The views expressed in this presentation are the personal opinion of the authorand do not necessarily represent the position of the Philippine Government.

China’s 9-dashed Lines
The root cause of the South China Sea dispute is China’s 9-dashedlines claim, which gobbles up large swathes of the Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZs) of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
Brunei and Indonesia."""
Half of the world’s seaborne trade passes through the South China
Sea, valued at US$5.3 trillion annually.
The South China Sea dispute has the potential to overturn the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)*, theconstitution for the oceans and seas of our planet.
For the Philippines, what is a stake is 80% of its EEZ in the South
China Sea - either the Philippines keeps it, or loses it to China.
*One-hundred sixty-six countries, plus the European Union, are parties to UNCLOS. Partystates to UNCLOS comprise 86% of the total 193 UN member-states.

China’s new “national boundaries” under the 9-dashed lines

Nine-dashed Lines Map
Submitted by
China to UN in 2009
China did not explain
the legal basis for thedashes. The dashes had
no fixed coordinates.

In 2013, China released a new map of China, adding a 10th
dash on the eastern side of Taiwan. In its 2013 map, China
claims the 10 dashed lines are its “national boundaries”
without again explaining the legal basis or giving the fixed
coordinates for the dashes. The 2013 China map was
published by SinoMaps Press, under the jurisdiction ofChina’s State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping. This meansthe 2013 Map is an official Chinese government map.
In its Note Verbale of June 7, 2013 to China, the Philippines
stated it "strongly objects to the indication that the ninedash lines are China's national boundaries in the West
Philippine Sea/South China Sea.”

China’s 2013 Map with 10-dashed Lines as “National Boundaries”

What is the Effect of China’s “National
Boundaries” under the 9-dashed Lines?
The Philippines loses about 80% of its EEZ facing theWest Philippine Sea, including the entire Reed Bankand part of the Malampaya gas field. Malaysia loses also
about 80% of its EEZ in Sabah and Sarawak facing theSouth China Sea, as well as most of its active gas andoil fields in the same area. Vietnam loses about 50% of
its total EEZ. Brunei loses about 90% of its total EEZ.
Indonesia loses about 30% of its EEZ facing the South
China Sea in Natuna Islands, whose surrounding
waters comprise the largest gas field in Southeast Asia.

Chinese coast guard vessels have prevented Philippine-commissioned ships from undertaking oil and gas
surveys in the Reed Bank, which is entirely within the Philippines’ EEZ. The 9-dashed lines cut throughMalampaya, the Philippines’ largest operating gas field which supplies 40% of the energy requirement of
Luzon. Malampaya will run out of gas in 10-12 years.

China’s new “national boundaries” under the 9-dashed lines

The Philippines will be left with a sliver of waters as its territorial sea and EEZ. The Philippines
and China will have a very long common sea border from Balabac Island in southern Palawan
to Yamin Island in northern Batanes. The dashed lines are just 64 KMs from Balabac Island,
70 KMs from the coast of Burgos, Ilocos Norte, and 44 KMs from Yamin Island.

What is the dispute in the South China Sea?
There is a territorial dispute that is rooted in conflicting
territorial claims over islands, rocks, and reefs above waterat high tide.
There is also a maritime dispute that is rooted inconflicting maritime claims over maritime zones.
The dispute involves six countries bordering the South
China Sea: China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia,
Brunei and Indonesia. Indonesia is involved only in themaritime dispute. All the disputant states are parties to
UNCLOS.

China’s 9-dashed lines claim, through which China
is aggressively asserting “indisputable sovereignty”
to all the islands and waters enclosed by the lines, isthe main driver of the South China Sea dispute.
China’s 9-dashed lines claim encloses 85.7% of theentire South China Sea. This is equivalent to 3
million square kilometers out of the 3.5 million
square kilometers surface area of the South China
Sea.

James Shoal - China’s “Southernmost” Border
China claims James Shoal as its
southernmost border. James Shoal isfully submerged at 22 meters below
the water surface, and is situatedmore than 950 NM from Hainan
Island and more than 400 NM from
Itu Aba. Under international law, astate’s border must either be a land
territory, a river, or a territorial sea which are all subject to its fullsovereignty.
A state cannot appropriate as its sovereign territory a fully
submerged area beyond its territorial sea. James Shoal is 80
KM from Malaysia’s coast in Bintulu, Sarawak, within
Malaysia’s EEZ.

Chinese"Sovereignty Oath-Taking Ceremony
at James Shoal in January 2014

A Chinese taskforce composed of three warships from the South China Sea Fleet of the Navy of
the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLAN) held a sovereignty oath-swearing ceremony on
January 26, 2014 in the waters of James (Zengmu) Shoal off the coast of Sarawak, Borneo in theSouth China Sea. The Singapore Straits Times quoted China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin
Gang that Malaysia did not lodged any protest to China.. Photo: Xinhua

Malaysian National Security Minister
Shahidan Kassim posted on Facebook
last June 4, 2015 the location map ofLuconia Shoals, 54 NM from Sarawak,with this statement: "This small island
is not a disputed territory but theforeign ship which came here has
intruded into our national waters.”
Shahidan revealed that the Malaysian
Navy has deployed ships one nauticalmile distance from the Chinese ship tomonitor it. Shahidan announced that
Malaysia would lodge a formal protest
against China, effectively assailing thevalidity of China’s 9-dashed lines claim.
Shahidan also revealed that Malaysia has
been protesting for years now, without
publicizing it, China’s almost daily
incursions on Malaysian waters.

Luconia Shoals, covering 100 square miles,
are one of the largest reef formations in theSouth China Sea. Luconia Shoals, with ahigh tide feature, are rich in oil and gas.

Chines Vessel Anchored at Luconia Shoals for Two Years Now

Luconia Shoals are 54 NM from the coast of Sarawak, Borneo. This Chinese vessel
has been anchored at Luconia Shoals since April 2013. Photo from Borneo Post Online,
June 5, 2015, http://www.theborneopost.com/2015/06/03/china-coast-guard-vesselfound-at-luconia-shoals/

China’s Continuing Mass Production of Warships
China is mass-producing warships at a faster rate
than any other country in world history during
peacetime.
According to the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence,“During 2014 alone, more than 60 naval ships andcraft were laid down, launched, or commissioned,
with a similar number expected through the end of
2015.”

Type 052D Chinese Guided Missile Destroyers

The 3rd generation Type 052D guided missile destroyer on the left was launched in 2014. The
other two will be launched in 2015. There are five other Type 052Ds under construction. The
Type 052D has 64 vertical launched cells, each with 1 to 4 missiles. It carries the YJ-12 anti-ship
missile with 400 KM range. China plans to deploy 10 Type 052D destroyers. China has already
6 Type 051 and Type 052A/B/C destroyers.

Type 54A Chinese Frigate Commissioned in January 2015

China has 15 Type 054 frigates, the largest number of any class of China’s warships. Five moreType 054 frigates are in production. A newer class of frigate, the Type 056, is under final
development. China plans to produce 40 Type 056 frigates.

China’s Type 056 Corvette

China launched its 25th Type 056 Corvette last March 19, 2015, out of a total planned 40-Type
056 Corvette fleet. The PLA Navy believes that it can control the South China Sea with 20 ofthese Corvettes.

China’s New Type 093G Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarine

The China Daily reported on 3 April 2015 that China has completed and will soon launch
three (3) Type 093G nuclear-powered attack submarines. Unlike its predecessors, the Type
093G has a vertical launching system to fire supersonic anti-ship missiles with 300 KM range,
speeding to Mach 3 at 40 KMs from the target. The strategic force of the PLA navy now has
four nuclear-powered Type 094 ballistic missile submarines, three older Type 093 nuclearpowered attack submarines with tube-launched anti-ship missiles, three Type 093G nuclearpowered attack submarine, and three Type 091 nuclear-powered attack submarines. China has
the largest conventional submarine force in the world, totaling more than 60 boats.

