Talk:Scarborough Shoal

Edit request: removal of irrelevant unsourced passage

In the "2016 ruling" section, the following passage was recently added:

However, United Nations clearly states that this arbitration tribunal is not affiliated with UN. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA’s website (www.pca-cpa.org). The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case and, for that reason, there is no information about it on the ICJ’s website.

First, this passage is unreferenced. Second, the fact that the PCA is separate from the UN and not related to the ICJ is not relevant to the article. As long as we make it clear that the arbitration case (which involved the status of Scarborough Shoal) is administratively handled by the PCA, then the text preceding the above passage should suffice. —seav (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this paragraph is unnecessary. UNCLOS is not administered by the UN or the ICJ, it has its own rules for arbitration. These are not less important or less valid, as the quoted paragraph implies. They are part of UNCLOS, which means they are accepted by all countries that have ratified the treaty. But there is no need to say any of that: anyone curious about UNCLOS can follow the link, where there is comprehensive information on it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

UNCLOS only suggests a “special arbitral tribunal” constituted for certain categories of disputes (established under Annex VIII of UNCLOS) could be accepted. However, UNCLOS never endorse this particular arbitration. In addition, don't automatically think it is part of UNCLOS, which is misleading. Please also do some research on PCA, you will know how ridiculous the so-called international court is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wocaonima1 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In order to end this argument and support the claim that the additional information is necessary, I would like to give a simple example. For instance, Costco (PCA) can sell iphones (interpretation of UNCLOS), which are authorized by the Apple company (the United Nations and UNCLOS). However, it does not mean when customers (the Philippines) get a bad Samsung Galaxy (illegal claims), they can ask the board of directors (China) from Apple company to reimburse them, just because the Apple agreed that Costco can sell iphones, so all phones must be Apple products. The customers forget that the Apple has its own official stores: the Apple Store (the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice in The Hague). Unfortunately, the bad Samsung Galaxy (illegal claims) is not purchased from official stores. It will be natural that the Apple issues statements that Costco (PCA) is not part of the Apple company (the United Nations and UNCLOS) , and stress the separation from the bad products. It will be misleading to hide such information from the public, because not everyone knows Costco not only sells iphones, but also bad Samsung Galaxys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wocaonima1 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that we completely remove the information that PCA ≠ ICJ from Wikipedia. I am suggesting that this information is not relevant to the article Scarborough Shoal. By all means, add the information to the articles on Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Court of Justice, and Philippines v. China, but not on Scarborough Shoal. Again, this passage is irrelevant to the present article. —seav (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

i disagree. If you think it is unnecessary, why not delete the whole section of "2016 ruling". As you said, people can read the information from Philippines v. China, but not Scarborough Shoal. I insist that the audience have the rights to know this issue from various perspectives. Let they know all, and decide what they believe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wocaonima1 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The arbitration is part of UNCLOS. However, the provisions relating to adjudication and arbitration within UNCLOS are spread and rather complex. In general, parties are supposed to settle their disputes peacefully and among themselves (UNCLOS, Part XV, Section I). However, where no settlement is the dispute can be submitted to a court or tribunal (Section II art. 286). Art. 287 provides for the possibility of a party to submit what kind of procedure it prefers:

1. the ICJ;
2. the ITLOS;
3. an arbitral tribunal ex ANNEX VII;
4. a special arbitral tribunal ex ANNEX VIII.

If no preference is stated or if both parties opted for a different procedure, than procedure 3 is used i.e. an arbitral tribunal ex ANNEX VII. Furthermore, it is not necessary for both parties to agree to instigate proceedings under UNCLOS. Art. 286 clearly states that:

"Subject to section 3, any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, where no settlement has been reached by recourse to section 1, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section."

I.e. any party can unilaterally initiate proceedings against another UNCLOS treaty party. Art. 286 means among other things that no party can unilaterally block adjudication or arbitration seeked by another party against it and the court or tribunal itself is competent to rule whether it has jurisdiction.

The Philippines v. China arbitration, concerns an arbitral tribunal constituted under ANNEX VII. As such, its arbitration forms part of the UNCLOS scheme. However, the arbitrators who determine the award are neither part of the UN nor of UNCLOS. Instead, every country signed UNCLOS can designate four persons to serve as arbitrators to be included on a list held by the UNSG. Normally, under ANNEX VII proceedings each party is allowed to choose one out of five arbitrators to serve on the case (ANNEX VII art. 2 and 3). So where does the PCA fit in? The arbitral tribunal needs facilities to hold its hearings and everything associated with it. The PCA, not being a court itself, provides these services (the PCA itself is indeed not part of the UN and was formed at the first Hague Peace Conference of 1899). To date it has provided administrative services in all but one ANNEX VII case.

Hence, I agree with seav and JohnBlackburne that the section is superfluous and can be deleted. However, the ICJ did put this statement on their website. Probably, because some people thought it had issued the ruling (either because the ICJ houses in the same building as the PCA or because of the media or who knows why). I also respectfully disagree with Wocaonima1 because UNCLOS adjudication and arbitration works differently than he purported it to be.

