Greedy and bully China wants Scarboro...
Snowflake

San Francisco, CA

#133 Jan 8, 2013
SS, no more saber rattling, the Chinese again have bribed and bought out the gov't, money rules. The Chinese are shrewd, they know that they are not good fighters so they pay ppl off.
MAHATMA

Brooklyn, NY

#134 Jan 9, 2013
Chinese love non violence.
History

Edmonton, Canada

#135 Jan 9, 2013
Austronesian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
(2)
Third
After the TREATY OF PARIS WAS SIGNED,
THE ISLANDS REMAINED PART OF THE PHILIPPINES AND NOT CHINA!
China never controlled the Islands!
You fall into your own trap of (illogical) reasoning. That is why I wrote the sentences that you responded to.

First, not only one treaty is involved in this case. Do not ignore other facts please.

Second, read what the Filipino constitution says about your border. You always mention legal settlement and international court. The court indeed will assess your constitutional sources which clearly indicate that the Philippines does not own the Scarborough Shoal which is on the left-side of the 118 degree longitudinal line.

You keep blaming China of not going to court with you. Why would China do it? You tell China to jump. Should China respond by saying "How High?" Not only China would not. Russia, USA, and South Korea won't either in their cases of land conflicts. USA, though trying hard to help stir up trouble in the South China Sea, refuses to endorse the UNCLOS. Is it clear what USA has in its mind? Double standards.

What if a country is so silly to go along with the demand of another aggressor? More people will come over to tell them that their sovereign land is "mine" but not theirs. Someone refers this to "Filipino Mining."
History

Edmonton, Canada

#137 Jan 9, 2013
Austronesian Guy and assoicates always use flawed logic and hearsays to confound the issue further.

May I suggest you to do the following:

1. Find the pages of the several treaties and your constitutional documents which prove your sovereignty claims of the Spratlys.

2. Or find the pages of such documents which say the 118 degree line does not exist.

** Then show the evidence to everyone here.

If you are a Filipino you should have access to such documents in your libraries or govt archives. If you don't and you have no knowledge of such documents, you should shut up.

I have access to these documents in university libraries overseas.

----------
You logic is flawed.

1. You also try to justify your claim by resorting to the proximity of Scarborough Shaol/Huang Yan Island to the Philippines. But proximity is only one of so many factors to consider to determine sovereignty. Otherwise, why the Falklands belong to Great Britain but not Argentina, and why Alaska does not belong to Canada but to the USA.

2. Many people in the Philippines deliberately twisted the meaning of UNCLOS. In fact, UNCLOS does not replace restropectively the evidence of sovereignty established before UNCLOS is enacted. It has no authority to address such land claims made by the Philippines since PR of China and ROC/Taiwan have made explicit and consistent claims decades or centuries ago (during dynastic rule) while the Philippines did the opposite. The constitutional documents of the Philippines explicitly said that the border for the Philippines is at the 118 degree east longitudinal line. The Philippines did nothing to address this legal basis for the land claim until 2009 while China and Taiwan have already made explicit and consistent claims in their legal documents of the Spratlys for decades. PR China and ROC have much stronger continuous legal basis for their land claims.

3. In fact, UNCLOS has no authority over the land conflicts involving the Philippines which was willing to sign/endorse the UNCLOS only after including major modification paragraphs. Such modifications explicitly restricted the legitimacy of UNCLOS whenever land claims arise against the Philippines.

Filipinos, you cannot have things both ways. You cannot have it your way all the time to maximise your benefits at the expense of your neighbours.

That is why despite your negative campaign all over the world against China, not many countries support you in this incident. You have lost credibility.
History

Edmonton, Canada

#138 Jan 9, 2013
In the global badmouthing campaign against China, the Philippines resorted to the trick of pretending to be a victim.

In fact, the Philippines is the country which dispatched navy ships and marines to harrass and capture unarmed civilian Chinese fishermen.

China cannot longer put up with it. Thus China sent to the Scarborough Shoal/Huang Yan Island unarmed civilian "China Marine Surveillance" and "China Fishery Administration" patrol ships to protect Chinese fishermen from the harrassment of heavily armed Filipino soldiers.

But in all Filipino propaganda, they call these unarmed Chinese administrative ships "PLA navy". That is wrong and is a huge distortion of facts.

China has been consistent in its practices - sending only unarmed CMS and fishery patrols against Filipino navy.

