3 ms·

Basically, if this is anything like the cutting of cables from TW to Matsu off mainland coast last year, then it's a play to dare TW challenge PRC maritime juri

Basically, if this is anything like the cutting of cables from TW to Matsu off mainland coast last year, then it's a play to dare TW challenge PRC maritime jurisdiction in "Chinese", i.e. not international waters. A game that TW has and will continue to lose, see TW coast guard killing Chinese fisherman during aggressive pursuit last year. Result is PRC essentially asserted coast guard control and kicked TW coastguard out of Kinmen. Until TW is considered a seperate country at UN with it's own maritime rights, technically, PRC can "legally" do whatever they want to TW undersea cable infra in "Chinese" waters (read: includes all of TW coast to eezs), without even being in conflict with UNCLOS subsea infra rules, i.e. TW doesn't even have avenue to sue PRC for indemnities, which the UNCLOS rules cover.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Until TW is considered a seperate country at UN with it's own maritime rights China is currently ignoring UNCLOS rulings relating to its territorial claims vis-à-vis the Philippines. Beijing isn’t bound by international law. Taiwan will not be resolved through the crumbling rules-based international order.
- maxglute 2y ago
  PH is ample US/PH propaganda that PRC is not in compliance with UNCLOS when PRC is in compliance, just pushing the extremes of lawfare technicality - the best type of legal technicality. PH vs PCR ruling is not valid international law (as in at UN/CLOS). It's propaganda written on nice rented PCA stationary - a bunch of US/PH aligned experts ad hoc legal interpretation against PRC that is NOT formally accepted by UN, hence not accepted by UNCLOS/ICJ/ITLOS, much less because PRC not subject to optional arbituation clause no matter how much US propaganda screams she is. Don't get me wrong, it's very sensible legal position, but it's not formally accepted, and has the legal weight of me writing, the opposite position on toilet paper. Until there is formal UNCLOS/ITLOS ruling against PRC (like they did against UK hence US/Diego Garcia for Chagos), PRC is legally compliant with UNCLOS. AKA PH vs PRC is the US led "rule-based-order" interpretation of UNCLOS (which we all know US hasn't ratified) which of course PRC is not obliged to follow, not actual UN "international law" that PRC has at least in propaganda accept as valid arbiter (if only because currently, UN reality has a PRC bias). In case of TW where PRC can, under international law, resolve TW kinetically by resuming legally ongoing civil war. Ultimately, of course, Beijing is not bound by (and should be not bound by) by non-UN rule-based / LIOrder, and even if she were, her behaviour would be acceptable considering US response to Chagos ruling, which let's be honest, one set of rules of you/me is the reasons why the rules-based order is breaking. But circling back to TW, yes, PRC wouldn't give a care about any international law when it comes to "reunification", hence the dynamic between TW/PRC is a pure power game. It just so happens international law is on PRC side in TW scenarios.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > when PRC is in compliance, just pushing the extremes of lawfare technicality China’s claims were rejected by the UNCLOS tribunal. > circling back to TW, yes, PRC wouldn't give a care about any international law when it comes to "reunification" Every war of conquest is justified as reunification. America would be reunifying the Panama Canal with itself, and Greenland with the North American plate. Russia should have claim to all former Soviet territories, and arguably China, too, or at least its western territories. > just so happens international law is on PRC side in TW scenarios It’s not. But as you say, that is irrelevant. We have nuclear states and everyone else; it’s pretty clear what Taiwan must do if she doesn’t want foreign invaders on her shores.
    - maxglute 2y ago
      >rejected No, neither PRC or PH positions were "rejected" or "endorsed" because there hasn't been actual legal hearing of the case, in courts with UN/UNCLOS jurisdiction. There's nothing to reject. PCA ruling is not conducted by any official "UNCLOS tribunal". It's done by cosplay PCA UNCLOS tribunal whose determination the UN has not taken position in, which is a polite way of saying it's not legal UN law, aka it's not valid UNCLOS determination. All proponents of PCA ruling has to do is find one formal UN endorsement of their position against PRC, but it does not exist, hence it's not (UN) international law, at least UNCLOS which operates under UN. Regardless, PRC is not subject to optional UNCLOS arbituation clause, they are however subject to UNCLOS ruling via ICJ/ITLOS... until ICJ/ITLOS rules against PRC, which neither have... PRC in UNCLOS compliance. PRC legally can't be non compliant until UN says it is, and UN hasn't. >justified Sure, but not every reunification has as strong (international) legal precedence as PRC... i.e. Chinese territory treated as one country at UN, lack of formal armistice/ratification (legal) ending of the civil war. Hence PRC-TW is legally on ongoing civil war, over legally one country. Hence me saying UN reality has PRC bias. Of course ultimately international laws is not going to prevent PRC from reunifying, but merely point out that PRC can "legitimately" fight TW, it wouldn't be "aggression" it would be domestic "defensive" action. >Taiwan must do The TW that's thoroughly infiltrated by PRC espionage? If PRC is all over US networks, how entrenched do you think they were/are in TWs. Half the reason US pressured to coerce TW into giving up nuclear program is because PRC intelligence was already in TW, and if US didn't take action PRC would. Unless TW nuclear turnkey is faster than PRC hypersonics (7 minutes to any point in island) they won't be able to build credible nuclear deterence, not that nuclear has deterred PRC before (see how she fought with essentailly every NPT nuclear state over issues less important than TW). It's pretty clear what PRC must do reunify, and let's be honest she's actually doing it with gusto while TW is not.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Until TW is considered a seperate country at UN with it's own maritime rights China is currently ignoring UNCLOS rulings relating to its territorial claims vis-à-vis the Philippines. Beijing isn’t bound by international law. Taiwan will not be resolved through the crumbling rules-based international order.

