Absolutely not. Condition 2 (bottom) insists any settlement of law NOT be undertaken, but "postponed" - indefinitely one assumes. Much less any new treaty for the law of the sea undertaken.

I assume the "postponed" in condition 2 at that time actually means no body should legalize the ownership for themself one-sided, until solution is found.

Personally, I hope neighbors around the South China Sea can eventually found a way to share the area once and for all without causing new conflict. Many treasures has been turned into shitty hot potatoes because of that sea already, that needs to stop.

It means de facto ownership and ignoring the legal determination of the United Nations that's already been handed down. It's a kind of "Give me your car and I'll let you borrow it sometimes." offer.

> "Give me your car and I'll let you borrow it sometimes."

Maybe this is a little over-simplified? Too many histories need to be dig into before the problem can be explained and understood completely. Let's hope those politicians will figure out how to solve it.

You are flatly gainsaying the very detailed original article but not saying why you think that might be a reasonable stance.