Updated: 2012-08-28 08:02
By Zhang Haiwen ( China Daily)
As an outsider, the United States has pressured China from time to time to negotiate with some Association of Southeast Asian Nations members on a legally binding code of conduct in the South China Sea. This month, the US even issued a press statement criticizing China for upgrading the administrative level of Sansha city.
Besides, the US has urged countries involved in the South China Sea disputes to abide by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which it has mistaken as panacea for maritime disputes.
The China-ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea clearly states that sovereign states should resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes through friendly consultations and negotiations.
Whether we see it from the perspective of the Bangkok Declaration, ASEAN's founding document, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia or any other universally recognized principle of international law, the fact remains that countries should try to resolve the South China Sea disputes while respecting each other's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. So the US has no right to issue commands in this matter.
The opinions that challenge China's stance on the South China Sea disputes and accuse it of violating UNCLOS do not hold water. China bases its claim on abundant historical facts and legal factors that are recognized by other countries, either publicly or tacitly.
China discovered and named the islands in the South China Sea, and has the longest historical record of jurisdiction over them. China officially named the islands during the late Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), and published their full list in 1909, 1935, 1947 and 1983, establishing its jurisdiction over the islands and the surrounding waters.
The U-shaped line on its maps is another concrete proof of its sovereignty over the islands. Historical documents show that by 1914 the dotted line, appeared on privately published maps in China. It officially confirmed the dotted line in 1947 and marked it on official maps published in 1948. After the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949, the dotted line was basically maintained the way it had been. The line was even marked on the maps published by other countries such as Vietnam.
The U-shaped line came into being long before UNCLOS was signed in 1982 and took effect in 1994. How can other countries seek the help of UNCLOS to overturn the historical facts substantiating China's claim?
From the legal perspective, the settlement of the South China Sea disputes cannot be based only on UNCLOS. With due regard for the sovereignty of all countries, UNCLOS has established a legal order for the seas and oceans, which will facilitate international communication and promote the peaceful use of the seas and oceans. It facilitates the equitable and efficient use of marine resources, as well as helps protect and preserve marine ecology. But it is widely acknowledged that though UNCLOS is used to address maritime disputes, it cannot be used to resolve disputes over territorial sovereignty.
UNCLOS cannot directly address maritime disputes either. It just clarifies principles and procedures for settling disputes. For disputes on exclusive economic zones and continental shelves, it stipulates that the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between countries with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law to achieve an equitable solution. If no agreement is reached within a reasonable period of time, countries concerned should seek the help of the procedures in Part XV.
Furthermore, UNCLOS forms only a part of international law. It affirms that matters not regulated by the convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law. In this sense, UNCLOS can by no means replace international law in resolving the South China Sea disputes.
Historical facts and legal bases are two decisive factors in the resolution of the South China Sea disputes, and they go beyond the scope of UNCLOS. Those who cling to UNCLOS as the only solution either misinterpret the convention or are deliberately trying to mislead public opinion.
The South China Sea was never meant to be troubled waters. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech at the 2010 ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting marked the beginning of Washington's intervention in the South China Sea disputes. The Philippines is playing its part, too, by colluding with Vietnam to escalate regional tension so that the US can find an excuse to muddy the waters.
In stark contrast, China has always insisted on resolving the disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations based on historical facts and international law. It has made relentless efforts to safeguard the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and has been working closely with other countries to fight non-traditional security challenges.
Nevertheless, China's efforts alone are far from enough to resolve the disputes. Therefore, all concerned parties should understand that any attempt to distort history and misinterpret the principles of international law will further delay the settlement of the South China Sea disputes and compromise long-term regional stability.
The author is deputy director of China Institute for Marine Affairs, affiliated to the State Oceanic Administration.