I am also curious to see if the eventual ruling (in case it ever takes place) will effect Japan's claim on Okinotorishima reef on the eastern side of the Philippines.

Little advertised in the western media, Japan claims a lonely reef in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, strategically between Okinawa and Guam, as its sovereign territory, emboldened by the fact that the US dubiously recognised Japan's right to the reef in 1968.

Moreover, having built a few artificial islets on the reef and thus declaring it as an island able to support human activities, Japan claims a full 200nm EEZ around the reef, grabbing a massive swath of international waters for its usage only, apparently without any protest from the US. In 2009, Japan went even further and submitted to UNCLOS a continental shelf claim based on its occupation of the reef. Only then the US objected, but just to remind UNCLOS that Japan's claims might overlap its own claims. China and South Korea were very vocally against Japan's claim, but the Philippines said nothing, in spite of its fishermen losing much of the fishing grounds in the Pacific.

It can be easily noted that China's activities in SCS mirror Japan's earlier activities in the Pacific Ocean, just in a larger scale. Based on the fact that both the US and Japan are unlikely to give up the Okinotorishima reef or its waters, I suspect they won't engage in any significant activities that would challenge China's similar claims in the SCS reefs. Japan will likewise ignore any future implications coming from the ruling that its claims in the Pacific were invalid in any way, further dumping UNCLOS down to oblivion.

Okinotorishima? Is China claiming it? That is already way beyond China's EEZ? Why does China care? Does she have intentions to reclaim and make it her territory base from her 2nd island chain ambitions?

Because base from this.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/e...

China is exactly speaking the same language that the Philippines is hurling against her. Very Ironic! Basically your China is cherry picking on what laws she wants to apply upon herself.

It is China who will have problems if ever she complaints about that maritime feature. You can not complain against another country to follow the law, while you yourself are violating the same law.

And are the US and Japan claimants in the South China Sea?

And naturally anyone who cares for rights to travel through and fish on the open seas in the Pacific cares for Japan's attempt, supported by the US, to restrict it.

No! Why, is there a problem?

Now answer my questions? Is China claiming it? That is already way beyond China's EEZ? Why does China care? Does she have intentions to reclaim and make it her territory base from her 2nd island chain ambitions?

"And naturally anyone who cares for rights to travel through and fish on the open seas in the Pacific cares for Japan's attempt, supported by the US, to restrict it."

Then let your China use the UNCLOS to question Japan's occupation of that Okitoronoshima. China is free to use dispute settlement according to the UNCLOS here is the law for that:

Article 287 - Choice of procedure

1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:

Now, you see the injustice what your China is doing to the Philippines and Vietnam. Tsk! Tsk!

You are so full of huff and puff that you barely read what I write.

Japan has not submitted its EEZ to UNCLOS. Its EEZ remains self-declared by domestic law. Every one of Japan's neighbours has however protested against it.

Japan has however submitted its continental self claims to UNCLOS. South Korea and China have protested against the claims to UNCLOS. Japan has refused to accept their protest based on the fact that they could not be seen as parties to the dispute, not being claimants of the disputed area. Thus, no dispute settlement would apply.

China and Japan are using similar strategies to regain the control of essential territory at sea. Their core interests hereof do not overlap, which probably means they both will eventually accept each other to get its way, in spite of grandstanding and empty statements.

No, I get your point immediately when you mentioned Okitonorishima, that is China's 2nd island chain ambition. Am I right? I am not that stupid. I know where you are pointing at. So why do I have to read the remainder of your comment, it will be just a waste of my time.

That is why I ask you this question, Does she have intentions to reclaim and make it her territory base from her 2nd island chain ambitions?
But you did not answer it. Am I right?

Go to UNCLOS and go to Arbitration if China is frustrated with Japan.

Here is the law to that. Your China is a civilize nation and if you think Japan's action is unlawful and uncivilized, then why stoop to Japan's level. FILE A CASE TO PROVE YOUR POINT.

And that is what the Philippines is doing to CHINA, proving a point under the YELLOW UMBRELLA OF THE UNCLOS.

Article 287 - Choice of procedure

1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:

NOW DID I MAKE SENSE?

I have no information or opinion whatsoever to share with you about some 2nd island chain plan that China in your view has, except that the PRC has not made any territorial claims since it was established in 1949, only confirmed those it inherited from the ROC, and I cannot see what would motivate them to start making new claims in any foreseeable future.

