‘Critical date’ and Chinese hegemony

From: Harry Roques Blog
Date: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

New post on Harry Roque's Blog 'Critical date' and Chinese hegemony by harryroque China appears to be applying the law literally. The rule is where there is a dispute to territory, the claimant that can show a superior claim to the same, be it land or water, will be adjudged as having title thereto. In land territory, the rule is that discovery alone gives rise to an inchoate title that must be perfected through effective occupation. The latter entails submission of evidence that the disputed testimony was subject to the exercise of both sovereignty and jurisdiction. Some evidence recognized by tribunals as proof of effective occupation would include the simple act of hoisting the flag in small and desolate island territories, and such acts as the grant of concessions, appending the disputed territory to a local government unit, and proof that institutions such as the courts or civil register were functioning in the disputed area. This is why China has recently been attempting to bolster its claim to both the Kalayaan Group of islands and Panatag. Very recently, it created a new municipality, Sansha, that would exercise jurisdiction over the disputed islands in the West Philippine Sea. This is also why it has recently built a structure on yet another disputed island within our Kalayaan group of islands,  the Subi Reef. The order to send a 30 boat armada of Chinese fishermen is also to bolster their claim that the waters have been the subject of acquired fishing rights by its nationals. But will China's recent acts actually result in its desired result of bolstering its territorial claims? Not necessarily Justice Holmes remarked that the life of the law is not logic; it has been experience. As early as the leading case of  Palmas, an arbitration where the Americans lost Palmas Island to us, the lone arbitrator came out with a judicial technique, the "critical date" which has been adopted by other tribunals. Under this technique, international tribunals resolving territorial disputes will ignore all acts of claimants to territories after  the "critical date". This date, in turn, is the time when the controversy first arose between the parties. It is the moment in time  when the parties have advanced conflicting claims of title over the disputed territory. It is  when  the parties officially joined the issues albeit out-of-court. In the Palmas case, the lone arbitrator disregarded evidence offered by the parties after the critical date because human experience tell us that all such evidence would be self-serving. After a controversy has arisen, it is only reasonable for both parties to strengthen—rather than weaken—their respective claims. This is why after all the claimants to Kalayaan publicly advanced their claims to the islands, all of them took steps to bolster their respective claims of effective occupation over the islands. When is the critical date to the Spratlys? It would appear to vary depending on which state is making the claim. France claimed the islands in 1933 . This was met with protests from China, Japan, and even Great Britain. All those that protested the claim of France hence articulated their own basis for title to the islands. It would seem that for China and Vietnam, the latter as the successor state of France, the critical date would be 1933. But for the Philippines, the critical date would be in the 1950s after Thomas Cloma claimed discovery over the islands that he described as "res nullius"—belonging to no one. The critical date for both Malaysia and Brunei, since their claims are anchored only on the regime of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone under the UNCLOS, would be in 1984, the year when the convention took effect. Of course it is still important for the Philippines to repeatedly protest all these subsequent acts of effective occupation. Failure to protest may lead to estoppel. The international community recognizes international law as such because it forms part of a normative system.  Here, its normative content is the preservation of international peace and security.  The concept of "critical date" exists precisely to minimize the threat or the actual use of force. Were it not for this technique, claimant countries to disputed territory may resort to shooting whenever a claimant takes steps to bolster its claim after the "critical date." Because of this technique, claimants are assured that acts that transpired after the controversy may mean nothing in the resolution of the controversy and hence need not result in a gunfight. I am concerned that many of our countrymen, including those in the media, appear to be agitated with news of what China has been doing lately. Fortunately, we need not lose our cool since all these may be for naught. Like President Aquino, let's keep our cool.