China’s First Aircraft Carrier - Liaoning

China plans to build three more aircraft carriers, with one already under construction.

China’s New Type 904A Supply Ship

China is building several supply ships to service its outposts in the Paracels and the Spratlys.
The new Type 904A supply ship, at 15,000 tons, has a helipad and storage for one Z-8 heavytransport helicopter, ideal for supplying offshore islands. China has already deployed one Type
904A supply ship.

China’s Type 903A Long Distance Supply Ship

This is China’s bigger supply ship at 23,000 tons. This year China launched its 5th and bigger
Type 903A supply ship, nicknamed the “Super Nanny.” These are the supply ships China
deploys for long distance operations, like the operations in the Gulf of Aden.

China’s Second Navy - The Coast Guard

China will deploy this year a 10,000-ton coast guard vessel, the world’s largest blue water coast
guard vessel. A second 10,000-ton sister ship is under construction. China has more coast
guard vessels than Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines combined. China’s
Coast Guard is the largest blue water coast guard fleet in the world.

China’s new “national boundaries” under the 9-dashed lines

Under its 2015 “China Military Strategy,” China will shift from “offshore waters defense” to the
combined “offshore waters defense” and “open seas protection.” The CMS states: “Thetraditional mentality that land outweighs the sea must be abandoned, and great importancehas to be attached to managing the seas and oceans and protecting maritime rights andinterests.”

Low-Tide Elevation (LTE)A Low-Tide Elevation (LTE) is a naturally formed
area of land (rock, reef, atoll or sandbar)
surrounded by water, above water at low tide but
submerged at high tide.
An LTE is part of the submerged continental shelf.
An LTE is not land or territory, and has no
territorial sea or territorial airspace (Art. 13,
UNCLOS). An LTE beyond the territorial sea is
not subject to appropriation by any State(Nicaragua v. Colombia, ICJ, 2012).

Low Tide Elevation vs. Rock/Island

Is the Philippine arbitration case against Chinaa territorial or a maritime dispute, or both?
The Philippine arbitration case against China is nota territorial dispute but solely a maritime disputeinvolving the interpretation or application of
UNCLOS:
1. Whether China’s 9-dashed lines, which are notmeasured from land (and thus not part ofChina’s TS, EEZ or CS), can encroach on the
200 NM EEZ of the Philippines;

2. Whether certain geologic features, namely Mischief
Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Johnson SouthReef, all within the Philippines EEZ, are LTEs andtherefore form part of the submerged continental
shelf of the Philippines and as such are underPhilippine jurisdiction; and whether Subi Reef,
outside the Philippines’ EEZ but within its
continental shelf, is an LTE generating no maritime
entitlements;

3. Whether certain geologic features, namely
Gaven Reef* and McKennan Reef**(including Hughes Reef), are low-tide
elevations which generate no maritime
entitlements of their own, but their lowwater line may be used to determine thebaseline from which the territorial sea ofNamyit Island and Sin Cowe Island,
respectively, may be measured.
*""""6.3 NM from Namyit Island**""3.5 NM from Sin Cowe Island

4. Whether certain geologic features, namely, Fiery
Cross Reef and Cuarteron Reef, outside thePhilippines’ EEZ but within its continental
shelf, are mere rocks above water at high tidethat generate no EEZ;

5. Whether Scarborough Shoal, whatever state owns
it, is entitled to only a 12 NM territorial sea or
also to a 200 NM EEZ.
All these disputes are maritime disputes involving
the interpretation or application of UNCLOS.

The Philippines is not asking the tribunal to rule
what state owns certain islands, or rocks above
water at high tide.
The Philippines is asking the tribunal to rule whatis the extent of the maritime entitlements (0, 12,
or 200 NM) of certain islands or rocks, regardlessof what state owns them; and whether certain
geologic features are LTEs or not. All these aremaritime disputes.

China’s Reclamations in the Spratlys
China has on-going reclamations on seven (7) reefs, Fiery Cross
Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson South Reef,
McKennan Reef, Mischief Reef and Subi Reef. These are all
the reefs China occupies.
China has explained: “The primary purpose of these activities
is to improve the working and living conditions of personnel
stationed there, to better fulfill our international obligations
concerning maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention,and mitigation, and to enable China to provide better services
to vessels from China, her neighbors, and other countries
sailing in the South China Sea.”**Statement of Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations.

The Spokeswoman, however, added that thereclamations would also be used for China's military
defense. As the Chinese envoy to the U.S.
Ambassador Cui Tankai explained, “Of course, there
will be military facilities.”
This is similar to China’s explanation in 1995 that it
occupied Mischief Reef to provide a “shelter” to its
fishermen, which later turned out to be a military
garrison. China is now reclaiming Mischief Reef
and turning it into a 500-hectare military facility.

Fiery Cross (Kagitingan) Reef Pre-Reclamation 2012"

Fiery Cross Reef is about 1 meter above water at high tide. It is just outside the Philippines’
EEZ but within its continental shelf.

Fiery Cross Reef January 28, 2015

Seven (7) cutter suction dredgers and seven (7) cargo/supply vessels
at Kagitingan (Fiery Cross Reef
Altitude: 5,000 feet Lat/long: n 09° 35' 51.60" e 112° 55' 47.51“
28 January 2015

Fiery Cross Reef May 7, 2015

Chinese Reclamation on Fiery Cross (Kagitingan) Reef
April 17, 2015

China’s Planned Air and Naval Base on Fiery Cross Reef
Source: China State Shipbuilding Corporation

One of the reclamation projects of China will be an airbase with a seaport, expected to becompleted in 2015. The airbase, with a 3,000 meter runway, will be in a 200-hectare
reclamation on Fiery Cross Reef. This reclamation will be larger than the combined area of the
12 largest islands in the Spratlys, and twice the area of Diego Garcia Island, the U.S. airbase in
the Indian Ocean.

Chinese Air & Naval Base on Fiery Cross (Kagitingan) Reef

China’s J-16 Fighter-Bomber with 3,900 KM Range

The J-16’s combat range covers the entire Philippines, Borneo and the Natuna Islands.

China’s Strategic Bomber H-6K with 7,000 KM Range

The H-6K can carry under its wing pylons six conventional or nuclear armed CJ-10A cruise
missiles with 2,200 KM range. Although the H-6 was first domestically produced in 1968, thisupgraded version, using composite materials, modern avionics and a powerful radar, firstentered service only in October 2009.

Johnson South (Mabini) Reef Pre-Reclamation

Johnson South Reef is an LTE within the Philippines’ EEZ. [Note: Chinese, Philippine andother countries’ nautical charts designate this as an LTE. Only the U.S. nautical chart designates
this as a high tide feature.]

Johnson South (Mabini) Reef May 9, 2015

An LTE, which has no territorial sea, remains an LTE without a territorial sea despite
reclamations that raise the LTE above water at high tide. Reclamations cannot convert an LTE
into an island. In 1988, Chinese naval forces forcibly dislodged the Vietnamese soldiers
guarding this LTE. Over 77 Vietnamese soldiers died in the battle. Johnson South Reef iswithin the Philippines’ EEZ.

McKennan (Chigua) Reef Pre-Reclamation

McKennan Reef is an LTE within the Philippines’ EEZ. It is within 12 NM of Sin
Cowe Island.

