DOCSLIB.ORG

China's Dispute with the Philippines Over the Nansha

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
China's Dispute with the Philippines Over the Nansha 5 China’s dispute with the Philippines over the Nansha Islands Abstract: This chapter discusses China’s dispute with the Philippines over the Nansha Islands. The Philippines’ relatively recent claim in the South China Sea relies on geographic proximity, national security, effective occupation and control and legal definition of the EEZ, none of which is supported by solid evidence and international law. Geographic proximity has long been dismissed by international law and practice as a principle to support territorial claims. Continued protests from China and other parties have failed the applicability of claiming the Nansha Islands as res nullius. The principle of ‘land dominating the sea’ refuses the extension of jurisdiction from water to land features. The Philippines has been keen to invite in external powers, including the United States and foreign oil companies, to consolidate its presence in the disputed area. It is predictable that with pressure from domestic politics and increasing ties with the United States, the Philippines will adopt more assertive policies and approaches to sustain its claim in the SCS. Key words: China, the Philippines, Nansha Islands disputes, cooperation. Compared to Vietnam, the Philippines’ sovereignty claim over the South China Sea is more recent, relying on its interpretation of international laws and practice instead of historical evidence. As a US ally, the Philippines has never hesitated to get the United States involved in Southeast Asian matters and help internationalise the SCS issue. 123 Regional Cooperation and Development in the South China Sea Basis of the Philippines’ claims The Philippines’ official claims and related legal documents The Philippines claims most of the Nansha Islands (Spratlys), but not Nanwei (Spratly) Island itself or several others in that immediate vicinity (Smith, 2010: 227). The Philippines first clarified its national territory through the 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, which provides that: The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on the tenth day of December, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, the limits which are set forth in Article I of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty, and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippines Islands exercises jurisdiction. (Congress of the Philippines, 1935) On the issue of maritime boundary, the Philippines is one of the earliest Asian countries to propose extending its maritime jurisdiction beyond its territorial sea. Several national laws were enacted to clarify the boundaries of its territorial sea and claim rights over its archipelagic waters, continental shelf and EEZ. On 18 June 1949 the Philippines issued Republic Act No. 387, otherwise known as the Petroleum Act of 1949, Article 3 of which provides that: All natural deposits or occurrences of petroleum or natural gas in public and/or private lands in the Philippines, whether found in, on or under the surface of dry lands, creeks, rivers, lakes, or other submerged lands within the territorial waters or on the continental shelf, or its analogue in an archipelago, seaward from the shores of the Philippines which are not within the territories of other countries, belong to the State, inalienably and imprescriptibly. (Congress of the Philippines, 1949) 124 China’s dispute with the Philippines over the Nansha Islands Republic Act No. 3046, issued on 17 June 1961, defines the baselines of its territorial sea (Congress of the Philippines, 1961). This was amended by Republic Act No. 5446 on 18 September 1968, which formally publicised the baselines of the Philippine territorial sea and the coordinates of base points (Congress of the Philippines, 1968). According to these two acts, the baselines of the territorial sea are defined by 81 base points and the lines connecting them; all the waters beyond the outermost islands of the archipelago but within the boundaries set forth in the treaties mentioned in Article 1 of the 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines comprise the territorial sea of the Philippines. On 20 March 1968 the Philippines issued Presidential Proclamation No. 370, which clarified its continental shelf limit and declared its jurisdiction over the extended area. According to the document, the continental shelf under Philippine jurisdiction extended to ‘where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of such resources’ (Marcos, 1968). To support its attempt to extend its jurisdiction over maritime areas, the Philippines relied on its interpretation of international law. The current Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, which was amended in 1978, has deleted expressions referring to historical treaties and instead refers to its archipelago status, providing that: The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Congress of the Philippines, 1978) On 11 June 1978 the Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 1596, proclaiming that the majority of the Spratly Islands belong to the Philippine Kalayaan Islands group, and declaring that it enjoys sovereignty over them. It cited reasons to support this claim: …much of the above area is part of the continental margin of the Philippine archipelago; 125 Regional Cooperation and Development in the South China Sea …these areas