Talk:South China Sea Arbitration: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South China Sea Arbitration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from South China Sea Arbitration appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 November 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Philippines is contesting the validity of China's nine dotted lines? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/November.

On 1 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Philippines v. China to South China Sea Arbitration. The result of the discussion was Moved.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This article was nominated to be featured on the Main Page as part of the "In the news" section on July 12, 2016. The nomination was closed due to significant ongoing content disputes and allegations of non-NPOV editing.

It seems like Permanent Court of Arbitration has always been referred as an international tribunal, but it's missing the part that clarifies its connection with ITLOS. Does the ruling reflect ITLOS stance on the issue? Does PCA speak for ITLOS at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.83.206 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PCA only provided venue and recording services and is not the authority. See https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/ for the relationship between UNCLOS and PCA. Of the 5 judges, 4 were retired ITLOS judges. As for why the case did not go to ITLOS or ICJ, it is because China did not accept. --JWB (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article text repeatedly refers to PCA as if it is the court or authority. All these instances should be changed. --JWB (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noted this B class article with sources to match had been modified in a potentially non neutral manner by an unregistered single editor who has been very active last 48 hours of multiple topics they appear to feel strongly about and others have reacted to. Reversion of most of the edits to this page was done manually so apologies if mistakes were introduced. ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also had to add back in a section that was deleted for no reason which was a non neutral "silent" edit buried in multiple other edits over a short period. ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section asserts, parenthetically, (the phrase is a play-on-words referencing the nine-dash line; Chinese uses the same word for "bit" and "dash"). I thought to change "same word" to "same symbol" but, not being literate in Chinese, I checked Google Translate, which asserts otherwise (see [1] and [2]). This needs a second look. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI all, the sentence in contention is this, which is actually mistaken, based on the evidence below: "The tribunal's rulings do not apply to China's sovereignty claims over the islands and maritime features in South China Sea." -Object404 (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are China's claims in the South China sea. The PCA arbitration has an effect on these claims.

• September 15, 2024, Statement from the Chinese Embassy in Manila:

China’s sovereignty and rights and interests in the South China Sea have been established in the long course of history, and are solidly grounded in history and the law. China is the first to have discovered, named, and explored and exploited Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea Islands) and relevant waters, and the first to have exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over them continuously, peacefully and effectively, thus establishing territorial sovereignty and relevant rights and interests in the South China Sea. After World War II, China recovered and resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao, which had been illegally occupied by Japan during its war of aggression against China. To strengthen the administration over Nanhai Zhudao, the Chinese government officially published Nan Hai Zhu Dao Wei Zhi Tu (Location Map of the South China Sea Islands) on which the dotted line is marked as early as February 1948..."

• 2016 statement of the State Council of the People's Republic of China:

III. Based on the practice of the Chinese People and the Chinese government in the long course of history and the position consistently upheld by successive Chinese governments, and in accordance with national law and international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China has territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, including, inter alia:

i. China has sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao, consisting of Dongsha Qundao, Xisha Qundao, Zhongsha Qundao and Nansha Qundao;

ii. China has internal waters, territorial sea and contiguous zone, based on Nanhai Zhudao;

iii. China has exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, based on Nanhai Zhudao;

iv. China has historic rights in the South China Sea.

The above positions are consistent with relevant international law and practice.

-Object404 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely editor synth. Our article cites four sources to the contrary here see sources for: "On 12 July 2016, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines on most of its submissions. It clarified that while it would not "rule on any question of sovereignty ... and would not delimit any maritime boundary" JArthur1984 (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting multiple Chinese state sources on their claims. (the FB link is from the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines, and is WP:RS) See items III.i., ii., iii. and iv. above. The PCA ruling has an effect on these claims. China does not have an EEZ and continental shelf in a number of these features as they have been determined to be just rocks and low-tide elevations by the PCA, and not islands. The PCA also ruled that China's "historic rights" have no legal basis. Correct? -Object404 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"just rocks and low-tide elevations" -> Because of this, these Nanhai Zhudao features do not generate territorial seas or EEZs according to the PCA ruling. -Object404 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your confusion results from not understanding the issue of sovereignty, which you are confusing with a broader range of arguments. The sentence you are disagreeing with is focused on the issue of sovereignty. It is absolutely clear, in the result of the arbitration and in our article, that the Philippines won on most of its claims. But the arbitration did not decide the sovereignty issue. It was not before the arbitration. The arbitrators did not have jurisdiction to decide issues of sovereignty. This is why China contended publicly that the Philippines was really bringing sovereignty claims disguised as other kinds of claims. If the arbitrators agreed that they were ruling on sovereignty, they would have to reject the case. Although China did not participate (it knew a loss was very likely if it did participate), this sort of position (among others) is why it had the hearing on jurisdiction. The arbitrators rejected the jurisdiction argument and concluded the merits. See the Frances Yaping Wang source which is already in the article and has good discussion on this.

