How Legitimate is China’s Nine-Dash Line?
In 1947, China drew up a “historical map” with nine dashes in it, laying claim to nearly all of the South China Sea.
How legitimate are these claims?
Simply put, they aren’t.
The Nine-Dash Line violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of which China is a member. According to the LOS, a country’s territory only extends 12 nautical miles from its coastline, and its exclusive economic zone (which includes all economic resources such as fishing, mining, and oil exploration) only extends 200 nautical miles from its coastline.
Exclusive economic zones may not overlap with other countries. In such cases, the distance between the two territories is divided between the two of them. For example, if two countries are 100 miles apart, then their economic exclusive zones extend 50 miles each. Any water beyond 200 miles from any territory is international waters.
There is already plenty of historical precedent. The Caribbean Sea is a good example:
Several countries within close proximity of each other must divide their Exclusive Economic Zones equally.
Therefore, according to international law and the United Nations, here is what the real map of the South China Sea and each country’s official territory and exclusive economic zones should look like:
Instead, here is the map that China posits:
It quite literally looks like China is trying to “take a bite” out of the South China Sea, stealing other counties’ territory as well as international waters.
Does China have any arguments to substantiate its claim?
Just four. And none of them are particularly convincing.
“In 200 BC, Chinese fishermen used the Spratly Islands.”
Unfortunately, being the first person to point at something does not mean you own it. Simply sailing past an island or using it as a reference point does not mean it belongs to either you nor your state.
According to International Law, there are only a few select methods of acquisition of sovereignty. They are:
- Accretion
This refers to physical expansion of an existing territory through geological processes.¹ - Cession
A state willingly cedes some of its territory to another state. For example, the Louisiana Purchase. - Conquest
Taking what you want by force. Used to be considered legitimate up until the end of WWII or so. Back then, territory could only be acquired according to the existing laws of war (basically, there had to be military occupation, the occupation had to be followed by a peace settlement, and there had to be no reasonable chance of the defeated sovereign regaining the land).² Nowadays, it is considered invalid. The Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, formulated in 1949 by the International Law Commission of the UN, contained (in Article XI) the rule that states are obligated not to recognize territorial acquisitions achieved by aggressive war.³ - Effective Occupation
Moving into an uninhabited territory and establish intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis.⁴ - Prescription
The acquisition of sovereignty by way of the actual exercise of sovereignty, maintained for a reasonable period of time, that is effected without objection from other states.⁵
So no, simply pointing at something does not make it yours. If China wishes to prove the Spratly Islands belong to them, they need to prove that the islands have either
- Formed naturally off the mainland via alluvion or vulcanism (no)
- Been ceded to them by another state (no)
- Been effectively occupied with some sort of settlement (no), or
- Been administered by China for a long period of time without objection from other states (no)
So their first argument is a bust.
“Two famous Chinese books Wan Zhen of the Eastern Wu State a work titled Guangzhou Ji authored by Pei described the Paracel and Spratly Islands. This was in the 3rd Century, AD.”
Two problems with this. One, there is zero information about these books available online. Wikipedia links them in its article regarding the SCS dispute, but the links merely link cyclically back to Wikipedia.
Secondly, this argument makes the same mistake as above. Writing books about a place or patrolling its surrounding areas is not equivalent to claiming ownership. There needs to be some sort of settlement (farms, homes, etc.) in order to claim ownership.
Bust.
“Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589), the Sui dynasties (581–618), the Tang dynasty (618–907), the Song Dynasties (960–1279), the Yuan dynasties (1206–1368), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.”
Archaeological evidence of potteries or porcelains means nothing towards exercising sovereignty. These artifacts could have easily been there through trade, for example. What we all need to see is historical, archaeological evidence.
Bust.
“The People’s Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.”
This one should be obvious: an arbitrary law written by a country cannot decide international sovereignty claims. Just because one country decides to assert its claims on a piece of paper does not make those claims legitimate.
Bust.
So what’s the deal then?
Simple.
The South China Sea is rich in natural resources and would provide China with a chokepoint over international trade and overseas navigation. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD) over one-third of all global shipping passes through it. That’s a lot of money.
We’re talking not just billions of dollars in trade here, but trillions.
So they want to take it. Wouldn’t you?
