MANILA: China to Philippines: Quit Sc...

MANILA: China to Philippines: Quit Scarborough Shoal

There are 15227 comments on the Asia News Network story from Apr 18, 2012, titled MANILA: China to Philippines: Quit Scarborough Shoal. In it, Asia News Network reports that:

China has asked all Philippine vessels to leave immediately Scarborough Shoal and sent a second aircraft buzzing over the area to scare away Filipino fishermen, officials said yesterday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asia News Network.

Since: Aug 08

Shanghai, China

#13531 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
<quoted text>
They bushiiting, and lack of knowledge!
Bluff is what low iq people do
Australian

Melbourne, Australia

#13533 Sep 21, 2012
During the era of the WW2 Japan had control over the entire S. China Sea and established military bases on some islands therein. From the legal perspective of the Westerners, the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945 legitimized the transfer of the sovereignty of S. China Sea back to China by returning to it all territories stolen by the Japanese through armed invasion. The returned territories included "Manchuria, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands." At that time, Japan put the Nansha Islands under the jurisdiction of Taiwan. Therefore, Nansha A. was legally returned to China together with Taiwan under the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945. But, of course, China did not need these declaration and proclamation to establish its sovereignty over S. China Sea. China had already established sovereignty over S. China Sea starting in the Tang Dynasty. Regardless of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, China by itself has the sovereign right to recover its possessions and establish control over them.
Australian

Melbourne, Australia

#13534 Sep 21, 2012
dzhou wrote:
<quoted text>
Bluff is what low iq people do
They tried talked about Prehistory, it is so funny! they still not understand what is Prehistory or history are! They so dump!
jvifxvjdljl

North Point, Hong Kong

#13535 Sep 21, 2012
austronesian guy is a barbaric moron
Australian

Melbourne, Australia

#13536 Sep 21, 2012
jvifxvjdljl wrote:
austronesian guy is a barbaric moron
agree! ever never seen too! He is unbelievable! I think he searching for rubish.

Since: Aug 08

Shanghai, China

#13537 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
<quoted text>
They tried talked about Prehistory, it is so funny! they still not understand what is Prehistory or history are! They so dump!
They were still monkeys up on trees prehistory
Australian

Melbourne, Australia

#13538 Sep 21, 2012
monkeys up on banana trees, now the monkey want to get in the sea. So funny!
Mahoney

Lane Cove, Australia

#13540 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
During the era of the WW2 Japan had control over the entire S. China Sea and established military bases on some islands therein. From the legal perspective of the Westerners, the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945 legitimized the transfer of the sovereignty of S. China Sea back to China by returning to it all territories stolen by the Japanese through armed invasion. The returned territories included "Manchuria, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands." At that time, Japan put the Nansha Islands under the jurisdiction of Taiwan. Therefore, Nansha A. was legally returned to China together with Taiwan under the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945. But, of course, China did not need these declaration and proclamation to establish its sovereignty over S. China Sea. China had already established sovereignty over S. China Sea starting in the Tang Dynasty. Regardless of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, China by itself has the sovereign right to recover its possessions and establish control over them.
Now I know the truth. Thanks mate.
Stranger

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

#13541 Sep 21, 2012
LITEY wrote:
Why are you Darkies so dark?
lol
You're just making a bad name for Chinese, heavily involved in Africa. Your joke isn't innocent.why this joke now? Because Chinese are in Africa.
excartpuller

Saint Paul, MN

#13542 Sep 21, 2012
Joking is not in chinese customs he is trying to be nasty preying on human imperfections but only to reflect their standings a the merchant of the world. Boycott nasty chinks inferior corrupted exports.

“CCP Troll”

Since: Nov 08

Hebei, China

#13543 Sep 21, 2012
dzhou wrote:
<quoted text>
They were still monkeys up on trees prehistory
Yesterday was prehistory?
old china

Chengdu, China

#13544 Sep 21, 2012
uncle fargo wrote:
<quoted text>Yesterday was prehistory?
Aparently for some!
excartpuller