Japan has not used its right to opt out from UNCLOS arbitration, but it has selected another way to make it impossible.

Regarding Diaoyutai, Japan insists that there is no dispute, so no dispute settlement can apply. Regarding Okinotorishima reef, Japan says that those who complain are not parties to the dispute, so no dispute settlement can apply. End of any potential UNCLOS arbitration.

It is anyway unlikely any responsible party would try to force external arbitration on Japan in any case, if Japan is against it. If parties cannot agree together how to solve the matter at hand, inviting an unwanted middleman only makes things worse.

"I have no information or opinion whatsoever to share with you about some 2nd island chain plan that China in your view has,"

-->> Oh come on! It is the talk of the town, don't you encounter it in your readings? Jeez! Why will you raise it, if it does not concern your China. That island is a stepping stone inside the Pacific.

"It is anyway unlikely any responsible party would try to force external arbitration on Japan in any case, if Japan is against it. If parties cannot agree together how to solve the matter at hand, inviting an unwanted middleman only makes things worse."

--->> I repeat Article 287 - Choice of procedure of the UNCLOS

1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:

If your China has grievances, the above law is for her to use.

I think you miss the point what this discussion is about.

Japan controls Okinotorishima reef and waters around it regardless of whatever anyone or any UNCLOS says, and it won't give it up whatever happens. It is a core interest for Japan (and for the US) to control the area between Okinawa and Guam.

However, even if China protests Japan's actions, they are not against China's core interests.

Similarly, China regards control of the South China Sea as its core interest, regardless of whatever anyone or any UNCLOS says, and it won't give it up whatever happens.

However, even if Japan protests China's actions, they are not against Japan's core interests.

Thus, we'll see both getting what they want, both doing the required grandstanding and both quietly accepting each others' core interests.

No, I get your point, it is you who is not getting my point because you are blinded by your bigotry and lack of appreciation of the rule of law.

First, Okinotorishima and the Spratlys are two different cases. For one the former is in the middle of the Pacific and is not contested by two or more countries along its perimeter compared to the Spratlys.

Second, PRC is the only one complaining about the status of that maritime feature. If China wants to prove a point then go to dispute settlement. You are using Japan's action as an excuse for your China's unilateral and illegal actions in the Spratlys. That is not how a civilize nation settle things. You use the law not your China's military and economic might to elbow smaller nations and get what it wants. That approach won't win your China sympathy and support.

Third, I repeat, if your China has grievances it is free to use Article 287 of the UNCLOS and that is what the Philippines has done against your China.

I hope you get my point?

FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OF THE LAW TO PROVE A POINT AND NOT MILITARY AND ECONOMIC MIGHT TO INTIMIDATE SMALLER NATIONS.

:-)

Japan's actions around Okinotorishima reef were rejected by both the PRC and South Korea.

You fail to see that Japan is as ok with China taking over SCS as China is ok with japan keeping its reef and the sea around it. These are core interests to both countries. Neither has any interest to seriously harm the other side over them. Neither has any idea whatsoever to go to court over them.

If important countries cannot have their core interests covered by the international system, the international system will lose its meaning to them, and they will find something else to work with. You somehow think that a treaty based system holds together on its own even if the members of the treaty lose their interest in it.

"You fail to see that Japan is as ok with China taking over SCS as China is ok with japan keeping its reef and the sea around it."

-->>>> Really? Show me a news article that states your assumption, because according to the article below it says otherwise. Or you are just imagining?

http://www.japantimes.co.jp...

Where do you get your source of information? Hello!

"If important countries cannot have their core interests covered by the international system, the international system will lose its meaning to them, and they will find something else to work with. "

--->>> What international system? What is that? Are you inventing things?

I repeat.

Use Article 287 of the UNCLOS if your China has grievances against Japan. USE THE LAW TO PROVE YOUR POINT!

Do not use other country's action as an excuse to your China's unilateral and illegal action.

You mean this?

"Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and French President Francois Hollande shared concern Sunday over China’s reclamation projects in disputed areas of the South China Sea also claimed by other countries, a Japanese official said."

You sincerely believe that this empty grandstanding is not just for an obligatory show? None of it hints at any attempt whatsoever to stop or hinder China's actions. Reason: whether they like it or not, major countries tend to accept each others' core interests if they don't overlap with their own. If you look at the SCS calmly and objectively, you see that no major country has any core interest at stake, except China. You will see how China will get its way, regardless of the show around its actions.

