on the stated modes. The unanswered question in relation to this
issue is what exactly constitutes abandonment? [19]
Meanwhile, there are, traditionally, seven modes of territorial loss in international law: abandonment (or dereliction), relinquishment (or renunciation),
cession, operations of nature, subjugation, prescription, and revolt. Each of these modes has played an important role in identifying legal bases for the resolution of specific territorial disputes, and, thus, has substantially contributed to resolving such disputes [20].


Uti Possidetis
The rule of uti possidetis is an ancient Roman rule that is now well-established as an international law. Uti possidetis literally means “as you did possess,
so you shall possess.” The rule was first applied due to the independence of many previously colonized nations. Since the borders of these nations were decided mainly by the colonizing powers and since disputes on the issue of the border were expected to rise at the time of the independence, the rule of uti possidetis had to be applied. By applying this rule, the newly independent states had to accept the borders set by the colonial powers to avoid further disputes[25]. Some scholars argue that the rule of uti possidetis contradicts with another rule in international law which is the right to self-determination.

VI. Legal Principles: Self-Determination
The right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. This right allows a people to choose what political system to implement
and what economic, social and cultural ideals to follow. It is a universal right and there must not be any impediments to it being exercised by whoever wishes to
exercise it.
However, in practice, the right to self-determination is often not used to its full extent. While in some cases certain people can achieve complete political
independence or even full integration within a state, other peoples have only been allowed cultural or economic independence. The first situation is almost always
rejected by states while the second situation is usually more accepted although still considered unfavorable. Another impediment to its application is the effect it
has on territorial integrity, another very important aspect of international law.
International Court of Justice Page 4 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/inte...-court-of-jus... 6/25/2011
To understand what the right to self determination is we must look at the international documents that explain it. The right to self determination is
mentioned in the United Nations Charter and in the International Covenants on Human Rights.
In the Charter of the United Nations, Article 1 (2) states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to “to develop friendly relations among nations
based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples[26]”. What this means is that, in order for nations to develop friendly relations,
the right to self-determination must be respected above all. All peoples have this right, and that is emphasized in the articles included in the United Nations
Covenants on Human Rights.
United Nations Covenants on Human Rights
The United Nations Covenants on Human Rights are composed of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Both sets of covenants include an article on self-determination. Article 1 of both documents goes as follows:
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international
economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall
promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations[27].
This Article is, to a certain extent, self-explanatory. It emphasizes the importance of the right of self-determination and the fact that there should be no
impediments to the exercise of this right. However, the problem arises when it comes to the outcome. Even though it is stated in Article 1(3) that all states “shall
promote the realization of the right of self-determination”, this very rarely happens in practice because of conflicting interests and because of the possible
infringement on territorial integrity.
Definition of “people”
All of the documents quoted above give the right of self-determination to “peoples”. The problem is, in international law, there is no set definition for the
term “peoples”. Some scholars believe it compromises all individuals that make up one nation. Others believe that it brings together people with a common
ethnicity, religion and culture.
This issue then poses the question: who really is entitled to this right? In international law, scholars still seem to disagree on the answer. But what most
people would agree on is that it can mean both.
A well-known example of self-determination, even though somewhat disputed, is the case of Kosovo. On 17 February 2008, Kosovo declared itself an
independent state, thus separating itself from Serbia.
VII. Legal Principles: Forced Expulsion
Forced expulsion of a population is a situation in which a population that is settled on a specific location that it considers its home is forced by an alien
occupant to relocate to another location. Oftentimes, this happens during wars and conflicts. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which was adopted in 1949,
addresses this issue in the section concerning occupied territories. In Article 49, it is stated that “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of
protected persons, from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of
their motive.” This article clearly explains that transferring populations by force is completely prohibited by international law.
Legal Principle: Genocide
Definition and UN Convention
Generally speaking, the term “genocide” refers to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. The word
was coined in 1944 by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who sought to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder, including the destruction of the
European Jews. He formed the word "genocide" by combining geno-, from the Greek word for race or tribe, with -cide, from the Latin word for killing. The next
year, the International Military Tribunal held at Nuremberg, Germany, charged top Nazis with "crimes against humanity." The word “genocide” was included in the
indictment, but only as a descriptive term and not holding any legal connotations. Since then, many have tried to define the term, but there remains much
controversy and debate regarding what exactly constitutes genocide, particularly in a legal sense[28].
On December 9th, 1948, the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as General Assembly
Resolution 260. It entered force on January 12th, 1951. The convention establishes "genocide” as an international crime, which signatory nations “undertake to
prevent and punish[29]”. Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:
“…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, [30]”
This definition was included, without modification, in Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in July 1988. However, a more
detailed description of each of the five acts is provided by the International Criminal Court Preparatory Commission, which agreed upon the “Elements of the
Crime of Genocide” in a report filed in July 2000. The report states that:

“Killing members of the group” includes direct killing and actions causing death.

“Causing serious bodily or mental harm” includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced
use of drugs, and mutilation.

“Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group” includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival such

International Court of Justice Page 5 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/inte...-court-of-jus... 6/25/2011

as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of
foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

“Prevention of births” includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent
procreation.