do not legally belong to any state or nation but, by reason of history, indispensable need and effective occupation and control established in accordance with international law, such areas must now be deemed to belong and be subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines; …while other states have laid claims to some of these areas, their claims have lapsed by abandonment and cannot prevail over that of the Philippines on legal, historical, and equitable grounds. (Marcos, 1978) On the same day the Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 1599 to claim a 200 nm EEZ, and reaffirmed its claims to territorial sea and continental shelf (Official Gazette, 1978). On 8 December 1982 the Philippines signed UNCLOS, and ratified it on 8 May 1984, making it one of the earliest member states of the convention (UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 2011). On 10 March 2009 the Philippines enacted Republic Act No. 9522, a new law adjusting its archipelagic baselines defined and described by 101 base points. Article 2 provides that the Philippines exercises ‘sovereignty and jurisdiction’ over the Kalayaan Islands group and Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island), both of which were determined as ‘regimes of islands’ (Congress of the Philippines, 2009). On 8 April 2009 the Philippines submitted ‘A partial submission of data and information on the outer limits of the continental shelf of the Republic of the Philippines’ to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, establishing the outer limits of its shelf in the Benham Rise region east of the Philippine islands. No limits were put forward for its SCS continental shelf (Smith, 2010: 223). The document specified that ‘this partial submission is without prejudice to the right of the Philippines to make other submissions for other areas at a future time’ (Philippines, 2009b). Basis of claims Proximity, security and economic significance The area claimed by the Philippines is within a fairly short distance of the Philippine archipelago. Its strategic importance is seen in Japan’s previous construction of air and naval bases, a repair base and weather 126 China’s dispute with the Philippines over the Nansha Islands and radio stations on the islands in the area, using them as a staging post for its occupation and control during the Second World War. The Philippines considers the Nansha Islands as an important component of its national defence (McDorman, 1993: 267). The Nansha Islands and their surrounding waters are important fishing grounds and contain oil and gas reserves for the Philippines. Fisheries are one of the pillow industries in the Philippines, and contribute 4.3 per cent of its GDP. The population involved in fisheries amounts to 1.61 million, accounting for 15 per cent of the total population. Because of its proximity and rich fishery resources, the Nansha area is one of the major fishing grounds for Philippine fishermen (Qiao, 2011: 71). Oil and gas reserves in the area also attract Philippine interest in development. As a net oil importer, the Philippines has launched favourable policies to draw support from foreign oil companies in order to explore oil and gas in the Nansha Islands (Buszynski and Sazlan, 2007: 163). Its effort has resulted in significant growth in terms of oil production and raised the strategic importance of this area. Effective occupation and control The Philippines has relied on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Position Paper on ROC South China Sea Policy
    Position Paper on ROC South China Sea Policy Republic of China (Taiwan) March 21, 2016 1. Preface The Nansha (Spratly) Islands, Shisha (Paracel) Islands, Chungsha (Macclesfield Bank) Islands, and Tungsha (Pratas) Islands (together known as the South China Sea Islands) were first discovered, named, and used by the ancient Chinese, and incorporated into national territory and administered by imperial Chinese governments. Whether from the perspective of history, geography, or international law, the South China Sea Islands and their surrounding waters are an inherent part of ROC territory and waters. The ROC enjoys all rights over them in accordance with international law. This is indisputable. Any claim to sovereignty over, or occupation of, these areas by other countries is illegal, irrespective of the reasons put forward or methods used, and the ROC government recognizes no such claim or occupation. With respect to international disputes regarding the South China Sea, the ROC has consistently maintained the principles of safeguarding sovereignty, shelving disputes, pursuing peace and reciprocity, and promoting joint development, and in accordance with the United Nations Charter and international law, called for consultations with other countries, participation in related dialogue and cooperative mechanisms, and peaceful 1 resolution of disputes, to jointly ensure regional peace. 2. Grounds for the ROC position History The early Chinese have been active in the South China Sea since ancient times. Historical texts and local gazetteers contain numerous references to the geographical position, geology, natural resources of the South China Sea waters and landforms, as well as the activities of the ancient Chinese in the region. The South China Sea Islands were discovered, named, used over the long term, and incorporated into national territory by the early Chinese, so even though most of the islands and reefs are uninhabited, they are not terra nullius.
