本帖最后由 vivicat 于 2009-8-20 00:04 编辑
Last Updated:Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:01:27 Vietnam (GMT+07)
China’s claim to 80 percent of East Sea completelyunfounded
Along with a diplomaticnote dated May 7, 2009 to the UN Secretary General objecting to Vietnam’sSubmission on its Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf to the UN, China alsoattached a map stating its “nine-dash line” claims over the East Sea.
The Chinesenote stated that “China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in theSouth China Sea (Eastern Sea) and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereignrights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed andsubsoil thereof (see attached map).”
On May 8,Vietnam’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations sent diplomatic note 86/HC –2009 to the UN Secretary-General refuting the claim and the map submitted byChina.
On the sameday, the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung told a press conferencethat Vietnam held incontrovertible sovereignty over the Hoang Sa (Paracel) andTruong Sa (Spratly) archipelagoes, saying they were Vietnamese territory.
“China’s claimof the nine-dash line on the map attached to its diplomatic note is null andvoid as it has no legal, historical and factual ground,” Dung said.
In thisarticle, I will not analyze Vietnam’s sovereignty over the Hoang Sa and TruongSa archipelagoes, but will instead focus on the larger East Sea as a whole andprovide an in-depth analysis of the nine-dash line China drew on the mapattached to its diplomatic note.
The creation ofthe dubious line
The dotted line– drawn in the East Sea on the map from the Chinese side – is usually referredto as the “nine-dash line” (since it is composed of nine dashes) or the“U-shaped line.”
The “U-shaped”or “nine-dotted” line are two different ways international scholars haveaddressed the same demarcation of China’s claims to over 80 percent of the EastSea. The line was drawn close to several countries, including Vietnam,Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines.
An original11-dotted line was first drawn by the Chinese government of 1947. The Chinesegovernment then altered it to the nine-dash line with two dashes in the Gulf ofTonkin deleted.
China’s notedated May 7, 2009 is perhaps the first diplomatic statement in the last 60years of China’s official stance on the international legal significance of thenine-dash line. It was also the first time China formally introdrced the worldto the nine-dash line map.
China had neverever issued any official declaration on the international and national legalsignificance of this line before, despite the fact that the line had been drawnmany times on Chinese maps.
Even inimportant legal documents issued by China , like the 1958 Declaration onChina's Territorial Sea, the 1992 Law of the People's Republic of China on theTerritorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the 1996 Declaration of the Governmentof the People's Republic of China on the Baselines of the Territorial Sea, andthe 1998 Law of the People's Republic of China on the Exclusive Economic Zoneand the Continental Shelf, China had always stopped short of explaining thisnine-dash line.
At numerousinternational conferences, such as the annual Workshop on Managing PotentialConflicts in the South China Sea in Indonesia since 1991, Chinese scholars haveoffered different and even divided explanations of what the dotted line means.
But there is avery important question that has remained unanswered by international andChinese scholars: how were the exact locations of each dash established?
No document, beit official or unofficial, has been issued to account for this.
A claim with nointernational legal value
The first andmost commonly used argument Chinese scholars have clung to when explaining thedotted lines drawn on the Eastern Sea map is that the claim must be consideredunder the international laws existing when the map was drawn. China hasdismissed the use of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as a way toevaluate the legality of its claim.
At the time theoriginal 11-dotted line was drawn in 1947, the International Law of the Seastipulated that the territorial waters of a country would be a three mileterritorial sea limit from the lowest tide. Outside the territorial waters ofeach country, international waters would be a realm in which every countrycould enjoy the freedom of the high seas.
Until 1958,different governments of China all recognized, or at least did not publiclyobject to, the three-mile sea limit rule. Thus, even according currentinternational laws, China’s claims over 80 percent of East Sea cannot beconsidered legal.
Dr. HasjimDjalal, a prominent Indonesian sea law expert, wrote: “It is inconceivable thatin 1947, when general international law still recognized only a three mileterritorial sea limit, that China would claim the entire South China Sea.”
The sameconclusion can only be drawn about the claims of “sovereignty and jurisdiction”over 80 percent of the East Sea stated in China’s May 7, 2009 note, since atthe moment, coastal countries have no rights to expand their sovereigntyoutside their territorial waters. It needs to be emphasized that theInternational Law of Sea includes the “seabed and subsoil thereof” inside theterritorial waters. Thus, China cannot demand the sovereignty and jurisdictionover the large sea located in its dotted line.
The secondargument offered by Chinese scholars to account for the dotted line is that theline was drawn in 1947 so China can say the sea area located in the line isit’s “historic” territory.
It needs toremembered that participating countries at the Third United Nations ConferenceOn The Law Of The Sea were at odds over the adoption of regulations and definitionsabout the historic waters into the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.However, from deliberations at the workshop, it can be concluded that thecriteria necessary to declare historical sovereignty over territory are:
- The claim hasto be made public.
- The claimingcountry has to exercise sovereignty over the area efficiently, continuously,and peacefully for a long period of time.
- The claimmust be recognized by countries involved.
Althoughinternational law has never recognized the demands made by China in relation tothe East Sea, let’s consider objectively if China can meet those aforesaidcriteria.
Firstly, it isevident that all maritime, oil, and fishing activities of all countries insideand outside the East Sea had faced no obstruction from the Chinese side untilthe 1990s. It is thus easy to understand why people have doubted that Chine canmeet the criterion of exercising real sovereignty in a continual and peacefulmanner for a long period of time since 1947.
Secondly,countries in the region have refused to recognize what China calls its“historic rights”. On the contrary, they have worked out their own regulationson the waters and signed joint treaties on overlapping waters as well as othercooperation deals in the East Sea despite objections from China, let aloneother disputes about sovereignty over archipelagoes in the East Sea.
The nine-dottedline China drew on the map attached with the May 7, 2009 note also fails tomeet the criteria of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the waters inside theline as stipulated by the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea on theExclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf.
In a studycalled “Competing Claims of Vietnam and China in the Vanguard Bank and the BlueDragon Areas of the South China Sea”, US lawyer Brice M. Claget wrote: “China'sclaim to ‘historic’ sovereignty and title to virtually the entire South ChinaSea and/or its seabed and subsoil is contrary to the entire development of themodern international law of the sea, and cannot be taken seriously as a matterof law.”
Thus, given theclassic and modern international laws, the nine-dash line claim of China has noscientific grounds, no legal value and is utterly unacceptable.
An actionagainst the regional trend
People canunderstand why during the last years China has printed out maps drawing thenine-dash line but not announced its official claims over the East Sea in thesame way. In addition to the reasons analyzed above, China’s caution in thisregard might stem from its consideration of the impact of the claim over itsimage in the eye of the international community.
China may beworried that its official claim over 80 percent of the area of the East Seammight shatter the image of a peaceful, hospitable, friendly, and cooperativeChina its people have been trying to build for a long time. China may also beworried that the claim would affect the way ASEAN countries perceive Chinesepolicies and actions under the Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in theSouth China Sea.
Considering thetopography, natural conditions and socio-economic activities in the East Sea,the body of water is clearly the common house of all regional countries. ASEANcountries and China have taken great strides in sustaining peace and stabilityand developing international cooperation over the East Sea.
The officialissuance of the nine-dash line now will just worsen the situation in the EastSea. It goes against the grain and is contrary to the efforts of regionalcountries and the international community in seeking long-term stable solutionsto East Sea disputes.
East Sea issuesneed fair solutions accepted by all countries involved – solutions accepted inthe spirit of honoring each others’ sovereignty, developing mutual benefits andobserving international law.
| 
狗仔卡
发表于 2009-8-19 15:04
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
楼主