Oh my goodness! You said Japan is Ok with what is China is doing in SCS. this is your quote

"You fail to see that Japan is as ok with China taking over SCS as China is ok with japan keeping its reef and the sea around it."

Japan and France is concern about China's reclamation, meaning Japan is not OK of what China is doing. So Japan is negating your assumption and opinion above. What the hell are you talking about, core interest, etcetera, etcetera?

Don't you know how to read?

Japan does not like it, yet they are ok with it. The customary theatre needs to be performed anyway, but that does not hurt anyone.

How can that happen? That is like, me stealing you car, which you will obviously hate it but you are OK with it? Ha! Both are contradictory statements.

You must prove that Japan is Ok with what your China is doing. Show me a news article that speaks of your assumption.

If Japan was not ok with what China is doing, they would make a military alliance with the Philippines and send their navy and their army to the South China Sea waters to prevent the Chinese from taking over. They would defend the Philippine possessions with their ships and planes and infantry, and they would attack the new Chinese installations before they get operational and they would prevent anything built on the reefs. They would risk their lives and their economy, and they would accept heavy losses. Nothing less will have any real impact, and nothing less will prevent China from taking over.

But if you look at what Japan is really doing, none of that signals they are ready to risk much anything, and their actions are mostly symbolic. So, it cannot be a major issue for them that the sea goes to China. The real concerns of the Japanese equal to their real actions. Their real concerns are elsewhere, and there is nothing at stake in the South China Sea that would warrant anyone Japanese getting hurt.

I recommend you to think independently and not reduce yourself to a copy machine who only references someone else's opinions published elsewhere, especially those that are labelled as "news".

Yes, Japan is making a military alliance with the Philippines? But things like that can not be done overnight. It takes time. You need to create laws or treaties of such alliances. But it does not mean, Japan is OK of what China is doing. Can you not see the signals?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/...

What you are basically describing in your first paragraph is short of declaring war. Are you asking for war?

Even the US is welcoming Japan participation to patrol the SCS.

http://thediplomat.com/2015...

You know, China might get what it wants now, but it does not mean it will get everything in the future. China is the one triggering an alliance among its neighbors against itself.

As Isaac Newton's law of gravity says, which can relate to the SCS dispute, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. "

My opinion is my opinion, if it jives with others, what is wrong with that. It only says we think alike. The important thing is, I am thinking critically.

I am critical that what you are saying is a Double Standard of China's application of the UNCLOS.

She chooses provisions in the UNCLOS that benefits her but ignores or violates provisions that puts her to a disadvantage. And your Okinotorishima issue shows that clearly. Good thing the Philippines arbitration case will challenge China's double speak.

However, since this issue has been decided. Stop whining!

http://www.japantimes.co.jp...

:-)

Yes, China and South Korea have disputed Japan's claims in UNCLOS. And Japan has rejected their objections based on the fact that they are not claiming any of the area in question and are thus not parties of any dispute regarding it.

Doesn't that sound so familiar? Comme ci, comme ça.

What do you mean disputed Japan's claims in UNCLOS. Is there a case pending between these countries? Are we still talking about Okinotorishima still? Otherwise what you are saying are the usual diplomatic protest between countries, which is but normal.

Of course Japan will reject, that is given and expected just like China rejecting the Philippines' arbitration case. But the difference is, the Philippines filed a case to prove a point but China and SoKor did not. And that is my point, if your China wants to prove something about Okinotorishima, then file a case. I already showed you the Article 287 of the UNCLOS.

So you can not say an arbitration can not exist. That is between Japan and China to determine. Do you get my point?

Your Okinotorishima issue only proves that China wants a double standard of the law(UNCLOS). China is saying, those Okinotorishima maritime feature does not create an EEZ, but the same protest China is using against Japan, is the same argument that the Philippines is using against her. Which China is now violating with its artificial island reclamation. Do you see the double standard?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/e...

But what you are trying to prove to me, that China's action in the Spratlys is justified because Japan has done it using Okinotorishima, am I right? That is the reason why you speak with this core interest, Japan does not like it but it is OK, which you can not provide proof a news article of such declaration, etcetera, etcetera.