    [Show full text]
  • South China Sea Overview
    ‹ Countries South China Sea Last Updated: February 7, 2013 (Notes) full report Overview The South China Sea is a critical world trade route and a potential source of hydrocarbons, particularly natural gas, with competing claims of ownership over the sea and its resources. Stretching from Singapore and the Strait of Malacca in the southwest to the Strait of Taiwan in the northeast, the South China Sea is one of the most important trade routes in the world. The sea is rich in resources and holds significant strategic and political importance. The area includes several hundred small islands, rocks, and reefs, with the majority located in the Paracel and Spratly Island chains. Many of these islands are partially submerged land masses unsuitable for habitation and are little more than shipping hazards. For example, the total land area of the Spratly Islands encompasses less than 3 square miles. Several of the countries bordering the sea declare ownership of the islands to claim the surrounding sea and its resources. The Gulf of Thailand borders the South China Sea, and although technically not part of it, disputes surround ownership of that Gulf and its resources as well. Asia's robust economic growth boosts demand for energy in the region. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects total liquid fuels consumption in Asian countries outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to rise at an annual growth rate of 2.6 percent, growing from around 20 percent of world consumption in 2008 to over 30 percent of world consumption by 2035. Similarly, non-OECD Asia natural gas consumption grows by 3.9 percent annually, from 10 percent of world gas consumption in 2008 to 19 percent by 2035.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Claim of Sovereignty Over Spratly and Paracel Islands: a Historical and Legal Perspective Teh-Kuang Chang
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 23 | Issue 3 1991 China's Claim of Sovereignty over Spratly and Paracel Islands: A Historical and Legal Perspective Teh-Kuang Chang Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Teh-Kuang Chang, China's Claim of Sovereignty over Spratly and Paracel Islands: A Historical and Legal Perspective, 23 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 399 (1991) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol23/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. China's Claim of Sovereignty Over Spratly and Paracel Islands: A Historical and Legal Perspective Teh-Kuang Chang* I. INTRODUCTION (Dn August 13, 1990, in Singapore, Premier Li Peng of the People's Re- public of China (the PRC) reaffirmed China's sovereignty over Xisha and Nansha Islands.1 On December. 29, 1990, in Taipei, Foreign Minis- ter Frederick Chien stated that the Nansha Islands are territory of the Republic of China.2 Both statements indicated that China's claim to sov- ereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands was contrary to the claims of other nations. Since China's claim of Spratly and Paracel Islands is challenged by its neighboring countries, the ownership of the islands in the South China Sea is an unsettled international dispute.3 An understanding of both * Professor of Political Science, Ball State University.
    [Show full text]
  • The South China Sea – Known As the East Sea in Vietnam and the West Philippine Sea in the Philippines
    0 200 miles N Xiamen Taipei it FUJIAN a CHINA tr S TAIWAN Pearl R ive n r Guangzhou a iw a GUANGDONG T R Macao Kaohsiung ed GUANGXI Hong Kong R iv er V Hanoi Zhanjiang Haiphong Pratas Is. Luzon Strait I Gulf of Tonkin Haikou Hainan E Sanya LAOS S T Paracel Woody I. Hue Islands E Da Nang Truro Shoal Luzon N Triton I. Macclesfield N Bank Scarborough Shoal I Subic Bay Manila A g SOUTH CHINA P n o k e SEA M P M Cam Ranh Bay CAMBODIA North Danger Reed Bank Bank I Phnom Penh Thitu I. Ho Chi Minh City L Itu Aba I. Phu Quy I Palawan Spratly Islands H Gulf of Con Son Spratly I. Thailand P Vanguard Louisa Bank Reef Kota Kinabalu SABAH Bandar Seri Begawan BRUNEI Natuna (Indonesia) SARAWAK MALAYSIA Kuching SINGAPORE BORNEO INDONESIA The South China Sea – known as the East Sea in Vietnam and the West Philippine Sea in the Philippines. ix x N CHINA Gulf Hainan of Lingshui Tonkin Sanya SOUTH CHINA SEA North Reef Amphitrite West Sand Tree I. Group Rocky I. V Woody I. Crescent Prattle I. Group Robert I. Drummond I. Lincoln Island I C h in Duncan I. e s E e Money I. Vuladdore Reef c la i m Discovery Reef T Da Nang li n e Passu Bombay Reef Cu Lao Cham Keah N Triton Island A Agreed boundary between China and Vietnam Equidistance line M LAOS 200 nautical miles from coasts 0 100 nautical miles China’s nine-dashed line The Paracel Islands: occupied by China, which calls them the Xisha, but claimed by Vietnam, which calls them the ‘Hoang Sa.