McKennan (Chigua) Reef May 5, 2015

Total reclaimed Area: Approx 6.8 Hectares
Primary Building Approx 4, 128 sqm floor area 6-storey highPort Facility: 1 Jetty, 1 Pier (can to cater to a 130-meter ship)
Distance to Palawan: 187 NM
Distance to China: 784 NM

Gaven Reef at Start of Reclamation 2014

Gaven Reef is outside of the Philippines’ EEZ but within its continental shelf. Gaven Reef is an
LTE within 12 NM of Namyit Island.

Gaven Reef May 9, 2015

Cuarteron (Calderon) Reef Pre-Reclamation

Cuarteron Reef is outside the Philippines’ EEZ but within its continental shelf. It is above
water at high tide."Cuarteron Reef May 7, 2015

Subi Reef Pre-Reclamation

Subi Reef is an LTE outside of the Philippines’ EEZ but within its continental shelf.

Subi Reef May 6, 2015
Total Reclaimed Area : 100 Hectares
Port Facility : 3 Jetty
Distance to Palawan: 238 NM
Distance to China: 503 NM

Mischief (Panganiban) Reef Pre-Reclamation

Mischief Reef is an LTE within the Philippines’ EEZ.

Mischief Reef, January 2012 and March 2015

China’s reclamation along the left side of the reef’s ring is about 9 KMs in length. If China
closes the edge of the upper reclamation and the edge of the lower reclamation runningabout 3.5 KM, the total reclaimed area can reach at least 500 hectares. This area is morethan enough for an air and naval base, plus a garrison for thousands of marines. (Image fromCenter for Strategic and International Studies via Digital Globe)

Mischief Reef May 11, 2015

China’s reclamation on Mischief Reef, May 11, 2015 (Ritchie B. Tongo, Pool Photo
via AP).

Mischief Reef and Palawan, 125 NM Distance

Mischief Reef is an LTE that is 125 NM from Palawan, well within the 200 NM EEZ of thePhilippines. As an LTE, Mischief Reef is part of the submerged continental shelf of thePhilippines. With an air and naval base in Mischief Reef between Palawan and all thePhilippine-occupied islands in the Spratlys, China can block Philippine ships re-supplying
Philippine-occupied islands in the Spratlys.

China’s New Airbase on Woody Island, the Paracels

Woody Island has an area of 213 hectares. It has a a 2,700 meter runaway that can handle allof China’s 4th generation fighter aircraft as well as the H-6K strategic bomber.

China’s Creeping Expansion in the SCS from 1946 to 2015

Before World War II, China’s southernmost defense perimeter was Hainan Island. Right after the war, China took
over the Amphitrite Group of the Paracels after the departure of the Japanese, moving China’s defense perimeter
southward. In 1974, China forcibly dislodged the South Vietnamese from the Crescent Group of the Paracels,
expanding China’s defense perimeter further south. In 1988, China forcibly evicted Vietnam from Johnson SouthReef, moving China’s southernmost defense perimeter to the Spratlys. In 1995, China seized Mischief Reef fromthe Philippines, just 125 NM from Palawan. In 2012, China seized Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines, just
124 NM from Luzon. In 2013, China seized Luconia Shoal from Malaysia, just 50 NM from Sarawak’s coast. In
2014-15, China started reclaiming rocks and submerged areas in the Spratlys to build air and naval bases. China
announced in June 2015 that it would conduct regular air-sea military drills in the Bashi Channel between thePhilippines and Taiwan. For 21 consecutive years now, China’s defense spending has grown by double-digit
increments.

Mischief Reef - A 30-Million Year Work of Nature

It takes 30 million years for the reefs of an atoll like Mischief Reef to form. Reefs are the breeding ground offish. In the Spratlys, the eggs spawned by the fish are carried by currents as far away as Indonesia. Once thesand supporting the reefs are removed, the reefs collapse. Reefs need clear waters to grow. Reclamations
make the waters turbid, unhealthy for both reefs and fish. China is reclaiming on seven (7) reefs in the
Spratlys. The coral reefs in the South China Sea comprise 34% of the world’s total coral reefs, despite theSouth China Sea occupying only 2.5% of world’s total ocean and sea surface.

Protect and Preserve the Marine Environment
Article 192 of UNCLOS mandates, “States have theobligation to protect and preserve the marine
environment.”
China’s massive and wanton reclamation in the Spratlys
is destroying the marine environment.
Article 290 of UNCLOS the “tribunal may prescribe
any provisional measures which it considers appropriate
under the circumstances to preserve the respective
rights of the parties to the dispute or to prevent serious
harm to the marine environment, pending the final
decision.”Duty to Consult in Semi-Enclosed Sea
The South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea because its waters
primarily (80%) consist of territorial and EEZ waters (Article
122, UNCLOS).
Article 123 of UNCLOS requires coastal states in semienclosed states to “cooperate with each other in the exerciseof their rights and in the performance of their duties under
this Convention xxx with respect to the protection andpreservation of the marine environment.”
China reclaimed seven geologic features in the Spratlys,
destroying their reefs, without notifying, consulting orcooperating other coastal states.

Who can create artificial islands, or erect structures
on LTEs, in the EEZ or CS?
Only the adjacent coastal state has the right tocreate artificial islands, or erect structures on LTEs,
within its EEZ or CS (Arts. 60 & 80, UNCLOS).
Thus, such artificial islands or structures put up byother states within the EEZ or CS of a coastal state
are illegal under UNCLOS.

Thus, Article 60, Part VI of UNCLOS, on “Artificial islands,
installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone,” states:“1.

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shallhave the exclusive right to construct and to authorize
and regulate the construction, operation and use of:(a) artificial islands;(b) installations and structures for the purposes
provided in Article 56 (exploitation of nonliving resources in the seabed, marine scientificresearch, protection andpreservation ofmarine environment) and other economic purposes;(c) xxx.”“2.

The coastal state shall have exclusive jurisdiction oversuch artificial islands, installations and structures,
including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal,
health safety and immigration laws and regulations.”

Article 80, Part VI of UNCLOS, on “Artificial
islands, installations and structures on the continental
shelf,” states:“Article 60 applies mutatis mutandi to artificial
islands, installations and structures on thecontinental shelf.”
Clearly, China’s reclamations on LTEs in the EEZ
and continental shelf of the Philippines violate
UNCLOS and are thus illegal under internationallaw.

China Cannot Invoke Freedom of the High Seas
To Create Islands in High Seas
Article 87, Part VII
Freedom of the high seas
1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or
land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under
the conditions laid down by this Convention and byother rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia,
both for coastal and land-locked States:(a) xxxxxx(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and otherinstallations permitted under international law, subject
to Part VI; [Note: referring to Art. 80, Part VI]
xxx.

Article 87(d) applies only if a coastal state cannot
claim a continental shelf beyond its EEZ because
there is no natural prolongation of its continental
shelf from its land mass.
Even then, any artificial island or installation
erected on the high seas must be for peacefulpurposes only (non-military) because Article 88 of
UNCLOS mandates that “the high seas shall bereserved for peaceful purposes.”Maritime Zones under UNCLOS

Do LTEs and artificial islands acquire a maritime zone if byreclamation they are raised above water at high tide ?
No. UNCLOS defines an island as a “naturally formed” area ofland, surrounded by water, and above water at high tide. (Art. 121,
UNCLOS)
Article 60(8) of UNCLOS provides:“8. Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess
the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own,
and their presence does not affect the delimitation of theterritorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, or the continental
shelf.”
Artificial islands reclaimed from LTEs or submerged areas beyond
the territorial sea are not land or island territory, and thus do nothave territorial sea or territorial airspace.

