copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2013-03-27): James Shoal is 50 miles from the coast of Malaysia, one of several countries that have appealed to the United States for help in countering China's aggressive attempt to seize 1 million square miles of fishing and energy resources. [...] In 2010, China planted a monument on the shoal declaring it the Chinese territory of "Zengmu Reef." The act was part of China's claims to all islands, fishing grounds and energy resources in a sea shared also by Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan. The South China Sea is also a major transit route for global shipping; half of all cargo in the world passes through the sea. Malaysia says China's claims are bogus and merely an attempt to seize resources such as possible oil and gas deposits that are well within the internationally recognized coastal territory of Malaysia.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-05-20): Second, because Beijing has failed to put forth a lawful, coherent maritime claim in the South China Sea, the United States rejects any PRC claim to waters beyond a 12 nautical mile territorial sea derived from islands it claims in the Spratly Islands. This means that the United States rejects any PRC maritime claim in the waters surrounding Vanguard Bank (off Vietnam), Luconia Shoals (off Malaysia), Natuna Besar (off Indonesia), or in the waters of Brunei’s EEZ. Any PRC action to harass other states’ fishing or hydrocarbon development — or to unilaterally carry out such activities on its own – is unlawful. Period. Third, the PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to James Shoal, off Malaysia. This one deserves a moment of study. James Shoal is a submerged feature on the sea floor some 20 meters beneath the surface. It is also only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia – and over 1,000 nautical miles from the Chinese mainland. Yet Beijing claims it as the "southernmost point of China"! The claim is absurd – appearing to derive from an erroneous old British atlas and a subsequent translation error, suggesting the underwater shoal was actually a sandbank above the waves. But it isn’t. And yet Beijing’s propaganda touts James Shoal as PRC territory and PLA Navy ships deploy there to stage ostentatious oath-swearing ceremonies. International law is clear: An underwater feature gives no rights. James Shoal is not and never was Chinese territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from such spurious claims.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2020-07-31): The Sansha II, a 400-seat transport vessel, parked briefly at James Shoal around July 16 and then returned to a base closer to the Chinese mainland, according to ship activity maps, a U.S. think tank and a U.S. Naval War College researcher. The submerged feature sits at the southern boundary of Beijing’s claim to the South China Sea and within Malaysia’s 370-kilometer maritime exclusive economic zone. [...] "James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the ‘southernmost territory of China,’" Pompeo said July 13. "International law is clear. An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones." [...] James Shoal, being 20 meters underwater, cannot be used by any single country to claim a separate, surrounding maritime economic zone under international law, analysts believe.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-03-25): Nevertheless, China’s belligerent behaviours have visibly expanded to other contested areas within its nine-dash line, including a vast tract of Malaysia’s claimed EEZ.[viii] This development has gained traction in the last decade, as demonstrated by recurrent intrusions of Chinese maritime militia and Coast Guard vessels in the vicinity of Malaysia’s claimed James Shoal and Luconia Shoals off the Sarawak coast of Borneo.[ix] China regards James Shoal as its southernmost territory, prompting Beijing to project its maritime power just off the coast of Sarawak. Consequently, China has been persistent in its claims on the Luconia Shoals, seizing the shoal in 2013 and anchoring its ships consistently between 2013 and 2015.[x] Furthermore, tensions heightened in 2014 when Chinese officials decided to conduct a sovereignty oath-swearing ceremony with the presence of its three warships in Malaysia’s James Shoal.[xi] [...] [ix] James Shoal (Gugusan Beting Serupai) is located 45 nautical miles off the coast of Sarawak, and the Luconia Shoals (Gugusan Beting Patinggi Ali), positioned 62 nautical miles from Sarawak. See, Ahmad and Sani, "China Assertiveness Posture," 67-69.