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!
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.
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
The same holds true for all courts. As a society we just accept the power of the courts inside our country.
- - - Updated - - -
You missed the point....
- - - Updated - - -
Hence why they havs asked others to help them, some that may actually "convince" China of its error.
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.
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).
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.
Last edited by Annamarine; 2016-07-08 at 03:02 PM.