The problem is that they (Philippines) denied ownership in 1991 when Hans Hannapell, DK9KX inquired of the Philippine Ambassador to Germany. Letter to that effect is on file at ARRL. Scarborough is out of the boundaries of the Philippines defined by the Treaty of Paris of 1898. This is shown on an official Philippine government map (also in ARRL files) distributed by the Philippine government in 1995, where dotted lines around the Treaty lines show Scarborough clearly out side the dotted lines. Chinese maps of the same vintage (again, in ARRL files) show show Scarborough as Chinese. There was an existing Chinese survey marker on the rocks that was there long before 1995.

The Chinese did not even bother show up to the PCA tribunal because they thought it was invalid. While the Philippines are correct that it is within the EEZ, that does not overide the fact that the Chinese who had a prior claim does not own it. This is the same reason the Japanese go to such effort to maintain Okino Torishima, which is much smaller, but has a large concrete collar around it to prevent further deterioration.

The Philippines made no claim on it until 1997, when the third DXpedition went out there in a Chinese survey ship.

FUV

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 06:25:00 PM CST, EJ Jones <[email protected]> wrote:


Thanks for the review!  Would it still count as a  “country “ if DU has sovereignty over BS7H?

 

Pulled this off Wiki about Scarborough Shoal as they call it:

 

On 12 July 2016, the arbitrators of the tribunal of PCA ruled in favor of the Philippines on most of her submissions.. They concluded in the decision that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources, hence there was "no legal basis for China to claim historic rights" over the nine-dash line.[33] Accordingly, the PCA tribunal decision is ruled as final and non-appealable by either country.[34][35] The tribunal also criticised China's land reclamation projects and its construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands, saying that it had caused "severe harm to the coral reef environment".[36] It also characterised Taiping Island and other features of the Spratly Islands as "rocks" under UNCLOS, and therefore are not entitled to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone.[37] China however rejected the ruling, calling it "ill-founded".[38] In 2019, Taiwan also rejected the ruling.[39]

 

 

 

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Sandy Hutson
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 6:02 PM
To: Dennis Tune <[email protected]>; ADXA List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ADXA] New Member Standings for Earl, N5ZM

 

I and BV4FH worked on getting the BS7H situation going after our BQ9P Pratas trip, and we spent two years getting permissions, operators etc. Lot of things happened during that time. I had to back out due to prostate cancer treatment with 2 weeks to go, and OH2BH was added after a LOT of discussion. I remained on the off-island advisor list with a couple of others at the time of the operation. We gave a talk at the Plano/Dallas (exit 31 North) annual hamfest at the BS7H seminar.. 👍

 

The issues with BS7H were discussed here on our ADXA site several months ago, and I discussed situations that disallowed the 2nd operation from there and where do we go from here? China’s involvement but DU being so much closer and how to construct above water platforms, and are rocks to be considered islands, etc etc.. It is a confusing situation as to who really controls the “reef areas” close to DU and much further from Hong Kong and BY. China is not adding airfields to the reef areas like they have in the disputed island areas to the west, closer to China… It is a DU/BY dilemma for darn sure!! 😒

 

This situation makes it difficult to predict that another operation will occur any time soon and if it will meet ARRL DXCC current requirements as a country on the list at the time. It might be the only time I would agree to delete now and put back on (like ST0 South Sudan) after things settle down and a true “administration in control” of the reefs is established. Otherwise #340 could be unobtainable for a long time for those sitting on 338 or 339 now.

73 and have a good weekend DX chasing on 6m FT8. Not sure if CW/SSB are being used to VK land or South Americans at this time, despite strong signals being reported on FT8...

San K5YY

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Dennis Tune
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 4:49 PM
To: ADXA List
Subject: Re: [ADXA] New Member Standings for Earl, N5ZM

 

Maybe a more appropriate statement would be "I'll let you know if they re-surface any time"...Emoji

 

W9DCT

 

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 02:52:24 PM CST, Bob Ideker <[email protected]> wrote:

 

 

My congratulations to all of you.  SHOULD you have any extra one’s, please send them my-way. 😄😄

Bob

 

Bob Ideker, WB5BI (X-WB5VUH)

6 Copper Circle

Little Rock, ARkansas 72223

Cell/Text: 501/350-2671

 

 

 

 

 

On Mar 9, 2023, at 2:26 PM, Joel Harrison <[email protected]> wrote:



Pop up on the air, or above the water ?????

 

:-))))

 

ZN

 

..

help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
ADXA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/adxa
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

 

______________________________________________________________
ADXA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/adxa
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html