“Forcible transfer of children” may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The
Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years [31].
Thus, there are two elements that must be present for an act to count as genocide: A physical aspect (the five acts of destruction mentioned above) and a
mental aspect (the intent to commit any of the five acts of destruction mentioned above). Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders, but, more often,
it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts. Is must be differentiated from motive – whatever may be the motive for the crime (land
expropriation, national security, territorial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group or even part of a group, it can be considered
genocide. The phrase "in whole or in part" is also important. According to the Convention, perpetrators need not destroy the entire group for it to be considered
genocide. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) can also be considered genocide. Thus,
theoretically, an individual criminal may be guilty of attempted genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan
to destroy the group. However, most authorities require that a substantial proportion of a given group be destroyed for the act to be considered genocide, and
scholars have debated what criteria should be used to establish whether a part of a group is substantial enough for an act to be regarded as genocide.[32]
One must also note that social and political groups are excluded from the definition as being possible targets of genocide (only national, ethnic, racial, or
religious groups may be considered victims of genocide) and this has raised concerns for some scholars.
Article 3 of the Convention also states that “the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; © Direct and public
incitement to commit genocide; d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide”. Thus, it is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts,
and to aid or abet genocide[33].
Ratification and Enforcement of the Convention
Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention deal with the punishment and prosecution of those charged with genocide.
Article 4:
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public
officials or private individuals.
Article 5:
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the
present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
Article 6
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act
was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction
[34].
However, establishing who is to be held responsible for acts of genocide, establishing fitting punishment, and bringing those accused to trial are difficult
tasks. As of 2010, 132 States are party to the Convention and are, thus, required to prevent and punish acts of genocide. However, many of the signatories
included provisos granting them immunity from prosecution for genocide without their explicit consent, including India, Malaysia, and the United States. In spite of
protests by some nations regarding these reservations, some countries have invoked this immunity from prosecution in the past, such as when the United States
would not allow Yugoslavia to bring charges of genocide against it following the 1999 Kosovo War [35]. Furthermore, acts of genocide are generally difficult to
prosecute, given that intent must also be established. Thus, enforcement of the Convention is exceedingly challenging [36].
Examples of Genocide in History
The first use of the term “genocide” in a legal context occurred in 1945, with the indictment of the Nazi war criminals in the Nuremberg Trials. The Nazis in
question were accused of “War Crimes" (Count Three), which included the "deliberate and systematic genocide; viz., the extermination of racial and national
groups, against the civilian population of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people, and national, racial, or religious
groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies". The Nazi German extermination of approximately six million Jews, as well as other minority groups, in an act now
known as “The Holocaust”, is the most studied and well-documented case of genocide in history [37]. However, this is not to say that it was the first act of
genocide or the last. The systematic killing and abuse of the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, widely known as the
Armenian Genocide, is largely recognized as the first genocide in modern times. Other famous examples of genocide in history include the 1994 Rwandan
Genocide (After which the UN Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, an international court created for the trial of those
responsible for the massacres that occurred)[38], the 1995 Srebrenica genocide (which the ICJ ruled to be genocide in a judgment published in 2007)[39], and
the ongoing Darfur conflict (which former US Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to as an act of genocide in 2004)[40].
VIII. Conclusion
When discussing a conflict between two states as prominent in the international arena as Russia and Japan, it is a wonder as to why this controversial
case over the Kuril Islands has not received as much media coverage or international recognition as it deserves. A contentious battle that has lasted for over fifty
years now, and one that incorporates many fundamental and controversial aspects of international law, such as treaty law, title to territory, and forceful expulsion,
is highly intriguing in that the dispute has not been brought to trial in any international court in existence. However, given the dedication and commitment of this
year’s 2010 CIMUN ICJ Secretariat team, it is certain that the case that has prevented Russia and Japan from signing the WWII peace treaty of 1945 will finally
be brought to a close.
[1] “Charter of the United Nations”, Article 2. The United Nations.
[2] “The Court”. International Court of Justice. September 3, 2010. . (Nov 2010).
[3] deVillafranca, Richard. Japan and the Northern Territories Dispute- Past, Present,
International Court of Justice Page 6 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/inte...-court-of-jus... 6/25/2011
Future. Asian Survey, 33 (June 1993): 610-624.
[4] “The Kuril Islands Dispute between Russia and Japan”. BBC News. BBC News. 1 November 2010. . Web. 2 November 2010.
[5] Ibid.
[6] deVillafranca, Richard. Japan and the Northern Territories Dispute- Past, Present,
Future. Asian Survey, 33 (June 1993): 610-624.
[7] deVillafranca, Richard. Japan and the Northern Territories Dispute- Past, Present,
Future. Asian Survey, 33 (June 1993): 610-624.
[8] Ibid.
[9] “The Kuril Islands Dispute between Russia and Japan”. BBC News. BBC News. 1 November 2010. . Web. 2 November 2010.
[10] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 197.
[11] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 24.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 40.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Valerie Epps, 41.
[16] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 41.
[17] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 40.
[18] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 41.
[19] Ibid.
[20]Shaw, Malcolm N. The International Law of Territory. London: Oxford University Press, 2010. 90.
[21] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 244.
[22] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 23.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 23.
[25] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 44-45.
[26] “Charter of the United Nations”, Article 1(2). The United Nations.
[27] “United Nations Covenants on Human Rights”, Article 1. The United Nations.
[28] “What is Genocide?”. McGill Faculty of Law. September 3, 2010. . (Nov 2010).
[29] Ibid.
[30] “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide”. Human Rights Web, http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html (Nov. 2010).
International Court of Justice Page 7 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/inte...-court-of-jus... 6/25/2011
[31] “Elements on the Crime of Genocide”. September 3, 2010. <http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/elements/elemfra.htm>. (Nov. 2010).
[32] “The International Legal Definition of Genocide”, Prevent Genocide International, .
[33] “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide”. Human Rights Web.
September 3, 2010. .
[34] “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide”. Human Rights Web.
September 3, 2010. .
[35] “Oral Pleading, Legality of Use of Force, Yugoslavia v. United States of America”, International Court of Justice, http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-
International_Law10.htm (Nov. 2010).
[36] “Reservations and Declarations to the Genocide Convention”, Prevent Genocide International, (Nov. 2010).
[37] Rummel, R.J. “Genocide”. University of Hawaii System. December 1, 2010.
. (Dec. 2010).
[38] “Resolution 955”. United Nations Security Council. December 1, 2010. . (Dec. 2010).
[39] “Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).”
International Court of Justice. December 1, 2010. . (Dec. 2010).
[40] “Powell Declares Killing in Darfur ‘Genocide’”. PBS Online News Hour. December 1, 2010. . (Dec. 2010).
Copyright © 2011 Cairo International Model United Nations
All Rights Reserved.
International Court of Justice Page 8 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/inte...-court-of-jus... 6/25/2011