Saint Paul, MN

#13545 Sep 21, 2012
No one can jaw jaw supremacist chinks its all your world and all your topix. So long gooks greedy chinks.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#13546 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
Philippines have 4 bushiits to claim the territories:
1. Phil bushiit prehistory, why it is bushiit? because Prehistory need fossils or evidences to prove the true, secondly in Champa people were came from malaysia and not direct from Phil (in Champa history). Phil imagination their ancestors found it first, but couldnt lived on it and abandoned it and not went back anymore. Also they dont have any evidence or document or history to prove and dont have fossils too. So the chinese found it and lived on it and used it, also chinese established the sovereignty over it.
2. Filipinos think noone allow to have the islands proximity to their territories sea, but in the world a lots of countries have the territories in another country territory sea, such as Australia Chrismas islands and greece also have the island proximity to Turkey and ECT... Also the UNCLOS only for claim water territory. Filipinos thinking too much about greedy!
3. The countries allow to have 200nm economic zone and others allow to free navigation, Philippine use EEZ to claim sovereignty is illegal and other have the right to use military force to against its unlawful baseline.
4. Philippine destroyed chinese monuments of sovereignty and tried to force china vessels out of their EEZ but they failed it. And they bushiit to the world chinese bullied them.
First of All your 9 dash claim is the BULLSHEIT

No International Law Supports it.

1. Hahah the people who settled in CHAMPA came from TAIWAN.

Don't be in denial, you know yourself that the AUSTRONESIANS RULED the South CHINA Sea.

The Chinese only went there is 1279. How Recent! The Austronesians have been crossing the SEA thousands of YEARS before the CHINESE learned HOW TO SEA Navigate

The Scientists and Historians will laugh at you if you say the CHINESE ruled ANCIENT South China Sea haha

2. Australia Chrismas islands..... How many times do I have to tell you that proximity is not the ONLY INTERNATIONAL LAW we are USING.

Effective Jurisdiction also. Australia owns Christmas Islands because they have effective jurisdiction and NOT PROXIMITY.

China never PHYSICALLY controlled the ISLANDS. The Philippines has been CONTROLING the Islands since prehistory to the Philippine colonization up to PRESENT!

There's a lot of evidences that can attest to that.

3. Under UNCLOS, specifically the Archipelagic Doctrine, the Philippines CLAIM is LEGAL!

and NO INTERNATIONAL LAW supports CHINA'S 9 dash claim

4. The Philippines has the RIGHT to remove those Chinese markers that were put by Illegal fishermen who fishes in its "EXCLUSIVE" economic zone ILLEGAL.

again NO INTERNATIONAL LAW supports CHINA'S 9 dash claim!

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#13547 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
<quoted text>
UN receipt these maps and said, these maps not useful because China have a lots of maps can prove it. If china dont have any map to prove these maps can be use, but china have it so these maps are helpless.
I am sorry but the world KNOWS that CHINA never PHYSICALLY Controlled the Islands

The Philippines has maintained effective jurisdiction from prehistory up to the MODERN DAY!

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#13548 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
Another bushiit EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION! Filipinos thought the EEZ exist can help them controll over other's territories. The Huangyan/Scarnorough is in the EEZ of Philippine, but under the law every country have free navigation in there. Also so Japan returned it to china, US knew about it.
China had already established its sovereign sea boundaries since ancient times and have historical documents to validate them and French history can verified it. Chinese used it since ancient time til present time, Chinese fishermen had been builded terminals and other facilities on Huangyan/Scarborough and The Chinese government in recent years and has sent a scientific expedition to the Huangyan Island to inspect. In October 1977, South China Sea Institute personnel boarded the Huangyan Island expedition. In June 1978, on the staff again went to the Huangyan Island to inspect. In April 1985 by the organization of the South China Sea Branch of the State Oceanic Administration expedition boarded Huangyan Island and the implementation of the comprehensive survey. In 1994, the South China Sea, a scientific expedition arrived in Huangyan Island to inspect and set up a 1-meter-high concrete monument on the island. From the 1970s onwards, the Chinese government accepted and approved the application of a number of international radio enthusiasts landed on the island adventure, and before 1997, the Philippines has never been on the Chinese government to exercise sovereignty over the Huangyan Island jurisdiction raised any objection, and also repeatedly said that Huangyan Island in the Philippine territory outside the scope of.
No matter what you say, NO INTERNATIONAL LAW SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM

The Philippines has maintained effective jurisdiction

UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION IS STRONGER THAN DISCOVERY!!!

------

Acquisition of sovereignty UNDER International Law

1. Effective occupation - Occupation is the effective control of territory exercised by a power with no sovereign title to the land, whether in defiance or absence of a proper sovereign.

