lance acejo

@cungcung785 @OopsGuess Respectfully, under UNCLOS, a state’s refusal to participate doesn’t automatically invalidate arbitration. The tribunal determined it had jurisdiction, and the award is binding under UNCLOS, even though China rejects it.

What I am trying to say is the process that Philippines underwent is an 'arbitration'. Everybody who have basic knowledge of law are all aware that the no. 1 most important principle of an arbitration is the 'consented participation' of related disputed parties. Yet China did not consent and did not participate. So the process of this arbitration is not valid and flawed. As for jurisdiction, the arbitral tribunal that handled the case was an institution called Permanent Court of Arbitration ('PCA'), which is NOT related to UN or any court of justice under UN like ICJ or ITLOS. So that 2016 'ruling' has no legal binding effect toward China at all.

A country that grounded a warship on Ren’ai Jiao one day after China’s embassy in Belgrade was bombed does not get to lecture China about “trust.” That was opportunism written on Chinese blood. Manila stepped on China’s wound, occupied Chinese territory, promised to tow the ship away, lied for 27 years, then turned every provocation into camera theater. Now Jay Tarriela wants to cry because Filipinos “distrust China”? Good. China is not begging for approval from a U.S. proxy state whose politicians manufacture anti-China hysteria while their own economy depends on Chinese trade, tourists, supply chains, and regional stability. The anger in China is not because Beijing is “too aggressive.” The anger in China is because Beijing has been too soft. Too patient. Too polite. Too tolerant of a rusting occupation prop sitting on Chinese territory while Manila performs victimhood for Washington. So spare us the transparency cosplay. You are not showing truth. You are selling provocation as patriotism. Ren’ai Jiao is Chinese territory. Tow away the warship. or we blow it up. End the circus.

@cungcung785 @OopsGuess If it was “invalid,” why does Annex VII of UNCLOS provide the legal basis for the tribunal in the first place?

"FIFA World Cup Final the “World Cup final" Totally wrong comparison. Not the same at all. FIFA is an institution. UNCLOS is not an institution. Only institution hold an event. In football, UNCLOS is like the rule of the game. You also hid the word "arbitration" (which was the actual event) and use the word "ruling" instead. When people know that it's an arbitration, people will ask : • which institution hold it ? • is the process valid ? Of course, the answers to both questions would show how invalid the whole awarding process had been and how legally weak it is to back Philippines' claim.

@cungcung785 @OopsGuess it’s more accurately the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration Award under Annex VII of UNCLOS. Calling it the “2016 UNCLOS ruling” is just shorthand, not a different case. That’s like calling the FIFA World Cup Final the “World Cup final"

@acejo_lance @OopsGuess "2016 UNCLOS ruling" LOL. 😄 You can't even say the true name of that bogus ruling right, yet you have the audacity to talk about legality.

@hai_ping41901 the same "monkeys " who do know how to dodge a ship

这个AI视频有点意思！

@Yaqiu That’s like saying McDonald’s doesn’t know what’s on its own menu.

Breaking: The Chinese government claims it doesn't control China Daily 😂

@Eltooon75483 Easy, cowboy. This is a comment section, not Fight Club. If insults are all you’ve got, I’ll assume the facts took the day off. 😄

@acejo_lance @zmx8067 you just shouting in the comments like a baby who need mommy's milk, ignoring all the facts and legal basis of China's ownership of the south China sea, and when asked to show your own arguement, you had nothing but a blank mind. u probably ended your education at high school.

🇵🇭菲律賓管這種打扮叫海軍？我以為索馬里呢？🤔

@Eltooon75483 @zmx8067

@acejo_lance @zmx8067 next time you want to debate about a serious issue like this, make sure you read some books, and don't act like a stupid ass bitch like this again, lmao.

@yifugege @PLA_MilitaryUpd

@acejo_lance @PLA_MilitaryUpd

So these are the Philippines Navy??? I thought they were Somali parties🤣

@zmx8067 Oh brother… that’s not how legal documents work.