Artificial islands reclaimed from LTEs beyond theterritorial sea, such as Mischief Reef, Johnson South
Reef and Subi Reef:
1. Are not islands or rocks above water at high tide;
2. Do not have a territorial sea;
3. Do not have territorial airspace;
4. Do not have EEZ or CS;
5. If illegally erected (as China has done), do noteven have a 500-meter safety zone.

A reclamation on a rock above water at high tide, suchas Fiery Cross Reef or Cuarteron Reef, is an expansionof insular land territory. A rock above water at hightide is a land territory that generates –1. 12 NM territorial sea; and2. Territorial airspace above such land territory and its
territorial sea.
A reclamation on a rock above water at high tide is valid
under UNCLOS.

Chinese Reclamations vs. Philippine & Vietnamese Reclamations
A state cannot be faulted for reclaiming on its own sovereign territory - anda rock above water at high tide is sovereign territory with a territorial sea andterritorial airspace. However, a state doing such reclamation must not
destroy or needlessly harm the marine environment.
On the other hand, a state that reclaims on LTEs within the EEZ or CS of
another state violates UNCLOS.
Pending resolution of the territorial dispute, China cannot be faulted for its
reclamations on rocks above water at high tide, except for the massive
destruction of the coral reefs. However, China’s reclamations on LTEs
within the Philippines’ EEZ or CS clealry violate UNCLOS.
The Philippines and Vietnam have reclaimed only on real islands
permanently above water, and they cannot be faulted for such reclamations
as they conform with UNCLOS. The Philippines and Vietnam have notreclaimed on LTEs.

Reclamations Tamper with the Evidence
How can the Philippines establish before the Tribunal
that Mischief Reef, Gaven Reef, Subi Reef and
McKennan Reef are LTEs when China has alreadycovered them with sand and these geologic features are
now permanently above water at high tide?
The Philippines can show that China’s own nauticalcharts prior to the reclamations designate these four
geologic features as LTEs, just like Philippine nauticalcharts. The nautical charts of other countries, such as
those of the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan,
Russia and Vietnam are unanimous in theirdesignations of these geologic features as LTEs .

Can a state claim historic rights to maritime zones?
Historic rights or historic title cannot be invoked toclaim EEZs or CSs. The creation of the EEZ under
UNCLOS, with “sovereign rights” (supreme rights)
granted to the adjacent coastal state, extinguished all
historic rights or claims by other states to the EEZ ofa coastal state. The word “exclusive” in the term EEZmeans the economic exploitation of the zone is
exclusive to the adjacent coastal state. No one may
exploit the natural resources in the EEZ without theexpress consent of the coastal state (Art. 77[3],UNCLOS).

Is there legal basis under international
law to China’s 9-dashed lines claim?
There is no legal basis whatsoever. The wellentrenched doctrine in the law of the sea is that “theland dominates the sea.” This means that for nonarchipelagic states like China, all maritime zones
must be “measured from baselines” “along thecoast” of continental land, island or rock (Arts. 3, 57& 76, UNCLOS). China’s 9-dashed lines are notmeasured from baselines along its coast, and thus do
not comply with the basic requirement under
UNCLOS for validly drawing maritime zones.

The high seas have always been part of the global
commons, whether before or after UNCLOS. The highseas could not be subject to sovereignty by any state,whether before or after UNCLOS.
UNCLOS declares: “The high seas are open to allstates, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of thehigh seas xxx comprises, inter alia, xxx freedom offishing” (Art. 87, UNCLOS).
UNCLOS declares: “No state may validly purport tosubject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty” (Art.
89, UNCLOS).

China’s new “national boundaries” under the 9-dashed lines

Waters Hainan Claims under its Administration

The enclosed waters under Hainan’s administration comprise 2 million square kilometers out of
the 3.5 square kilometers total surface area of the South China Sea. China claims a total of 3
million square kilometers or 85.7% of the waters of the South China Sea. Macclesfield Bank,
which is part of the high seas, is within the enclosed waters.

Article 35 of the Hainan Province’s 2014 Fishery Regulations,which took effect on January 1, 2014, mandate that foreign
fishing vessels “entering the waters under the jurisdiction ofthis province (Hainan) to engage in fishery operations or
fishery resource surveys shall secure approval from relevant
departments of the State Council.”
The Fishery Regulations apply to Macclesfield Bank, whichis part of the high seas. Moreover, since 1999 Hainan has
unilaterally imposed an annual fishing ban, from mid-May to
end July, on waters in and around the Paracels, Macclesfield
Bank and Scarborough Shoal. Violators of the ban face fines,
confiscation of fishing equipment, and even criminal charges.

By appropriating for itself the fishery resources in
the high seas of the South China Sea, China iscommitting a grand theft of the global commons.
All states, coastal and landlocked, are interested
parties in the South China Sea dispute because
China is appropriating for itself the fisheryresources in the high seas.

Maritime Zones under UNCLOS

Palawan-Itu Aba EEZs Overlap

Palawan has an area of 1,464,900 hectares, and a 650 KM coast facing the West Philippine Sea, while Itu
Aba has an area of 46 hectares and a 1.4 KM coast. The relevant coast for Palawan is about 495 KM, while
the relevant coast for Itu Aba is about 1 KM, or a ratio of 1:495 in favor of Palawan. The relevant coast of
Palawan should include Balabac Island and other nearby islands, following Nicaragua v. Colombia.

What is the overriding criterion in resolving
overlapping EEZs & CSs?
The overriding criterion is the length of the opposing
relevant coastlines in the overlapping maritime zones. In
Nicaragua v. Colombia (ICJ Ruling, November 2012), a ratio of
1:8.2 (for every 1 KM coastline of Colombia, 8.2 KM coastline
for Nicaragua) was ruled as a substantial disparity, leaving
Colombia no EEZ facing Nicaragua.
In the case of Palawan and Itu Aba, the ratio of the relevant
coastlines is 1:495 in favor of Palawan. This is not only
substantial disparity, but also total disparity. Itu Aba cannot
be given any EEZ facing Palawan.

Nicaragua v. Colombia

The lengths of the relevant coasts are 531 km for Nicaragua and 65 km for Colombia’s islands(San Andres, Providencia, Sta. Catalina, Albuquerque Cays, East-South Cays, Roncador andSerrana), a ratio of approximately 1:8.2 in favor of Nicaragua.

Palawan’s Coastline – More than 650 KMs
Palawan is uniquely endowed by nature with an
unusually long coastline – a total of more than 650
kilometers facing the West Philippines Sea.
The
combined coastline of all the Spratly Islands isminuscule compared to Palawan’s coastline. This makes
the Philippines’ legal position impregnable even if Itu
Aba is declared to generate an EEZ. While the arbitral
tribunal will have no jurisdiction to declare the extent of
Palawan’s EEZ if Itu Aba generates an EEZ, thePhilippines can bring the matter to compulsory
conciliation where the criterion of length of relevant
coastlines will be applied.

Can a state claim historic rights to maritime zones?
Historic rights or historic title cannot be invoked toclaim EEZs or CSs. The creation of the EEZ under
UNCLOS, with “sovereign rights” (supreme rights)
granted to the adjacent coastal state, extinguished all
historic rights or claims by other states to the EEZ ofa coastal state. The word “exclusive” in the term EEZmeans the economic exploitation of the zone is
exclusive to the adjacent coastal state. No one may
exploit the natural resources in the EEZ without theexpress consent of the coastal state (Art. 77[3],UNCLOS).

2002 ASEAN-China Declaration of Conduct

The South China Sea dispute shall be
resolved “in accordance with universally
recognized principles of internationallaw, including the 1982 UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea.”