Tasmaniac

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#139 Jan 9, 2013
Ni Shuo Sha wrote:
So England can have Falkland Islands that ok? But China cant have its own territory from thousand years ago? Who is the bully?
It's up to the Falkland Islands. They have chosen to stay with the Brits

Tasmaniac

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#140 Jan 9, 2013
All western countries will defend the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia from the dirty Chinese so don't worry. If China tries to do anything, they will lose the manufacturing jobs we sent there and they will be back to being dirty, rice growing peasants again...
attila the Han

Helensvale, Australia

#141 Jan 9, 2013
get off huangyan island!!! or china to support moro insurgence. tehetehe

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#142 Jan 9, 2013
MAHATMA wrote:
Chinese love non violence.
Chinese love NON VIOLENCE?

Then tell China to go to the

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

OR TO THE

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (ITLOS)

to resolve the dispute in a PEACEFUL WAY!

But I think they are scared because they know that they will not win.

LMAO!

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#143 Jan 9, 2013
attila the Han wrote:
get off huangyan island!!! or china to support moro insurgence. tehetehe
First of all Scarborough Shoal is NOT AN ISLAND.

Secondly, no country recognizes the NAME Huangyan

lol!

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#144 Jan 9, 2013
History wrote:
<quoted text>You fall into your own trap of (illogical) reasoning. That is why I wrote the sentences that you responded to.
First, not only one treaty is involved in this case. Do not ignore other facts please.
Second, read what the Filipino constitution says about your border. You always mention legal settlement and international court. The court indeed will assess your constitutional sources which clearly indicate that the Philippines does not own the Scarborough Shoal which is on the left-side of the 118 degree longitudinal line.
You keep blaming China of not going to court with you. Why would China do it? You tell China to jump. Should China respond by saying "How High?" Not only China would not. Russia, USA, and South Korea won't either in their cases of land conflicts. USA, though trying hard to help stir up trouble in the South China Sea, refuses to endorse the UNCLOS. Is it clear what USA has in its mind? Double standards.
What if a country is so silly to go along with the demand of another aggressor? More people will come over to tell them that their sovereign land is "mine" but not theirs. Someone refers this to "Filipino Mining."
Again I will not back out in my stand.

THE 118 degree longitudinal line WILL NOT HELP CHINA WIN THE CASE.

THE 118 degree longitudinal line is OF NO CONSEQUENCE to the Philippines

READ THIS POST CAREFULLY.

WARNING: THIS POST WILL SHUT YOUR MOUTH

----------

INTERNATIONAL COURT CASE

INVOLVING

THE 118 degree longitudinal line.

Palmas/ Miangas Island Case

US (for the Philippines) VERSUS Netherlands (for Indonesia)

Palmas/ Miangas Island is now part of Indonesia.

The court favored the NETHERLANDS because of EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION.

The Palmas/ Miangas Island was INCLUDED in the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the USA as PART OF THE PHILIPPINES.

But the court favored THE NETHERLANDS because of EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION.

THE TREATY OF PARIS IS OF NO CONSEQUENCES

AGAIN

THE TREATY OF PARIS IS OF NO CONSEQUENCES

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT FAVORED

EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION

OVER

THE TREATY OF PARIS

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_II/...

----

Read the UN International Court Arbitrator's decision below:

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#145 Jan 9, 2013
History wrote:
<quoted text>You
Palmas/ Miangas Island Case

The Arbitrator's decision

Arbitrator Max Huber ruled in favor of the Netherlands’ position and stated that the Netherlands held actual title to Palmas:

For these reasons

The Arbitrator in conformity with Article I of the Special Agreement of January 23rd, 1925 DECIDES that : THE ISLAND OF PALMAS (or MIANGAS) forms in its entirety a part of the Netherlands territory. done at The Hague, this fourth day of April 1928. Max Huber, Arbitrator
Michiels van Verduynen, Secretary-General.

Right by discovery

In the first of its two arguments, the United States argued that it held the island because it had received actual title through legitimate treaties from the original "discoverer" of the island, Spain. The United States argued that Spain acquired title to Palmas when Spain discovered the island and the island was terra nullius. Spain's title to the island, because it was a part of the Philippines, was then ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1898) after Spain's defeat in the Spanish-American War. The arbitrator noted that no new international law invalidated the legal transfer of territory via cession.