This post has been edited by Liang1a: Sep 24 2011, 02:15 PM

[ivy20]

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/7598163.html

"The Indian External Affairs Ministry also reportedly claimed on Thursday that the project has been approved by Vietnam, which claims sovereignty over the two blocks, according to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Responding to a question concerning these plans, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu responded Thursday that the UN Convention did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf into other countries' territories. Jiang also warned countries outside the region to support the resolution of this dispute through bilateral channels"

-------------------------------------------

Liang’s comment:

This is the first time I’ve seen the Chinese government responding with a legal counterpoint based on UNCLOS to refute the baseless claims by other countries that UNCLOS’s provisions gave them the right to invade Chinese sovereign territories. As Jiang Yu rightly pointed out, UNCLOS does not give any country the right to unilaterally extend its EEZ and continental shelf into other countries’ EEZ, continental shelf, territorial seas, internal seas and sovereign territories. Any island that qualifies under UNCLOS’ Article 121 has its own EEZ and continental shelf. This means that every Chinese sovereign island in the S. China Sea has its own 200 nm of EEZ and 350 nm of continental shelf. And where the EEZ of two countries overlap, the right of EEZ of each area belongs to the country that is closest to it. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation for Vietnam and other invading countries to argue that UNCLOS allow them to claim 200 nm of EEZ that includes China’s sovereign islands. Furthermore, China has demarcated its sea boundary by the 9-Dotted Line Map that predates the UNCLOS by many decades and cannot be superseded by any ex post facto laws of UNCLOS. Therefore, Vietnam and other invading countries cannot justify their invasion of Chinese sovereign territories by referring to the UNCLOS. And China has the right to evict any invaders from its sovereign territories with force. Specifically, India’s oil agreement with Vietnam is null and void and subject to seizure by the Chinese government according to China's laws. I'm glad to see the Chinese government responding skillfully with refutations based on international laws. I hope it will follow up with military actions justified by international laws.

@Liang1a,

WHAT DID YOU SAY in your comment above??? Both of you and Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu DID RECOGNIZE UNCLOS. I pointed out that China VIOLATED UNCLOS seriously and also both you & Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson are cheating people by interpret UNCLOS the WRONG WAY:

@'Liang1a,

Are you working on AsiaFinest for China Communist CUNNING PROPAGANDAS???

Both you & Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu are CHEATING people about UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION LAWS of the SEA (UNCLOS) in order to STEAL SOUTH CHINA SEA from Philippine, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia & Vietnam!

1. Did UNCLOS recognized GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea belongs to China???. The answer is: NO!

2. GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea is VIOLATED UNCLOS seriously!

3. Is there any country in United Nations recognized CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea??? The answer is : NO!

4. While there is NO country recognized GREEDY CHINA SELF CLAIM 90% of South China Sea belongs to China, how can Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu responded on Thursday that "the UN Convention did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf into other countries' territories."???. There is NO COUNTRY RECOGNIZED S. China Sea belong to China, how can GREEDY CHINA claims Vietnam violated UNCLOS???, both you & Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu CAN CHEAT stupid people, but CAN NOT CHEAT people who know UNCLOS! (It's so bad for both Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu & you PRETEND DON'T KNOW China VIOLATED UNCLOS in order to tell lie for China cunning propaganda!)

5. According to UNCLOS, the UNINHABITED Islands in Paracel & Spratly islands in S. China Sea have the sea territory ONLY 12 nautical miles around the islands, the UNINHABITED Islands CAN NOT have EEZ 200 nautical miles as you LIE in order to CHEAT people for China cunning propagandas!

and then you tried to TWIST ANOTHER WAY for UNCLOS, you don't recognize UNCLOS, the International Laws that China already signed, you TWISTED THE TRUTH OF UNCLOS:

As Mid-Night_Sun had pointed out this is a very poorly researched response by ivy. UNCLOS does not concern itself with the issue of sovereignty. Therefore, it can neither "give" the South Sea islands to China nor to any other countries. The issue of sovereignty is based on common law based on discovery and formal incorporation into the administration of the sovereign country. Please go to the following link to read more about the legal principles of how title to territory is determined:

http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/inte...ourt-of-justice

After you have read this and have understood the various principles then maybe we can discuss this with some intelligence. Also go to the following link to read about the historical evidence of what China had done to acquire sovereignty:

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/3754/t19234.htm

After you have read these articles, you will have realized that UNCLOS has nothing to do with sovereignty. Therefore, anybody who refers to UNCLOS is simply ignorant and unfit to hold a relevant discussion about the sovereignty of South Sea islands. This is why ivy's post is nothing but an ignorant rant which is beneath contempt and raised no bona fide issue to refute. Such nonsense as DNA and uninhabited island cannot have EEZ is simply foolishness and irrelevant and above all untrue. Nobody who has read UNCLOS would be making such false rants.

Compare your 2 comments above, they are CONTRADICTION!

You are FULL of LIE, BUT YOU DON'T FEEL SHAME!

You interpreted the Laws in WRONG WAY, YOU INTENDED TO TWIST THE TRUTH in order to cheat people!

Do you think all people are stupid to believe in your cheating informations?

Your cunning propagandas can cheat stupid people but can not cheat all people!

BE BRAVE to bring all China's self claim "historical evidences" and China's "legal principles" of how title to territory is determined" to INTERNATIONAL COURTS to declare that
China has full sovereignty over S. China Sea & its islands. WHY is China ALWAYS AFRAID to go to International Courts to solve the conflict problems in S. China Sea with many S. E. Asia countries???