Simply put it, what you are saying, if Japan stole these large 200NM EEZ in Okinotorishima in the middle of the Pacific, then China has an excuse and say to the world, I can also steal a 200 NM EEZ in the Spratlys, am I right? Is this the core interest you talking about?

You are basically saying that these two countries are thieves and it will both benefit them if they don't rock the boat or snitch each other.

Is that the gist of you argument?

However, your justification does not create legality to China's claim in the Spratlys. That is the reason why I keep on declaring, use the UNCLOS especially Article 287 to prove a point against Japan. Otherwise your China is a double standard tyrant as shown by the link above.

I hope you get my point, because I surely get yours.

Here is the official commentary on Japan's continental shelf claims around Okinotorishima and elsewhere:

http://www.un.org/depts/los...

You find South Korea's official arguments there also. As a result of China's and South Korea's objections, Japan's claim around Okinotorishima was concluded in 2012 by the commission as follows:

"The Commission considers that it will not be in a position to take action to make recommendations on the Southern Kyushu-Palau Ridge Region (KPR) until such time as the matters referred to in the notes verbales have been resolved."

Since then, nothing has happened. Japan's claim was left in limbo without rejection or approval and the commission waits for the matter to get resolved, somehow.

And about things being "justified" or "excused" or "legal" -- that is not at all what I am pointing at here. I have no interest to stand on moral high ground or argue that someone else is standing there. All these strong countries have their dirty laundry. They all condemn and quietly accept each others' actions and practice the same bad habits as their neighbours whenever their own core interests are at stake. You want to see things black and white, and you prefer me taking the side of this party or be against that party, but the reality is more complex, and all we have is various degrees of grey.

Thank you for the link!

Your link is basically diplomatic communications. It is not a case. It is just recording of opinions and views of these countries.

http://www.un.org/depts/los...

From the link above, China is basically used the same argument as the Philippines' arbitration case against her. Which proves me right of China's Double Standard application of the UNCLOS. This Okinotorishima issue is more harmful to China than to Japan.

Second, Japan says according to the note verbale below.

http://www.un.org/depts/los...

PRC and SoKor has no claim on that feature, second their proximity are too far away to create a dispute. Which is probably the intention of China most likely. Only both Palau and US can express concern in case of overlap. But according to the note verbale below, both countries do not object about Japan's continental shelf limit. Basically these two countries (PRC and SOKOR) are dipping its fingers to an issue that does not relate to them in the first place.

http://www.un.org/depts/los...

Palau and US non-objection.

http://www.un.org/depts/los...
http://www.un.org/depts/los...

"Since then, nothing has happened. Japan's claim was left in limbo
without rejection or approval and the commission waits for the matter to
get resolved, somehow."

--->>> Then I will return back to Article 287 of the UNCLOS. "Free to choose" remember.

"You want to see things black and white, and you prefer me taking the side of this party or be against that party, but the reality is more
complex, and all we have is various degrees of grey."

In life, you make decisions, you either do it or not, choose to take the left or the right road, answer yes or no. Your Okinotorishima issue is very simple, China and SoKor is not claiming that feature, so why are these two whining? Then Palau and the US is not objecting about its continental shelf limit which are the two nearest countries that might get affected by its submission.

The, China and Sokor is only complaining about Article 121(3) of the UNCLOS. Where is the grey area their?

"Since then, nothing has happened. Japan's claim was left in limbo
without rejection or approval and the commission waits for the matter to
get resolved, somehow."

-->>>> Lastly, UN OKs it already. Case closed! Stop whining!

http://www.japantimes.co.jp...

It looks like you are wrong, I think you should deepen your research.

TSK, TSK!

Wow! You even helped me destroy your arguments. hahaha!

No, nothing has happened. The news link you pasted was about the same commission's report from 2012 which some nationalistic Japanese media wanted to see as a victory for them.

The following article two months later is interesting as it clarifies how Japan thinks reclaiming land around natural high-tide rocks and turning them to bigger islands would entitle them with an EEZ:

http://oceans.oprf-info.org...

Japan is actually correct here as the UNCLOS regime of islands does not block this, whether by design or accidentally. Changing facts on the ground is not specifically allowed, but it is not forbidden. Now, China follows through the door that Japan opened, but that does not prevent them from sneering at and chastizing each other for something they both do. It is a big silly theater.

If you want to see this as a battle of good vs evil, I cannot help it. But to me it is clear that they all got same dirty hands.

