Talk:Scarborough Shoal

Philippines stating the shoal was not Philippine territory

Some Chinese sources claim that before 1997 the government of the Philippines had stated the shoal was not Philippine territory. According to the official clarification letter to a telecommunication expedition group from Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Philippines on February 28th, 1994, the document officially verified that the Island was not part of the Philippine territory. On February 5, 1990, the Philippine ambassador to Germany made it clear that according to the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority, the Huangyan Island was not within the Philippine territory in a letter to Dieter, a German radio amateur. On Nov. 18, 1994, the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority and Philippine Amateur Radio Association reconfirmed that the borders and sovereignty of Philippines were defined in the third clause of the Treaty of Paris on Dec. 10, 1898 and the Huangyan Island was located outside the borders of Philippine territory.

I reverted the inclusion of this text for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the second part of it is unsourced and obviously contentious, and so shouldn't go in at all. The first part of it is sourced to a Chinese source, and I'd prefer translated quotes to be presented before it goes in. By "Some Chinese sources" does this text mean that the source notes Chinese sources say this, or is it just this one source which is being used to justify some? Also, is this source an official statement from a Chinese body? CMD (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the statement as {{Source need translation}} for the mean time. Please don't remove unless we can find an English translation. The reference given doesn't seem to come from an official statement by the Chinese government; we need the English text (preferably from an official Chinese gov't. website) that will support that block of text. If we can find the similar claim in an English third-party website, then feel free to remove it. Xeltran (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I took it out again. Given the contentiousness of the issue, we should at least know what the source says before using it in the article. CMD (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The link above is to page 2 of a 15-page article on the efforts of some radio amateurs to establish Scarborough Shoal as an independent geographic entity (or "country") in order to compete for the radio amateur award DX Century Club (DXCC). Actually the relevant information is not on page 2, but in the last paragraph of page 4. We are told that an amateur group collected various documents that included "a letter dated 5 February 1990 from the ambassador of the Philippines in Germany to [radio] amateur Dieter, and a letter of attestation dated 28 February 1994 from the Philippines' Department of the Environment and Natural Resources; both documents explicitly state that the Philippines did not hold sovereignty over Huangyan Island" (1990年2月5日菲律宾驻德国大使致德国爱好者迪特的信和1994年2月28日菲律宾环境及自然资源部的证明信，这两份文件明确说明菲律宾对黄岩岛不拥有主权). That's it. The text of the documents is not cited. We also don't know how the writer obtained these letters, though that information might appear somewhere else in the 15 pages of the article. None of this sounds particularly convincing... Madalibi (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Readers can just use the Google Translate to find out the English translation. STSC (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The mangled grammar caused by that was difficult for me, and I understand Chinese sentence structures. We don't source based on google translate. CMD (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're just interested in raging edit wars. STSC (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm re-adding the text within the WP:NOENG policy. STSC (talk)

The text you quoted wasn't even on the linked page. It also shouldn't be in the title parameter of a citation template. That's for the article title. CMD (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We can consider inserting some kind of text on this, but we have to be careful how it's formulated. For one, we can't use vague words like "some sources claim." We need proper attribution. As a draft that we can all develop together, I propose something like this:

"An article on the Chinese website of the Global Times and an editorial in the People's Daily claim that the ambassador of the Philippines in Germany sent a letter to radio amateur "Dieter" in February 1990 stating that the Scarborough Shoal was not part of the Philippines. The article and the editorial also claim that in 1994 both the Philippines Department of the Environment and Natural Resources and the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority confirmed to the American Amateur Radio Association that the Philippines did not hold sovereignty over the shoal."

