4 ms·
"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 becau
by 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...