China always self claim that "China has many historical evidences, China was the first nation explored S. China Sea & its islands, China respects International Laws...bla...bla...bla..." but China is ALWAYS AFRAID of taking those "good evidences" to International Court TO PROVE THAT S. China Sea & its islands belong to China! WHY???

Because what China says & what is the truth are 2 different worlds, they are not the same!

Both you & your greedy China can cheat stupid people, but can not cheat all people because all people are not stupid!

According to your comments & Mid-Night_Sun's comments, you prove yourself that both of you are working on this forum for China Communist's CUNNING PROPAGANDAS! Both of you are trying TELL LIE any way TO CHEAT people for China Communist's CUNNING PROPAGANDAS!

Both of you are lying & cheating but don't feel shame!



(Not all Chinese are bad, except Chinese Communists & and their followers!)

[Mid-Night_Sun]

...its like a child screaming about their favourite toy ....


go post your fantasy in viet chat. its already full of delusional viets posting their fairytales and wishful thinking. just know if you try it in Chinese Chat it will be debunked. that fact wont change no matter how many times you cry and scream about cheating and how we work for the Chinese government. leave it the viet who claim nobody accept chinese claims and have a letter of their own government accepting chinese claims. and dont try that whole 'that letter is photoshop'. i already posted the link of vietnams foreign affairs acknowledging this in 1988.


credit the following to af member junzi



Translation
The Democratic Republic of Vietnam's Government agreed to terms of China's public statment in 9-4-1958 about China's sea territory claim.The Democratic Republic of Vietnam Government respect it, and will direct all Agencies to absolute respect the 12 nautical miles sea territory of China in all matters with the People's Republic of China in the East Sea.

sincerely.

Hanoi 14-9-1958.







"Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea (September 4， 1958)" in Chinese.

QUOTE
中华人民共和国政府宣布

　　（一）中华人民共和国的领海宽度为12海里。这项规定适用于中华人民共和国的一切领土，包括中国大陆及 其沿海岛屿，和同大陆及其沿海岛屿隔有公海的台湾及其周围各岛、澎湖列岛、东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛、 南沙群岛以及其他属于中国的岛屿。

　　（二）中国大陆及其沿海岛屿的领海以连接大陆岸上和沿海岸外缘岛屿上各基点之间的各直线为基线，从基线 向外延伸12海里的水域是中国的领海。在基线以内的水域，包括渤海湾、琼州海峡在内、都是中国的内海、在基 线以内的岛屿，包括东引岛、高登岛、马祖列岛、白犬列岛、乌岳岛、大小金门岛、大担岛、二担岛、东碇岛在内 ，都是中国的内海。

　　（三）一切外国飞机和军用船舶，未经中华人民共和国政府的许可，不得进入中国的领海和领海 上空。

　　任何外国船舶在中国领海航行，必须遵守中华人民共和国政府的有关法令。

　　（四）以上（一）（二）两项规定的原则同样适用于台湾及其周围各岛、澎湖列岛、东沙群岛、西沙群岛、南 沙群岛以及其他属于中国的岛屿。

　　台湾和澎湖地区现在仍然被美国武力侵占，这是侵犯中华人民共和国领土完整的和主权的非法行为。台湾和澎 湖等地尚待收复，中华人民共和国政府有权采取一切适当的方法在适当的时候，收复这些地区，这是中国的内政， 不容外国干涉。





Translation
Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea （September 4， 1958）

　　The Government of the People's Republic of China declares：

　　1. The breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China shall be twelve nautical miles. This provision applies to all territories of the People's Republic of China including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands， as well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands， the Penghu Islands， the Dongsha Islands， the Xisha Islands， the Zhongsha Islands， the Nansha Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.

2. China's territorial sea along the mainland and its coastal islands takes as its baseline the line composed of the straight lines connecting bas-points on the mainland coast and on the outermost coastal islands； the water area extending twelve nautical miles outward from this baseline is China's territorial sea. The water areas inside the baseline， including Bohai Bayand the Chiung chow Straits， are Chinese inland waters. The islands inside the base line， including Tungyin Island， Kaoteng Island， the Matsu Islands， the Paichuan Islands， Wuchiu Island， the Grater And Lesser Quemoy Islands， Tatan Island， Erhtan Island and Tungting Island， are islands of the Chinese inland waters.

　　3. No foreign aircraft and no foreign vessels for military use may enter China's territorial sea and the air space above it without the permission of the Government of the People's Republic of China.

　　While navigation Chinese territorial sea， every foreign vessel must observe the relevant laws of the People's Republic of China and regulations of its government.

　　4. The principles provided in paragraphs （2） and （3） apply also to Taiwan and its surrounding islands， the Penghu Islands， the Dongsha Islands， the Xisha Islands， the Zhongsha Islands， the Nansha islands， and all other islands belonging to China.

　　The Taiwan and Penghu areas are still occupied by the United States armed force. This is anunlawful encroachment on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the People's Republic of China. Taiwan， Penghu and such other areas are yet to be recovered， and the Government of the People's Republic of china has the right to recover these area by all suitable means at a suitable time. This is China's internal affair， in which no foreign interference is tolerated.








in fact, just as a bonus, ill include this point.

the last ones to own the islands was the Japanese.


