Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (122982)	10/15/2016 2:02:36 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219789

it would perhaps be better for our dialogue if we stay w/ the facts and remain well away from the protocol as constantly tee-ed up by the likes of clinton and trump Re <<The "Law of the Sea" Treaty as ratified by ... the US>> ... hmmmmnnnn, but on which planet in which galaxy? Re <<the US and other Naval forces will continue to exercise of free passage through the waters surrounding man-made islands>> which other naval forces are you talking about? apparently not australia, theguardian.com certainly not japan, voanews.com and perhaps not even the philippines, the nation state directly involved, and especially not the delegation now in beijing as reported by japanese media japantimes.co.jp all seems quite tranquil and well per peaceful rise, and promising same many many decades into the future. do not see any other nations doing freedom of navigation where it matters per warning for the simple reason that one day soonest no nation, and especially those backed by aircraft carriers and weapons of mass destruction, shall be able to do false freedom of navigation while claiming true dominion over the entire pacific lake per hillary r clinton. the future promises to be much entertaining. In the mean time team USA is actually keeping very quiet, almost mouse-like, about the details of the Hague ruling i.e. does the truth even matter ? apparently not. i am also guessing that one fine day the law of the sea as ratified by beijing shall be enforced across this planet. bloomberg.com Is It an Island or a Rock? Ruling Could Cost U.S. a Huge Swath of Ocean A Chinese dispute has a ripple effect on exclusive economic zones around the world. July 29, 2016 The Asahi Shimbun/Getty Images *Okinotorishima is an island in Japan’s economic zone.* The Asahi Shimbun/Getty Images The U.S. and other coastal nations could lose millions of square nautical miles of ocean that are now in their exclusive economic zones. The loss would be an indirect result of an arbitration panel’s ruling on China’s dispute with the Philippines in the South China Sea. Largely overlooked in the tribunal’s July 12 decision was a strict interpretation of which dry land is entitled to a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone—the surrounding ocean where a nation has sole rights to fish, drill for oil, and search for minerals. While not a legal precedent, the 479-page ruling could influence other judges and arbitrators because of its rigorous argument. “These arbitrators knew that this case was being watched around the world,” says Paul Reichler, a partner in law firm Foley Hoag and lead counsel for the Philippines. “They wanted it to be as close to perfect as possible.” The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea doesn’t allow nations to declare exclusive economic zones around “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own.” What that’s meant has never been clear. Many countries, including the U.S. and Japan, have claimed exclusive economic zones around tiny atolls and outcroppings of rock. The U.S. hasn’t ratified the treaty because of opposition from congressional Republicans, who fear it would open the U.S. to lawsuits. But the U.S. “scrupulously” follows the treaty’s provisions anyway, says James Kraska, a law professor at the U.S. Naval War College. Push could come to shove if another nation seeks to fish or drill or mine in waters surrounding some dinky U.S. rock. The tribunal concluded that having people live on an island doesn’t prove habitability if food and water comes from elsewhere. Countries will “now have a greatly reduced incentive” to fight over ownership of rocks if they no longer have exclusive zones, Kraska says. On the minus side, fisheries might be depleted quickly if countries lose the ability to curb fishing in these zones. The bottom line: An arbitration panel’s definition of what an island is could undermine nations’ claims of economic zones around rock outcroppings. What's the Cost to U.S. of South China Sea Ruling?