UNCLOS > historical records

Case law (even if it is quite old case law) in terms of the Palmas case is also on the side of the Philippines because in practice they exercise sovereignty over the Scarborough Shoal.

Make it a UN protectorate.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eO8o9_rI154/Tw4x1NQg0EI/AAAAAAAAAnk/QeUJsEsqgMg/s1600/gus-psyche-popcorn.gif

International law does not matter in this case. It all depends on who has more muscle.

really? how so?

Because if China takes over the shoals de facto, no-one is seriously going to declare war on China. The Philippines couldn't win, and the Americans probably are going to make noises but do nothing either.

But China isn't willing to call that bluff and find out if the US/UN will intervene or not, so it will continue in a sort of stalemate. Especially as China needs to maintain it's position in the UN and keep what support it gets. Alienating the rest of the UN would *not* serve China's overall interests and China knows that.

It is the world which is china is against if he does not follow International law.
China does not have enough reasons to invade the shoal.
try reading this
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/7319/why-china-will-not-bring-the-spratlys-issue-to-the-united-nations

That's true but neither will China just sit herself down and concede the shoals.

As I said, it will be a sort of stalemate. A war of words or a cold war as it were, but I seriously doubt China would ever push it to being a hot war. She is too invested in the US to have to fight the war machine she essentially owns.

I don't think China will try anything militarily. If this thing heats up, the US will park the Seventh Fleet next to that rock and that will be that.

The side that wins the dispute on the disputed islands of the South China Sea will also be the side that prevails in history over the other, I predict.

China, in my view, is not going to risk a confrontation. Some elements in China appear to want to but I think for now they are still unwilling to up the ante. Maybe in five years.

I dont specifically know the issue to be honest but I do not agree with UNCLOS > historical records approach.

If china says "my historical records shows that it is mine", that means that UNCLOS is not actually applicable as it is a part of China.

This is similar to disputes between TUrkey and Greece. Both says the islands between them belongs to themselves. Moreover, they get into military confrontations as well. Both sides landed soldiers and put their flags in some islands, after a while other side do the same... A lots of threats and "casus belli"s claimed....

In the end, non of them declared war against other officially for a century and the disputes remain just as the way they were a century ago...

We need a new international agreement for the exploitation of natural resources of the sea. Be the oil/mining or fishing, the current system is largely based on brute force and land ownership (which can be easily assessed based on resident citizens)

Current international law should be dumped in favour of developing a new fresh agreement which reflects modern needs and concerns.

I don't see anything wrong with the current system. What needs to be better is a stronger and more independent and legitimized international maritime court. As well as a better court for these kinds of territory disputes. It's a lot to ask, of course, but we'll never ascend from the dark ages that is international politics until there can be a truly just and legitimate international law regime which has neutral enforcement.

I just did this topic for a final paper, so let me tell you all a bit of what I found in my research.

Let's put gas and oil exploitation aside for a second and just look at some territorial claims. In the early 20th century Chinese naval mapmakers included the entire South China Sea as their territory. This is the first written recording of the historical claims, and the Spratlys, Paracels, etc. were under the governance of Guangdong province (later transferred to Hainan province). However, the French claimed many of the islands as well and after WW2, many French and ROC troops were on the islands. Now in come the PRC.

The PRC officially claimed the area in a declaration in 1958. Throughout the 60s, China forcibly took back most of the ROC/Taiwanese controlled islands, and all French claims were transferred to Vietnamese control. Where Vietnam's claims come from is the 1951 San Francisco post-war conference, where they claimed the lands and the delegation unanimously voted to grant them the claims, even though PRC wasn't represented there. The Filipino claims are mostly fabricated, stemming back to only 1976 or so, though a Filipino explorer had privately claimed the islands for himself two decades earlier.

As South Vietnam collapsed, the PRC invaded a few of their islands and took them before a unified Vietnam could defend them. China later had a naval battle in the late 80s with Vietnam over some of the same islands.

So that history aside, the USA and Japan will probably only step in if there is a threat to international trade. They haven't stepped in before, and they probably won't step in in the future.

Nothing wrong? So, artificial claims and island invasions - not because valuable ports will allow the resupply of naval units and thus grant defacto control - but because international law and convention automatically grants exclusive rights to the owner of any piece of rock, these claims are infact a great example of the success of international relations, not a messed up system left to us by a history which is, by-and-large no longer relevant?

If you think international relations has changed much at all in the last two hundred, even three hundred years, you'd be wrong about that.

The laws make sense - if you own an island, you should be able to prove it. Living on it is one way of demonstrating that you're serious about owning the island.

Imagine if a large continent in the South Atlantic rose out of the sea. No one is there. Who should have claim to it? Pretty much whoever gets there first and can demonstrate more than just verbal claim - a settlement for instance.

In that specific case there would probably be some treaty signed by most countries akin to the Antarctic Treaty but you see my point. I don't see how this system could/should be changed, except to codify and enforce it better and more justly.

I think America will intervene sooner than that. The Phillipines and America have had a very strong military and diplomatic alliance for many years. We liberated them from the Spanish AND the Japanese, after all. Also, I think there is growing distrust and some outright anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States, especially recently. Never underestimate the will of the American people. If we *really* don't like someone, we usually end up bombing and invading them.

Couple that with rumors of anti-communist dissent inside the PRC, and you have one hell of a recipe for at least a regional shooting war, if not more.

Lol, liberated the Phillipines from the Spanish. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands that died during the occupation.

But yes, there is large anti-CCP sentiment inside China, I don't think China or America will go to war soon, but time is on China's side.

Gunfighter06: Liberated from the Spanish? There are about a million things you could read that would make that statement look ridiculous in the extreme, but I recommend to you The Imperial Cruise, by James Bradley.

He is right that we have a strong relationship though, as most former colonies do. We would fight hard to keep them in our sphere of influence.

Thucydides: You maintain control that just as easily by telling the Phillipines to back down, though.

control that just --> control just

Well, to be fair, our occupation was more benign than the Spanish occupation.

And we kicked the Japanese out, so that makes up for it.

@thucy: i wasn't talking about land claims. That system is fine. I'm talking about claiming island to get the surrounding sea territory.

It would be better to find an alternative legal system for determining rights to exploit sea-based resources. Though i can see the strenght of this kind of legal system for small island nations protecting their own fishing rights, i doubt this is enforcable without militrary(naval) force, and thus rather pointless...

No kicking the Japanese out can't make up for wrongs. Two wrongs don't make a right.

how about three wrongs???