China’s claim to the “nine-dash line” or “U-shaped line” in the East Seais totally wrong as far as its historical name and sovereignty isconcerned, radio The Voice of Vietnam (VOV) said on June 5.
China's nine-dotted line: a vague claim
The nature of the “nine-dash line” remains obfuscated. According to adiplomatic note dated May 7, 2009 sent to the UN Secretary-General,China wanted the international community to recognise the line in theEast Sea as a historical precedent. If accepted at face value, most ofthe East Sea area would become China’s territorial waters.
In1962, the International Law Commission conducted a study into thejuridical regime of historic waters, including historic bays. To beconsidered historical bays or territorial waters need to satisfy twoconditions based on international customs and the court’s ruling.
First, a coastal state must effectively exercise sovereign rights continuously for a long period of time.
Second,there should be explicit or implicit recognition of such practice byforeign states, especially neighbouring nations - which also have rightsover the territorial sea area.
The validity of China’s“nine-dash line” claim rests on flimsy evidence that it has exercisedits full sovereign rights over the maritime zone in dispute. Can thearea encircled by the “nine-dash line” be considered part of Chineseterritory?
The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)stipulates the juridical regime of internal waters, defining it as when acoastal State has complete and absolute sovereignty over the area inthe same way it has sovereignty over its land territory. Foreign shipsshould ask the coastal state for permission if they want to enter orexit internal waters and must obey the controlling state’s regulations.The coastal state has rights to refuse foreign ships’ entry into itsinternal waters.
Since the “nine-dash line” first appeared onChinese maps published in 1948, foreign ships - including warships -travelled freely within the maritime zone delimited by the linesuffering no inconveniences. The waters within the “nine-dash line”therefore cannot be considered as China’s territorial waters.
Can the “nine-dash line” maritime zone be considered part of Chinese territory?
Acoastal state has full sovereignty over its territorial waters,including the airspace above it and the seabed and soil below it.International law stipulates that all kinds of foreign vessels cantravel in the area without infringing on the coastal state’s territorialwaters or disturbing the state’s peace, order, security, andenvironment.
Some nations ask every ship for advanced noticebefore entering their territorial waters, particularly when they areforeign warships. It should be noted that travel rights do not extend tothe airspace over territorial waters. Foreign aircraft must requestpermission before entering the area.
PhD Hoang Viet, a lecturerof Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, argues the maritime zone insidethe “nine-dash line” cannot be considered as Chinese territory. If so,ships and vessels would have rights to travel in the area withoutcausing trouble. Foreign warships and aircraft must ask for permissionfor their entry in advance.
He emphasises that since Chinaofficially published the first map including the “nine-dash line”,foreign warships and aircraft have yet to ask China for permissionbefore entering the area. In fact, he said, China cannot cite anyinternational law to prove its “nine-dash line” claim valid.
Inorder to justify its historical claim, China needs to demonstrate itsenduring possessive rights over the area concerned and its peaceful andcontinuous management and control processes lasting an extended period.This is difficult for China to prove this.
In ancient Chinesebibliographic documents, China’s territorial areas extend to HainanIsland as the ending point in the south. In China’s geographicaltextbook published in 1906, the southernmost point of China is Ya Zhoucoastline in Qiongzhou Island.
Independent Chinese historyresearcher Pham Hoang Quan said that from the Han to the Qing dynasties,no historical books mentioned any geographical coverage of the twoarchipelagos of Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly). This showsChina did not consider the archipelagos as part of its territory in thepast.
Maps drawn by foreigners are another vivid proof for the Chinese people to see reason as it prevails.
Chinacontinually reiterates that fishermen have travelled to the islands andsea areas in question for thousands of years. As they are justindividuals operating on their own, not in the name of the government,China’s claim cannot accord with the principles of possession understoodby the laws of international practice.
Vietnamese fishermen -especially those from State-run organisations - have frequentlyconducted their own island exploitation and management activities duringthe same period of time. There is no proof showing the East Sea asChina’s “ponds” and “lakes”, even in ancient Chinese records.
Withoutunconvincing arguments, China failed to identify the exact coordinatefor its historical claim, and kept silent. However, in recent years,China has tried to realise its “nine-dash line” legally and in thefield, in an attempt to win international recognition.
Forexample, China modernised its marine surveillance force to detainfishermen and fishing vessels operating in the area. The ChineseNational Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) invited international bids fornine lots in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
Chinaeven decided to establish the so-called Sansha city, comprising theParacel and Spratly archipelagos of Vietnam and the Macclesfield Bankwithin the “nine-dash line” covering up to 80 percent of the East Seaarea.
French General Daniel Schaeffer, former French militaryattaché to Vietnam, China, and Thailand, recalled China’s 2012 cuttingof the cable of Vietnam’s seismic survey ship (Binh Minh 02) within the“nine-dash line” and the 2012 clash between China and the Philippines inthe Reed Bank, saying China was seeking to verify its claim.
JohnHopkins University Professor Marvin Ott has affirmed no prestigiousinternational legal organisation considers China’s East Sea “nine-dashline” claim a serious statement.
He said China’s sovereign claimbased primarily on historic records is unacceptable. Any sovereigntyclaim must be based on international law as a signatory to the 1982United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China shouldfollow it to the letter.
On the contrary, China has gone toextreme lengths by deploying military forces, attacking fishing vessels,and garrisoning troops, while failing to prove its sovereign rights inline with international law.