Human Recall Notice

From: Alfred Clayton

Date: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM

RECALL NOTICE

This is totally amazing. Be sure to read it. Talk about clever and to the point! Never heard it put quite like this before RECALL NOTICE: The Maker of all human beings (GOD) is recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to a serious defect in the primary and central component of the heart. This is due to a malfunction in the original prototype units code named Adam and Eve, resulting in the reproduction of the same defect in all subsequent units. This defect has been identified as "Subsequential Internal Non-morality," more commonly known as S.I.N., as it is primarily expressed. Some of the symptoms include: 1. Loss of direction 2. Foul vocal emissions 3. Amnesia of origin 4. Lack of peace and joy 5. Selfish or violent behavior 6. Depression or confusion 7. Fearfulness 8. Idolatry 9. Rebellion The Manufacturer, who is neither liable nor at fault for this defect, is providing factory-authorized repair and service free of charge to correct this defect. The Repair Technician, JESUS, has most generously offered to bear the entire burden of the staggering cost of these repairs. There is no additional fee required. The number to call for repair in all areas is: P-R-A-Y-E-R. Once connected, please upload your burden of SIN through the REPENTANCE procedure. Next, download ATONEMENT from the Repair Technician, Jesus, into the heart component. No matter how big or small the SIN defect is, Jesus will replace it with: 1. Love 2. Joy 3. Peace 4. Patience 5. Kindness 6. Goodness 7. Faithfulness 8. Gentleness 9. Self control Please see the operating manual, the B.I.B.L.E. (BEST Instructions Before Leaving Earth) for further details on the use of these fixes. WARNING: Continuing to operate the human being unit without correction voids any manufacturer warranties, exposing the unit to dangers and problems too numerous to list, and will result in the human unit being permanently impounded. For free emergency service, call on Jesus. DANGER: The human being units not responding to this recall action will have to be scrapped in the furnace. The SIN defect will not be permitted to enter Heaven so as to prevent contamination of that facility. Thank you for your attention! GOD P.S. Please assist where possible by notifying others of this important recall notice, and you may contact the Father any time by 'Knee mail'! Because HE Lives!

Pilipinas Shell to pay tax for alleged alkylate smuggling | ABS-CBN News

Pilipinas Shell to pay tax for alleged alkylate smuggling | ABS-CBN News




The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Shell disappoints as profits fall

Jul 26th, 2012

by John Donovan.

26 July 2012

Falling energy prices have left its mark on Royal Dutch Shell after a weaker-than-expected profits performance drove a big fall in its share price.

While chief executive Peter Voser insisted the Anglo-Dutch company was “moving forward in volatile times”, Shell’s second quarter profits of 5.7 billion US dollars (£3.7 billion) were down 13% and below City hopes.

Shell increased upstream production by 4% to 3.1 million barrels a day in the quarter – driven by improved output of natural gas – but this was more than offset by the drop in global energy prices in the period.

Mr Voser said: “Our profits have fallen with energy prices, but our growth strategy is delivering to the bottom line.”

Shell has sold assets in recent years as it looks to improve financial headroom for projects with greater growth potential.

Capital investment in the second quarter was 8.1 billion US dollars (£5.2 billion) and the company remains on track to spend 32 billion US dollars (£20.6 billion) this year.

Mr Voser said more than 20 construction projects were underconstruction and that Shell wanted leadership positions in the areas where it chooses to invest.

Despite the comments, shares fell by 4% and dragged rival BP lower ahead of its own figures next week.

Keith Bowman, equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers, said: “A drop in earnings had been expected, but not to this extent as evidenced by the share price fall.

“At a time when investors are looking towards blue-chip reliability, the disappointment contained in the headline figures is palpable. Nonetheless, on a longer term view, there still seems much to go for.”

Copyright © 2012 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

Posted in: BP, Oil, Oil Company Profits, Oil Prices, Peter Voser, Press Association,Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Oil · Oil Prices · Peter Voser · Press Association · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Shell CEO: America can be energy independent in 20 years; company profit drops on lower prices

Romney Tax Plan: Many Happy Returns for Big Oil →

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

RECOMMENDATION FROM PORTIA

TYLER RECOMMENDS TONY

Fake Shell Websites: Truth Really Is Stranger Than Fiction

Jul 23rd, 2012

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan

The fake Shell website organizers currently running rings round Shell, apparently have its management and army of lawyers in a state of disarray. The Arctic campaigners said Shell had threatened legal proceedings. This turned out be be part of the carefully contrived hoax.Shell said in an official statementposted on a genuine Shell website that it had not taken legal action and claimed that instead, "Our focus is on safely executing our operations."