China Insists on Respect for Historical Facts
After the Philippines filed in January 2013 its
arbitration case against China under
UNCLOS, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi
declared that the South China Sea disputeshould be resolved in accordance with“historical facts and international law.”

The Truth about China’s “Historical Facts”
We gladly accept China’s invitation to look at thehistorical facts. We shall examine:(1) China’s so-called sovereignty markers in the
Paracels and the Spratlys;(2) Ancient maps of China and the Philippines;(3) The Republican Constitutions of China;(4) Official declarations of China to the world;(5) The veracity of respective historical claims of
China and the Philippines to ScarboroughShoal.

China’s “Abundant Historical Evidence”
Chinese officials have repeatedly declared to the worldthat China has “abundant historical evidence” to proveits “indisputable sovereignty” over the islands andwaters enclosed by the 9-dashed lines.
A noted French geographer, Francois-Xavier Bonnet,
who has made an extensive research on the South
China Sea dispute, exposed in a forum at the Ateneo
Law School in Manila last March 27, 2015 that China
actually planted its so-called “abundant historicalevidence” in the Paracels and the Spratlys.

China’s False Sovereignty Markers“Several authors writing about the Chinese claim to the
Paracel Islands have dated the first official Chinese
expedition to these islands to 1902. However, none of thesewriters have been able to show any records of thisexpedition taking place. In fact, Chinese records show thatthe expedition never happened. Instead, a secret
expedition took place decades later to plant false
archeological evidence on the islands in order to bolster
China’s territorial claim. The same strategy has been
applied in the Spratly islands: the sovereignty markers of1946 had been placed, in fact, ten years later, in 1956.”
François-Xavier Bonnet, ARCHEOLOGY AND PATRIOTISM: LONG TERM CHINESE STRATEGIESIN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, Paper presented at the Southeast Asia Sea Conference, Ateneo Law
Center, Makati City, March 27, 2015. François-Xavier Bonnet is a geographer and a Research Associateof the French Institute for Research on Contemporary Southeast Asia (Irasec). He has published, among
others, “Geopolitics of Scarborough Shoal”, Irasec’s discussion paper 14, November 2012, http://
www.irasec.com/ouvrage34 email: mpdbonnet@yahoo.com.

Chinese Sovereignty Markers"" the Guangxu reign (1882-1902) on one of the Xisha Island
Steles from
Source: Thomas H. Hahn Docu-Images. http://hahn.zenfolio.com/xisha/h1D468115#h1d468115

" June 1937, the chief of Chinese military region no. 9, Huang“In"
Qiang,
was sent to the Paracels with two missions: Firstly to check"
reports that the Japanese were invading the islands and secondly toreassert Chinese sovereignty over them. xxx.”

Huang Qiang made a Report of his June 1937 secret mission. The
confidential annex to the Report was inadvertently published in
1987.
“xxx the confidential annex of this report had been published in
1987 by the Committee of Place Names of Guangdong Province
in a book titled ‘Compilations of References on the Names of All our
Islands of Nan Hai.’ This annex gives the details of the actions ofHuang Qiang in the Paracels.”François-Xavier Bonnet, ARCHEOLOGY AND PATRIOTISM: LONG TERMCHINESE STRATEGIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, Paper presented at theSoutheast Asia Sea Conference, Ateneo Law Center, Makati City, Mach 27,
2015.

The 1987 Book That Revealed the Confidential Annex""
Compilation of References of the Names of All the South Sea Islands [Nan Hai zhu dao di ming zi liao
hui bian], Guangdong Map Publishing Company [Guangdong sheng di tu chu ban she],published in 1987 by the Committee of Place Names of the Guangdong Province [Guangdong
sheng di ming wei yuan hui].

Summary of Antedated Markers Planted in 1937 in the Paracels
Island in Paracels
1. Woody Island
2. Woody Island
3. Woody Island
4. Ling Zhou Island
5. Ling Zhou Island
6. Ling Zhou Island
7. North Island
8. North Island
9. North Island
10. North Island
11. North Island
12. North Island

Date of Inscription on Marker
1911
1921
1921
1921
1911
1911
1902
1911
1911
1911
1911
1902

Summary of Antedated Markers Planted in 1956 in the Spratlys"

Island in Spratlys

Date of Inscription on Marker

1. West York Island(Likas)

December 1946

2.

December 1946

Spratly Island

Page 289, the Annex to the 1987 Book Revealing
the Planting of Antedated Markers in the Paracels

Page 289, the Annex to the 1987 Book Revealing
the Planting of Antedated Markers in the Paracels
*\*D3¡Ro7+ K e,a

Huang Qiang
Chief of No. 9 Administrative Region
31 July 1937
xxx
Stone Tablets Erection Records on the Paracel Islands

One stone tablet can be found beside the old tree on the southernside of Shi Dao (Rocky Island) facing Lin Dao (Woody Island), which
is 50 feet from shore. The tablet’s base was buried at a depth of 1
foot. “Commemorating the Inspection of 1911” was carved on the tablet;
xxx
Northwest to the well near Central Road on Lin Dao (Woody
Island), around 5 feet near the well, another tablet can be foundwith the inscription “Commemorating the Inspection of 1921”;

Page 289, the Annex to the 1987 Book Revealing
the Planting of Antedated Markers in the Paracels

At the southwest of Lin Dao (Woody Island), at theback of Guhun Temple (6 feet high and 9 feetwide), 6 feet from the temple wall, one tablet canbe found with the inscription “Commemorating theInspection of 1921”;
75 feet near the shore of the north side ofLingzhou Dao (Lingzhou Island), 62 feet to theeast of a big stone, a tablet can be found with theinscription “Commemorating the Inspection of 1921”;

Page 289, the Annex to the 1987 Book Revealing
the Planting of Antedated Markers in the Paracels

At the center of northern Lingzhou Dao (Lingzhou
Island), a stone tablet can be found under the treewith the inscription “Commemorating the Inspection of1911” with its base buried 8 feet into the ground;At the back of the straw huts at the northeast ofLingzhou Dao (Lingzhou Island), 37 feet from thehuts, a tablet can be found with the inscription“Commemorating the Inspection of 1911”;

Page 289, the Annex to the 1987 Book Revealing
the Planting of Antedated Markers in the Paracels

At one end of the road at the southeast of Bei Dao(North Island), a tablet can be found with theinscription “Commemorating the Inspection of 1902”;
At the left corner of the stone house on the southernshore of southeast Bei Dao (North Island), a stone tablet
can be found with the inscription “Commemorating theInspection of 1911”;
In front of the straw huts located at the southern shoreof southeast Bei Dao (North Island), a stone tablet canbe found with the inscription “Commemorating theInspection of 1911”;

Page 289, the Annex to the 1987 Book Revealing
the Planting of Antedated Markers in the Paracels
At the back of the straw huts located on the southern shoreof southeast Bei Dao (North Island), a stone tablet can befound with the inscription “Commemorating the Inspection of1911”;At the southeastern corner of Bei Dao (North Island),facing Zhong Dao (Middle Island), a stone tablet can befound with the inscription “Commemorating the Inspection of1911”;At the northern shore of Bei Dao (North Island), a tablet
can be found with the inscription “Commemorating theInspection of 1902”.

