Astro - 中方称大马侵犯中国领土
- Thread starter Iyarash11
- Start date
begintoend
High Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 44,405
- Reaction score
- 10,415
kenna mock by pinoy
they can take this insult?
Champion
they can take this insult?
Champion
testerjp
High Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2006
- Messages
- 46,221
- Reaction score
- 15,707
Never understood how China claim is theirs.
This is from ai.
China has presented several types of evidence to support its claims in the South China Sea, particularly for the broad maritime boundaries indicated by the Nine-Dash Line. Here are the main types of evidence that China has cited:
1. Historical Maps and Documents: China references historical maps and records that it claims show evidence of Chinese activities such as fishing and exploration in the South China Sea dating back over 2,000 years. These include ancient maps and texts that supposedly document these activities and historical jurisdiction over the area.
2. Archaeological Findings: China also points to archaeological findings, such as pottery shards and shipwrecks on the seabed within the contested areas, to argue that Chinese people have been active in the region for centuries.
3. Historical Administration: The Chinese government cites historical governance and administration of certain islands, particularly during the Yuan and Ming dynasties, as evidence of sovereign control. This includes the dispatch of naval expeditions to the region and the establishment of administrative units that ostensibly governed some of the islands.
4. Official Publications: During the 20th century, especially after World War II, the Republic of China (and later the People's Republic of China) issued official maps that included the Nine-Dash Line, initially published in 1947 as the Eleven-Dash Line. China argues that these publications demonstrate a longstanding claim that was internationally recognized, or at least not contested at the time of publication.
Despite these arguments, China's evidence and the basis of its claims have been widely disputed by other countries and international legal bodies. The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration particularly noted that historical use does not confer exclusive rights or ownership according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China is a signatory. The ruling stated that the rights over the waters must be determined by the UNCLOS framework, rather than historical claims alone.
Oher countries involved in the South China Sea disputes also present evidence similar to that of China, including historical maps, archaeological findings, and documentation of historical presence and activities in the region. These countries use this evidence to support their own territorial and maritime claims:
1. Vietnam: Vietnam has produced historical documents and maps that show Vietnamese control and administration of islands in the South China Sea, dating back as far as the 17th century. Vietnam claims that it has actively administered the Paracel and Spratly islands since at least the 19th century and that these activities were continuous.
2. Philippines: The Philippines bases its claims primarily on geographical proximity and international law (UNCLOS). It also references historical usage of areas within its exclusive economic zone for fishing and exploration. The Philippines emphasizes the role of UNCLOS in defining maritime entitlements, which support its claims over areas such as Scarborough Shoal and parts of the Spratly Islands.
3. Malaysia: Malaysia's claims are based on the continental shelf principle and the natural prolongation of its land territory under UNCLOS. Malaysia also points to historical evidence of fishing and exploration activities within its claimed areas in the South China Sea.
4. Brunei: Brunei's claims are based primarily on UNCLOS, which defines its EEZ extending into the South China Sea. Brunei's claims are less about historical presence and more focused on rights derived from its continental shelf.
5. Indonesia: Indonesia does not claim any of the disputed islands but has clashed with China over the northern edges of of its exclusive economic zones around the Natuna Islands. Indonesia’s stance is that its rights are based strictly on UNCLOS, and it has rejected China's historical claim lines that infringe on its EEZ.
These overlapping claims highlight the complexity of the disputes in the South China Sea. Each country uses a mixture of historical evidence and international law to support its position, but they also emphasize different aspects based on their strategic interests and legal perspectives. The conflicting claims are not only about historical activities but also about interpretations and applications of international law, particularly UNCLOS, in defining maritime boundaries.
The validity of China's claims in the South China Sea, particularly those outlined by the Nine-Dash Line, is highly contested and depends largely on the framework used for evaluation:
1. Under International Law (UNCLOS): The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the primary international treaty governing maritime rights and boundaries. The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) under UNCLOS provisions found that China's claims based on the Nine-Dash Line have no legal basis under UNCLOS. The tribunal concluded that historical rights claimed by China were extinguished when it ratified UNCLOS. Additionally, the tribunal found that the features in the South China Sea did not generate extensive maritime zones such as exclusive economic zones (EEZs) or continental shelves on their own.