The "turning the other cheek" tactic was short-lived. According to an executive director of Greenpeace,Shell has now issued a notice warning about commencing proceedings.

We have a unique perspective on these events being the originators of what could be described as the first fake Shell website, which (according to Shell) is "deliberately misleading", directing the "unsuspecting internet user" to the Donovan "Shell" website, instead of the real Shell website. It is true that despite our disclaimers and numerous other indicators to the contrary, because of the domain name, some people do believe that it is the official Shell website.

Hence we receive business proposals, job applications and even terrorist threats meant for Shell. What is even odder, is that we have Shell's permission to sift the incoming emails meant for Shell and deal with them at our discretion on their behalf. This was agreed in writing.

The bizarre arrangement was set out again in a more recent communication attached to a letter we received from Shell International Limited dated 17 July 2012 (from Mr Gary Thomson). This provides further confirmation that "Shell's No. 1 Enemy" is officially dealing on Shell's behalf with such matters.

This is not a prank or a hoax, but a provable fact. Truth really is stranger than fiction.

How on earth could Royal Dutch Shell, the biggest company in the world, have got itself into such a humiliating situation?

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, GoogleNews, Greenpeace, John Donovan, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · John Donovan · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← COLLABORATING WITH THE DONOVANS

Shell Arctic Drilling: Blame game question

Jul 23rd, 2012

by John Donovan.

Article by a Guest Author, a Regular Contributor
We all know that Shell cannot possibly deal with a significant release of oil from any of the well it will (may) be drilling in the Arctic this summer. That is now well known and a given, no matter what Shell claims. Even the Coast Guard admits it could not deal with such a situation.
In spite of this problem Shell has gotten virtually all the permits it needs to go ahead and drill this summer, i.e., the US government has approved Shell's woefully inadequate plan and means of dealing with any sort of significant oil spill, should one occur. The US Government knows a major 'event' cannot be dealt with, by either Shell or the Coast Guard.
But Shell has virtually been given the go-ahead to drill.
So, for the sake of argument, let's presume Shell does get their final permits and they high-tail it to their drill sites and begin to drill away like happy little beavers at work on a log dam.
For the sake of argument let's presume the unthinkable happens, a blowout of significance. Oil is now gushing into the environment at 10′s of thousands of bbls/day. A major spill now occurs and it could be the well won't be plugged until perhaps the following drilling season.
Shell cannot handle this type of blowout and neither can the US government.
Oh, my goodness !! What do we do !! Who gets the blame here?? Shell ? or the USG ? Who covers the cost of cleanup, whatever that means?
In this scenario Shell would have done everything it was required to do (Almost – they now admit they cannot cleanup 90% of a spill, they can only 'contact' 90% of the spilled material. But who is parsing words? ). USG agencies would clearly be facing a great deal of scrutiny for 'inadequate' review of permits, safetly processes, guidelines and regs., etc.
Who would be the bad guy here ?
Seems to me it is the USG first and foremost, and Shell second. It is up to USG regulatory agencies to competently execute their responsibilities, and not pander to the political expediencies of the day. In such a scenario that would not be the case.
So, who would hang? Clearly, the Sec. of Interior would be in the hot seat. Shell USA's boss would clearly have to go. But the Sec. of the Interior only does as he is told to do, like a good little soldier. And remember, Marvin Odum has a new buddy he has visited about 13 times this year, President Obama.
Wouldn't this be an interesting – What? Greek tragedy?. Unfortunately, for the pristine Arctic wilderness environment it would be a horrific tragedy, and the damage would be beyond repair.
Disclaimer: We encourage a diversity of opinion and comment. The opinions expressed herein are those of the guest contributor and are not necessarily endorsed or condoned by this website.

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Environment, Oil, Oil Spill, Outspoken Articles, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Fake Shell Websites: Truth Really Is Stranger Than Fiction

Nigerian National Assembly To Vote on Shell Fine in Sept – Spokesman →

Shell’s ship drifting incident should raise red flags for Alaskans

Jul 22nd, 2012 

by John Donovan.