I can see you like primary sources (we try to avoid these when we can however), so note the following from the arbitration award:

- The use of maps "by the Tribunal is not intended to endorse any State’s position with respect to matters of land sovereignty or maritime boundaries."

- "The Convention, however, does not address the sovereignty of States over land territory. Accordingly, this Tribunal has not been asked to, and does not purport to, make any ruling as to which State enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal. None of the Tribunal’s decisions in this Award are dependent on a finding of sovereignty, nor should anything in this Award be understood to imply a view with respect to questions of land sovereignty"

- "which State enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal. None of the Tribunal’s decisions in this Award are dependent on a finding of sovereignty, nor should anything in this Award be understood to imply a view with respect to questions of land sovereignty"

We could go on and on. That's only through page 6 of the award. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the jurisdiction issue is why Philippines stated that it "does not seek in this arbitration a determination of which Party enjoys sovereignty over the islands claimed by both of them. Nor does it request a delimitation of any maritime 3 Notification and Statement of Claim of the Republic of the Philippines, 22 January 2013, para. 6 (Annex 1). The South China Sea Arbitration Award of 12 July 2016 12 boundaries." JArthur1984 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's backtrack a bit, okay.

1) China has claims on sovereignty which are outlined above.

2) These claims of sovereignty are based on Nanhai Zhudao's generation of EEZs, territorial seas, etc etc.

3) The PCA ruled that a large lot of Nanhai Zhudao's features are just rocks and low-tide elevation, and thus do not generate EEZs or territorial waters on their own.

4) Ergo, the PCA ruling has affected China's claims of sovereignty. Correct?

5) Bonus: The PCA has invalidated China's historical claims as basis for claiming many of these features as having no legal basis.

Thanks.

-22:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC) Object404 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I mentioned Synth early and tried to refocus you on the sources supporting the specific sentence you’re trying to remove. This line of thinking is synth that does nothing to support your edit. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source satisfies the above:

"No Islands in the Spratlys

While these aspects of the ruling garnered headlines, the boldest implications flow from the judges’ opinion that none of the maritime features in the Spratly Islands are entitled to maritime zones beyond twelve nautical miles. UNCLOS accords the full suite of maritime jurisdiction privileges (territorial sea, EEZ, and continental shelf rights) to islands. Rocks, however, are only entitled to twelve nautical miles of territorial sea, and freestanding low-tide elevations have no jurisdictional entitlement at all.

The tribunal ruled that the Spratly Islands are not islands in the legal sense, but rather, rocks or low-tide elevations. This includes the aptly named Mischief Reef, a submerged feature that China has occupied since 1995; it is one of seven features upon which Beijing has heaped thousands of tons of sand and concrete since the case was lodged in 2013. Although Mischief Reef now accommodates a military-grade runway and port facilities, the ruling is unambiguous that it falls within the Philippine EEZ. This means China is in a state of unlawful occupation."

The PCA ruling *has* affected China's sovereignty claims in the SCS. The sentence in question is erroneous.

-Object404 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing supports the accuracy of the sentence in the article. It states: "Unlike previous territorial disputes put before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or International Court of Justice in The Hague, this tribunal did not adjudicate on sovereignty. (The bold is mine, not in the article). JArthur1984 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The PCA ruling did not adjudicate on sovereignty per se, but the ruling DID apply and clarify the state of some of China's sovereignty claims as having no legal basis, as per above. -Object404 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean your disagreement is not the whole sentence you removed but the word "apply" specifically? Do you want to change "apply to" to "adjudicate"? We can see if the other editor whose edit I agreed with weighs in, but changing "apply to" to "adjudicate" is acceptable to me. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The entire sentence is quite misleading. The PCA ruled that in multiple instances, China had "no legal basis" (do a word search for "legal basis" in the ruling PDF) "for any entitlement by China to maritime zones" in X areas of the SCS, and this runs completely counter to China's sovereignty claims of:

"i. China has sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao, consisting of Dongsha Qundao, Xisha Qundao, Zhongsha Qundao and Nansha Qundao;

ii. China has internal waters, territorial sea and contiguous zone, based on Nanhai Zhudao;

iii. China has exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, based on Nanhai Zhudao;

iv. China has historic rights in the South China Sea."

For example, the ruling states: "The Tribunal has already held (see paragraphs 277 to 278 above) that there is no legal basis for any Chinese historic rights, or sovereign rights and jurisdiction beyond those provided for in the Convention, in the waters of the South China Sea encompassed by the ‘nine-dash line’." This overturns China's sovereignty claims above.

The logic that the sentence in question evokes is flawed and misleading, so let's just remove it and leave the previous sentence which is in the ruling there instead: "It declared its position on the award that "nothing in this Award should be understood to comment in any way on China’s historic claim to the islands of the South China Sea".".

-Object404 (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]