Jay in New Zealand
·
Follow
History and Current Affairs interest Sat
Will China ever give up its claims on the Spratly and Paracel Islands? If not, what would be the way ahead for the neighbouring countries who also claim these islands?
According to international law, methods of acquiring state territory include discovery, occupation, prescription and conquest.' China's claim of sovereignty over the Islands in the South China Sea is based upon discovery and occupation.

Acquisition by Discovery China discovered the Nansha (Spratly) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands over 2,100 years ago, during the Han Dynasty.4 7 The discoverers, Admiral Yang Pu and his subordinates, were sent by the Emperor of the Han Dynasty. According to
international law and custom at the time, "[he] who discovers the territory, holds its sovereignty."48 Since China discovered the Nansha and Xisha Islands, China holds the sovereignty over these islands. Before the eighteenth century, discovery and
symbolic occupation were enough for a claim of sovereignty, and China's claim of sovereignty over Nansha and Xisha Islands would have been sufficient to be recognized as valid.
Acquisition Based on Occupation China's discovery of Nansha and Xisha Islands not only gives it an in choate title as discoverer, but also it has continuous effective occupation by the Chinese government's exercise of jurisdiction after discovery. The
well-known Eastern Greenland Case before the Permanent Court of International Justice and the arbitration of Palmas Island by Max Huber,49 stressed the animus occupandi, effectiveness, and the existence, of claims to sovereignty over the territory. These
cases provide that the acquisition of territory not only should be according the international law in existence at that time, but also that continuing sovereignty should be consistent with the international law which is developed later.
According to international law, the acquisition of territory by means of peaceful occupation must meet two conditions: (1) the occupied territory belongs to no one and is therefore terra nullius; (2) the territory is occupied in a visible and effective
manner, although this does not necessarily mean that the whole territory need be occupied. 0 The effectiveness of the occupation is determined by taking possession of and establishing an administration over territory in the name of, and for, the
occupying State. Since Admiral Cheng Ho's first trip to the South China Sea in 1405, China has maintained continuous sovereignty over the Nansha Islands. Cheng Ho was sent as a special envoy of Emperor Cheng Zu of Ming Dynasty. He represented that China
included the Nansha Islands in his Cheng Ho Maritime Map and he formally named the Nansha Islands "Wanlishitang" (Ten Thousand Li Rocky Reefs). Cheng Ho's conduct constitutes official behavior on the part of the State of China. Nansha has been included
on the Chinese claim of sovereignty over the Nansha and Xisha Islands since then, and China has perfectly met the theory and practice of traditional and contemporary international law
The following evidence demonstrates that China's claim of sovereignty over Nansha and Xisha Islands is based upon effective sovereignty.
For several hundred years, Chinese from Hainan regularly went to make a living on Nansha and Xisha Islands and settled there to build houses, temples and tombs for those who died there. The recent discoveries of coins, door frames, and Chinaware have
established the evidence of Chinese settlers in those islands.
During the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, the Qing Dynasty continuously published six maps, all of which include the name of the Nansha Islands, such as the Da Qing Wa Xih Jian Quan Tu (China and Foreign World Map of the Great Qing Empire),
Qingzhih Xen Feng Tu (Qing Dynasty Provincial Map) (1724), Huang Qing Zhih Xen Feng Tu (Royal Qing Dynasty Province Map) (1755), Da Qing Yi Tong Tian Xia Quan Tu (Map of the Unified Territory of the Great Qing Empire) (1767), Qing Kuei Fu, Zhou Hsian,
Dian General map (1800), and a new edition of the Da Qing United Territory of the Great Qing Empire (1817). All included Nansha Island by the name "Wanlishitang."
In 1883, when Germany tried to make a survey of Nansha Island, the Qing government dynasty protested. Germany respected Chinese sovereignty and agreed to stop the surveys.
These are only a few of the bits of evidence available recorded historical information from countries around the world attest in many ways that the Xinsha and Nansha or Spratley and Paracel Islands are part of China, countries such USA, France, Britain,
Japan, etc. So I’ll look specifically at the Vietnam claim.

While China faced Japanese aggression in 1930, the French, as the colonial power in Vietnam, occupied some islands of the Parcel and the Spratly, in reliance upon the argument that those islands were Vietnamese historical territories. The Chinese
government made a strong protest on September 29, 1932, alleging the falsity of the French claim. In support of this protest, China cited the 1887 Sino-French convention on the boundary line between China and Vietnam.

Article 3 of this Convention specified that: as for the islands in the sea, those to the east of the southward red the hill at the east tip of Tra-co (Wanzhu in Chinese, which is to the south of Mong Cai and southwest of Zhushan), belong to China, and
those to its west, Jiutoushan Islands (Co To Illsand in Vietnamese) and the other islands belong to Annam.54 The Xisha Islands are far to the east, and the Nansha Islands are farther east. Thus, the French were unable to rebut the Chinese legal position.
The Islands have been under the control of China for over 2000 years, I am surprised why it has been become an international issue now, when evidence, research, international law, historical international documents all state the same indisputable truth…

But let’s see what there evidence is?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)