Carey Restino | The Arctic Sounder | Jul 21, 2012

I am not a boat captain, not of a skiff or even a dingy. I've never dropped an anchor and I have no idea what it's like to be in charge of a vessel more than 500 feet long.

So when my uneducated eyes saw the image of Arctic-bound Shell Oil drillship Noble Discoverer snuggling up to the beach near Unalaska, I, like many, dropped jaw and asked, "How on earth could they have let that happen?"

But noting my ignorance, I asked the opinion of people who do dealwith big vessels on a daily basis. Their response? "How on earth could they have let that happen?"

There is debate now about the incident. Environmental groups have pounded on the Noble Discoverer's near-beaching with the glee of a pack of hyenas, pointing out other times (with completely different circumstances, I might add) when the ship has run into anchor trouble.

One Unalaska newsman is disputing the timeline as told by Shell, saying the ship drifted for much longer than 30 minutes. I don't envy the Coast Guard its duty in teasing this all out. While I'm hoping they do a good job, and I'm surprised at a few things so far.

Drug, alcohol tests?

First, I'm surprised the Coast Guard didn't ask all responsible parties to breath in a tube and pee in a cup. While the incident might not meet the typical standards of a "serious marine incident" it might well have had things gone any farther. And this is not just any vessel we are talking about here. The men and women running this boat are directlyresponsible for the health of our Arctic waters, assuming they fulfill their mission to drill this summer.

I, for one, would sleep better at night knowing that we don't have another Joseph Hazelwood – captain of the Exxon Valdez — on our hands.

Another question this incident raises is the one of who is really in charge. While the drill rigs and support vessels in question are typically thought of as Shell rigs, it's important to point out that they are not. Noble Drilling International, a contractor with offices and operations spanning the globe, owns and operates the Noble Discoverer. Not Shell.

Shell Oil spokesmen point out that it is up to Shell how the vessels are run, and that the issue of the anchor slipping is entirely their responsibility, but one wonders how far that goes. Does Shell, for example, have control over how many people were on watch?

Would they have that kind of control when drilling operations are under way?

The bottom line is, Shell and everyone else involved in this incident know that the world is watching them. If, under that kind of scrutiny, this kind of mishap can happen, it does not bode well for the future. Should the crew have noticed the ship's movement sooner?

Lingering fears

Should they have responded more quickly? I hope the Coast Guard investigation is thorough, but so far, I'm disappointed. If the guard doesn't have the authority to do drug and alcohol testing in such a situation, it should be given that leeway. If the agency does and it chose not to, that seems like an oversight to me.

The public, especially those who live there and are hoping with crossed fingers that Shell lives up to its promise to institute the very safest practices possible in the Arctic, are surely not encouraged by this incident. And I doubt those fears are going to be soothed by rhetoric.

It really doesn't matter if the ship touched bottom — but it does matter how long it drifted, and who should have noticed, and why it drifted at all. Most of all, we need to know the crew manning this ship is competent and capable of running such a delicate operation.

What is needed here are some candid explanations of how this happened, who or what slipped up, and how it is going to be fixed. Anything less will only add fuel to the fire of concern about drilling operations in the Arctic.

Contact Carey Restino at crestino(at)reportalaska.com. This commentary was originally published in The Arctic Sounder and is reprinted here with permission. Alaska Dispatch encourages a diversity of opinion and community perspectives. The opinions expressed herein are those of the contributor and are not necessarily endorsed or condoned by Alaska Dispatch.

SOURCE

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Environment, Exxon Mobil, Oil, Oil Spill, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Alaska Dispatch · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Nobel Discoverer · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Shell 'must look to Africa' after walking away from battle for Cove Energy

Shell wonder fuels: Shell Canada settles Quebec tainted gas class-action suit →

COMFREY MIRACLE CURE

THIS PLANT CURED MY BROTHER  FROM UNKNOWN DREADFUL AILMENT source of article acknowledgment