What? Nothing happened? Didn't you read the news. The UN ok it. Are you saying it is inventing its news? Show me another news article that says UN backtracked in its proclamation about that Okinotorishima issue.

"Japan is actually correct here as the UNCLOS regime of islands does not
block this, whether by design or accidentally. Changing facts on the
ground is not specifically allowed, but it is not forbidden."

What "Japan is actually correct here" are you referring to? There are plenty of things written in the link you provided? You should be specific on which item you are talking about.

Otherwise I am just speculating on what you are referring to.

Second, that is an opinion article of a retired Japanese admiral and not the position of the Japanese government. You should know the difference. That author is publishing his opinion as an individual, which is different from the link I gave you which is announcing facts.

And if you read the footnote below with an asterisk, it says there "*The views voiced here are his alone." So that article is not the stand of that organization, but merely presenting the views of others.

Now you told me to be an independent thinker? Did you write this below, right?

'I recommend you to think independently and not reduce yourself to a copy machine who only references someone else's opinions published elsewhere, especially those that are labelled as "news". '

Now it seems you are the one describing yourself above, am I right or wrong?

Jeez! Try to be critical on your sources. You do not seem to know the difference between a news and an opinion page. Facepalm!

Tsk, Tsk!

PS, I am saying this is not about good vs. evil, it is about common sense and reason. And the UN has already decided, case closed!

So, the UNCLOS commission declined to recommend anything about Japan's submission regarding Okinotorishima continental shelf claim:

"The Commission considered whether it shall take action on the part of the
recommendation prepared by the Subcommission in relation to the Southern
Kyushu-Palau Ridge Region (KPR) and decided not to do so. The Commission
considers that it will not be in a position to take action to make recommendations on
the Southern Kyushu-Palau Ridge Region (KPR) until such time as the matters
referred to in the notes verbales have been resolved."

and then a right-wing newspaper in Japan headlines on the following day that:

"U.N. OKs Japan claim to expand shelf"

You can easily see that these two don't appear compatible. Having a closer look, the Japanese newspaper only refers to a separate 310,000 km2 continental shelf claim which was not based on Okinotorishima. The actual claim based on Okinotorishima was additional 250,000 km2, but that got stalled and remains stalled.

Like I said elsewhere, you need to stop believing everything they publish as "news".

And if you don't know it, retired government top dogs are commonly used in East Asia as unofficial government spokesmen to avoid governments from getting too involved in arguments. The retired Japanese admiral would never step forward without government's approval. He sums up what the government is doing without bringing up anything new and iterates how the government considers it is able to claim an EEZ around something that was no more than a rock sticking out of the ocean.

The main point in Japan's claim is that turning a rock in the ocean to a full-fledged island gives it an EEZ. UNCLOS does not forbid that interpretation, even if western media claims otherwise when it comes to China's land reclamation projects in the South China Sea.

"The main point in Japan's claim is that turning a rock in the ocean to a
full-fledged island gives it an EEZ. UNCLOS does not forbid that
interpretation, even if western media claims otherwise when it comes to
China's land reclamation projects in the South China Sea."

---->>>Then use Article 287 of the UNCLOS to prove your point! I am tired of saying this to you. Can you not get the point?

I cannot use Article 287, I am not a member of UNCLOS.

Neither will Japan or China use that article for anything. They are both happy with the way things are, both getting their share of the seas and maintaining their core interests.

You are so keen on having everyone sue each other to court, but that's not the way things work, and especially not between strong countries. And especially not when they all benefit from the way things are.

Whatever!

That is your opinion.

Filing a case is a choice, it is in written in the UNCLOS.

The evidence is right under your nose and still in denial.

Bye Bigot!

:-P

I hope you had earned enough, 50 cents!

Yes, it is my opinion. That's why we all are here, commenting and giving our opinions.

Options? No, you are making your opinion as facts. Jeez! The things I have shown you are facts. Yet you are in denial.

People who do not believe in facts are fools.

Oh my goodness, UN OK it. That is a fact already! If you have proof of otherwise, then show me! You are beating around the bush and going around in circles like a broken record.

What can you not understand?

This argument below you are saying is a minor issue between Palau and Japan, but otherwise Okinotorishima has already been decided by UN to Japan.

Then if you read the Palau note verbale which I already said before, they have no objections and which later on became the basis of the UN decision. Here is the link inside the link you gave me.

http://www.un.org/depts/los...

