At the end of the day people will base in the world base order and chinas agression affects philipppines and Vietnam claim in SCS you can change and alter the news but never the geography and the UNCLOS ruling who favored and given to philipppines so go back to north china you have no business in the south

I think you misunderstood the Philippines position thinking that they are claiming it base on UNCLOS ruling only. Your examples are far different for those are controlled islands, but the Philippines have control of those rocks and shoals on a 17th century map under Spanish colony followed by the Paris treaty and Washington treaty when Spain surrendered the Philippines to USA. In addition, Filipino fishermen know each shoal and rocks without any modern instrument of navigation because it is passed down to generations to fish in this area using wooden boats, they are much closer to their shores than China. What China has to prove their claim? 9-dash line? Japan's surrender after World War 2?

@@Blixey-r9z philippines is archipelagic country dont tell me that chinese learn how to swim and fish first 😆

@ they probably did. But what is more important is they learnt to write it’s down and keep records of it first. The Philippines was first settled from the north by humans migrating down from Taiwan around 2000-3000 BC

@@rayrep8483 If you are interested, there is a recently published book “The History and Sovereignty of South China Sea” by Anthony Carty, an Irish law professor now working in Beijing. His research into historical documents in the British National Archives and France shows quite clearly that the British and French recognised/ acknowledged China’s presence and claims over the Spratlys. China, has a long history and a lot more historical records of activities in the Spratlys. It is only natural that China has a stronger historical claim over the Spratlys. But historical title is only one factor taken into account when a court like the ICJ decidies sovereignty disputes. The Philippines government is arguing that the Spratlys belong no one (terra nullius). Thitu Island was seized by the Philippines in 1974 after Taiwan evacuated the island because of a typhoon. The problem with that argument is that all the islands that remain unoccupied will still be then claimable. The Chinese, Taiwanese & Vietnamese claims all predate the UNCLOS treaty by many decades; UNCLOS only came into effect in 1994. UNCLOS article 198 makes an exception for the application of its provisions on prior claims made by states that wish to persist with such claims even though they may not be aligned with the provisions set out in UNCLOS. The sovereignty dispute over the Spratlys will have to be either settled through diplomatic negotiations or arbitrated before the ICJ. Arbitration is unlikely to happen since there are 5 claimants (China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia) and Taiwan is not even recognised as a sovereign state by the others. IMO, diplomatic negotiation is the most likely solution for this mess. Creative diplomacy resulting in an agreement similar to the Svalbard Treaty is a possible solution.