Followed by the two references. What do you all think? (Note that the "American Amateur Radio Association" doesn't seem to exist. Maybe the People's Daily is referring to the American Amateur Radio League, in which case it might be interesting to contact that League to see if they know of such a document...) Madalibi (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that all new text is being added in each time the disputed text is blatantly reinserted without any sort of consensus here has confused some members of the discussion. Vehoo clearly has missed the subject of the debate, as they're looking at an entirely different sources. Currently we have "<ref>{{cite web|title=A letter dated 5 February 1990 from the ambassador of the Philippines in Germany to radio amateur Dieter, and a letter of attestation dated 28 February 1994 from the Philippines' Department of the Environment and Natural Resources; both documents explicitly state that the Philippines did not hold sovereignty over Huangyan Island (1990年2月5日菲律宾驻德国大使致德国爱好者迪特的信和1994年2月28日菲律宾环境及自然资源部的证明信，这两份文件明确说明菲律宾对黄岩岛不拥有主权)|url=http://mil.huanqiu.com/photo/china/2011-10/2097304_2.html|date=March 13, 1994}}</ref>" as a source. 1990 isn't on that url, yet somehow is cited as a quote from it. There's no point rewriting if the sources don't even say what they're being quoted to say. CMD (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I see what you mean. The paragraph that some editors want to add back in presents unsupported claims as facts, and the format, title, and date of the citation are completely wrong. (Incidentally, I appreciate your patience and civility in dealing with this situation!) But I think we can do something about this. The right URL for the quote I translated above is http://mil.huanqiu.com/photo/china/2011-10/2097304_4.html. The date of the article is 19 October 2011. The title is "The expedition of Chinese radio amateurs at Huangyan Island" 我国无线电爱好者“远征”黄岩岛始末 (that's a loose translation). No author is indicated. The passage that is indicated as title in the footnote is actually my translation of the relevant passage in the article, but it omits to say that these are the documents that the radio amateur team allegedly collected. My rewording takes all these corrections into account. Gotta go, but I'll be back tomorrow. Take it easy, everyone! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so the text does exist. This is good news. What we need is specific points from each source, backed up with quotes (and translations if necessary) for these. After that it's a simple matter of organising them into a paragraph. Rather than just have both sources as the end, we should have the sources placed after the chunk of text they support. That way a reader knows what information comes from where. CMD (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back. The claims do sound far-fetched, but yes, the text does exist! The proper format of the reference should be...

The second reference is to an English-language editorial on the People's Daily website.

The quote is optional for the English editorial. I'm out of time for now, but let's keep building this up! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for jumping into the middle of this discussion, I am new to Wiki (as far as editing and contributing is concerned). I may not aware of some of the etiquette here. So forgive me as I follow the learning curve to navigate through this.

However I would like to provide some bits of information I found on the web regarding the DXpeditions to Huangyan Island (1995 and 1997).

The websites are maintained by Tim Totten (probably a better source for you to quote due to its neutrality), one of the participants to both of the 1995 and 1997 DXpeditions.

BS7H 1995 (http://www.n4gn.com/sr95/)

BS7H 1997 (http://www.n4gn.com/sr/)

Note that in one of the BS7H 1997 Bulletins, namely, Bulletin 13, 07MAY97 - Reason for early departure, the author mentioned:

"It is important to note that the Philippine officers admitted that there is no Philippine claim to the reef itself. The captain of the lead Ocean Bureau ship, of course, stated the Chinese position that Scarborough reef is P.R.C. territory and provides the baseline for a 12 nautical mile Territorial Sea (TS) surrounding the reef. [Despite recent speculation posted to the DX reflector, China is the undisputed owner of Scarborough Reef. Substantial evidence supporting this fact was submitted to the ARRL DX Advisory Committee, including official statements from the Philippine government. --N4GN]"

It is possible then, I theorize, to obtain the official documents (conceivably the two documents you are looking for) from the ARRL DX Advisory Committee. Showmebeef (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. We may be getting close to something. Tim Totten's claim that the Philippine officers admitted their country did not officially claim the reef wouldn't count as a reliable source, but his claim that "substantial evidence," "including statement from the Philippine government" can verify that China is the "undisputed owner" of the reef is worth pursuing. Thanks a lot for the lead! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph on contentious claim

Here's the reformulated paragraph as I proposed it above, with full references to two online sources. The relevant passage in the Chinese source is fully translated. The wording is neutral, and the two sources' claims are not presented as facts. Readers are allowed to make up their mind on the weight of the evidence presented. Anyway, let us all know if you could live with this version. Any suggestions for further improvement are of course very welcome. So here it is:

An article on the Chinese website of the Global Times and an editorial in the People's Daily claim that the ambassador of the Philippines in Germany sent a letter to radio amateur "Dieter" in February 1990 stating that the Scarborough Shoal was not part of the Philippines; they also claim that in 1994 both the Philippines Department of the Environment and Natural Resources and the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority confirmed to the American Amateur Radio Association that the Philippines did not hold sovereignty over the shoal.

