That’s just semantics.
Making a dark joke about a terrorist attack isn’t very nice.
That’s just semantics.
Making a dark joke about a terrorist attack isn’t very nice.
Israel sent explosive pagers to hesbollah.
Maybe a call centre operated by map producers, intended more for questions about routes and conditions rather than “take the third left” kind of navigation.
There are certainly criticisms to be made but “dismantling the entire thing” is not the way.
This is the solution.
All names have problems but this one has the least.
Ok so after a quick read it looks like they bundled some software which allowed third parties to eavesdrop on https traffic with a fairly trivial hack?
I’ve had lenovo laptop’s forever. I could be described as a fan boy. I’d never heard about this. It’s never nice to hear that something you’re a fan of has problems like this.
I guess the only mitigating factor is that it wasn’t intentional on Lenovo’s part.
The section you’ve quoted explains what the rules are if there is no dispute. It does not explain how to resolve a dispute.
No.
My point is, their consistent claims of this territory over several decades will provide their allies a fig leaf when they ratify China’s claim.
Why else are freedom of navigation exercises like this one necessary?
Why else would China make this big song and dance when this outcome was obvious and predictable?
None of this contradicts anything I’ve said.
That’s exactly how this works.
Why are freedom of navigation exercises a thing?
Why does China pay many billions in “aid” to island nations in exchange for recognition of these claims?
Why would China bother making the assertion when the outcome is predictable and obvious?
This is part of a much larger campaign from China in south East Asian waters taking place over many decades. It’s a well understood and publicised strategy.
That’s not what’s happening.
In 50 years time, they’ll be able to say they’ve asserted claims since forever, list all the countries which have observed their claims, and point to instances like this one where they’ve shown restraint to avoid an international incident.
They’ve been playing this exact game in the south China Sea since forever.
You keep using the term “allowed” as though there’s some global arbiter of the rules. There isn’t.
As I started off by saying, if China claims sovereignty in whatever waters, and other nations respect that claim, then sooner or later it will be theirs for all intents and purposes.
Being signatories to a treaty is not decisive if no one follows the treaty.
If what you’re saying is true, why would we need freedom of navigation exercises?
UNCLOS doesn’t cover this type of dispute:
UNCLOS does not deal with matters of territorial disputes or to resolve issues of sovereignty, as that field is governed by rules of customary international law on the acquisition and loss of territory.
From your link…
UNCLOS does not deal with matters of territorial disputes or to resolve issues of sovereignty, as that field is governed by rules of customary international law on the acquisition and loss of territory.
You could say the same of any public service role.
The voting public doesn’t have the requisite experience and knowledge to make good decisions about candidates for executive or judicial roles.
Government is a different case. You’re selecting a representative. Someone to represent you in parliament. The skills required to do so are in theory less significant. It’s just a responsible person who will raise their hand at the right time.
but it is officially an international waterway
That’s not how this works though.
Who decides what is an international water way? Basically, if everyone does what China says, then it’s their water. If everyone ignores Chinas bitching, then it’s international.
Because in many cases the risks are much more manageable than the risks associated with any meaningful alternatives.
Nuclear power isn’t good nor bad, it’s one of many options, each of which may be suitable in a given circumstance.
It’s hardly worthy of being called a bluff.
Everyone knows Trump would just force a Russian victory. He could do that just by refusing further support for Ukraine.
Harris said it in the debate.
Everyone knows he can be bought with favours.
IDK about “legally obligated”, but certainly professionally and ethically obligated.
If someone commits a heinous crime, and you want them to rot in jail for 100 years, then you need them to have the strongest possible defence. Otherwise, they might be able to appeal their conviction, or the family of the accused may feel vindictive.
Basically, if you want justice you need the best possible defence.