Page 291, the Annex to the 1987 Book Revealing
the Planting of Antedated Markers in the Spratlys“eG9>JG)>JG5+5tG C`y-flj]kj_f%‘eG’ AA}=
&f'2_%‘o7 +K+e’+EA.<9t
fhiTENOIb ; %^Am dUcguoVP”66

Xiyue Dao (West York Island) is located 44 nautical miles northeastof Taiping Dao (Itu Aba Island). … No residents inhabit the island. …
Several coconut trees are located at the south side of the island.
Besides trees, there is a stone tablet with the inscription “Xiyue Dao(West York Island)” in three large Chinese characters with ten
smaller characters on its right with the inscription “Erected on
December 1946”. xxx (Page 66)[Lecturer’s Note: West York Island, called Likas Island by the Philippines, has an area of 18.6 hectares,
the third largest island in the Spratlys. It is occupied by the Philippines.]

Page 291, the Annex to the 1987 Book Revealing
the Planting of Antedated Markers in the Spratlys“-@GG?f!%‘-@G’ A
_s‘o7 +K+e’AG.
f 8:NO"fx/` S
6Kv(”72
A stone tablet was erected at the center of Nanwei Dao(Spratly Island), with the inscription “Nanwei Dao(Spratly Island)” and “Erected on December 1946”. …
Another Earth God Temple can be found in thewestern part of the island with only the censer(container where incense is burned) present inside. The
Earth God figurine may have already eroded. (Page 72)
xxx

Page 291, the Annex to the 1987 Book Revealing
the Planting of Antedated Markers in the Spratlys——7-tG^{pQX7-q
1957K5eT1wB~F1975K1ez
Zhang Zhenguo. Trip to the Spratly Islands, written in May 1957 andpublished in January 1975; The 8th compilation of documents on the South
China Sea Islands.
WYMZ[-qG3 |1946K>J4Lrf$eG4-@GYnG0d1956K1wt#
HV
Editors' note: According to Mai Wenyu who was assigned by the
Guangdong government to retake the Spratly Islands from the Japanese
invaders, Chinese navy ships did not reach Xiyue Dao (West York Island)and Nanwei Dao (Spratly Island). Thus, stone tablets on these two islands
might have been erected by the Taiwanese Navy in 1956.

Ancient Maps of China and the Philippines
Official and unofficial maps of China from 1136
during the Song Dynasty until the end of the Qing
Dynasty in 1912 show that the southernmost
territory of China has always been Hainan Island.
Official and unofficial maps of the Philippines from1636 until 1933 show that Scarborough Shoal has
always been part of the Philippines. The first nameof Scarborough Shoal is “Panacot,” which appearedin the 1734 Murillo Velarde map published in
Manila.

1136 AD
“Hua Yi Tu”

This map was engraved in stone in Fuchang in 1136
AD during the Song Dynasty. A stone rubbing of themap was published in 1903(?) in France. The stone
map is entitled “Hua Yi Tu” or Map of China andthe Barbarian Countries. The stone map is now in
the Forest of Stone Steles Museum in Xi’an, China.
This map shows Hainan Island as the southernmost
territory of China. The annotations on the sides ofthis map are not part of the stone engraving. This
digital reproduction is from the U.S. Library ofCongress (Catalogue No.2002626771; Digital ID
g7820 ct000284).

1602 “Kunyu Wanguo Quantu”
or A Map of the Myriad Countries of the World

Published in Beijing in 1602 by the Ming
Dynasty, this map is entitled “Kunyu Wanguo
Quantu” or A Map of the Myriad Countries ofthe World. The Jesuit priest Matteo Ricci createdthis map upon request of the Ming Emperor
Wanli. Ricci was assisted by Zhong Wentao, Li
Zhizao, and other Chinese scholars. This map
shows Hainan Island as the southernmost
territory of China. This digital reproduction isfrom the U.S. Library of Congress (Catalogue No.
2010585650; Digital ID g3200 ex000006Za,b andg3200m gex00001).

1896 “Huang Chao Zhi Sheng Yu Di Quan Tu” or The
Qing Empire’s Complete Map of All Provinces.

Published in 1896 in China by Guangxu Bing
Shen, this map is entitled “Huang Chao Zhi
Sheng Yu Di Quan Tu” or the Qing Empire’sComplete Map of All Provinces. This map shows
Hainan Island as the southernmost territory of
China. This digital reproduction is from the U.S.
Library of Congress (Catalogue No. gm71005083;
Digital ID g7820 ct003428).

1636 “China Veteribus Sinarum Regio Nunc Incolis Tame Dicta.”

Published in Frankfurt in 1636 by map maker
Matthaus Merian, this map is entitled “China
Veteribus Sinarum Regio Nunc Incolis Tame
Dicta.” This map shows China,
Korea, Japan,
Taiwan and Northern Luzon. On the western side
off the coast of Central Luzon, there is an unnamed
shoal below the words “P. de Mandato.” The
Spanish phrase “P. de Mandato” means the point ofcommand – which implies there was a Spanish
military garrison in that coastal place.
Theunnamed shoal off this coastal place would later becalled “Panacot” by the Jesuit Pedro Murillo
Velarde. This digital reproduction is from Barry
Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps, Inc. (http://
www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/36716).

1734 Murillo Velarde Map

Published in 1734 in Manila by the Jesuit Pedro Murillo
Velarde, this map is entitled “Carta Hydrographica y
Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas.” This is the oldest
map that gives a name to “Panacot” shoal. Panacot is the
Tagalog word for threat or danger. Prior to this 1734
map, no map had ever given a name to this shoal.
Scarborough Shoal had a Tagalog name 213 years before
China drew its 9-dashed lines map. The Spratlys are shownon this 1734 map as “Los Bajos de Paragua,” which means
the shoals of Paragua. The old Spanish name of Palawan is
Paragua. The Murillo Velarde map itself names two
Filipinos, Francisco Suarez who drew the map and Nicolasdela Cruz Bagay who engraved it. This map is considered
the “mother of all Philippine maps.” This digital
reproduction is from the U.S. Library of Congress(Catalogue No. 2013585226; Digital ID g8060 ct003137).

1792 “Plano de la Navigacion” Bajo de Masinloc

This is the route of the navigation taken by Alessandro Malaspina when he surveyed
Scarborough Shoal on 4 May 1792 aboard the Sta. Lucia. In his Journal, Malaspina
wrote: “On (this shoal) Spanish and foreign ships have been lost.”

Published in Madrid by the Direccion de
Hidrografica from the surveys of the Malaspina
Expedition, this 1792 chart (plano de lanavigacion) is the route of the navigation taken
by Alessandro Malaspina’s ship Sta. Lucia when
Malaspina surveyed what the chart states as“Bajo Masinloc o Scarborough.” On May 4,
1792, the day he surveyed Bajo Masinloc,
Alessandro Malaspina wrote in his Journal “on(this shoal) Spanish and foreign ships have beenlost.” This digital reproduction is from thearchives of the Museo Naval de Madrid, copied by
the Philippine Embassy in Madrid.

1867 “Carta General del Archipielago Filipino”

Published in 1867 in Madrid by the Direccion de
Hidrograpfica, this map is entitled “Carta Generaldel Archipielago Filipino.” This map shows“Bajo Masingloc o Scarborough.” There is an
inset of Scarborough shoal (1866 map ofCommander Wilds) on the lower left side of themap. This digital reproduction is from thearchives of the Museo Naval de Madrid, copied by
the Philippine Embassy in Madrid.

1899 “Islas Filipinas, Mapa General Observatorio de Manila.”

Published in 1899 in Washington, D.C. by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.

Published in 1899 in Washington, D.C. by theJesuit Jose P. Algue and the U.S. Coast andGeodetic Survey, this map is entitled “Islas
Filipinas – Mapa General – Observatorio deManila.” The map shows “B. Masinloc.” This
digital reproduction is from the Atlas de Filipinas,
Internet Archive, Ohio State University Library,(https://archive.org/details/
AtlasDeFilipinasColleccionDe30MapasTrabajados
PorDelineantes; ark:/13960/t2d804v8j).

