No.
My point is, their consistent claims of this territory over several decades will provide their allies a fig leaf when they ratify China’s claim.
Why else are freedom of navigation exercises like this one necessary?
Why else would China make this big song and dance when this outcome was obvious and predictable?
None of this contradicts anything I’ve said.
That’s exactly how this works.
Why are freedom of navigation exercises a thing?
Why does China pay many billions in “aid” to island nations in exchange for recognition of these claims?
Why would China bother making the assertion when the outcome is predictable and obvious?
This is part of a much larger campaign from China in south East Asian waters taking place over many decades. It’s a well understood and publicised strategy.
That’s not what’s happening.
In 50 years time, they’ll be able to say they’ve asserted claims since forever, list all the countries which have observed their claims, and point to instances like this one where they’ve shown restraint to avoid an international incident.
They’ve been playing this exact game in the south China Sea since forever.
You keep using the term “allowed” as though there’s some global arbiter of the rules. There isn’t.
As I started off by saying, if China claims sovereignty in whatever waters, and other nations respect that claim, then sooner or later it will be theirs for all intents and purposes.
Being signatories to a treaty is not decisive if no one follows the treaty.
If what you’re saying is true, why would we need freedom of navigation exercises?
UNCLOS doesn’t cover this type of dispute:
UNCLOS does not deal with matters of territorial disputes or to resolve issues of sovereignty, as that field is governed by rules of customary international law on the acquisition and loss of territory.
From your link…
UNCLOS does not deal with matters of territorial disputes or to resolve issues of sovereignty, as that field is governed by rules of customary international law on the acquisition and loss of territory.
You could say the same of any public service role.
The voting public doesn’t have the requisite experience and knowledge to make good decisions about candidates for executive or judicial roles.
Government is a different case. You’re selecting a representative. Someone to represent you in parliament. The skills required to do so are in theory less significant. It’s just a responsible person who will raise their hand at the right time.
but it is officially an international waterway
That’s not how this works though.
Who decides what is an international water way? Basically, if everyone does what China says, then it’s their water. If everyone ignores Chinas bitching, then it’s international.
Because in many cases the risks are much more manageable than the risks associated with any meaningful alternatives.
Nuclear power isn’t good nor bad, it’s one of many options, each of which may be suitable in a given circumstance.
It’s hardly worthy of being called a bluff.
Everyone knows Trump would just force a Russian victory. He could do that just by refusing further support for Ukraine.
Harris said it in the debate.
Everyone knows he can be bought with favours.
Was that a legit question?
The answer seems kinda obvious.
God this is daft.
It took you 3 days to come up with this witty retort? I’m so disappointed.
I think the vast majority of his haters are from bitter.
Edit: fuck knows what I was trying to say here.
I’m arguing that the risk is so minimal that no one bothers mitigating it.
I might get shot today, yet I’m not wearing a ballistics vest.
Everything you’ve listed is an absurd over statement.
often attack men over women, or their ego, or their fragile state of mind has been disrupted momentarily or whatever other trivial reason men feel justified attacking people.
This is simply not the reality I live in. I’ve never known someone to attack someone over a woman, nor their fragile state of mind?
Driving in my car = men are more likely to participate in road rage At work = men are more likely to commit violence at work than women At home = men are most likely to break and enter occupied homes In public = men are most likely to be the perpetrator of a public mass shooting public shooting.
I’ve certainly never experienced any of this and while mass shootings and robberies do occur they’re so rare that being a victim of such a crime is not a tangible risk.
Honestly you’re more likely tripping over your shoelace and dying than any of these things actually happening.
Sure mate.
It’s patently absurd to suggest that all women fear for their personal safety “all of the time” when they leave the house.
Sure, there’s a very few places in the world where that may be true, but it certainly is not generally true.
I think your comment says more about you than it does about me.
The section you’ve quoted explains what the rules are if there is no dispute. It does not explain how to resolve a dispute.