    [Show full text]
  • Untangling the South China Sea Disputes
    Increasing Disharmony in the South China Sea? Professor Clive Schofield The Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong, Australia The Spratly Islands: What and Where? • What? Profusion of submerged banks and shoals, reefs, cays and low-tide elevations, rocks and islets • Where? Scattered over c.240,000km2 of the southern South China Sea • How many? Estimates vary. Only 36 above water at high tide • How big? . Largest (Itu Aba): 1.4km long, area of c.50 hectares . Spratly Island: c.13 hectares in area . Total surface area estimated at 8km2 China The South China Sea Taiwan/ROC Mainland and main island coasts Disputed Islands in the South China Sea Baselines (archipelagic, straight) Laos Archipelagic waters Internal waters 12nm from baselines and islands 200nm from mainland coasts Thailand 200nm from mainland baselines 200nm from Spratly, Thitu Island, Itu Aba Island, Woody Island, Pratas Island, and Cambodia Scarborough Reef Vietnam Agreed boundaries Cambodia-Vietnam Joint Historic Waters Area Thai-Malaysia Joint Development Area Philippines Malaysia-Vietnam “Defined Area” China-Vietnam Joint zone – Gulf of Tonkin Thai-Cambodia MOU Chinese dashed line: 11, 9, 10 Malaysia Brunei Philippine Treaty Limits “box” Unilateral claims (Philippines‟ KIG polygon) Malaysia Singapore Unilateral claims (Malaysia Peta Baru 1979) Unilateral claims (Brunei) Malaysia-Brunei joint arrangement Indonesia Unilateral claims (Indonesia‟s EEZ) Indonesia Singaporean Claim from Pedra Branca ECS submissions (Malaysia and Vietnam,) Paracel Islands Vietnam All claimants except for Brunei Spratly Islands occupy at least one feature Philippines China Taiwan Philippines Malaysia Vietnam Malaysia South China Sea Equidistance/median lines with full effect form disputed islands Geopolitical Concerns • Sovereignty • Crucial sea lanes • Marine Spaces and Resources • Oil illusions? • Environmental/Food security The “oil rich” Spratlys? • Persistent perception that the seabed around the Spratlys hosts significant oil and gas resources .
    [Show full text]
  • China Versus Vietnam: an Analysis of the Competing Claims in the South China Sea Raul (Pete) Pedrozo
    A CNA Occasional Paper China versus Vietnam: An Analysis of the Competing Claims in the South China Sea Raul (Pete) Pedrozo With a Foreword by CNA Senior Fellow Michael McDevitt August 2014 Unlimited distribution Distribution unlimited. for public release This document contains the best opinion of the authors at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the sponsor. Cover Photo: South China Sea Claims and Agreements. Source: U.S. Department of Defense’s Annual Report on China to Congress, 2012. Distribution Distribution unlimited. Specific authority contracting number: E13PC00009. Copyright © 2014 CNA This work was created in the performance of Contract Number 2013-9114. Any copyright in this work is subject to the Government's Unlimited Rights license as defined in FAR 52-227.14. The reproduction of this work for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. Nongovernmental users may copy and distribute this document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this copyright notice is reproduced in all copies. Nongovernmental users may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies they make or distribute. Nongovernmental users may not accept compensation of any manner in exchange for copies. All other rights reserved. This project was made possible by a generous grant from the Smith Richardson Foundation Approved by: August 2014 Ken E. Gause, Director International Affairs Group Center for Strategic Studies Copyright © 2014 CNA FOREWORD This legal analysis was commissioned as part of a project entitled, “U.S. policy options in the South China Sea.” The objective in asking experienced U.S international lawyers, such as Captain Raul “Pete” Pedrozo, USN, Judge Advocate Corps (ret.),1 the author of this analysis, is to provide U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spratly Islands Administered by the Individual States of the Region and the Boundaries of Claims Versus the Exclusive Econom
    The Spratly Islands administered by the individual states of the region and the boundaries of claims versus the exclusive economic zones and the boundaries of the continental shelf 0 25 50 75 100 km 0 25 50 75 100 NM 2009 VIETNAM 1974 Northeast Cay Southwest Cay Block Claim Vietnam Petroleum South Reef West York Island Thitu Island Subi Reef Irving Reef Flat Island Loaita Cay Nanshan Island Lankiam Cay Loaita Island a e Centre Cay Petley Reef S Itu Aba Island Sand Cay Gaven Reef a Namyit Island n i Discovery Great Reef 1979 Hughes Reef Mischief Reef h Sin Cowe Island C (Union Banks) Grierson Reef Collins Reef Higgens Reef Second Lansdowne Reef Thomas Shoal h Johnson South Reef t u Fiery Cross Reef First o Bombay Castle S Thomas Shoal 2009 2009 (London Reefs) PHILIPPINES Central Reef Pearson Reef Pigeon Reef 1979 West Reef Cuarteron Reef East Reef Alison Reef Ladd Reef Cornwallis South Reef Spratly Island Commodore