TL;DR. The tribunal is based on UNCLOS, specifically ANNEX VII. The proceedings can be initiated by one party and the other part is unable to block the proceedings, the tribunal itself has the power to establish whether it has jurisdiction. The PCA is only there to provide administrative services and is not in any other way involved. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• So the request is to remove that paragraph, correct? (You can ping me with the answer.) Katie^talk 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  I've removed it. Hope this is correct. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree on what Wicaonima was saying.. International Court Ruling as such regarding Scarborough is very material to be read by the whole world especially the Peopke of tvthe Philippines.. It was a longbattle won.. Freedom..

There's so much Chinese edits on there already.. Bebe0114 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Shoal?

How comes that countries can claim sovereignty over a Shoal? A Shoal is defined as a feature that is near the surface, but fully underwater, as far I know.

The topic, and heavily political, is that the "Shoal do have some over the water features so, it is possible to claim sovereignty, and build over it, and expand his surface, as necessary. As the airports in Japan and Hong Kong.

so a number of countries -including the US- has claim sovereignty over it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 14:58, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

UNCLOS

To illustrate fellows quorans.

The US is NOT part of UNCLOS so, it can no make claims based on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 15:01, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to hire someone to control the Wumao infestation

It is so ridiculous to have random people on the internet stumble across a page on wikipedia about the Scarborough shoal, and for it to have maps right at the top listing it by a name the Chinese gave it "Huangyan". Wikipedia being open to edit by anyone is a horrible characteristic, it means Wumao basically abuse this place, so we find so many pages of other country's islands and features and the page is using some name the Chinese call it instead, because Wumao love pushing their names for things to imply they own it.

Sort yourself out wikipedia, you need to hire actual workers to keep on top of this, otherwise it's just like reading a bunch of Wumao propaganda half the time on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.1.253 (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Galit, Panacot, Lumbay, etc.

I've added a footnote that may help resolve this, though I don't expect my latest change to be the final version. We've been edit-warring over these names for too long. Let's figure out what to do here, get an editorial consensus about that, then do it. If my edit isn't helpful, improve it or revert it.

On a separate issue, I think the story on differing opinions about whether or not Panacot is Scarboough Shoal, which the article goes back and forth about, should be summarized in a footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

AFAICS, Galit, Panacot and Lumbay collectively have nothing to do with the topic of this article, Scarborough Island itself. The question of whether Panacot in particular is the same feature that is now referred to as Scarborough Island is, or course, relevant to this article. I suggest that most of the present content here related to Galit, Panacot and Lumbay collectively be moved to the Spratley Islands (with an 's') article. I also suggest that content be presented there in a way that does not mention those features by name 9 different times at 9 different places in the article as is currently done in this article (e.g., by naming them in a clarifying footnote that also presents once, in one place, some info about them). That move of content should probably include moving the map images, or maybe all but one of them. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I jumped the gun a bit with the details in that suggestion. It now seems to me that the way to apprroach this should be to put the info about Galit, Panacot and Lumbay collectively into a new article named Galit, Panacot and Lumbay and to list them collectively with that name in the List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands article. These features could then be mentioned collectively or individually, named or not, in appropriate points in other articles, with wikiliks from there to that new artcle or to points within it. Please consider my suggestion above amended. I'm starting a draft of such an article here, but at present it is tentative and very barebones. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) (updated)

As I get into this and get a grip on the background info, I see that the Spratly Islands aren't involved here. Spratley Island is about 1200km west of the southern tip of Palawan and the Spratly Island group stretches very roughly 500-60km north and east from there -- roughly half the distance eastward to Palawan And the length of Palawan island northward from Spratly island. Scarborough Shoal and the three features at issue here are well to the north and east of there.

OK, disregard what I said about the List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands article. I stand by my suggestion about a new standalone article about these three features. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Rethink

I've had a rethink.

• My suggestion for a standalone article came largely because I then mistakenly believed that such an article should be referenced from that article listing Spratly's articles mentioned above. I later woke up to the fact that the list article had nothing to do with this.
• I've made some progress on drafting that article but, mainly because I've been doing it in spare minutes stolen from other stuff, I haven't made much progress. However, it seems to me that there really isn't much to say about these three named features. What there is to say includes

• Something about the relation between the 1734 Villarde map and this map published, that web page says, in Paris in "1771 (1775)". The positions of the features on these two maps is so close that, given uncertainty in determining position during naval surveys in the 1700's, it seems to me that both cartographers must have been working from the same position data. Also, claims of acquisition of sovereignty by discovery, AFAIK, consider dates of the discovery, not dates of chartor map publication.
• Some info about the names, and alternative names of the features.
• Some info about the likelihood that these three features are one feature placed in three different locations on a north-south line.
• Some info about whether features (or one reported as three - maybe Pantong) later caused the 1784 ship that gave Scarborough its name.

That's about it, and that info should fit into a section about these features in the Scarborough Shoal article. -- add items there that I've missed, but that's my current thought on this.

I'll probably continue working on my draft as I get time with that now in mind; I don't know when or whether I might get that into shape to put into the article.

I've also noticed what looks like problems in the content related to these features now present in the Scarborough article. Though I expect most of that content to be removed when a section on these features appears there, I may make some edits there where I see problems.

I had hoped this would go better and more quickly -- it didn't turn out that way. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)