2. Based on Historical Claims: China argues that its rights to the territories within the Nine-Dash Line are based on historical precedents that predate UNCLOS. China cites historical documentation and archaeological evidence indicating Chinese presence and activity in the region going back centuries. However, the PCA ruling indicated that such historical claims do not supersede international agreements like UNCLOS, which China has ratified.
3. Regional Recognition: The claims are also not widely recognized by other countries, especially those in the Southeast Asian region such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, which have overlapping claims. These countries generally rely on UNCLOS to assert and defend their maritime boundaries.
4. Political and Strategic Considerations: The validity of China’s claims is also influenced by geopolitical dynamics. The South China Sea is a strategic waterway, rich in resources, and crucial for international shipping. The U.S. and other global powers have interests in ensuring freedom of navigation in the area, which sometimes brings them into diplomatic and military tension with China.
In conclusion, while China presents historical evidence to support its claims, these claims are not considered valid under current international law (UNCLOS) and are disputed by other countries with overlapping territorial claims. The situation remains a complex geopolitical issue involving national interests, international law, and regional security dynamics.
This is from ai.
China has presented several types of evidence to support its claims in the South China Sea, particularly for the broad maritime boundaries indicated by the Nine-Dash Line. Here are the main types of evidence that China has cited:
1. Historical Maps and Documents: China references historical maps and records that it claims show evidence of Chinese activities such as fishing and exploration in the South China Sea dating back over 2,000 years. These include ancient maps and texts that supposedly document these activities and historical jurisdiction over the area.
2. Archaeological Findings: China also points to archaeological findings, such as pottery shards and shipwrecks on the seabed within the contested areas, to argue that Chinese people have been active in the region for centuries.
3. Historical Administration: The Chinese government cites historical governance and administration of certain islands, particularly during the Yuan and Ming dynasties, as evidence of sovereign control. This includes the dispatch of naval expeditions to the region and the establishment of administrative units that ostensibly governed some of the islands.
4. Official Publications: During the 20th century, especially after World War II, the Republic of China (and later the People's Republic of China) issued official maps that included the Nine-Dash Line, initially published in 1947 as the Eleven-Dash Line. China argues that these publications demonstrate a longstanding claim that was internationally recognized, or at least not contested at the time of publication.
Despite these arguments, China's evidence and the basis of its claims have been widely disputed by other countries and international legal bodies. The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration particularly noted that historical use does not confer exclusive rights or ownership according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China is a signatory. The ruling stated that the rights over the waters must be determined by the UNCLOS framework, rather than historical claims alone.
Oher countries involved in the South China Sea disputes also present evidence similar to that of China, including historical maps, archaeological findings, and documentation of historical presence and activities in the region. These countries use this evidence to support their own territorial and maritime claims:
1. Vietnam: Vietnam has produced historical documents and maps that show Vietnamese control and administration of islands in the South China Sea, dating back as far as the 17th century. Vietnam claims that it has actively administered the Paracel and Spratly islands since at least the 19th century and that these activities were continuous.
2. Philippines: The Philippines bases its claims primarily on geographical proximity and international law (UNCLOS). It also references historical usage of areas within its exclusive economic zone for fishing and exploration. The Philippines emphasizes the role of UNCLOS in defining maritime entitlements, which support its claims over areas such as Scarborough Shoal and parts of the Spratly Islands.
3. Malaysia: Malaysia's claims are based on the continental shelf principle and the natural prolongation of its land territory under UNCLOS. Malaysia also points to historical evidence of fishing and exploration activities within its claimed areas in the South China Sea.
4. Brunei: Brunei's claims are based primarily on UNCLOS, which defines its EEZ extending into the South China Sea. Brunei's claims are less about historical presence and more focused on rights derived from its continental shelf.
5. Indonesia: Indonesia does not claim any of the disputed islands but has clashed with China over the northern edges of of its exclusive economic zones around the Natuna Islands. Indonesia’s stance is that its rights are based strictly on UNCLOS, and it has rejected China's historical claim lines that infringe on its EEZ.
