3 ms·
This was a long anticipated but still powerful ruling. The only surprise was maybe Itu Aba (太平島) being ruled to not be an island. The court was particularly cl
by dak1 10y ago
This was a long anticipated but still powerful ruling. The only surprise was maybe Itu Aba (太平島) being ruled to not be an island.
The court was particularly clear on rejecting the nine-dash line and China's claims of historic waters.
As much as China will say it ignores this ruling, it absolutely puts pressure on China and constricts the language it will be able to use when discussing disputes in the South China Sea. China has particularly relied on claims of historic waters, which will diplomatically make for some extremely awkward press statements for China now.
This may force China into some face-saving agreements, so that it continues to appear strong at home where it has made this into an issue of nationalism, but internationally may try to consolidate what it does hold.
Another likely option is China may try to create a ADIZ over the South China Sea like it did in the East China Sea (and use its somewhat perverted interpretation of when an ADIZ applies), with the idea that if its interests in the sea have been denied, it can try to control the air.
I expect freedom of navigation transits may increase now and with greater certainty, both from the US and from other countries including Japan and Australia, now that we know what features are entitled to a 12-mile territorial sea and which ones are not (due to being submerged at high tide).
I'm optimistic after some initial saber rattling that this may actually lead to a reduction in tensions in the South China Sea, but that is mostly up to China now at this point.
- sanxiyn 10y ago"Itu Aba is not an island" was indeed a surprise, and I think it is a mistake. In particular, it was not part of the case. The court brought the issue in because it was necessary to rule on Philippines' claim that Mischief Reef is within its EEZ, because if Itu Aba is an island EEZ generated by it needs to be considered. I think this was a bad idea and an underhanded tactic.
- dak1 10y agoI believe the Philippines did actually ask the Tribunal to rule on the status of Itu Aba, for exactly the reason you mention. The Philippines also argued that it was not. I'm reading the ruling now and it appears the Tribunal based its decision on Itu Aba lacking a "stable community of people." I think most observers expected the opposite decision based on the fresh water on Itu Aba and its capacity to support human habitation. I do agree though that this is probably the one point in the ruling I disagree with.
- altcognito 10y ago> and its capacity to support human habitation Well, that "island" created via an act of human intervention that must be utilized on a regular basis, I'm not sure the habitation angle is completely supportable.
- dak1 10y agoThe land reclamation on Itu Aba was almost non-existant compared to the land reclamation China was doing. Itu Aba is the largest naturally occurring feature in the Spratly's and does have fresh ground water. You can see some of the before/after picutres of Itu Aba and some of the other features here: http://amti.csis.org/before-and-after-the-south-china-sea-transformed/ http://amti.csis.org/before-and-after-the-south-china-sea-tr...
- fatman13gg 10y agoThe ruling isn't that powerful at all. On the latest development. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1989486/united-nations-stresses-separation-hague-tribunal http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/198...