However, the arbitrator noted that Spain could not legally grant what it did not hold and the Treaty of Paris could not grant Palmas to the United States if Spain had no actual title to it. The arbitrator concluded that Spain held an inchoate title when Spain “discovered” Palmas. However, for a sovereign to maintain its initial title via discovery, the arbitrator said that the discoverer had to actually exercise authority, even if it were as simple an act as planting a flag on the beach. In this case, Spain did not exercise authority over the island after making an initial claim after discovery and so the American claim was based on relatively weak grounds.
Contiguity

The United States also argued that Palmas was American territory because the island was closer to the Philippines than to the Netherlands East Indies. The arbitrator said there was no positive international law which favored the United States approach of terra firma, where the nearest continent or island of considerable size gives title to the land in dispute. The arbitrator held that mere proximity was not an adequate claim to land noted that if the international community followed the proposed American approach, it would lead to arbitrary results.
Continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty

The Netherlands' primary contention was that it held actual title because the Netherlands had exercised authority on the island since 1677. The arbitrator noted that the United States had failed to show documentation proving Spanish sovereignty on the island except those documents that specifically mentioned the island's discovery. Additionally, there was no evidence that Palmas was a part of the judicial or administrative organization of the Spanish government of the Philippines. However, the Netherlands showed that the Dutch East India Company had negotiated treaties with the local princes of the island since the 17th century and had exercised sovereignty, including a requirement of Protestantism and the denial of other nationals on the island. The arbitrator pointed out that if Spain had actually exercised authority, than there would have been conflicts between the two countries but none are provided in the evidence.
Conclusion

Under the Palmas decision, three important rules for resolving island territorial disputes were decided:

Firstly, title based on contiguity has no standing in international law.
Secondly, title by discovery is only an inchoate title.
Finally, if another sovereign begins to exercise continuous and actual sovereignty,(and the arbitrator required that the claim had to be open and public and with good title), and the discoverer does not contest this claim, the claim by the sovereign that exercises authority is greater than a title based on mere discovery.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Kitimat, Canada

#146 Jan 9, 2013
Tasmaniac wrote:
All western countries will defend the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia from the dirty Chinese so don't worry. If China tries to do anything, they will lose the manufacturing jobs we sent there and they will be back to being dirty, rice growing peasants again...
^
The Deal Is Simple. Australia Gets Money, China ...- Businessweek
www.businessweek.com/magazine/.../b4194044972... Sep 2010 – Every third Wednesday, Michael Box gets up at 3:30 in the morning to catch a flight out of Perth. Isolated in the south-west of Australia, Pert

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#147 Jan 9, 2013
History wrote:
<quoted text>You fall into your own trap of (illogical) reasoning. That is why I wrote the sentences that you responded to.
First, not only one treaty is involved in this case. Do not ignore other facts please.
Second, read what the Filipino constitution says about your border. You always mention legal settlement and international court. The court indeed will assess your constitutional sources which clearly indicate that the Philippines does not own the Scarborough Shoal which is on the left-side of the 118 degree longitudinal line.
You keep blaming China of not going to court with you. Why would China do it? You tell China to jump. Should China respond by saying "How High?" Not only China would not. Russia, USA, and South Korea won't either in their cases of land conflicts. USA, though trying hard to help stir up trouble in the South China Sea, refuses to endorse the UNCLOS. Is it clear what USA has in its mind? Double standards.
What if a country is so silly to go along with the demand of another aggressor? More people will come over to tell them that their sovereign land is "mine" but not theirs. Someone refers this to "Filipino Mining."
Palmas/ Miangas Island Case (1932)

To summarize:

The Philippines (Spain) "DISCOVERED" the Islands based on their HISTORY.

Using the TREATY OF PARIS (118 degree longitudinal line, Spain transferred the Island to the US (which was legal)

BUT

Indonesia (Netherlands) MAINTAINED "EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION"

So, the International Court favored INDONESIA (Netherlands)

That's why I keep telling you

HISTORICAL CLAIMS ARE NOT RECOGNIZED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

BASED ON THE ABOVE DATA

If China DISCOVERED Scarborough and the SPRATLYS FIRST(not true)

(like what SPAIN CLAIMED)

But the PHILIPPINES Maintained EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION (LIKE THE NETHERLANDS CLAIMED)

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE INTERNATIONAL COURT WILL DO?

Of course it will favor the Philippines' EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION over China's Historical claim.

Now SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND SLAP YOUR FACE!