Reef Prince of Wales Bank Barque Canada Reef Erica Reef Investigator Shoal Alexandra Bank Mariveles Reef Prince Consort Bank Amboyna Cay Grainger Bank Rifleman Bank Ardasier Reef Vanguard Bank Swallow Reef 1979 1979 The boundaries of the claims in the South China Sea have not been precisely delimited. This is their approximate location, presented for illustrative purposes only. for illustrative location, presented delimited. This is their approximate precisely not been Sea have the claims in the South China The boundaries of : MALAYSIA © / Reservation LEGEND Areas of land (islands, cays, reefs, rocks): Submerged areas and areas only partly above water: Boundaries of claims submitted by: Boundaries of the exclusive economic zones delimited pursuant to the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague issued in 2016 (case number 2013–19) and in line with the UNCLOS, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin No. 91 The
    Bulletin No. 91 Law of the Sea Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 91 United Nations New York, 2017 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the ex- pression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The texts of treaties and national legislation contained in the Bulletin are reproduced as submitted to the Secretariat, without formal editing. Furthermore, publication in the Bulletin of information concerning developments relating to the law of the sea emanating from actions and decisions taken by States does not imply recognition by the United Na- tions of the validity of the actions and decisions in question. IF ANY MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THE BULLETIN IS REPRODUCED IN PART OR IN WHOLE, DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN. United Nations Publication ISBN 978-92-1-133855-3 Copyright © United Nations, 2017 All rights reserved Printed at the United Nations, New York ContentS Page I. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks 1.
    [Show full text]
  • US-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas
    U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 8, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R42784 U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas Summary Over the past several years, the South China Sea (SCS) has emerged as an arena of U.S.-China strategic competition. China’s actions in the SCS—including extensive island-building and base- construction activities at sites that it occupies in the Spratly Islands, as well as actions by its maritime forces to assert China’s claims against competing claims by regional neighbors such as the Philippines and Vietnam—have heightened concerns among U.S. observers that China is gaining effective control of the SCS, an area of strategic, political, and economic importance to the United States and its allies and partners. Actions by China’s maritime forces at the Japan- administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea (ECS) are another concern for U.S. observers. Chinese domination of China’s near-seas region—meaning the SCS and ECS, along with the Yellow Sea—could substantially affect U.S. strategic, political, and economic interests in the Indo-Pacific region and elsewhere. Potential general U.S. goals for U.S.-China strategic competition in the SCS and ECS include but are not necessarily limited to the following: fulfilling U.S. security commitments in the Western Pacific, including treaty commitments to Japan and the Philippines; maintaining and enhancing the U.S.-led security architecture in the Western Pacific, including U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining EEZ Claims from Islands: a Potential South China Sea Change
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities 1-1-2014 Defining EEZ claims from islands: A potential South China Sea change Robert Beckman National University of Singapore, [email protected] Clive Schofield University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Beckman, Robert and Schofield, Clive, "Defining EEZ claims from islands: A potential South China Sea change" (2014). Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers. 1409. https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/1409 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Defining EEZ claims from islands: A potential South China Sea change Abstract In the face of seemingly intractable territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea, the article examines how the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), sets out what maritime claims States can make in the South China Sea and how it establishes a framework that will enable States to either negotiate maritime boundary agreements or negotiate joint development arrangements (JDAs) in areas of overlapping maritime claims. It provides an avenue whereby the maritime claims of the claimants can be brought into line with international law, potentially allowing for meaningful discussions on cooperation and maritime joint development based on areas of overlapping maritime claims defined on the basis of the LOSC.
