4 ms·

What's ironic about this article of "History of Nine-Dash Line", is that it mentioned ROC (Republic Of China) 0 times, and only mentioned Taiwan twice (in eithe

by fredliu 10y ago

What's ironic about this article of "History of Nine-Dash Line", is that it mentioned ROC (Republic Of China) 0 times, and only mentioned Taiwan twice (in either cases related to the actual history). The fact is that the original Eleven-Dash Line/Nine-Dash Line was established by ROC (now Taiwan) who still holds the claim, and is furious about the recent "ruling". I guess nobody gives an F what Taiwan thinks in this matter is probably because... well who cares about Taiwan, when we are talking about the Big Bad China, right? Sarcasm aside, if you want to talk about history, at least get the actual history part right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line

huahaiy 10y ago
This recent ruling is absurd in that it redefines the concept of island. For example, the largest island in South China Sea, Taiping Island, which has natural fresh water, and is continuously populated by Taiwan since WWII, is no longer considered an island. If this ruling is to be followed, many countries claims on islands all over the planet would be null and void, including some of USA's.
- fredliu 10y ago
  I'm no international law lawyer, and didn't really look too much into the details of the "ruling", which I think, as any law, would be pointless unless there's enforcement (by whom?). It just baffles me that an article about the "history" of something didn't mention one of the first questions regarding the history of anything: where does it come from? It's not that hard to look up, it's right there in the first sentence on wikipedia....
- The_suffocated 10y ago
  You are misreading the ruling. It doesn't say that Itu Aba (Taiping Island) isn't an island. What it says is that Itu Aba is a maritime feature that "cannot sustain human habitation or an economic life of their own". Every high-tide elevation of this sort is referred to as "rock" in UNCLOS. Being a "rock" here doesn't mean it's not an island; it simply means the maritime feature concerned -- should it be an island, an islet, a reef or whatever -- is not entitled to the full rights (i.e. having an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf) of a full-fledged island. The concept of "rock" here is not a geological one but a legal one.

by fredliu 10y ago

huahaiy 10y ago

This recent ruling is absurd in that it redefines the concept of island. For example, the largest island in South China Sea, Taiping Island, which has natural fresh water, and is continuously populated by Taiwan since WWII, is no longer considered an island. If this ruling is to be followed, many countries claims on islands all over the planet would be null and void, including some of USA's.

fredliu 10y ago
I'm no international law lawyer, and didn't really look too much into the details of the "ruling", which I think, as any law, would be pointless unless there's enforcement (by whom?). It just baffles me that an article about the "history" of something didn't mention one of the first questions regarding the history of anything: where does it come from? It's not that hard to look up, it's right there in the first sentence on wikipedia....
The_suffocated 10y ago
You are misreading the ruling. It doesn't say that Itu Aba (Taiping Island) isn't an island. What it says is that Itu Aba is a maritime feature that "cannot sustain human habitation or an economic life of their own". Every high-tide elevation of this sort is referred to as "rock" in UNCLOS. Being a "rock" here doesn't mean it's not an island; it simply means the maritime feature concerned -- should it be an island, an islet, a reef or whatever -- is not entitled to the full rights (i.e. having an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf) of a full-fledged island. The concept of "rock" here is not a geological one but a legal one.