- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 99 Hour
- Reading permission
The PCA's ruling on 12 July 2016 was biased and it violated Unclos' own provisions that it has no jurisdiction on matters pertaining to sovereignty and on compulsory arbitration pertaining to delimitation, already excluded by China in 2006, under Article 298. Therefore, the PCA's ruling is null and void. |
China has the moral high ground and should ignore the ruling but extend a friendly hand to the Philippines to hold talks to resolve the disputes peacefully, to mutual satisfaction.
These binding Treaties confirm that the Nansha (Spratly) and Xisha (Paracel) islands belong to China without any shadow of a doubt (Shame on the Tribunal at the Hague for ignoring them):
1 In 1945 a defeated Japan pledged to honor the 1945 Postdam Declaration and the Terms of the 1943 Cairo Conference that Japan returned all territories stolen from China, through ‘greed and violence.’
2 Japan returned Formosa, the Pescadores and appertaining islands as well as the Spratly and Paracel islands back to the Republic of China, on 28 April 1952, under the Treaty of Peace, by extension to China under the one-China policy, recognized by all 10 Asean nations, the US, Russia, Japan, both Koreas, NZ and Australia.
3 The 1898 Treaty of Paris, the 1900 Treaty of Washington and the 1930 Convention between the United States and Great Britain, all described the western limit of the Philippine territory as 118 degrees East longitude.
4 China’s Nansha (Spratly), Xisha(Paracel), Dongsha (Pratas) and Zhongsha islands, which include the Macclesfield bank and Huangyan Dao (Scarborough shoal) are all due West of that 118 degrees East longitude.