Legal Basis of China's Claim over the Huangyan Island

Abstract

Ran Guo * Official Announcements of China and the Philippines have clarified their claims over the Huangyan Island, which has compartmentalized its history into three periods. Period I: Before 1946. China had acquired its title by discovery of terra nullius, and consolidated into a full title with the historical consolidation process. The Philippines made no claims in this period; instead its laws confirmed the Island lies out of its territory. Period II: 1946-1997. The Philippine evidences are private in nature, or contradictory to its laws and governmental position, thus making its claims vulnerable. China had exercised an open and peaceful effective occupation over the Island with superior evidences. Period III: After 1997. According to the ICJ judgment, April 30, 1997 was tentatively determined the critical date. Since China acquired its territorial sovereignty over the Island before the critical date, the Philippines' acts cannot alter China's ownership of the Island.

China Being A Maritime Power under the UNCLOS: Issues and Ways Ahead

“…China joined the whole process from the very beginning to the end, making enormous efforts and contributions to the formulation, adoption and universality of the UNCLOS. 5 First, China advanced legitimate and constructive propositions involving many aspects of the rights and uses of the sea, which had been incorporated into the relevant provisions of the UNCLOS or reflected by them, such as Articles 2-3, [15][16]19(1), and 21 relating to the territorial sea; Articles 55-58, 62(2), 69-70, 73, 77-79, 74(1 & 3) and 83(1 & 3) with respect to the exclusive economic zone ("EEZ") and the continental shelf; Articles 87, 92, 116, 118-119 and 125 regarding the high seas; and Articles 136-137, 141-143, 145, 157-160 and 179 pertaining to the international seabed area (hereinafter the Area). 6 Second, China promoted innovational developments of the traditional law of the sea.…”

“…The dotted line in the South China Sea is a matter of territorial sovereignty and has nothing to do with the UNCLOS. 83 Furthermore, the dotted line has been objectively existing before the UNCLOS comes into being. China should make efforts to differentiate the legal status of the dotted line from the UNCLOS and, to this end, actively forge an international consensus.…”