In the case of Mexico and France over Clipperton Island:

It is beyond doubt that by immemorial usage having the force of law, besides the animus occupandi, the actual, and not the nominal, taking of possession is a necessary condition of occupation. This taking of possession consists in the act, or series of acts, by which the occupying state reduces to its possession the territory in question and takes steps to exercise exclusive authority there.

----

see UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

the "actual", and not the nominal, taking of possession is a necessary condition of occupation.

China never ACTUALLY CONTROLLED THE ISLANDS!

Thats why you are scared of the COURT!

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#13549 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
Filipinos bushiiting is a vain hope!
Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/te...
And Japan returned it to China in 1946, and in 1956 Chinese established the monuments of the sovereignty on the islands.
International Law and the Philippines' Claim

4. The possession of an unoccupied territory

The territory must not have an owner (res nullius), or it has been abandoned (res derelicta).

Treaty of San Francisco (1951) Japan surrendered all its illegally occupied territories.

People's Republic of China Objections to the Treaty:

September 18, 1951 the Peoples Republic of China published statements denouncing the treaty, stating that it was illegal and should not be recognized. Besides their general exclusion from the negotiation process, the PRC claimed that the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Pratas Islands in the South Pacific were actually part of China. The treaty either did not address these islands, or in the case of the Pratas Islands turned them over to the United Nations.

1951: At the San Francisco Conference, the Peace Agreement with Japan did not state clearly which country had sovereignty over the islands. None of the 51 countries participated protested. The USSR proposed that the two archipelagos be given to China, but it was rejected with 46 votes against, 3 votes for.

Again

The Japanese Government surrendered and did not designate the Islands to a SPECIFIC COUNTRY making it TERRA NULLIUS (land belonging to no one).

In May 1956, Tomas Cloma, a Filipino FIRST CLAIMED and OCCUPIED THE ISLANDS PHYSICALLY after JAPAN SURRENDERED. Observing that there was no human settlement nor national flag present on them, he decided to establish the Kalayaan state. He posted a document in English, entitled Notice to the Whole World, on all features he claimed.

In September 1956 (4 months after Cloma announcement), after the Republic of China occupied the largest island, Ligao Island (Itu Aba),Tomas Cloma decided to cede and sell all the territories of his state to the Philippines for just one peso (US$0.50 of the time).

---

Cairo Declaration (1943) did not give the Islands to China

The main points of the document were:

The Allies are not fighting Japan for their own territorial expansion.
The Allies are resolved to bring unrelenting military pressure against Japan until it agrees to unconditional surrender.
All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China.
The Allies are determined that Korea shall become free and independent.
Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.

Where are the WORDS Scarborough and Spratlys?

------
Treaty of Peace 1952

Article 2

"It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands."

Again did the treaty mention Japan is giving the ISLANDS including Scarborough back to CHINA?

NO!! It said based on TREATY OF SAN FRANCISCO, and based on the said treat, Japan did not designate the Islands to any Country making it RES NULLIUS! Japan abandoned the Islands.

The Philippines first CLAIM the ISLANDS PHYSICALLY and is CURRENTLY ADMINISTERING MOST OF THE ISLANDS, demonstrating EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION.

Based on the Treaty of San Francisco, Treaty of Peace, Post Dam Declaration, and Cairo Declaration, JAPAN did not give the Island to China, therefore, China's Spratly and Scarborough claims are ILLEGAL!

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#13550 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
The world did not recognited it belong to Phil: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/3754/t1923...
Japan returned it to china were in fron of the world.
Treaty of San Francisco (1951) Japan surrendered all its illegally occupied territories.

People's Republic of China Objections to the Treaty:

September 18, 1951 the Peoples Republic of China published statements denouncing the treaty, stating that it was illegal and should not be recognized. Besides their general exclusion from the negotiation process, the PRC claimed that the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Pratas Islands in the South Pacific were actually part of China. The treaty either did not address these islands, or in the case of the Pratas Islands turned them over to the United Nations.

1951: At the San Francisco Conference, the Peace Agreement with Japan did not state clearly which country had sovereignty over the islands. None of the 51 countries participated protested. The USSR proposed that the two archipelagos be given to China, but it was rejected with 46 votes against, 3 votes for.

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#13551 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
<quoted text>
They bushiiting, and lack of knowledge!
Look who's talking

Historians will laugh at you if you say CHINA ruled and discovered FIRST the SOUTH CHINA SEA!