Support? Oppose? Comments? I'm sure we can work things out! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Those statements are consistent with the timeline and Philippines maps, their constitution, the Treaty of Paris and several sources from the Philippines. UNCLOS '82 EEZ laws came into effect in late 2004. It appears after recognizing fishing waters would be lost, Filipinos decided to challenge for the shoal in 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerdantResources (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why a newspaper has a mil. url, but considering both sources are exactly the same the new paragraph is formatted well. I wouldn't object to this being added. CMD (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! I think the mil. prefix indicates that the article is classified in the section on "military affairs" of the Global Times website. The Global Times is often more assertive and more overtly nationalistic than the CCP's official line, so we shouldn't be surprised to find this kind of article on their website, or to find an article on radio amateurs in the military section. Madalibi (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Three days and no response apart from CMD's, so I just went ahead and posted the proposed paragraph. Worded and referenced as it is, it shouldn't be controversial. Don't hesitate to make any improvement you find necessary. Madalibi (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO it should be deleted totally as The Global Times has not backed up this claim with hard evidence. Regardless if true on not, individuals or agencies have no power to claim or unclaim such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boopolo (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

it is worth mentioning that in 1997 a Philippine judge dismissed charges of illegal entry into Philippine territory against 21 Chinese fishermen apprehended by the Philippine navy near Scarborough Reef finding that “there can be no legal basis as yet for the conclusion that the accused...entered Philippine territory illegally” as it had not yet been established that that area “exclusively belongs to the exclusive 32 economic zone of the Philippines” based upon the 1978 Presidential Decree.

In 1992, Jorge Coquia, a legal adviser to the Philippine government stated that “the Philippines has no intention or interest in any area in the South China Sea outside 37 the limits set forth in P.D. No.1596.” That statement indicates that the Philippine claim over the South China Sea is limited to the Kalayaan area. Nevertheless, its claim to Scarborough Reef is a new one and relates to an area beyond the limits of the Kalayaan area. It is therefore inconsistent with what the Philippines had expressed before. Thus unless the Philippines could justify that their claim to Scarborough Reef was an old one, already in existence before the Kalayaan claim, its claim is probably not tenable. https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/.../bsb7-2_keyuan_p1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerdantResources (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong.. Very Wrong.. Philippines is very much interested in the area..

That is why it was brought to the Tribunal Court..

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140358/philippines-arbitration-decision-maritime-dispute-south-china-sea-arbitral-tribunal-unclos-itlos

Bebe0114 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The area was tenable because that's a livelihood place of the Filipinos

Bebe0114 (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A whole lot of Chinese who does not know what they are saying are editing this Wikipedia or they are just full of lies.. The American soldiers with the Filipinos hold their drills there because the Naval Station is just there.. Don't even know what they are talking about as they edit.. No wonder this Wikipedia page is all full of Chinese writing.. Bebe0114 (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

37nm..??? I don't think SO.. 200 nm EEZ.. And that was hardly fought in court.. IfChina did not show up after all the chance he was given then .. He has waived himself to be represented.. Thecase proceeds ex-parte..

Bebe0114 (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In hopes of clearing up apparent confusion above re the number 37, I'll say that it seems to me that the number probably comes from this document, where it says on page 76 (page 6 of the PDF):

In 1992, Jorge Coquia, a legal adviser to the Philippine government stated that “the Philippines has no intention or interest in any area in the South China Sea outside the limits set forth in P.D. No.1596.”³⁷

The document quoted above is currently cited in footnote number 3 in the article. The supercripted 37 in the quoted snipped refers to

37 Coquia, J. (1992) ‘Philippine Position on the South China Sea Issues’, in Pablo-Baviera (ed.), supra note 26, at 53.

supra note 6 there refers, I think, to note 26 in that quoted document, which cites PD1596. I don't know what "at 53" refers to.

See also PDs 1596 and 1599, which are currently cited as footnotes 44 and 45 of the article, and "page 60 of the book Law of the Sea in East Asia: Issues and Prospects which is currently cited in footnote number 46 of the article.

I hope that adds clarity rather than compounding confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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)