"Japan occupied some of the islands in 1939 during World War II, and used the islands as a submarine base for the occupation of Southeast Asia. During the occupation, these islands were called Shinnan Shoto (新南諸島), literally the New Southern Islands, and put under the governance of Taiwan together with the Paracel Islands (西沙群岛). In 1945, The Republic of China sent its Naval ships to take control of the islands after the surrender of Japan. It had chosen the largest and perhaps the only inhabitable island, Itu Aba Island, as its base, and renamed the island under the name of the naval vessel as Taiping."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands#History

we can go into the legal documents if you want, whether or not Japan's surrender included CEDING BACK these islands or just relinquishing claims. but here is the simple fact, Japanese administered these islands, using a Chinese base (Taiwan) to GOVERN the package. at the end of the war when Japan surrendered, the ROC CHOSE Taiping island as its base because it is the biggest and the only one that had natural fresh water (thus inhabitable and can support its own economy). this is strong indication that the ROC at least, view it as a Japanese handover of control. accepted or not, Vietnam nor Phillipines nor anyone else have anything remotely like this with Japan.

in the past, NO claims predate Chinese ones. as for modern times, the last ones to undisputedly control the islands was Japanese who controlled them using Taiwan, who is also the one who to this day still hold the largest and only island with natural fresh water.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 24 2011, 05:31 PM

[Liang1a]

Ivy wrote:

@Liang1a, WHAT DID YOU SAY in your comment above??? Both of you and Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu DID RECOGNIZE UNCLOS. I pointed out that China VIOLATED UNCLOS seriously and also both you & Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson are cheating people by interpret UNCLOS the WRONG WAY:

and then you tried to TWIST ANOTHER WAY for UNCLOS, you don't recognize UNCLOS, the International Laws that China already signed, you TWISTED THE TRUTH OF UNCLOS

:------------------------------

How can you even begin to argue with a person who simply cannot grasp even the simplest concepts? Of course, China signed the UNCLOS. But China has not violated any UNCLOS provisions. It is only in the befuddled mind of ivy that UNCLOS can give South Sea islands to Vietnam and other invaders. Read this carefully, “UNCLOS does not have the authority to determine issues of sovereignty. Nor does it have the right to give any country’s sovereign islands to any other countries as their EEZ.” Can you understand this simple idea? It is you who have misunderstood UNCLOS. If you still think China has violated any UNCLOS laws then quote me the specific article that it had violated and why.

[ivy20]

Below is an article about the legal principles of how nations establish sovereign title to territories. People who are serious about understanding the basic legal principles involved in sovereignty issues shuold read it carefully before they start making ignorant rants.
-------------------------------------------------------

@Liang1a,

Another CHEATING for China Communist propaganda!

What kind of " the basic legal principles involved in sovereignty issues" which GREEDY CHINA HAS USED on S. China Sea???

The following are "LEGAL PRINCIPLES" that China HAS USED on S. China Sea:

- In 1974, taking advantage while North VN & South VN were busy in civil war, China ILLEGALLY USED WARSHIPS to STEAL Paracel islands from Vietnam. China KILLED 54 Vietnamese sailors!

- In 1988, China also ILLEGALLY USED WARSHIPS to STEAL Spratly islands from Vietnam. China KILLED 64 Vietnamese sailors!

- After that, many times GREEDY China KILLED Vietnamese fishermen, BEAT Vietnamese fishermen, STOLE their fishing equipments, DESTROYED their fishing equipments and STOLE all of their fishes on VIETNAM'S SEA TERRITORY, which was RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS & by many countries from the world! It is VIETNAM TRADITIONAL SEA, that Vietnamese ancestors of those Vietnamese fishermen sailed over there for fishing from generation to generation for many THOUSAND YEARS!

- Many times CRUEL China ships HIT to SINK Vietnamese fishermen's boats, causing these boats WERE SUNK, many Vietnamese fishermen WERE INJURED & MISSING on the sea!

- CRUEL Chinese Navy used the LAWS of CHINA BANDIT GANG to SHOOT & CHASE AWAY Vietnamese Fishermen when these fishermen came closer to Paracel islands to hide from the big storm coming from Philippine.

According to International Laws, these fishermen HAVE THE RIGHT to escape the dangerous of the storm by coming closer to any island on the sea. Vietnamese Navy & Vietnamese people always help Chinese fishermen to escape the dangerous storms from the sea. Vietnamese Navy also used ships TO RESCUE Chinese fishermen during & after the storms, HOW CAN CRUEL Chinese Navy treated Vietnamese fishermen that way???! They violated the International Laws seriously!

- GREEDY CHINA used the map that China JUST DREW in 19th century to self claim that 90% of S. China Sea belongs to China, the sea that HAS BELONGED TO other 5 nations, where their people HAVE BEEN FISHING for MANY THOUSAND YEARS. By this GREEDY claim, CRUEL CHINA has killed & attacked many fishermen of other countries on the sea! Greedy China also opposed THE RIGHT TO EXPLORE OIL on THE SEA TERRITORY EEZ of Philippine & Vietnam, which are recognized by International Laws & many countries in the world. China DID SIGN the international laws of the sea UNCLOS, but China does not respect what China already signed!

Philippine & Vietnam have asked China many times to solve the conflict in S. China Sea by INTERNATIONAL LAWS , but China ALWAYS REFUSES!

What kind of Law that China has used in S. China Sea???

While China is using THE LAW OF BANDIT GANG on S. China Sea, are you trying to CHEAT people that China respects International Laws???!


This post has been edited by ivy20: Sep 24 2011, 05:51 PM

[Liang1a]

...its like a child screaming about their favourite toy ....


go post your fantasy in viet chat. its already full of delusional viets posting their fairytales and wishful thinking. just know if you try it in Chinese Chat it will be debunked. that fact wont change no matter how many times you cry and scream about cheating and how we work for the Chinese government. leave it the viet who claim nobody accept chinese claims and have a letter of their own government accepting chinese claims. and dont try that whole 'that letter is photoshop'. i already posted the link of vietnams foreign affairs acknowledging this in 1988.


credit the following to af member junzi



Translation
The Democratic Republic of Vietnam's Government agreed to terms of China's public statment in 9-4-1958 about China's sea territory claim.The Democratic Republic of Vietnam Government respect it, and will direct all Agencies to absolute respect the 12 nautical miles sea territory of China in all matters with the People's Republic of China in the East Sea.

sincerely.

Hanoi 14-9-1958.







"Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea (September 4， 1958)" in Chinese.