There is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about international law and the South China Sea. Below is something to help clear up the misconceptions perpetuated by the media and the Filipino government. I hope people will take time to read and digest it. This is important because the mistaken beliefs about international law and Philippines territory are significant obstacles to peaceful resolution of the SCS dispute. Thanks in advance: At the 2020 East Asia Summit, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi clearly reiterated: 1. China’s commitment to UNCLOS. 2. Denied claiming the entirety of waters or seabed within the U-shaped line. 3. Constrained China’s claims to only the maritime features within the U-shaped line and the maritime entitlements of those features under UNCLOS. As a matter of international law, this means that China position is aligned with the legal principle of mare liberum and the conventions laid out in UNCLOS. The claims are not excessive and almost identical to and actually less extensive than Taiwan’s claim; however, Western media’s narrative continues to distort and portray China’s claim to be excessive. The UNCLOS treaty is about the maritime entitlements (eg. territorial waters and EEZ) generated by undisputed sovereign territory. The UNCLOS treaty was never meant to be used to resolve disputes over territorial sovereignty. The South China Sea is a dispute about sovereignty. Just as one cannot build a house on a poor foundation, one cannot construct sovereignty claims from a treaty (UNCLOS) about maritime entitlements generated from disputed territory. The Philippines is abusing the rights and procedures under UNCLOS. This delegitimises the treaty and erodes the fundamental principles of international law. Sovereignty disputes were settled by military or economic might until the end of the 19th century. It is the hope, after 2 world wars, that diplomatic negotiations or international law will be used to settle territorial disputes. However, customary international law requires BOTH parties’ consent for arbitration over sovereignty disputes; a few sovereignty disputes have since been settled by arbitration (eg. Pedra Branca & Middle Rocks). Citing the 2016 UNCLOS arbitration opinion as the basis for Philippines’ territorial claims contravenes that fundamental legal principle of state consent for arbitration of sovereignty issues. Law-fare and distorted narratives in the court of public opinion will not get the Philippines anywhere; it will only harden China’s position and provoke more physical confrontation on the high seas. If proximity was the determining factor of sovereignty, then explain Phú Qúoc Island, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, The Falklands, Gibraltar, Greek Islands in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Turkey, Puerto Rico, The US and British Virgin Islands, Pedra Branca … and many more examples. Despite sovereignty disputes over maritime features, the freedom of commercial navigation and overflight enjoyed by all states in the South China Sea under international law has never been threatened. The South China Sea currently contains some of the safest and freest sea lanes in the world, with more than 100,000 ships and one third of the world's maritime trade passing through every year. Over 60% of China's foreign trade and energy imports pass through the South China Sea; peace and stability in the South China Sea is as vital to China as any other country. China’s interests lie in ensuring that these sea lanes remain safe and accessible to all.  The UK & the US themselves blatantly defied the UN and ICJ rulings that affirm Mauritius’ sovereignty over Diego Garcia (which the UK took by force) for many years; they only recently negotiated a controversial settlement with the Mauritian government that excluded the original islanders right to return home or compensation; the UK and US negotiated another 99 years of occupation of Diego Garcia against the recommendations of the UN and ICJ court. Filipinos should also note the US herself has not ratified the UNCLOS treaty. China is not the first or the only claimant have reclaimed/ built artificial islands. For decades, the Philippines and Vietnam were the most active in building artificial islands in the area, but from 2014 to 2016 China's construction activity outpaced them. The American policy of containment ensured that the spotlight was focussed on China’s island reclamation activities. Vietnam is currently quietly reclaiming/ expanding islands in the Spratlys. A pragmatic solution to South China Sea disputes embraced by several ASEAN members is to shelve their sovereignty disputes (ie agree to disagree) and pursue agreements of cooperation over South China Sea resources through quiet diplomatic negotiations. This approach, initially suggested by Deng Xiao Peng in 1960, has achieved some progress between competing claimant states. This might lead to some agreement like the Svalbard Treaty for the Spratlys. An ASEAN-flavoured analogy to explain the SCS dispute: 2 neighbours with mango trees are arguing about a fallen mango on the ground. They cannot prove which tree the mango fell from. Consider the 3 scenarios below: 1. The neighbours fight, accidentally smash the mango and no one gets to taste it; 2. The neighbours stop arguing and sit down to share the mango in peace; 3. One neighbour decides to ask the village crime boss for help. The crime boss’ thugs take the mango forcibly from the other neighbour. However, the crime boss likes the mango so much he decides to keep the mango, collect protection money and tax all future mango harvests from both trees for himself. The body of international law that is used to settle sovereignty disputes is not described or prescribed in the UNCLOS treaty. A fundamental principle governing the international law on sovereignty disputes is that of state consent. Hence, it was beyond the PCA’s jurisdiction to arbitrate on the sovereignty of the Spratlys or define the boundaries of the Philippines’ EEZ. Under customary international law, sovereignty is determined by factors like discovery, historical title, effective occupation, official acts, official documents, international treaties, official maps, acquiescence, abandonment etc. Geographical location and proximity are often not material considerations when deciding sovereignty disputes. There are many examples of islands and territories that fly a distant sovereign flag from its adjacent neighbours. There are many examples of this: Phú Qúoc Island, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, The Falklands, Gibraltar, Greek Islands in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Turkey, Puerto Rico, The US and British Virgin Islands, Pedra Blanca….. etc. The 2008 ICJ case of Pedra Blanca and Middle Rocks illustrates this point. Pedra Branca is a cluster of high tide rocks with a lighthouse built on it; and Middle Rocks are high tide rocks that did not have any man-made structures at the time of litigation. These rocks lie in closer proximity to Malaysia than Singapore; Malaysia even held the historical title to the rocks via the Johor Sultanate. However, after Singapore gained its independence from Malaya in 1965, Singapore continued to occupy, maintain and administer the lighthouse on Pedra Branca for many decades without objection from the Malaysians. Both Singapore and Malaysia consented to submit the sovereignty dispute to the ICJ. The ICJ awarded the sovereignty of Pedra Branca to Singapore while the Middle Rocks were awarded to Malaysia. The legal principles (acquiescence & abandonment) that established the transference of sovereignty/title of Pedra Branca from Malaysia to Singapore had nothing to do with proximity or UNCLOS.