- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by abramicus at 2013-1-27 04:35|
st_jb Post time: 2013-1-26 22:11
Again, you did not answer the question. So I have to repeat it again in here...
If China has all ...
AS SAID, THE GREEDY PHILIPPINE LAND GRABBERS VIEW THE CHINESE AS POOR, HELPLESS, UNEDUCATED PEASANTS THEY COULD FOOL BY PLAYING WITH WORDS, INTIMIDATE BY SHOW OF FORCE GATHERED FROM HER ALLIES FAR AND NEAR, AND CONDEMN BY STAGING TRIALS WITHOUT BASIS.
The simple answer to your convoluted question is this. China opted to use UNCLOS rules in regard to Japanese infringement on Chinese sovereign territory does not deprive Japan of its right to refuse such artibration. If Japan accepted such arbitration, then the ITLOS ruling would be binding by force of treaty. If China opted to reject the Philippine demand for ITLOS artibtration, it is exercising the SAME RIGHT THAT JAPAN HAS, precisely because the acceptance or rejection of ITLOS arbitration is a right of any country whose sovereignty is being questioned. Japan's rejection of such arbitration by ITLOS proves that China actually enjoys the same right as a defendant being unfairly accused by the Philippines, on matters of sovereignty.
There is no contradiction in that Japan and China are not one and the same actor. China did not contradict itself in the same position as a defendant. China acted as a plaintiff in one, and a defendant in the other, and each role has its own obligations and its own rights. Furthermore, China's declaration of its sovereign maritime boundaries is not even an appeal for arbitration, it will become the basis for any future arbitration if Japan wishes to know what China actually claims in terms of maritime sovereignty.
As a plaintiff against Japan, China has even more historical evidence showing how Japan stole the islands from China in 1895 when it was first named that stupid translation of the idiotic British term for "Pinnacle Islands" (what a stupid term for people who have no idea that its wealth was in the fish around its waters). And by drawing a parallel with opposite colors to the defendants and plaintiffs, you have illustrated that the Philippine position on Huangyan is light-years away from the strength of China's claim on Diaoyudao. And if Japan accepts, it is because the weight of evidence that China marshalled is beyond reproach, but of course, the Japanese have rejected it and PROVED THAT CHINA HAS THAT RIGHT NO LESS.
THE PHILIPPINE SIDE LIKES TO DRAW PARALLELS AND MIX UP THE ROLES OF THE COUNTRIES IN THEIR "HISTORICAL EXAMPLES" WHICH END UP CONTRADICTING THEIR OWN POSITION, WHICH IS TO DEPRIVE CHINA OF ITS RIGHT TO REJECT MANDATORY ARBITRATION ON MATTERS OF ITS SOVEREIGNTY. THIS RIGHT IS THE RIGHT OF A COUNTRY BEING ACCUSED. IT IS PERFECTLY FINE FOR ANY COUNTRY TO OFFER ARBITRATION TO RESOLVE DISPUTES. CHINA'S OFFERING ARBITRATION DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITS RIGHT TO REJECT ARBITRATION, UNDER THE RULES OF UNCLOS. FURTHERMORE, ITS ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF ANY ONE PARTICULAR OFFER FOR ARBITRATION ON MATTERS OF SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT BINDING ON CHINA TO DO THE SAME FOR EVERY OTHER CASE REGARDING ITS SOVEREIGNTY, BECAUSE AS SPECIFIED IN UNCLOS, THIS RIGHT EXISTS FOR EVERY SINGLE OFFER OF ARBITRATION, AND DOES NOT ALTER THE TERMS OF THE TREATY ITSELF.