China’s historical name andsovereignty arguments are not scientifically founded and only show itsambitious scheme to occupy the East Sea.-VNA
China's nine-dotted line: a vague claim
The nature of the “nine-dash line” remains obfuscated. According to adiplomatic note dated May 7, 2009 sent to the UN Secretary-General,China wanted the international community to recognise the line in theEast Sea as a historical precedent. If accepted at face value, most ofthe East Sea area would become China’s territorial waters.
In1962, the International Law Commission conducted a study into thejuridical regime of historic waters, including historic bays. To beconsidered historical bays or territorial waters need to satisfy twoconditions based on international customs and the court’s ruling.
First, a coastal state must effectively exercise sovereign rights continuously for a long period of time.
Second,there should be explicit or implicit recognition of such practice byforeign states, especially neighbouring nations - which also have rightsover the territorial sea area.
The validity of China’s“nine-dash line” claim rests on flimsy evidence that it has exercisedits full sovereign rights over the maritime zone in dispute. Can thearea encircled by the “nine-dash line” be considered part of Chineseterritory?
The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)stipulates the juridical regime of internal waters, defining it as when acoastal State has complete and absolute sovereignty over the area inthe same way it has sovereignty over its land territory. Foreign shipsshould ask the coastal state for permission if they want to enter orexit internal waters and must obey the controlling state’s regulations.The coastal state has rights to refuse foreign ships’ entry into itsinternal waters.
Since the “nine-dash line” first appeared onChinese maps published in 1948, foreign ships - including warships -travelled freely within the maritime zone delimited by the linesuffering no inconveniences. The waters within the “nine-dash line”therefore cannot be considered as China’s territorial waters.
Can the “nine-dash line” maritime zone be considered part of Chinese territory?
Acoastal state has full sovereignty over its territorial waters,including the airspace above it and the seabed and soil below it.International law stipulates that all kinds of foreign vessels cantravel in the area without infringing on the coastal state’s territorialwaters or disturbing the state’s peace, order, security, andenvironment.
Some nations ask every ship for advanced noticebefore entering their territorial waters, particularly when they areforeign warships. It should be noted that travel rights do not extend tothe airspace over territorial waters. Foreign aircraft must requestpermission before entering the area.
PhD Hoang Viet, a lecturerof Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, argues the maritime zone insidethe “nine-dash line” cannot be considered as Chinese territory. If so,ships and vessels would have rights to travel in the area withoutcausing trouble. Foreign warships and aircraft must ask for permissionfor their entry in advance.
He emphasises that since Chinaofficially published the first map including the “nine-dash line”,foreign warships and aircraft have yet to ask China for permissionbefore entering the area. In fact, he said, China cannot cite anyinternational law to prove its “nine-dash line” claim valid.
Inorder to justify its historical claim, China needs to demonstrate itsenduring possessive rights over the area concerned and its peaceful andcontinuous management and control processes lasting an extended period.This is difficult for China to prove this.
In ancient Chinesebibliographic documents, China’s territorial areas extend to HainanIsland as the ending point in the south. In China’s geographicaltextbook published in 1906, the southernmost point of China is Ya Zhoucoastline in Qiongzhou Island.
Independent Chinese historyresearcher Pham Hoang Quan said that from the Han to the Qing dynasties,no historical books mentioned any geographical coverage of the twoarchipelagos of Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly). This showsChina did not consider the archipelagos as part of its territory in thepast.
Maps drawn by foreigners are another vivid proof for the Chinese people to see reason as it prevails.
Chinacontinually reiterates that fishermen have travelled to the islands andsea areas in question for thousands of years. As they are justindividuals operating on their own, not in the name of the government,China’s claim cannot accord with the principles of possession understoodby the laws of international practice.
Vietnamese fishermen -especially those from State-run organisations - have frequentlyconducted their own island exploitation and management activities duringthe same period of time. There is no proof showing the East Sea asChina’s “ponds” and “lakes”, even in ancient Chinese records.
Withoutunconvincing arguments, China failed to identify the exact coordinatefor its historical claim, and kept silent. However, in recent years,China has tried to realise its “nine-dash line” legally and in thefield, in an attempt to win international recognition.
Forexample, China modernised its marine surveillance force to detainfishermen and fishing vessels operating in the area. The ChineseNational Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) invited international bids fornine lots in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
Chinaeven decided to establish the so-called Sansha city, comprising theParacel and Spratly archipelagos of Vietnam and the Macclesfield Bankwithin the “nine-dash line” covering up to 80 percent of the East Seaarea.
French General Daniel Schaeffer, former French militaryattaché to Vietnam, China, and Thailand, recalled China’s 2012 cuttingof the cable of Vietnam’s seismic survey ship (Binh Minh 02) within the“nine-dash line” and the 2012 clash between China and the Philippines inthe Reed Bank, saying China was seeking to verify its claim.
JohnHopkins University Professor Marvin Ott has affirmed no prestigiousinternational legal organisation considers China’s East Sea “nine-dashline” claim a serious statement.
He said China’s sovereign claimbased primarily on historic records is unacceptable. Any sovereigntyclaim must be based on international law as a signatory to the 1982United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China shouldfollow it to the letter.
On the contrary, China has gone toextreme lengths by deploying military forces, attacking fishing vessels,and garrisoning troops, while failing to prove its sovereign rights inline with international law.
China’s historical name andsovereignty arguments are not scientifically founded and only show itsambitious scheme to occupy the East Sea.-VNA