"The Commission considered whether it shall take action on the part of the
recommendation prepared by the Subcommission in relation to the Southern
Kyushu-Palau Ridge Region (KPR) and decided not to do so. The Commission
considers that it will not be in a position to take action to make recommendations on
the Southern Kyushu-Palau Ridge Region (KPR) until such time as the matters
referred to in the notes verbales have been resolved."

"And if you don't know it, retired government top dogs are commonly used
in East Asia as unofficial government spokesmen to avoid governments
from getting too involved in arguments. "

Really? If you are retired, it only means you are a private citizen not representing the government. That is an opinion of a retired admiral from a democratic country, he has every right to make an opinion. Otherwise, you are just speculating on your insinuation, and speculations are not facts. We deal with facts not gossip and opinion.
Didn't you read the disclaimer of that organiztion's website.

Jeez!

Well if you said right wing and you do not believe that Japan times,

Then here some news site, saying the same news, that the UN OK it. I Google it for you. Go on and google it, it is basically the same news. You are such in denial, why can't you not accept your flawed argument.

http://www.bt.com.bn/news-a...

http://www.scmp.com/news/as...

If you can not believe that, what more can you believe? That is common sense my dear. UN OK it! CASE CLOSED!

Second, China is not a claimant on that feature, and yet you insist on this and that,
didn't you read the note verbale of Japan. Read the seventh paragraph of the link below for enlightenment.

http://www.un.org/depts/los...

Jeez! Wake UP! You are such a bigot!

BTW! How many cents have you earned lately?

"UN OK it. That is a fact already!"

How can you say so? Anyone can read the UN decision on their Internet site and see that the UN refused to give any recommendation on the matter because China and South Korea disputed Japan's claims. It is difficult to follow your reasoning.

Maybe you are confusing Shikoku basin with SouthernKyushu-Palau Ridge Region. These are two different continental shelf claims. UN approved the former and refused to give recommendation on the latter. The latter is based on Okinotorishima and the former on other features.

Much of western media and especially Japanese media were quiet about the UN refusing to accept the Okinotorishima claim and reported only on the claim that passed. Some Japanese media also erroneously touted the Shikoku basin as the Okinotorishima continental shelf, but that is not the case.

The disputed continental shelf based on Okinotorishima can be seen here, in yellow colour, page 10:

https://www.sof.or.jp/en/mo...

Simply put, Japan claims a huge area of international waters which is twice as far from its main islands than Spratlys are from Mainland China.

UN ok it! Jeez! If you have problem with that and your China keep on insisting, then use Article 287 of the UNCLOS.

Oh my goodness, read the UN link you gave me. You will see your answer there. The problem is you didn't even bother to read those note verbales.

Could you kindly point out the exact paragraph in the UN recommendation which accepts Japan's Okinotorishima claim?

Or are you just confusing Japan's notes verbales with the UN's recommendation? Keep in mind that notes verbales are each country's subjective and selfish propaganda which can get as outrageous as ever.

Jeez!

Look it for yourself! The burden of proof is with you to negate the news that I had shown.

Why should I look for it? The news is enough for me. You show me proof UN did not award Okinotori island and Japan's extension of continental shelf. Otherwise, you are fooling yourself of your false assumptions.

Wow! you are racking up with your 50 cents!

I still think you are genuinely arguing here, although the argument has started to become absurd. Last attempt to make you understand the UN decision comes here.

a) Go to http://www.un.org/depts/los...

All official documentation related to Japan's continental shelf claims in 2008, from Japan, its opponents and the UN, are there.

b) Open link that has text "Summary of the Recommendations". That contains what UNCLOS finally said about Japan's claims after hearing everyone's comments.

c) Here is the exact quote from the conclusion that UNCLOS made about Okinotorishima's continental shelf (its official name is "Southern Kyushu-Palau Ridge Region"). It was adopted by the Commission on 19 April 2012:

"The Commission considers that it will not be in a position to take action to make recommendations on the Southern Kyushu-Palau Ridge Region (KPR) until such time as the matters referred to in the notes verbales have been resolved."

d) The above decision means that notes verbales from the opponents had halted the approval process. Since then, there are no new materials on the UN page. Japan's continental shelf claim based on Okinotorishima was not approved nor rejected. Japan has no way of forwarding the claim unless the opponents withdraw their notes verbales or if Japan takes the matter to UNCLOS arbitration. Neither has happened.

e) If there is any "news" that contradict what the UN said, I cannot help that, but those news do not change the outcome. If you rather accept misleading or outright false propaganda than the UN's decision shown on their own Internet site, there is precious little I can do about that either.

