3 ms·

This isn’t even that far fetched. The justification for the “nine-dash line” that claims all of the South China Sea in violation of international maritime law i

This isn’t even that far fetched. The justification for the “nine-dash line” that claims all of the South China Sea in violation of international maritime law is based on some spurious claim like “China controlled this sea at some point in the past”. It’s only a step from there to making Korea and Japan vassal states because they were at some point in the past.

alex_suzuki 4y ago
I wonder what would happen if two states both laid claim to each others territory, Japan having occupied large parts of china in the 1930s?
- hef19898 4y ago
  History has the answer to that: war.
  - simonh 4y ago
    There's a great scene in the book Shogun. Toranaga says "There is never any justification for a vassal to rebel against his master". Anjin San replies "There is my lord. If you win!"
- jannes 4y ago
  That’s already the situation with Taiwan. They claim the whole of China.
mushbino 4y ago
Japan and S Korea are currently vassal states of the US. That's what you meant right?
dirtyid 4y ago
It's exceedingly far fetched considering PRC claims have consistently reflected her inherited claims originally made by ROC (Taiwan) as determined by post WW2 treatises, no more, but frequently less. See PRC resolving 12/14 land borders with mostly concessions, reduced ROCs 11dash claim to 9dash for North Vietnam. PRC territory literally shrank under CCP whose settlement history has demonstrated the opposite of expansionism. The "spurious" history claim meme is ROC/TW legal rhetoric that PRC maintains for legal lulz but really it's ROC claimed this, so PRC gain ROC claims after UN recognition shifted to PRC and ultimately that's enough, no reason for PRC to concede on any claims it didn't make but again, inherited. Also PH vs PRC Arbitral Tribunal ruling is NOT formally recognized by UN or UNCLOS therefore PRC's SCS claims is not in violation of any international law. As in actual international law per UN, not make believe, actually spurious, rules-based-order west likes to pretend is international law. UNCLOS does not supercede territorial disputes that predated it nor have legal authority to settle these disputes, especially when party of dispute (PRC) did not accede to the optional arbituation system.

alex_suzuki 4y ago

I wonder what would happen if two states both laid claim to each others territory, Japan having occupied large parts of china in the 1930s?

hef19898 4y ago
History has the answer to that: war.
- simonh 4y ago
  There's a great scene in the book Shogun. Toranaga says "There is never any justification for a vassal to rebel against his master". Anjin San replies "There is my lord. If you win!"
jannes 4y ago
That’s already the situation with Taiwan. They claim the whole of China.

mushbino 4y ago

Japan and S Korea are currently vassal states of the US. That's what you meant right?

dirtyid 4y ago

It's exceedingly far fetched considering PRC claims have consistently reflected her inherited claims originally made by ROC (Taiwan) as determined by post WW2 treatises, no more, but frequently less. See PRC resolving 12/14 land borders with mostly concessions, reduced ROCs 11dash claim to 9dash for North Vietnam. PRC territory literally shrank under CCP whose settlement history has demonstrated the opposite of expansionism. The "spurious" history claim meme is ROC/TW legal rhetoric that PRC maintains for legal lulz but really it's ROC claimed this, so PRC gain ROC claims after UN recognition shifted to PRC and ultimately that's enough, no reason for PRC to concede on any claims it didn't make but again, inherited. Also PH vs PRC Arbitral Tribunal ruling is NOT formally recognized by UN or UNCLOS therefore PRC's SCS claims is not in violation of any international law. As in actual international law per UN, not make believe, actually spurious, rules-based-order west likes to pretend is international law. UNCLOS does not supercede territorial disputes that predated it nor have legal authority to settle these disputes, especially when party of dispute (PRC) did not accede to the optional arbituation system.