@acejo_lance If you were born before 2016, please be sure to register an identity certificate, because in your eyes, the documents issued by the Philippine government before 2016 have no legal effect. 🤣

@zmx8067 ok if thats your narrative then

@acejo_lance These three pictures are obviously documents from the Philippines, but you say it‘s my story. It seems that the basic education in the Philippines has been unimaginable. 🤣

@zmx8067 If that’s your story, then enjoy La La Land. I’ll stick to the facts.

These three pictures represent Philippine diplomatic documents, officially issued maps and territorial certificates respectively. As a result, you denied them all, which fully shows that the Philippine government before 2016 has no credibility. It is a new country established with the approval of the United States in 2016. 🤣

@zmx8067 All right, if that’s your narrative. The Philippines didn’t magically become a sovereign state in 2016, and its laws, treaties, and official documents didn’t suddenly gain legal effect that year either. That’s simply not how statehood or international law works.

@acejo_lance I understand that the national documents of the Philippines before 2016 are meaningless, because they have no legal effect, and even if they are signed, no one will recognize them. 🤣

@zmx8067 You’re confusing maps with sovereignty. The Philippines didn’t magically invent its claims in 2016—the ruling addressed maritime rights, not sovereignty. Cherry-picking old documents isn’t rewriting history.

P1. The official map of the Philippines produced by the Philippine Coast and Geodes Survey in 1968 did not include any islands and reefs and Huangyan Island in Nansha into Philippine territory; P2. The official document issued by the Philippine Embassy in West Germany on February 5, 1990 clearly states that according to the 🇵🇭 National Map and Resources Information Bureau of the Philippines, Scarborough Reef or Huangyan Island is not within the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines; P3. The National Map and Resources Information Administration of the Philippines clearly recognized in the Certificate of the Territorial Boundary of the Republic of the Philippines issued on October 28, 1994: ”The territorial boundaries and sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines are determined by Article 3 of the Treaty of Paris of the United States signed on December 10, 1898“ and confirmed ”Territorial boundaries shown in the official map No. 25 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of the Philippines through the National Map and Resources Information Agency“. Your country has clearly claimed no sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and Huangyan Island for half a century, but suddenly claimed sovereignty over Huangyan Island in 2016. Now do you know who is falsifying history? You have been deceived by your country...🤣

@zmx8067 Yes. They have legal effect. The Philippines didn’t magically become a country in 2016, and its laws and government documents didn’t magically become valid that year either. That’s not how statehood or international law works.

@acejo_lance Sorry, so you think the government documents of the Philippines decades before 2016 have legal effect, right?🤔

@zmx8067 Woah, easy there, buddy. The Philippines didn’t suddenly appear in 2016. History isn’t rewritten just because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Maybe step outside, touch some grass, and smell the roses before trying to rewrite the timeline.

@acejo_lance It‘s not like that. The Philippines was established in 2016 with the approval of the United States. Because the Philippine government documents before 2016 have no legal effect.🤣

@zmx8067 You guys are good at rewriting history, huh? Last I checked, the Philippines existed well before 2016

@acejo_lance Before 2016, was the country of the Philippines not established? Or did the national documents of the Philippines before 2016 have no legal effect? 🤣

@shangguanluan then do it

从雪山打到海里，双方用的都是棍子～～ 不过菲律宾人的水性应该很好吧，救生衣都不用穿 ——怪不得容易爆头

@SOWHAT870176 @SCS_PI rust from the sea from 30 yrs from the looks they dont act like one but the other side it acts one

@acejo_lance @SCS_PI Why do they look like pirates, and why does their boat look like a pirate ship?

The weak does not necessarily mean it is right！A panoramic perspective presents a reconstruction of the standoff incident at the #SecondThomasShoal on July 20. There is no doubt that the Philippine side took the first move.