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#149 Jan 9, 2013
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE wrote:
<quoted text>
^
The Deal Is Simple. Australia Gets Money, China ...- Businessweek
www.businessweek.com/magazine/.../b4194044972... Sep 2010 – Every third Wednesday, Michael Box gets up at 3:30 in the morning to catch a flight out of Perth. Isolated in the south-west of Australia, Pert
In the case of Scarborough shoal and the Spraltys, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction.

1. The Philippines currently controls 7 Spratly Islands, China has ZERO. China only controls reefs which are under water. Per UNCLOS, the waters above those reefs are part of the Philippines' EEZ. So China' is occupying the reefs illegally!

Scarborough Shoal - Chinese ships just recently started staying there, to be exact just since April 2012, which is more like a form of HARASSMENT rather than effective jurisdiction.

Though the Philippines hasn't sent their ships back, Philippine Aircrafts continue to fly around the area from time to time to exert sovereignty.

2. After the Treaty of Paris was signed, the Philippines under American rule decided a shipwreck case in the Scarborough shoal AND NOT CHINA! Showing Scarborough was under the Philippines Jurisdiction and Not CHINA during that time.

3. THE PHILIPPINES has ARRESTED A LOT OF ILLEGAL CHINESE, VIETNAMESE, AND TAIWANESE FISHERMEN IN SCARBOROUGH SHOAL WITHOUT ANY PROTEST FROM CHINA, VIETNAM OR TAIWAN. CHINA PROTESTED JUST RECENTLY.

SAME WITH THE SPRATLYS, THE PHILIPPINES HAS ARRESTED ILLEGAL CHINESE, VIETNAMESE, AND MALAYSIANS WITHOUT ANY PROTEST FROM THEIR RESPECTED COUNTIRES.

FACT: CHINA NEVER ARRESTED FILIPINO FISHERMEN IN THE DISPUTED ISLANDS.

THE PHILIPPINES HAS ALSO CAPTURED ILLEGAL CHINESE FISHING BOATS

4. The Philippine Supreme Court decided a case involving a shipwreck there and NOT CHINA. The shipwreck predates China’s 1935 claim.

5. THE PHILIPPINE NAVY AND COASTGUARD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PATROLLING THE ISLANDS.

6. Scarborough Shoal was also used as an impact range by Philippine and U.S. Naval Forces stationed in Subic Bay in Zambales for defense purposes.

FACT: CHINA NEVER PROTESTED.

7. The Phil. has also been conducting scientific, topographic, and marine studies in the disputed islands

8. Filipino fishermen have been fishing in the disputed areas since prehistory

9. The Philippines has a municipality in the disputed islands called Pag-Asa. You can find houses, a school, military posts, and other infrastructures.

See pictures below
http://i48.tinypic.com/34ffhpt.jpg - Elementary School
http://i45.tinypic.com/6zq0pi.jpg - Government Building
http://i50.tinypic.com/jif51l.jpg - Naval Station

10. Philippine Flag on Scarborough Shoal

http://i47.tinypic.com/33z68pc.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/2rrud61.jpg

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#150 Jan 9, 2013
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE wrote:
<quoted text>
^
The Deal Is Simple. Australia Gets Money, China ...- Businessweek
www.businessweek.com/magazine/.../b4194044972... Sep 2010 – Every third Wednesday, Michael Box gets up at 3:30 in the morning to catch a flight out of Perth. Isolated in the south-west of Australia, Pert
Evidence of Philippines Jurisdiction over Scarborough

The Philippine Supreme Court decided a case involving a shipwreck in Scarborough and NOT CHINA. The shipwreck predates China’s 1935 claim.

The Philippine Supreme Court (under American control) decided a case involving a shipwreck in Scarborough and NOT CHINA. The shipwreck predates China’s 1935 claim.

ERLANGER & GALINGER, Plaintiffs-Appellants , vs. THE SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.,(LTD.) ET AL., defendants. THE "OELWERKE TEUTONIA" and NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO.(LTD.), appellants.

The Philippines decided the CASE and NOT CHINA!

The lawsuit was decided by the Philippines’ top court in 1916 – led by Filipino Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano

A clear evidence that the Philippines was exercising jurisdiction over the shoal during that period.

This case is a proof that the Philippines was responsible to shipwrecks in the Scarborough

THE DECISION AND COPY OF THE CASE CAN BE VIEWED

HERE: http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurispr...

The Philippines Decided the CASE and NOT CHINA!