QUOTE
中华人民共和国政府宣布

　　（一）中华人民共和国的领海宽度为12海里。这项规定适用于中华人民共和国的一切领土，包括中国大陆及 其沿海岛屿，和同大陆及其沿海岛屿隔有公海的台湾及其周围各岛、澎湖列岛、东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛、 南沙群岛以及其他属于中国的岛屿。

　　（二）中国大陆及其沿海岛屿的领海以连接大陆岸上和沿海岸外缘岛屿上各基点之间的各直线为基线，从基线 向外延伸12海里的水域是中国的领海。在基线以内的水域，包括渤海湾、琼州海峡在内、都是中国的内海、在基 线以内的岛屿，包括东引岛、高登岛、马祖列岛、白犬列岛、乌岳岛、大小金门岛、大担岛、二担岛、东碇岛在内 ，都是中国的内海。

　　（三）一切外国飞机和军用船舶，未经中华人民共和国政府的许可，不得进入中国的领海和领海 上空。

　　任何外国船舶在中国领海航行，必须遵守中华人民共和国政府的有关法令。

　　（四）以上（一）（二）两项规定的原则同样适用于台湾及其周围各岛、澎湖列岛、东沙群岛、西沙群岛、南 沙群岛以及其他属于中国的岛屿。

　　台湾和澎湖地区现在仍然被美国武力侵占，这是侵犯中华人民共和国领土完整的和主权的非法行为。台湾和澎 湖等地尚待收复，中华人民共和国政府有权采取一切适当的方法在适当的时候，收复这些地区，这是中国的内政， 不容外国干涉。





Translation
Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea （September 4， 1958）

　　The Government of the People's Republic of China declares：

　　1. The breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China shall be twelve nautical miles. This provision applies to all territories of the People's Republic of China including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands， as well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands， the Penghu Islands， the Dongsha Islands， the Xisha Islands， the Zhongsha Islands， the Nansha Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.

2. China's territorial sea along the mainland and its coastal islands takes as its baseline the line composed of the straight lines connecting bas-points on the mainland coast and on the outermost coastal islands； the water area extending twelve nautical miles outward from this baseline is China's territorial sea. The water areas inside the baseline， including Bohai Bayand the Chiung chow Straits， are Chinese inland waters. The islands inside the base line， including Tungyin Island， Kaoteng Island， the Matsu Islands， the Paichuan Islands， Wuchiu Island， the Grater And Lesser Quemoy Islands， Tatan Island， Erhtan Island and Tungting Island， are islands of the Chinese inland waters.

　　3. No foreign aircraft and no foreign vessels for military use may enter China's territorial sea and the air space above it without the permission of the Government of the People's Republic of China.

　　While navigation Chinese territorial sea， every foreign vessel must observe the relevant laws of the People's Republic of China and regulations of its government.

　　4. The principles provided in paragraphs （2） and （3） apply also to Taiwan and its surrounding islands， the Penghu Islands， the Dongsha Islands， the Xisha Islands， the Zhongsha Islands， the Nansha islands， and all other islands belonging to China.

　　The Taiwan and Penghu areas are still occupied by the United States armed force. This is anunlawful encroachment on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the People's Republic of China. Taiwan， Penghu and such other areas are yet to be recovered， and the Government of the People's Republic of china has the right to recover these area by all suitable means at a suitable time. This is China's internal affair， in which no foreign interference is tolerated.








in fact, just as a bonus, ill include this point.

the last ones to own the islands was the Japanese.


"Japan occupied some of the islands in 1939 during World War II, and used the islands as a submarine base for the occupation of Southeast Asia. During the occupation, these islands were called Shinnan Shoto (新南諸島), literally the New Southern Islands, and put under the governance of Taiwan together with the Paracel Islands (西沙群岛). In 1945, The Republic of China sent its Naval ships to take control of the islands after the surrender of Japan. It had chosen the largest and perhaps the only inhabitable island, Itu Aba Island, as its base, and renamed the island under the name of the naval vessel as Taiping."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands#History

we can go into the legal documents if you want, whether or not Japan's surrender included CEDING BACK these islands or just relinquishing claims. but here is the simple fact, Japanese administered these islands, using a Chinese base (Taiwan) to GOVERN the package. at the end of the war when Japan surrendered, the ROC CHOSE Taiping island as its base because it is the biggest and the only one that had natural fresh water (thus inhabitable and can support its own economy). this is strong indication that the ROC at least, view it as a Japanese handover of control. accepted or not, Vietnam nor Phillipines nor anyone else have anything remotely like this with Japan.

in the past, NO claims predate Chinese ones. as for modern times, the last ones to undisputedly control the islands was Japanese who controlled them using Taiwan, who is also the one who to this day still hold the largest and only island with natural fresh water.

Thank you, Mid Night Sun for this informative quote from the PRC. I'd add that even though Japan had undisupted control of the South Sea islands, yet that in itself did not establish its legal sovereignty. For example, Taiwan was ceded to Japan under unequal treaties. Therefore, China still had the right to go to war and by defeating Japan took back Taiwan. By the same token, China had established its legal sovereignty over the South Sea islands since the time of Tang Dynasty and therefore it has the legal sovereign right to use force as the last resort to evict foreign invaders and take back China's sovereign South Sea islands. Foolish people or devious people keep harping on UNCLOS when it has nothing to do with sovereignty. Chinese government has made an effective refutation. And even though foolish and/or devious people still want to invoke UNCLOS they only sound like devious thieves who had been caught in the act of stealing as they actually are.

If the Chinese government use legal refutations then these invaders will have no legal basis to justify their invasion on. The Chinese government should stop begging for tabling dispute and cooperate in joing development. China's sovereign resources must not be given away to thieves just to placate them. Appeasement never works. Blackmailers or kidnappers must never be appeased. China must go to war if these thieves refuse to leave China's sovereign territories.