Regardless of it being halted, I am still right that the Okinotorishima issue will be more harmful to China than to Japan.

Why? If Japan and the rest of the world honors the decision of the Phil-China arbitration case decision in favor of the Philippines. Then if Japan is willing to let go of the Kyushu-Palau ridge (KPR) extension claim. Then, China will be a sore thumb to the world as a rule breaker of the UNCLOS in relation to its SCS artificial island reclamation.

Regarding if Okinotorishima is an island or rock and qualifies a 200 NM EEZ? Well, since SoKor and China are the only two countries complaining, then I repeat, these two countries are free to choose to use Article 287 of the UNCLOS. That is what laws are for, right?

Second, at least Japan filed a continental shelf extension submission legally in 2008 while unfortunately, China has used its military power to illegally assert its continental shelf extension in SCS. Which is unbecoming of a civilized nation and contradicts to the essence of the UNCLOS.

Don't you see the irony and double standard?

Third, Japan at least provided coordinates in its submission, yet China can not even show its ever changing nine dashed line coordinates and even its historical maps from the Sung dynasty up to 1933 shows that Hainan is its southernmost territory and nothing beyond.

So, where does China's historical claim of the SCS stand?

Sung
http://www.loc.gov/item/200...

1933
http://www.loc.gov/item/200...

Fourth, The major question you should think, why is China using the law (UNCLOS) in the Okinotorishima issue and yet she is violating the same law in relation to the Spratlys and SCS?

Do you see the dichotomy and double standard? At least Japan followed the procedure in shelf limit extension but your China did not in SCS.

Finally, UN awarded some areas to Japan base from its 2008 continental shelf extension submission, that is a fact already. No right wing media entity can be use as an excuse for its non-existence.

It may not had gotten all it want according to the link below but the areas given by UN are already a win for Japan. No one can longer dispute those rewarded areas, including you! Read the recommendations of the Commission in the link below.

http://www.un.org/depts/los...

That Kyushu-Palau ridge is just a setback, whether it will be resolved or not I am not in the position to know. In fact Japan can just bury and forget the issue and be contented with the status quo.

But de facto and currently the Okinotoshima 200 NM EEZ is still there, and it is up for China and SoKor to dispute it.

Does Article 287 of the UNCLOS ring a bell? :-)

I haven't read any US comment supporting Japan's position that Okinotori deserves an EEZ.

Apparently they have not said this or that about it, but they are also respecting it, making their approval de facto acknowledged.

I don't understand what you mean by "they ARE RESPECTING it".

If they do not criticise it and if they behave as if it exists, then they respect it.

What do you mean by "they BEHAVE as if it existed"?

You can go read about the EEZ sovereign rights as defined by UNCLOS and browse if the US does or has done anything that would be contrary to Japan's claim that those rights in the said area belong to Japan alone, or whether the US has even stated anything against Japan's claim that the said area exists.

Remember that the US does not recognise the legal concept behind EEZ since it has not ratified UNCLOS. Whether they respect or not some UNCLOS defined areas is up to their concrete behaviour alone.

Right. So, how can you deduce that they behave as if these EEZ exist? Whether these exist or not, without Japan complaining of US military innocent passage, the US would behave exactly the same way!

If there's news about Exxon dragging their oil rig to Okinotorishima's EEZ without Japan's approval, I guess that would be the kind of behavior we are looking for.

But has there been such "news" in order for you to state that the US behaves as is if it acknowledges Japan's claim of Okinotori's EEZ?

If news or lack news were all that's needed for things to become real or unreal over observations themselves or lack of observations, governance of this world would become very easy.

Likewise, it seems so easy for you to affirm the existence of something (such as US respecting Japan's claim of Okinotori EEZ), based on the non-existence of its contrary. When we can't prove something, more than often it means we don't have a clue, one way or another.

News casts are not a proof of anything except the aims and purposes of the broadcaster.

Are you assuming all news casts are invented for the aims and purposes of the broadcaster?

Government Press/Media releases are simple announcements and these are also news cast?

So where can you provide the source of your assumptions and argument?

Remember journalism is history in a hurry.