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#151 Jan 9, 2013
History wrote:
<quoted text>You fall into your own trap of (illogical) reasoning. That is why I wrote the sentences that you responded to.
First, not only one treaty is involved in this case. Do not ignore other facts please.
Second, read what the Filipino constitution says about your border. You always mention legal settlement and international court. The court indeed will assess your constitutional sources which clearly indicate that the Philippines does not own the Scarborough Shoal which is on the left-side of the 118 degree longitudinal line.
You keep blaming China of not going to court with you. Why would China do it? You tell China to jump. Should China respond by saying "How High?" Not only China would not. Russia, USA, and South Korea won't either in their cases of land conflicts. USA, though trying hard to help stir up trouble in the South China Sea, refuses to endorse the UNCLOS. Is it clear what USA has in its mind? Double standards.
What if a country is so silly to go along with the demand of another aggressor? More people will come over to tell them that their sovereign land is "mine" but not theirs. Someone refers this to "Filipino Mining."
Examples of International Court Cases favoring EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION

1. The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (France/United Kingdom)

France claimed sovereignty because they fished in the waters and their historic sovereignty over the area going back to the Duchy of Normandy in the eleventh Century

But the International Court favored the United Kingdom because of EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION.

Initially requested on 5 December 1951, the ICJ decided on 17 November 1953 that sovereignty over the islands belonged to the United Kingdom

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php...

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#152 Jan 9, 2013
History wrote:
<quoted text>You fall into your own trap of (illogical) reasoning. That is why I wrote the sentences that you responded to.
First, not only one treaty is involved in this case. Do not ignore other facts please.
Second, read what the Filipino constitution says about your border. You always mention legal settlement and international court. The court indeed will assess your constitutional sources which clearly indicate that the Philippines does not own the Scarborough Shoal which is on the left-side of the 118 degree longitudinal line.
You keep blaming China of not going to court with you. Why would China do it? You tell China to jump. Should China respond by saying "How High?" Not only China would not. Russia, USA, and South Korea won't either in their cases of land conflicts. USA, though trying hard to help stir up trouble in the South China Sea, refuses to endorse the UNCLOS. Is it clear what USA has in its mind? Double standards.
What if a country is so silly to go along with the demand of another aggressor? More people will come over to tell them that their sovereign land is "mine" but not theirs. Someone refers this to "Filipino Mining."
2. Examples of International Court Cases favoring EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION

Clipperton Island (Mexico-France), arbitration (decided 1931)

In the Clipperton Island case, Mexico argued that Clipperton island was the same known by Spain as Passion Island, Medano or Medanos Island, that the Spanish Navy had been DISCOVERED BEFORE the French Navy discovered it in 1711. However, the tribunal found that Mexico had FAILED to prove that “Spain not only had the right, as a state, to incorporate the island in her possessions, but also had effectively exercised the right” and failed to show any manifestation of sovereignty over the island.

SPAIN first discovered the ISLAND

BUT

FRANCE MAINTAINED

Effective Jurisdiction of the Island

So the International Court awarded it to FRANCE

http://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp/wp-content/uploads/2...

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#153 Jan 9, 2013
History wrote:
<quoted text>You fall into your own trap of (illogical) reasoning. That is why I wrote the sentences that you responded to.
First, not only one treaty is involved in this case. Do not ignore other facts please.
Second, read what the Filipino constitution says about your border. You always mention legal settlement and international court. The court indeed will assess your constitutional sources which clearly indicate that the Philippines does not own the Scarborough Shoal which is on the left-side of the 118 degree longitudinal line.
You keep blaming China of not going to court with you. Why would China do it? You tell China to jump. Should China respond by saying "How High?" Not only China would not. Russia, USA, and South Korea won't either in their cases of land conflicts. USA, though trying hard to help stir up trouble in the South China Sea, refuses to endorse the UNCLOS. Is it clear what USA has in its mind? Double standards.
What if a country is so silly to go along with the demand of another aggressor? More people will come over to tell them that their sovereign land is "mine" but not theirs. Someone refers this to "Filipino Mining."
Examples of International Court Cases favoring EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION

3. Ligitan and Sipadan Islands (Indonesia - Malaysia)

In 1999 Indonesia and Malaysia took their dispute over the sovereignty of Ligitan and Sipadan islands off the coast of East Kalimantan province to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in favor of Malaysia on 17 December 2002. Although neither side convinced the Court that it had clear title to the islands, Malaysia was awarded both islands based, in part, on its continuous administration of the islands. Malaysia did show to the ICJ “manifestations of state authority” over the islands, mainly in the 1930s while under British rule. Indonesia had not protested Malaysia’s actions until 1969.

http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/index.php...