According to TRUE HISTORY the Austronesians RULED the SOUTH CHINA SEA.

The Austronesians were able to conquer MOST OF THE PACIFIC ISLANS

while the CHINESE were THE LATE NAVIGATORS!

The Austronesians have been sailing the South CHINA SEA thousands of YEARS ago before HANS learned SEA NAVIGATION!

YOU cannot distort HISTORY!

Scientists and Historians confirmed that the SOUTH CHINA SEA was ruled by the Austronesians during PRE HISTORY

and

NO INTERNATIONAL LAW SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM

ALSO

NO COUNTRY SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM!

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#13552 Sep 21, 2012
Australian wrote:
During the era of the WW2 Japan had control over the entire S. China Sea and established military eturned to China together with Taiwan under the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945. But, of course, China did not need these declaration and proclamation to establish its sovereignty over S. China Sea. China had already established s
International Law and the Philippines' Claim

4. The possession of an unoccupied territory

The territory must not have an owner (res nullius), or it has been abandoned (res derelicta).

Treaty of San Francisco (1951) Japan surrendered all its illegally occupied territories.

People's Republic of China Objections to the Treaty:

September 18, 1951 the Peoples Republic of China published statements denouncing the treaty, stating that it was illegal and should not be recognized. Besides their general exclusion from the negotiation process, the PRC claimed that the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Pratas Islands in the South Pacific were actually part of China. The treaty either did not address these islands, or in the case of the Pratas Islands turned them over to the United Nations.

1951: At the San Francisco Conference, the Peace Agreement with Japan did not state clearly which country had sovereignty over the islands. None of the 51 countries participated protested. The USSR proposed that the two archipelagos be given to China, but it was rejected with 46 votes against, 3 votes for.

Again

The Japanese Government surrendered and did not designate the Islands to a SPECIFIC COUNTRY making it TERRA NULLIUS (land belonging to no one).

In May 1956, Tomas Cloma, a Filipino FIRST CLAIMED and OCCUPIED THE ISLANDS PHYSICALLY after JAPAN SURRENDERED. Observing that there was no human settlement nor national flag present on them, he decided to establish the Kalayaan state. He posted a document in English, entitled Notice to the Whole World, on all features he claimed.

In September 1956 (4 months after Cloma announcement), after the Republic of China occupied the largest island, Ligao Island (Itu Aba),Tomas Cloma decided to cede and sell all the territories of his state to the Philippines for just one peso (US$0.50 of the time).

---

Cairo Declaration (1943) did not give the Islands to China

The main points of the document were:

The Allies are not fighting Japan for their own territorial expansion.
The Allies are resolved to bring unrelenting military pressure against Japan until it agrees to unconditional surrender.
All territories Japan had won from China, such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China.
The Allies are determined that Korea shall become free and independent.
Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.

Where are the WORDS Scarborough and Spratlys?

------
Treaty of Peace 1952

Article 2

"It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands."

Again did the treaty mention Japan is giving the ISLANDS including Scarborough back to CHINA?

NO!! It said based on TREATY OF SAN FRANCISCO, and based on the said treat, Japan did not designate the Islands to any Country making it RES NULLIUS! Japan abandoned the Islands.

The Philippines first CLAIM the ISLANDS PHYSICALLY and is CURRENTLY ADMINISTERING MOST OF THE ISLANDS, demonstrating EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION.

Based on the Treaty of San Francisco, Treaty of Peace, Post Dam Declaration, and Cairo Declaration, JAPAN did not give the Island to China, therefore, China's Spratly and Scarborough claims are ILLEGAL!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Beijing, China Travel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Chinese media outlet uses racial slur at US envoy (Feb '14) Aug 2 Shucks 2
News Half-naked 'Spartans' attract attention of Beij... Jul '15 Kid_Tomorrow 2
News There's more to Russia-China relations than mee... Jun '15 Stephany McDowell 1
News Eurasia Express' to link Korea, Europe May '15 John 1
News Chinese tourists pose for pictures at Art in Pa... Apr '15 The Ugly American 1
News Bolivian President to Sue US Govt for Crimes ag... (Sep '13) Mar '15 swedenforever 24
News Relatives press for new Malaysia plane search plan (May '14) Mar '15 ibu halima 10
More from around the web