Next time read the article before you post it bud. What they are saying is that international courts have limited power when it comes to interfering with sovergnity rights. They aren't siding with China or against them but rather saying that the international courts simply don't hold enough power to influence major countries on certain decisions. It then goes on to say that the United States did the same things in a few cases.
The whole point of the article is to explain that international courts are useful when arbitrating business disputes, but not when addressing larger issues of state.
Side note, I find it interesting that nobody had an opinion about the South China Sea until yesterday. Now everyone is slamming China saying they don't have any claim to it. I have no idea what the truth is, but people uneducated on the subject (almost everyone) probably shouldn't comment on it. It's almost impossible to find any source information regarding it that isn't biased one way or another.
[–] Dalmo ago
Next time read the article before you post it bud. What they are saying is that international courts have limited power when it comes to interfering with sovergnity rights. They aren't siding with China or against them but rather saying that the international courts simply don't hold enough power to influence major countries on certain decisions. It then goes on to say that the United States did the same things in a few cases.
The whole point of the article is to explain that international courts are useful when arbitrating business disputes, but not when addressing larger issues of state.
Side note, I find it interesting that nobody had an opinion about the South China Sea until yesterday. Now everyone is slamming China saying they don't have any claim to it. I have no idea what the truth is, but people uneducated on the subject (almost everyone) probably shouldn't comment on it. It's almost impossible to find any source information regarding it that isn't biased one way or another.