[Liang1a]

@Liang1a,

Another CHEATING for China Communist propaganda!

What kind of " the basic legal principles involved in sovereignty issues" which GREEDY CHINA HAS USED on S. China Sea???

The following are "LEGAL PRINCIPLES" that China HAS USED on S. China Sea:

- In 1974, taking advantage while North VN & South VN were busy in civil war, China ILLEGALLY USED WARSHIPS to STEAL Paracel islands from Vietnam. China KILLED 54 Vietnamese sailors!

- In 1988, China also ILLEGALLY USED WARSHIPS to STEAL Spratly islands from Vietnam. China KILLED 64 Vietnamese sailors!

- After that, many times GREEDY China KILLED Vietnamese fishermen, BEAT Vietnamese fishermen, STOLE their fishing equipments, DESTROYED their fishing equipments and STOLE all of their fishes on VIETNAM'S SEA TERRITORY, which was RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS & by many countries from the world! It is VIETNAM TRADITIONAL SEA, that Vietnamese ancestors of those Vietnamese fishermen sailed over there for fishing from generation to generation for many THOUSAND YEARS!

- Many times CRUEL China ships HIT to SINK Vietnamese fishermen's boats, causing these boats WERE SUNK, many Vietnamese fishermen WERE INJURED & MISSING on the sea!

- CRUEL Chinese Navy used the LAWS of CHINA BANDIT GANG to SHOOT & CHASE AWAY Vietnamese Fishermen when these fishermen came closer to Paracel islands to hide from the big storm coming from Philippine.

According to International Laws, these fishermen HAVE THE RIGHT to escape the dangerous of the storm by coming closer to any island on the sea. Vietnamese Navy & Vietnamese people always help Chinese fishermen to escape the dangerous storms from the sea. Vietnamese Navy also used ships TO RESCUE Chinese fishermen during & after the storms, HOW CAN CRUEL Chinese Navy treated Vietnamese fishermen that way???! They violated the International Laws seriously!

- GREEDY CHINA used the map that China JUST DREW in 19th century to self claim that 90% of S. China Sea belongs to China, the sea that HAS BELONGED TO other 5 nations, where their people HAVE BEEN FISHING for MANY THOUSAND YEARS. By this GREEDY claim, CRUEL CHINA has killed & attacked many fishermen of other countries on the sea! Greedy China also opposed THE RIGHT TO EXPLORE OIL on THE SEA TERRITORY EEZ of Philippine & Vietnam, which are recognized by International Laws & many countries in the world. China DID SIGN the international laws of the sea UNCLOS, but China does not respect what China already signed!

Philippine & Vietnam have asked China many times to solve the conflict in S. China Sea by INTERNATIONAL LAWS , but China ALWAYS REFUSES!

What kind of Law that China has used in S. China Sea???

While China is using THE LAW OF BANDIT GANG on S. China Sea, are you trying to CHEAT people that China respects International Laws???!

This is nothing more than meaningless rants. I refer again to the posts and links I gave above that had established China's soveignty over these islands. Mid Night Sun has also given a very good basis for the legality of China's sovereignty over the South Seas.

Here is another link for more reasons why China has the only tenable claim on South Sea sovereignty.

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=282827


This post has been edited by Liang1a: Sep 24 2011, 06:05 PM

[ivy20]

leave it the viet who claim nobody accept chinese claims and have a letter of their own government accepting chinese claims. and dont try that whole 'that letter is photoshop'. i already posted the link of vietnams foreign affairs acknowledging this in 1988.



Translation
The Democratic Republic of Vietnam's Government agreed to terms of China's public statment in 9-4-1958 about China's sea territory claim.The Democratic Republic of Vietnam Government respect it, and will direct all Agencies to absolute respect the 12 nautical miles sea territory of China in all matters with the People's Republic of China in the East Sea.

sincerely.

Hanoi 14-9-1958.


"Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea (September 4， 1958)" in Chinese.


Translation
Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea （September 4， 1958）

　　The Government of the People's Republic of China declares：

　　1. The breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China shall be twelve nautical miles. This provision applies to all territories of the People's Republic of China including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands， as well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands， the Penghu Islands， the Dongsha Islands， the Xisha Islands， the Zhongsha Islands， the Nansha Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.

@'Mid-Night_Sun'


China & you have used a lot of cheating informations to cheat people!

This is the answer for your post from Vietnam Ministry of National Defense:

http://www.qdnd.vn/qdndsite/en-US/75/72/30...72/Default.aspx

Diplomatic Note 1958 with Vietnam’s sovereignty over Paracel, Spratly islands



QĐND - Friday, August 12, 2011, 20:43 (GMT+7)


Prime Minister Pham Van Dong’s Diplomatic Note 1958 did not state to give up Vietnam’s sovereignty over the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) Islands.

China has recently slandered the so-called “indisputable sovereignty” over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. China’s interpretation of the Diplomatic Note dated September 14, 1958 by Prime Minister Pham Van Dong as an evidence that Vietnam recognized China’s sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands is completely one-sided, and it is the distortion of the contents and the meaning of that document, is entirely strange to Vietnam’s legal foundation as well as international law and ignores the objective fact of the historical background at that time.

China’s distortion of the Diplomatic Note 1958 is an act in a series of intentional acts to create excuses and gradually regularize China’s groundless claims of sovereignty over Vietnam’s Paracel and Spratly Islands



.....The Diplomatic Note 1958 has two clear contents: The first is the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam noted China’s 12 nautical mile territorial waters. The second is the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam instructed its state agencies to respect China’s 12 nautical mile territorial waters.

The Diplomatic Note 1958 did not have a single word about territory and sovereignty or name any island. Therefore, the interpretation that Diplomatic Note 1958 declared Vietnam’s abandonment of its sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands and considers that diplomatic document as the evidence for Vietnam’s recognition of China’s sovereignty over the two archipelagos, which is the distortion of history and has no legal ground.

