this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
247 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2764 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Malaysia has rejected the latest edition of the ‘standard map of China’ that lays claim to almost the entire South China Sea, including areas lying off the coast of Malaysian Borneo.

Tensions have been rising in the strategically important waters as China has become increasingly assertive in its claim despite a 2016 international court ruling that its so-called ‘nine-dash line’ was without merit and superseded by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

In recent years, it has built military outposts on rocky outcrops and deployed its coast guard and maritime militia, which has sometimes led to confrontations with other claimants, including Malaysia and the Philippines. Vietnam, Brunei and Taiwan also have claims to the sea.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And that purple dotted line is called the “nine-dash line.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line

[–] electriccars@startrek.website 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Good eye. China added an extra dash to extend its claim to Taiwan.

[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems like from this wikipedia article, this Nine dash was some what consistent through out history? From reading the article you posted, I thought they made some change this year...

[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

China did make some change by broadening its territorial claims (both in India and South China Sea) with the release of a new map.

With the nine-dash line, you asked a great (and extremely contested) question. The short answer is that China isn’t the only country with historical evidence to support its claim to the area. Both Vietnam and the Philippines, for example, can also make a case.

In fact, I would point you to Philippines v. China. In this case, on 12 July 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), of which China is a member, concluded that: "... while it would not "rule on any question of sovereignty ... and would not delimit any maritime boundary", China's historic rights claims over maritime areas (as opposed to land masses and territorial waters) within the "nine-dash line" have no lawful effect unless entitled to under UNCLOS." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China).

[–] milkjug@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I’m not a lawyer nor geopolitical analyst but I recall that regardless of the actual merits of the claim, China or any country must insist on disputing territorial ownership, so as not to tacitly concede that it does not belong to them. The actual resolution of the dispute might not be as relevant as the mere presence of a dispute itself. Not sure if this is still the right take, happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable.