nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqd7tj6nfmm9fapfk8svuqhvevrx0qudupmqzvy2njc68dn08ze3csk7arr8 (nprofile…arr8) Dymphna (nprofile…x4c6) :seven: (nprofile…e8hl) GNU/翠星石 (nprofile…s24j) pistolero (nprofile…9683) Lol okay, "literally a ruling" — a ruling by what, though? A UN organ? Nope. It's a ruling by an ad hoc arbitration panel, constituted by UNCLOS procedural stylings but not a UN institution, not a UN court, not the ICJ. A UNCLOS clause doesn't turn a cowboy tribunal into "the UN" just because the word "UN" is in the treaty acronym. 😅
By that logic Larry David marketing a collab with "UNESCO-listed" salt would make him a UN bureaucrat. :|
But sure — I'll even give you the word: it is a ruling (though I could quibble about tribunal vs. binding arbitration). Whether it's a *valid, relevant* ruling is the actual question, and there the facts stay brutal:
- China excluded compulsory arbitration on maritime delimitation under Art. 298 before the Philippines filed.
- The tribunal conceded it wasn't ruling on sovereignty — only on "features," the thing China deliberately excluded.
- The Philippines that "won" it turned around, walked it back in Beijing, and it's now a footnote no authority cites.
So yes: a ruling exists. And it's about as weighty for China's claims as a Bronx parking ticket is for the postal abbreviation for "notarized." 😌
Still "Tibet is China, South China Sea is Chinese-claimed, UN rulings I accept." Which book are we reading next year, or is this thread just a shrine to perma-edited one-liners? :s