These overlapping claims highlight the complexity of the disputes in the South China Sea. Each country uses a mixture of historical evidence and international law to support its position, but they also emphasize different aspects based on their strategic interests and legal perspectives. The conflicting claims are not only about historical activities but also about interpretations and applications of international law, particularly UNCLOS, in defining maritime boundaries.
The validity of China's claims in the South China Sea, particularly those outlined by the Nine-Dash Line, is highly contested and depends largely on the framework used for evaluation:
1. Under International Law (UNCLOS): The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the primary international treaty governing maritime rights and boundaries. The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) under UNCLOS provisions found that China's claims based on the Nine-Dash Line have no legal basis under UNCLOS. The tribunal concluded that historical rights claimed by China were extinguished when it ratified UNCLOS. Additionally, the tribunal found that the features in the South China Sea did not generate extensive maritime zones such as exclusive economic zones (EEZs) or continental shelves on their own.
2. Based on Historical Claims: China argues that its rights to the territories within the Nine-Dash Line are based on historical precedents that predate UNCLOS. China cites historical documentation and archaeological evidence indicating Chinese presence and activity in the region going back centuries. However, the PCA ruling indicated that such historical claims do not supersede international agreements like UNCLOS, which China has ratified.
3. Regional Recognition: The claims are also not widely recognized by other countries, especially those in the Southeast Asian region such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, which have overlapping claims. These countries generally rely on UNCLOS to assert and defend their maritime boundaries.
4. Political and Strategic Considerations: The validity of China’s claims is also influenced by geopolitical dynamics. The South China Sea is a strategic waterway, rich in resources, and crucial for international shipping. The U.S. and other global powers have interests in ensuring freedom of navigation in the area, which sometimes brings them into diplomatic and military tension with China.
In conclusion, while China presents historical evidence to support its claims, these claims are not considered valid under current international law (UNCLOS) and are disputed by other countries with overlapping territorial claims. The situation remains a complex geopolitical issue involving national interests, international law, and regional security dynamics.
Jamestan80
Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 9,656
- Reaction score
- 1,851
Hope they dont offend their Chinese good friends. Just give in & apologize lah.
bobafettup
Arch-Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,451
- Reaction score
- 4,559
Please give up their leadership also while they are at it
Iyarash11
Arch-Supremacy Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,329
- Reaction score
- 1,268
not sure these $39billion investments promised last year lai buey
https://www.reuters.com/article/bus...ly-39-bln-in-malaysia-pm-anwar-idUSL4N3671S2/
https://www.reuters.com/article/bus...ly-39-bln-in-malaysia-pm-anwar-idUSL4N3671S2/
they can ram your boat faster than you can repair it
Whimsica
Arch-Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2022
- Messages
- 22,125
- Reaction score
- 18,927
not sure these $39billion investments promised last year lai buey
https://www.reuters.com/article/bus...ly-39-bln-in-malaysia-pm-anwar-idUSL4N3671S2/
One year nia.
Duterte waited till finished his term liao still cannot smell any promised goodies coming his way.
Krabs.
Honorary Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 140,434
- Reaction score
- 9,266
yea if you look further back more years ....... they like to sign MOU .... which is not formal contract , no penalty for not follow-up ........ sign MOU is both side feel song song declare a big number , take photo
after duterde term only 10% of the promised investment and loans became real .... 90% didn't happen
boleh pretend cannot remember these recent few years .... go ahead to believe the "number" ....... in this world there is always a layer of people who don't know MOU are non-binding
in china they call this 出国抢订单 ... this is state sponsored trip for them to go expo or industry shows ..... the other side prepared Caucasian actors ready to take photo with the MOU signed .... the photo is what justify the "fruit" and allow future batches of people to go on free sponsored trips again
after duterde term only 10% of the promised investment and loans became real .... 90% didn't happen
boleh pretend cannot remember these recent few years .... go ahead to believe the "number" ....... in this world there is always a layer of people who don't know MOU are non-binding
in china they call this 出国抢订单 ... this is state sponsored trip for them to go expo or industry shows ..... the other side prepared Caucasian actors ready to take photo with the MOU signed .... the photo is what justify the "fruit" and allow future batches of people to go on free sponsored trips again
Last edited:
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ Forums. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.
Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards and Terms and Conditions for more information.