At the San Francisco conference in 1951, attending countries rejected China’s claims over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Also at this conference, Vietnam declared its long-standing and continuous sovereignty over the two archipelagoes at the plenary session, without any protest from all attendant countries. It means that since 1951, the international community recognized Vietnam’s historical and legal sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. China’s unilateral declaration of sovereignty over the two archipelagoes is invalid under international law.

The Geneva Accords1954, which had China as an official attendant, also recognizes Vietnam’s sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. The Accords asked attending countries to respect independence, sovereignty and national unity and territorial integrity of Vietnam. Therefore, China’s statement of sovereignty over the two archipelagos dated September 4, 1958 is invalid under international law.

In the Diplomatic Note 1958, PM Pham Van Dong did not mention the Paracel and Spratly Islands because under the Geneva Accords 1954, the two archipelagos, which are located to the south of the 17 parallel north, were managed by the government of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). At that time, the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) did not have the duty or power to exercise sovereignty over the two archipelagoes under the international law.

The Diplomatic Note 1958 obviously only agreed with the legal contents in China’s declaration, which were recognized by the international community based on international law at that time. Part of China’s declaration on September 4, 1958 seriously violated Vietnam’s territorial sovereignty and legal foundations on Vietnam’s sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands which have been recognized by the international communities many times.

The government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the context of the special ties with China at that time only agreed with China’s 12 nautical mile territorial waters. Other contents that exceeded China’s scope of sovereignty under international conventions were not mentioned as the natural consideration of its invalidity under the international law.

Meanwhile, the government of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), under the Geneva Accords 1954, continuously performed Vietnam’s long-standing sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands through state administrative documents and actual performance of sovereignty. The highlight of that is the fierce battle of the Republic of Vietnam against China’s invasion by ships and airplanes to the Paracel Islands in 1974.

In the special historical circumstance as being analyzed above, it is obvious that the PM Pham Van Dong’s Diplomatic Note 1958 simply recognized China’s 12 nautical mile territorial waters. This document, in nature, expressed a political attitude and friendship behavior to China’s declaration of 12 nautical mile territorial waters. It is absurd to slander and distort (as China did) that PM Pham Van Dong, an outstanding personality, signed this document to give up Vietnam’s territory and sovereignty


.....While carrying out its plot to occupy the East Sea, China has many times distorted historical documents to intentionally mislead Chinese people and the international community of this issue to benefit itself. However, historical evidence of truth under the light of international law, China’s distortion shows its plot and tricks in the process to swallow the East Sea.

[Mid-Night_Sun]

@'Mid-Night_Sun'


China & you have used a lot of cheating informations to cheat people!

This is the answer for your post from Vietnam Ministry of National Defense:

http://www.qdnd.vn/qdndsite/en-US/75/72/30...72/Default.aspx

that is so stupid it makes me laugh. the note is IN RESPONSE to the Chinese declaration. the SAME ONE that 12 nautical mile is in. which they agreed to. the mere fact the note doesnt repeat the entire Chinese statement doesnt mean China is distorting anything.



read it again carefully.

Vietnam Note: The Democratic Republic of Vietnam's Government agreed to terms of China's public statment in 9-4-1958 about China's sea territory claim.The Democratic Republic of Vietnam Government respect it, and will direct all Agencies to absolute respect the 12 nautical miles sea territory of China in all matters with the People's Republic of China in the East Sea.

Chinese statement it refers to: Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea （September 4， 1958）

　　The Government of the People's Republic of China declares：

　　1. The breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China shall be twelve nautical miles. This provision applies to all territories of the People's Republic of China including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands， as well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands， the Penghu Islands， the Dongsha Islands， the Xisha Islands， the Zhongsha Islands， the Nansha Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.


completely obvious, hoping people wont actually read both the note and the Chinese statement is the only way you are going to convince people China distorted something.




no they didnt reject China's anything. China wasnt even at the conference. there was a Chinese civil war going on and that is why the SOVIET UNION brought it up on behalf of the Communists. of course the western world head by america support the Nationalists. THAT is why the movement was rejected. not because anyone on earth think it belongs to vietnam.

"It means that since 1951, the international community recognized Vietnam’s historical and legal sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands."

biiiiig joke. ROC held the biggest island for 6 years by then. but regardless, look at today. lost paracel. lost some spratly. and taiwan STILL hold that same biggest island. doesnt look good.




The Geneva Convention saying DRVN governs the zone north of the 17th parallel, had NOTHING to do with giving vietnam ANYTHING or recognizing the fate of the islands AT ALL. [show me in the document the point that says the islands belongs to vietnam and ill give you the point]

The Seventeenth parallel (Vietnamese: vĩ tuyến 17) was the provisional military demarcation line between North and South Vietnam established by the Geneva Accords of 1954.

now THAT is what i call distortion and lying.

even the quote in your article

"The Accords asked attending countries to respect independence, sovereignty and national unity and territorial integrity of Vietnam. " says absolutely NOTHING about the case, but only assume people accept the islands as part of Vietnam's "integrity". that already should have been a red flag to anyone who wasnt blind.



you are in big trouble if that was the best you got. cant deny reality. fact is japan was last to control and everyone knew it, no argument. your claims can be as fantastic as you want, the fact still remains right after japan surrendered, ROC took the taiping in 1945. just look at reality. even forget what governments say because i had several links besides vietnam agreeing with China's claims. btw, you never showed ONE example of another country stating quite flatly they agree with vietnams claims. i did. direct quotes from ministry of affairs from both Soviets and Burma and Viet letter. you have a distortion of the 17th parallel.


how can you claim sovereignty over a group of islands, when SOMEBODY ELSE had control of the BIGGEST and ONLY fresh water island since 1945?

how can you claim all these international recognition and not have ONE quote from a foreign affairs minister saying so?

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 24 2011, 08:55 PM