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/ICJ605...

“China, follow Internat'l Law!”

Since: Jun 12

United States of America

#154 Jan 9, 2013
History wrote:
Austronesian Guy and assoicates always use flawed logic and hearsays to confound the issue further.
May I suggest you to do the following:
1. Find the pages of the several treaties and your constitutional documents which prove your sovereignty claims of the Spratlys.
2. Or find the pages of such documents which say the 118 degree line does not exist.
** Then show the evidence to everyone here.
If you are a Filipino you should have access to such documents in your libraries or govt archives. If you don't and you have no knowledge of such documents, you should shut up.
I have access to these documents in university libraries overseas.
----------
You logic is flawed.
1. You also try to justify your claim by resorting to the proximity of Scarborough Shaol/Huang Yan Island to the Philippines. But proximity is only one of so many factors to consider to determine sovereignty. Otherwise, why the Falklands belong to Great Britain but not Argentina, and why Alaska does not belong to Canada but to the USA.
2. Many people in the Philippines deliberately twisted the meaning of UNCLOS. In fact, UNCLOS does not replace restropectively the evidence of sovereignty established before UNCLOS is enacted. It has no authority to address such land claims made by the Philippines since PR of China and ROC/Taiwan have made explicit and consistent claims decades or centuries ago (during dynastic rule) while the Philippines did the opposite. The constitutional documents of the Philippines explicitly said that the border for the Philippines is at the 118 degree east longitudinal line. The Philippines did nothing to address this legal basis for the land claim until 2009 while China and Taiwan have already made explicit and consistent claims in their legal documents of the Spratlys for decades. PR China and ROC have much stronger continuous legal basis for their land claims.
3. In fact, UNCLOS has no authority over the land conflicts involving the Philippines which was willing to sign/endorse the UNCLOS only after including major modification paragraphs. Such modifications explicitly restricted the legitimacy of UNCLOS whenever land claims arise against the Philippines.
Filipinos, you cannot have things both ways. You cannot have it your way all the time to maximise your benefits at the expense of your neighbours.
That is why despite your negative campaign all over the world against China, not many countries support you in this incident. You have lost credibility.
Hahaha my POSTS Above are ENOUGH to prove The Philippines Sovereignty

The Philippines is NOT ONLY BASING ITS CLAIM ON PROXIMITY (UNCLOS)

The Philippines bases its Scarborough claim on "4" international laws

which are

1. EFFECTIVE JURISDICTION

2. CESSION - Transfer of the Philippine Islands from the spanish to the americans, and the transfer of the americans of the isalnds to the FILIPINOS.

3. UNCLOS (Proximity)

4. Archipelagic Doctrine - CHINA IS NOT AN ARCHIPELAGO, THE PHILIPPINES IS AN ARCHIPELAGO

------

other than that

the Philippines also can base its claim on:

1. History ACCEPTED WORLDWIDE - The Austronesians (ancestors of the filipinos, malaysians, and indonesians) ruled the South China Sea. The Chinese were thousands of years late comers to the south china sea

FYI: the Ancient name of the south china sea according to history books is "THE CHAMPA SEA" named after the powerful AUSTRONESIAN KINGDOM OF CHAMPA.

south china sea was named by the EUROPEANS to describe that the sea is in the south of china and NOT because CHINA owns it.

2. Modern Archaeological, Anthropological and other Scienctific studies contradict that CHINA DISCOVERED THE ISALNDS/SHOALS FIRST.

3. Old European and American MAPS named the ISLANDS their FILIPINO NAME and not Huangyan or Nansha.

-----

See International Laws, TRUE HISTORY, OLD MAPS, and SCIENTIFIC studies SUPPORT THE PHILIPPINES

HOW BOUT CHINA??

You only have your fake INVENTED history!

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.

China Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Former Chinese state councilor urges to bring S... 4 hr SCUMASSCHNSEDAEGU... 22
Are Finnish The Lost Mongolian Tribe Of Europe (Dec '10) 10 hr dbarrios 90
News Boy urinates in Vancouver bin, anti-China vitri... (Sep '13) Sep 26 yourinluck 18
News China begins operating world's largest radio te... Sep 25 Stephany McDowell 1
China vs India: Nothing to compare (Apr '13) Sep 25 USA USA 9
News Chinese space station to fall out of sky. Who r... Sep 24 butters_ 6
why are chinese ugly? (Aug '13) Sep 24 Zita Reticulai 15
More from around the web