1933 “Philippine Islands”

Published in 1933 in Manila and reissued in 1940
in Washington, D.C. by the U.S. Coast andGeodetic Survey, this map is entitled “Philippine
Islands.” The map shows “Scarborough” shoal
with depth soundings. This digital reproduction
is from the U.S. Library of Congress (Catalogue
No. 2011592026, Digital ID g8061p ct003542).

When the Qing Dynasty ended in 1912, theChinese republicans led by Dr. Sun Yat Sen
established the Republic of China. The following
provisions of five (5) Constitutions of the Republicof China state:Constitution of 1912
Article 3, Chapter 1, of the Provisional
Constitution of the Republic of China of March
11, 1912 states: “The territory of the Republic ofChina is composed of 22 provinces, Inner andOuter Mongolia, Tibet and Qinghai.” As we haveseen in the 1896 map of the Qing Dynasty, one of
the 22 provinces is Guangdong, which includes
Hainan Island as the southernmost territory of
China.

1896 “Huang Chao Zhi Sheng Yu Di Quan Tu” or The
Qing Empire’s Complete Map of All Provinces

Constitution of 1914

Article 3, Chapter 1 of the Constitution of the
Republic of China of May 1, 1914 states: “Theterritory of the Republic of China continues to be
the territory of the former empire.” The editorialcomment in the Regulations of the Republic of China
Concerning Rule over Tibet (1999) explains the words“former empire” as “referring to the Qing
Dynasty.”

“Former empire” means the Qing Dynasty
Page 3 of the Regulations state:Constitutions of 1924, 1937 and 1946
Article 3, Chapter 2, of the Constitution of the Republic ofChina of October 10, 1924 states: “The territory of the
Republic of China continues to be the traditional territory.”
The Constitution of the Republic of China of January 1, 1937
states: “The territory of the Republic of China continues tobe the territory it owned in the past.”
Article 4, Chapter 1 of the Constitution of the Republic ofChina of December 25, 1946 states: “The territory of the
Republic of China shall be that encompassed by its
traditional boundaries.”

All these constitutional provisions are from an
official publication of the People’s Republic ofChina entitled Regulations of the Republic of China
Concerning Rule Over Tibet (China No. 2 History
Archives, China International Press, January 1,
1999).

As late as 1932, China has been telling the worldthat its southernmost border was Hainan Island,
but that Hainan Island included the Paracels. In
a Note Verbale to the French Government on
September 29, 1932 protesting the French
occupation of the Paracels, the Chinese
Government officially declared:

“Note of 29 September 1932 from the Legation of
the Chinese Republic in France to the Ministry ofForeign Affairs, ParisOn the instructions of its Government, theLegation of the Chinese Republic in France has
the honor to transmit its Government’s reply to
the Foreign Ministry’s Note of 4 January 1932 on
the subject of the Paracel Islands.”
xxxx

“xxx The eastern group is called the Amphitrites
and the western group the Crescent. These groups
lie 145 nautical miles from Hainan Island, andform the southernmost part of Chinese
territory.” (Emphasis supplied)
xxx[Source: Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands,
Monique Chemelier-Gendreau, Annex 10, Kluwer Law
International, 2000]

1933 “Zhonghua Min Guo Fen Sheng Xin Tu”

Despite Chinese maps that appeared in the 1930s and 1940s showing the Paracels as part ofChina, China’s Republican Constitutions of 1937 and 1946 still declared that its territory
remained the same as the territory of the former empire.""Scarborough Shoal

In China’s Manila Embassy website, China claims
Scarborough Shoal because the shoal is allegedly
the Nanhai Island that Guo Shoujing visited in
1279 and where he erected an astronomical
observatory. The website states:

“Huangyan Island was first discovered and drew(sic) into China’s map in China’s Yuan Dynasty(1271-1368 AD). In 1279, Chinese astronomer
Guo Shoujing performed surveying of the seasaround China for Kublai Khan, and Huangyan
Island was chosen as the point in the South
China Sea.” (Emphasis supplied)Screenshot from China’s Manila Embassy Website

Huangyan Island was first discovered and drew into China's map in China's Yuan
Dynasty(1271-1368AD). In 1279, Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing performed
surveying of the seas around China for Kublai Khan, and Huangyan Island waschosen as the point in the South China Sea.

However, in a document entitled China’s Sovereignty OverXisha and Zhongsha Islands Is Indisputable issued on January
30, 1980, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs officiallydeclared that the Nanhai island that Guo Shoujing visitedin 1279 was in Xisha or what is internationally called theParacels, a group of islands more than 380 NM from
Scarborough Shoal. China issued this official document tobolster its claim to the Paracels to counter Vietnam’s strong
historical claims to the same islands. This Chinese official
document, published in Beijing Review, Issue No. 7 dated
February 18, 1980, states:

China’s Indisputable
Sovereignty Over Xisha
And Nansha Islands

“Early in the Yuan Dynasty, an astronomical observation
was carried out at 27 places throughout the country. xxx
According to the official History of the Yuan Dynasty,
Nanhai, Gou’s observation point, was “to the south ofZhuya” and “the result of the survey showed that thelatitude of Nanhai is 15°N.” The astronomical observation
point Nanhai was today’s Xisha Islands. It shows that
Xisha Islands were within the bounds of China at thetime of the Yuan dynasty.” (Emphasis supplied)

Gou Shoujing built 27 astronomical observatories,
26 on the mainland and one on an island in theSouth Sea (Nanhai). China cannot now claim that
Scarborough Shoal is the South Sea island that Guo
Shoujing visited in 1279 because China had alreadydeclared in 1980 that Gou Shoujing visited theParacels where he erected the astronomical
observatory. Besides, the massive astronomical
observatories that Guo Shoujing erected in otherplaces in China could not possibly fit on the tiny
rocks of Scarborough Shoal.

Gaocheng Observatory
This 12.6 meter high stoneobservatory in Henan Province isthe only extant astronomical
observatory among the 27 that
Guo Shoujing built during theYuan Dynasty.

South Rock, the biggest rock on Scarborough Shoal,
is just 1.2 meters above water at high tide, and not
more than 6 to 10 people could stand on it. To be
operated, the observatories of Guo Shoujing haveto be manned everyday since measurements have tobe taken everyday. It is physically impossible toerect, or operate, such an observatory on
Scarborough Shoal.

Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou Statement
In September 2014, Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou, who
belongs to the Kuomintang Party, which controlled theChinese mainland government in 1947 that adopted the 9dashed lines, clarified the extent of China’s claim under thelines.
President Ma declared that the claim was limited only to theislands and their adjacent 3 NM (now 12 NM) territorial
sea. President Ma unequivocally stated that there were “noother so-called claims to sea regions.”
This express clarification from Taiwan directly contradicts
China’s claim that China has “indisputable sovereignty” over
all the waters enclosed within the 9-dashed lines.

The Original 1947
9-dashed Lines Map of China
Entitled “Location Map of
the South Sea Islands”
The title of the map indicatesa claim to the islands, not the sea.
China calls the South China Sea
Nanhai or South Sea. European
navigators gave the name South
China Sea.
Mentioned as Zhongsha Island’s features were: Pygmy Shoal (Biwei Ansha), Engeria Bank
(Yinji Tan), Learmonth Shoal (Jimeng Ansah), Paibo Ansha, Paihong Ansha, and Bengu
Ansha. Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal) or its second name Minzhu Jiao is not
mentioned.

