Why should China Respect the Hague's ruling?

[Mehrunes]

This is incorrect. The UN and the binding treaties as member states precede the ICC, and they are, legally speaking, two separate entities. Member states can become recognized member states of the UN while choosing not to join the ICC, though it's pretty easy to bully smaller states to join in. The US simply straight up refuses, basically because it is the stats quo for the US to reject anything from the ICC to climate control regulations that can allow other states to impede on its national sovereignty.

Are you talking about International Criminal Court here?

[In Ogres We Trust]

Because it means other involved nations are now allowed to take further action against China if China continues. That's why. The same reason anyone should respect a court ruling against you, because if you don't abide by the ruling they can take more aggressive action against you.

A sovereign nation-state doesn't require a court ruling or the whimsical dictates of another nation-state to take action. As it relates to Vietnam and the Philippines, the idea that they're going to do anything against China is laughable, so China simply does whatever it wants within the region (as they should). Y'all take care!

[Mehrunes]

The International Court of Justice in The Hague is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations, of which China is a member state. They probably signed something somewhere that they respect rulings from said court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...urt_of_Justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

Also the fact that they don't need to listen due to other nations getitng away with things is an appeal to tradition fallacy I believe. I don't think that would hold up in court.

Wrong court, the article said the court in question was International Court of Arbitration. And thanks to the lovely way UNSC is set up, China is one of the few countries that's effectively immune to ICJ's rulings anyway.

EDIT: Read up about the case some more and the article in the OP is wrong, the court in question is Permanent Court of Arbitration, not International Court of Arbitration. Still not a UN institution though.

[burek]

hague is just a political court used to pursue western interests, it has nothing to do with crime or justice

for example, they imprisoned a guy on false pretenses just to prevent him from being voted into power, the trial lasted for almost 15 years (and that's without his defense) and then they have set him free when his political power was lost and most of his party bought over to pursue western interests

[Kellhound]

Well, because we have to, because the courts will exercice power to enforce their ruling and we're not ble to resist that power.

If you are the power, or are able to resist the power enforcing the court, your only reason to abide is to keep good relations. If you don't care about that, or know that your relations are secure regardless, you don't need to abide.

Which is why the Hague is ignored repeatedly, even by the west who keeps trying to use it to push things on others. It's power is backed by the same entities it's trying to control, which allows those entities to just ignore it if they wish.

The same holds true for all courts. As a society we just accept the power of the courts inside our country.

- - - Updated - - -

yeah, lets settle things wild west style!

You missed the point....

- - - Updated - - -

A sovereign nation-state doesn't require a court ruling or the whimsical dictates of another nation-state to take action. As it relates to Vietnam and the Philippines, the idea that they're going to do anything against China is laughable, so China simply does whatever it wants within the region (as they should). Y'all take care!

Hence why they havs asked others to help them, some that may actually "convince" China of its error.

[Deleted]

Because the International Court of Justice, residing in Hague, is an United Nations organization.
China is part of the United Nations, as far as being one of the 5 with a veto right permanently on certain matters.
But why should China respect the ruling? Because a weak UN means that nations can go to war with eachother at any time without giving a shit to anyone else's opinion. And that is bad both for the world and China, who itself has a few land border disputes.
the UN had a parent organization, the League of Nations, which was formed so that the attrocities of WW1 would never happen again. But it was weak, not being supported by many major powers and so when nations didn't like what all nations decided, they left. WW2 happened. And not only weak or small nations suffered.
The United Nations was then founded to prevent something akin either World War from happening again. Attrocities and skirmishes still occur but we haven't had true major wars since then.

[Sunseeker]

A sovereign nation-state doesn't require a court ruling or the whimsical dictates of another nation-state to take action. As it relates to Vietnam and the Philippines, the idea that they're going to do anything against China is laughable, so China simply does whatever it wants within the region (as they should). Y'all take care!

It does if it wants to be supported by other nations in their action.

[Bloodline]

Wrong court, the article said the court in question was International Court of Arbitration. And thanks to the lovely way UNSC is set up, China is one of the few countries that's effectively immune to ICJ's rulings anyway.

EDIT: Read up about the case some more and the article in the OP is wrong, the court in question is Permanent Court of Arbitration, not International Court of Arbitration. Still not a UN institution though.

The same reason why the United States is not a member of the ICC. Because when you join as a member you sign treaties with the other member nations agreeing to abide by their rulings.

