It's not their stated point, but if there's another rationalization, I can't imagine it. They feel their large population entitles them to more - I don't think they're wrong about that.

Well, they think they should have more than their neighbors if the nine dashed line is any indication (we don't believe in 100 km, except for other countries so...). Note that those countries in the SCS are much more densely populated than China, and double especially where the conflicts occur (they have millions and millions of people living on the line, china has like a garrison on small artificially buffed islands).

If they do claim that as a rationalization, the cognitive dissonance to dismiss the hypocrisy must be amazing. However, I've never heard them make such a rationalization before, and I don't think they have.

Dense, not nec huge populations -but you're right re Indonesia, it has a huge population. But isn't much affected.

Phillipines, Vietnam, Malaysia are all very populated and rather dense.

None of these are even in the top ten for population. So they're all dwarfed by China. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-...

Philippines has 100 million people. Vietnam has 90 million people. Malaysia has 30 millions. None of these are big countries area wise, they are all located very close to the SCS, much closer than Hainan’s 8 million.

In other words, the Philippines has less than 10 per cent of China's population. Dwarfed. This doesn't contradict them not even being in the top ten.

re SCS, I haven't mentioned or endorsed any precise boundary.

The population of all these countries is pretty much in the vicinity of seas disputed. The population of China is pretty much not (Hainan is one of the least populated provinces).

Which is consistent both with my proposal, (considering population), and would allow create boundaries very different from the little islands rules - so you seem to be "agreeing with vehemence" here, not disagreeing.

> They feel their large population entitles them to more

What do you base that on?

> I don't think they're wrong about that.

Should international law depend on what people think? In every situation, we can find people who think all sorts of things. I think law works better when it's based on fair rules.

I don't think a large population gives anyone the right seize territory from others. I think that's an awful idea, and i can't think of one legal principle that agrees. Should the US get to seize parts of Canada? China parts of Russia?

Circling - as said above I base that on not knowing any alternative.

Should we listen to what you think? I think even I get an opinion and fairness that ignores numbers needs some justification. Seizing is a different topic - I was the one who said following the seizing small islands theory of sea law was a bad idea, remember?