maxglute 2y ago
PH is ample US/PH propaganda that PRC is not in compliance with UNCLOS when PRC is in compliance, just pushing the extremes of lawfare technicality - the best type of legal technicality. PH vs PCR ruling is not valid international law (as in at UN/CLOS). It's propaganda written on nice rented PCA stationary - a bunch of US/PH aligned experts ad hoc legal interpretation against PRC that is NOT formally accepted by UN, hence not accepted by UNCLOS/ICJ/ITLOS, much less because PRC not subject to optional arbituation clause no matter how much US propaganda screams she is. Don't get me wrong, it's very sensible legal position, but it's not formally accepted, and has the legal weight of me writing, the opposite position on toilet paper. Until there is formal UNCLOS/ITLOS ruling against PRC (like they did against UK hence US/Diego Garcia for Chagos), PRC is legally compliant with UNCLOS. AKA PH vs PRC is the US led "rule-based-order" interpretation of UNCLOS (which we all know US hasn't ratified) which of course PRC is not obliged to follow, not actual UN "international law" that PRC has at least in propaganda accept as valid arbiter (if only because currently, UN reality has a PRC bias). In case of TW where PRC can, under international law, resolve TW kinetically by resuming legally ongoing civil war. Ultimately, of course, Beijing is not bound by (and should be not bound by) by non-UN rule-based / LIOrder, and even if she were, her behaviour would be acceptable considering US response to Chagos ruling, which let's be honest, one set of rules of you/me is the reasons why the rules-based order is breaking. But circling back to TW, yes, PRC wouldn't give a care about any international law when it comes to "reunification", hence the dynamic between TW/PRC is a pure power game. It just so happens international law is on PRC side in TW scenarios.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > when PRC is in compliance, just pushing the extremes of lawfare technicality China’s claims were rejected by the UNCLOS tribunal. > circling back to TW, yes, PRC wouldn't give a care about any international law when it comes to "reunification" Every war of conquest is justified as reunification. America would be reunifying the Panama Canal with itself, and Greenland with the North American plate. Russia should have claim to all former Soviet territories, and arguably China, too, or at least its western territories. > just so happens international law is on PRC side in TW scenarios It’s not. But as you say, that is irrelevant. We have nuclear states and everyone else; it’s pretty clear what Taiwan must do if she doesn’t want foreign invaders on her shores.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    >rejected No, neither PRC or PH positions were "rejected" or "endorsed" because there hasn't been actual legal hearing of the case, in courts with UN/UNCLOS jurisdiction. There's nothing to reject. PCA ruling is not conducted by any official "UNCLOS tribunal". It's done by cosplay PCA UNCLOS tribunal whose determination the UN has not taken position in, which is a polite way of saying it's not legal UN law, aka it's not valid UNCLOS determination. All proponents of PCA ruling has to do is find one formal UN endorsement of their position against PRC, but it does not exist, hence it's not (UN) international law, at least UNCLOS which operates under UN. Regardless, PRC is not subject to optional UNCLOS arbituation clause, they are however subject to UNCLOS ruling via ICJ/ITLOS... until ICJ/ITLOS rules against PRC, which neither have... PRC in UNCLOS compliance. PRC legally can't be non compliant until UN says it is, and UN hasn't. >justified Sure, but not every reunification has as strong (international) legal precedence as PRC... i.e. Chinese territory treated as one country at UN, lack of formal armistice/ratification (legal) ending of the civil war. Hence PRC-TW is legally on ongoing civil war, over legally one country. Hence me saying UN reality has PRC bias. Of course ultimately international laws is not going to prevent PRC from reunifying, but merely point out that PRC can "legitimately" fight TW, it wouldn't be "aggression" it would be domestic "defensive" action. >Taiwan must do The TW that's thoroughly infiltrated by PRC espionage? If PRC is all over US networks, how entrenched do you think they were/are in TWs. Half the reason US pressured to coerce TW into giving up nuclear program is because PRC intelligence was already in TW, and if US didn't take action PRC would. Unless TW nuclear turnkey is faster than PRC hypersonics (7 minutes to any point in island) they won't be able to build credible nuclear deterence, not that nuclear has deterred PRC before (see how she fought with essentailly every NPT nuclear state over issues less important than TW). It's pretty clear what PRC must do reunify, and let's be honest she's actually doing it with gusto while TW is not.