- - - Updated - - -



This is incorrect. The UN and the binding treaties as member states precede the ICC, and they are, legally speaking, two separate entities. Member states can become recognized member states of the UN while choosing not to join the ICC, though it's pretty easy to bully smaller states to join in. The US simply straight up refuses, basically because it is the stats quo for the US to reject anything from the ICC to climate control regulations that can allow other states to impede on its national sovereignty.

I stand corrected I admit that I have very little knowledge about the global political machine.

[Mehrunes]

I stand corrected I admit that I have very little knowledge about the global political machine.

Well, I'm still not sure why Kasierith talked about ICC. If she talked about International Chamber of Commerce (which would make sense in the light of the article's invalid remark about International Court of Arbiters since that's an institution of International Chamber of Commerce) but that would make her post factually incorrect since this ICC is older than the UN and US is a member.

But if she talked about ICC as in International Criminal Court then her post is irrelevant and wrong for other reasons, i.e. as a correction of your point about ICJ. While you may have confused courts, you are right in saying that ICJ is the primary judicial branch of the UN. And it isn't that separate of an entity. Also, unlike International Criminal Court the membership in ICJ is compulsory (well, automatic) for UN member states which US is. Moreover, member states of UN have a duty of compliance in regards to ICJ's rulings, including US (though there is the same problem as with China in that US can cockblock UNSC with their veto power).

[Deleted]

Who is the Hague to rule on china's sovereignty? what is it with the west that we're so inclined to believe we have the right to interfere or intervene everywhere in this world? How many times has the US, Isreal, France, England violated international protocols, rules, laws to get what they want yet China's supposed to accept some western court's ruling concerning disputed islands? Throw Russia in the violator of international law as well. They may be the leader. I couldn't find any relevant research so I have to come to a deduction of sorts concerning the matter. Just look at their butchery in Chechnya, Afghanistan, and their recent forays into Ukraine and Syria. All violations of international law. Where was the Hague in the matter? Here's a link to the China article. oh yeah big bad, blustery America (my country) has sent 2 carrier groups to the south china seas region. You're all worried about ISIS and nobodies like that while America's here trying to kick the hornet's nest with the biggest military ever seen.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...cid=spartandhp

America i'm sad and ashamed to say will be the end of us all. economically, politically, militarily, and millions of "rapture" ready Christian Zionists seeking to start the armeggdon at the forefront.

This is borderline e conspiracy talk. NATO was involved in all the conflicts you mentioned.
You seem to labor under the notion that just because other people have dirt on their hands, China can do water ere the fuck it wants to two neighbors.

[Grummgug]

Your topic title is "Why should China respect The Hague's ruling?". And the answer to that is just that: the International Court of Justice is the court of the UN of which China is a member state. So that must mean something, right? To address your other point: I actually just edited my initial post with this:

For all practical purposes, the UN is just a treaty. And historically, treaties have been absolutely worthless.

[In Ogres We Trust]

It does if it wants to be supported by other nations in their action.

China doesn't need the support of other nations, and once again, unless the US (which is firmly under the control of the globalists) comes to the rescue, nothing will ever happen.

[Ulmita]

America i'm sad and ashamed to say will be the end of us all. economically, politically, militarily, and millions of "rapture" ready Christian Zionists seeking to start the armeggdon at the forefront.

Americans are pushing hard for a Chinese - Russian cooperation in the political (exists already) and military sector

[Kellhound]

Americans are pushing hard for a Chinese - Russian cooperation in the political (exists already) and military sector

China and Russia will cooperate as well as Germany and the USSR did during WWII...

[Ulmita]

China and Russia will cooperate as well as Germany and the USSR did during WWII...

Too bad that the Chinese PM has already hinted that there needs to be one such cooperation and if does, its going to be your fault.

[Annamarine]

The reason china should abide by the ruling is they are a signature to the UNCLOS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Law_of_the_Sea) and this court has jurisdiction to rule over disputes based on this treaty ... if this ruling goes against china as it is expected to they ether break a treaty they signed onto or they have to back away from a claim .. both would be an international embarrassment to china

It really has nothing to do over the western court telling china what to do, China gave the court this power when they freely signed to this treaty.

Most of the world has signed this treaty ... ironically USA has not therefore the USA is not enforcing its will on others at all in this case.

[Kellhound]

Too bad that the Chinese PM has already hinted that there needs to be one such cooperation and if does, its going to be your fault.

Of course China likes the idea, makes it easier for them to steal Russian tech.