President Ma Ying-jeou: A Law of the Sea Scholar
In an October 21, 2014 interview with the New YorkTimes, President Ma, who earned an S.J.D. from
Harvard University with specialty in the Law of theSea, stated:“There is a basic principle in the Law of the Sea,
that land dominates the sea. Thus marine claims
begin with land; however, even if it is logically thisway, when resolving disputes, it is not impossible tofirst resolve resource development issues. xxx.”

What is the legal basis of the Philippines’
claim to Scarborough Shoal"
The 1898 Treaty of Paris between Spain and theUnited States drew a rectangular line wherein Spainceded to the United States all of Spain’s territories
found within the treaty lines. Scarborough Shoal isoutside the treaty lines. Scarborough Shoal lies
outside of the treaty lines.

However, two years later, in the 1900 Treaty ofWashington, Spain clarified that it had also
relinquished to the United States “all title andclaim of title, which (Spain) may have had at thetime of the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace ofParis, to any and all islands belonging to thePhilippine Archipelago, lying outside the lines”
of the Treaty of Paris. Thus, Spain ceded
Scarborough Shoal to the United States under the1900 Treaty of Washington (Treaty between Spainand the United States for Cession of Outlying Islandsof the Philippines, signed November 7, 1900.).

In 1938 the U.S. Had Already Determined
Scarborough Shoal Is Part of Philippine Territory
When the issue of whether Scarborough Shoal forms part ofPhilippine territory, Secretary Cordell Hull of the U.S. State
Department stated in his Memorandum of July 27, 1938 to Harry
Woodring, Secretary of War:
Because of the absence of other claims, the shoal should be
regarded as included among the islands ceded to the United Statesby the American-Spanish Treaty of November 7, 1900*… In theabsence of evidence of a superior claim to Scarborough Shoal by
any other government, the Department of State would interpose no
objection to the proposal of the Commonwealth Government tostudy the possibilities of the shoal as an aid to air and ocean
navigation.
*Treaty of Washington; boldfacing supplied.
Source: A CNA Occasional Paper, Philippine Claims in the South China Sea: A Legal Analysis, Mark E. Rosen, JD,
LLM [citing François-Xavier Bonnet, The Geopolitics of Scarborough Shoal, available at www.irasec.com.] (2014)

China’s Core Objection to the Arbitration"“xxx even assuming that the subject-matter of thearbitration did concern the interpretation orapplication of the Convention, it has been
excluded by the 2006 declaration filed by China
under Article 298 of the Convention, due to its
being an integral part of the dispute of maritime
delimitation between the two States.”

China correctly states that the exclusion arising fromits 2006 declaration under the opt out clause [Article
298(1)(a)(i), UNCLOS] refers to a “dispute ofmaritime delimitation between the two States.”

Article 298(1)(a)(i) allows exclusion fromcompulsory arbitration of “disputes concerning
the interpretation or application of Articles 15,
74 a n d 8 3 re l a t i n g to s e a b o u n d a r ydelimitations.”
Article 15 - Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts
Article 74 – Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or
adjacent coasts
Article 83 - Delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacentcoastsChina does not claim that the waters enclosed by the 9dashed lines are its territorial sea, EEZ or CS. The 9dashed lines are not measured from baselines along
China’s coast, and hence the the 9-dashed lines cannot
possibly delineate China’s territorial sea, EEZ or CS.
There is no overlapping TS, EEZ or CS between
China’s 9-dashed lines waters and the Philippines’ TS,
EEZ or CS that could be subject of the opt out clause
under Article 298(1)(a) of UNCLOS.
In fact, China claims the waters enclosed by the 9dashed lines as “sui generis” waters, admitting thatthese waters are neither territorial, EEZ nor CS waters.

Article 309 of UNCLOS mandates that “noreservations or exceptions may be made to thisConvention unless expressly permitted by otherarticles of this Convention.”
Article 310 states that declarations or statements
made by a state upon signing or ratification of theConvention cannot “modify the legal effect of theprovisions of this Convention in their application tothat State.”

Convergence of Interpretation of 9-dashed Lines and UNCLOS

The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia have now allquestioned the validity of China’s 9-dashed lines claim to all thewaters enclosed by the lines.
Taiwan has clarified that the 9-dashed lines are a claim to theislands and their territorial seas, not a claim to the entire waters
enclosed by the lines.
The United States asserts that only naturally-formed islands, notartificial islands reclaimed from submerged areas, are entitled to aterritorial sea and territorial airspace. Of course, the United Statesstill does not take sides in the territorial disputes over naturally
formed islands.
China is now isolated in its claim that it has indisputable
sovereignty to all the waters enclosed by the 9-dashed lines.
The next step is for the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia,
Taiwan, the United States and other countries to identify thegeologic features in the Spratlys that generate a territorial sea. All
the waters outside the territorial seas are open to freedom ofnavigation and overflight, not subject to the sovereignty of any state.

Resolution of Maritime Disputes
Among UNCLOS-Abiding Claimants
1. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei should clarify thatin accordance with UNCLOS, none of the geologic features in the
Spratlys generates an EEZ. Taiwan can join in this clarification. This
will reduce the area of maritime dispute to the 12 NM territorial sea
surrounding the geologic features above water at high tide.
2. The Philippines and Malaysia should delimit their adjoining EEZs
emanating from Sabah and Palawan, both facing the South China Sea.
3. The Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam should delimit their ECS in
the Spratlys.
4. The Philippines and Taiwan should conclude a fisheries agreement
delimiting their fishing boundary line, similar to the Japan-Taiwan
fisheries agreement.**China and Taiwan have signed 21 agreements, ranging from mutual judicial assistance,
economic cooperation to direct flights.

Why is it important to apply UNCLOS
to the South China Sea dispute?
If UNCLOS does not apply to the South China Sea
dispute, as when China’s 9-dashed lines are allowed to
gobble up the EEZs of coastal states as well as the high seas,then UNCLOS, the constitution for the oceans and seas,cannot also apply to any maritime dispute in the rest of theoceans and seas of our planet. It will be the beginning of theend for UNCLOS. The rule of the naval canon will prevailin the oceans and seas of our planet, no longer the rule oflaw. There will be a naval arms race among coastal countries.

The Free Sea versus the Closed Sea
In 1609, Hugo Grotius published Mare Liberum or theFree Sea. Grotius argued that the oceans and seas
belong to all mankind. Grotius articulated the positionof the Netherlands. Years later, in rejoinder, John
Selden wrote Mare Clausum or the Closed Sea. Selden
argued that the oceans and seas are subject toappropriation and ownership by sovereign states.
Selden articulated the position of England, Spain andPortugal, the naval powers of that bygone era. For overa century these two opposing ideas battled for thehearts and minds of the world. Grotius won that great
battle and his idea became the foundation of themodern Law of the Sea.

The Free Sea versus the Closed Sea Redux
Today, China has revived John Selden’s argumentthat a state can appropriate as its own sovereignwaters an entire or almost an entire sea. At bottom,
this is the core issue before the UNCLOS tribunal
hearing the Philippines’ arbitration case against
China. If China’s 9-dashed lines claim is allowed tostand, it will be a direct attack on the Grotian
foundation of the Law of the Sea. The settled
principles on freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight, freedom to fish in the high seas, the right ofcoastal states to exclusive economic zones, and thecommon heritage of mankind, will all be in peril.

The Grotian Question
Will the world community allow a single state to
re-write the Law of the Sea, so it can exercise
indisputable sovereignty to almost an entire sea,
subject the high seas to its sovereign jurisdiction,and seize large areas of other coastal states’ EEZs,
which are their legal maritime entitlements under
UNCLOS?

End