    [Show full text]
  • Spratly Islands
    R i 120 110 u T4-Y5 o Ganzhou Fuqing n h Chenzhou g Haitan S T2- J o Dao Daojiang g T3 S i a n Putian a i a n X g i Chi-lung- Chuxiong g n J 21 T6 D Kunming a i Xingyi Chang’an o Licheng Xiuyu Sha Lung shih O J a T n Guilin T O N pa Longyan T7 Keelung n Qinglanshan H Na N Lecheng T8 T1 - S A an A p Quanzhou 22 T'ao-yüan Taipei M an T22 I L Ji S H Zhongshu a * h South China Sea ng Hechi Lo-tung Yonaguni- I MIYAKO-RETTO S K Hsin-chu- m c Yuxi Shaoguan i jima S A T21 a I n shih Suao l ) Zhangzhou Xiamen c e T20 n r g e Liuzhou Babu s a n U T Taichung e a Quemoy p i Meizhou n i Y o J YAEYAMA-RETTO a h J t n J i Taiwan C L Yingcheng K China a a Sui'an ( o i 23 n g u H U h g n g Fuxing T'ai- a s e i n Strait Claimed Straight Baselines Kaiyuan H ia Hua-lien Y - Claims in the Paracel and Spratly Islands Bose J Mai-Liao chung-shih i Q J R i Maritime Lines u i g T9 Y h e n e o s ia o Dongshan CHINA u g B D s Tropic of Cancer J Hon n Qingyuan Tropic of Cancer Established maritime boundary ian J Chaozhou Makung n Declaration of the People’s Republic of China on the Baseline of the Territorial Sea, May 15, 1996 g i Pingnan Heyuan PESCADORES Taiwan a Xicheng an Wuzhou 21 25° 25.8' 00" N 119° 56.3' 00" E 31 21° 27.7' 00" N 112° 21.5' 00" E 41 18° 14.6' 00" N 109° 07.6' 00" E While Bandar Seri Begawan has not articulated claims to reefs in the South g Jieyang Chaozhou 24 T19 N BRUNEI Claim line Kaihua T10- Hsi-yü-p’ing Chia-i 22 24° 58.6' 00" N 119° 28.7' 00" E 32 19° 58.5' 00" N 111° 16.4' 00" E 42 18° 19.3' 00" N 108° 57.1' 00" E China Sea (SCS), since 1985 the Sultanate has claimed a continental shelf Xinjing Guiping Xu Shantou T11 Yü Luxu n Jiang T12 23 24° 09.7' 00" N 118° 14.2' 00" E 33 19° 53.0' 00" N 111° 12.8' 00" E 43 18° 30.2' 00" N 108° 41.3' 00" E X Puning T13 that extends beyond these features to a hypothetical median with Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Briefing
    International Boundaries Research Unit MARITIME BRIEFING Volume 2 Number 1 The Spratly Islands Dispute: Who’s On First? Daniel J. Dzurek Maritime Briefing Volume 2 Number 1 ISBN 1-897643-23-3 1996 The Spratly Islands Dispute: Who’s On First? by Daniel J. Dzurek Edited by Clive Schofield International Boundaries Research Unit Department of Geography University of Durham South Road Durham DH1 3LE UK Tel: UK + 44 (0) 191 334 1961 Fax: UK +44 (0) 191 334 1962 E-mail: [email protected] www: http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk The Author Daniel J Dzurek works as an international boundary consultant for oil companies, map makers, and law firms. Formerly, he was a research associate at the East-West Center in Honolulu and served in the US Department of State as Chief of the Spatial, Environmental, and Boundary Analysis Division in the Office of the Geographer. While at State, he authored five issues of Limits in the Seas, participated in three negotiating sessions on the Russia-US maritime boundary treaty, and assisted in the US submission to the ICJ in the Gulf of Maine Case. He has published extensively on maritime boundary issues. The opinions contained herein are those of the author and are not to be construed as those of IBRU. Contents Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Physical Geography 1 3. Definitional Problems 3 3.1 Where are the Spratly islands? 3 3.2 When is Chigua Reef not Chigua Jiao? 4 4. History of Claims 7 4.1 Before the Twentieth Century 7 4.1.1 China 7 4.1.2 Vietnam 8 4.2 Early Twentieth Century 9 4.3 Aftermath of World War II 10 4.3.1 Republican
    [Show full text]