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2020-12-01): As Beijing has failed to put forth a lawful, coherent maritime claim in the South China Sea, the United States rejects any PRC claim to waters beyond a 12-nautical mile territorial sea derived from islands it claims in the Spratly Islands (without prejudice to other statesâ sovereignty claims over such islands). As such, the United States rejects any PRC maritime claim in the waters surrounding Vanguard Bank (off Vietnam), Luconia Shoals (off Malaysia), waters in Bruneiâs EEZ, and Natuna Besar (off Indonesia). Any PRC action to harass other statesâ fishing or hydrocarbon development in these waters â or to carry out such activities unilaterally â is unlawful. The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from Chinaâs coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the âsouthernmost territory of China.â International law is clear: An underwater feature likeÂ James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-08-15): In addition, two submerged systems, the James Shoal and the Luconia Shoals, lie within Malaysia’s claimed continental shelf region, but are claimed by China. [...] – Deputy minister in charge of legal affairs, 1983 "Swallow Reef [Terumbu Layang-Layang in Malay] belongs to Malaysia as it falls within the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone." – Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, 1995 "Erica Reef and Investigator Shoal belong to Malaysia and not the Philippines, and…Malaysia therefore has the right to build structures on these maritime features….If the Philippines resorts to aggressive action it will lead to tension but we find that they will not resort to this….The Spratlys issue should be resolved as a multilateral problem as this had been agreed to at ASEAN meetings."
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2014-03-01): On each occasion PLAN warships sailed to James Shoal, or Beting Serupai in Malay, eighty kilometers off the coast of East Malaysia. According to Bill Hayton, who is completing a book on the South China Sea, China’s claim is based on a double historical error. [...] Malaysian foreign ministry officials were once again unavailable for comment. A day after the PLAN visit to James Shoal, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson asserted China’s "indisputable sovereignty" over James Shoal and denied that China had received an official protest from Malaysia. [...] Malaysia’s reaction to the two visits to James Shoal by PLAN warships gave rise to speculation that Malaysia was breaking ranks with fellow ASEAN members and was pursuing a low-key approach on territorial disputes with China in order to accrue economic benefits. But a closer examination of Malaysian policy reveals a more complex response.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Malaysia (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2015-06-16): Luconia Breakers (Hempasan Bantin / 琼台礁) is just over 100km north of James Shoal, the shallow patch of ocean that Chinese people are routinely taught is the southernmost point of their country’s "territory," despite it being several metres underwater. As this post will show, unlike James Shoal, the territory at Luconia Breakers actually exists above the waterline. This is significant because if the PRC ever needs to clarify the nature of its maritime claims under international law, it could end up adopting the "new" feature as its southernmost territory. [...] Most importantly, Qiongtai Reef may be China’s southern extremity — the southernmost point that has dry land. Unless an ice age comes [making] James Shoal protrude above the water…at present, Qiongtai Reef is probably the southern extremity of China’s land 中国陆地的最南端.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-28): James Shoal[1][6] is a shoal (bank) in the South China Sea, with a depth of 22 metres (72 ft) below the surface of the sea,[1][7] located about 45 nautical miles (83 km; 52 mi) off the Borneo coast of Malaysia. It is claimed by Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The reef and its surrounds are administered by Malaysia. [...] Chinese students are taught and tested in schools that James Shoal is the southernmost point of Chinese territory, and that territory within the nine-dash line has always belonged to China, without any reference to the disputes over the islands and surrounding waters by neighbouring countries.[22] [...] The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the "southernmost territory of China." International law is clear: An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it.[1][23][24][25][26]
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2015-08-13): Research by a Canadian postgraduate researcher, Chris Chung, has shed new light on what happened.[13] In 1946 the RoC Ministry of the Interior commissioned a ‘Location Sketch Map of the South China Sea Islands’ (Nanhai Zhudao Weizhi Lüetu南海諸島位置略圖). The resulting map included an 8-dash line stretching around the Sea and as far south as the James Shoal, just off the coast of Borneo. At this time, it appears the RoC believed the shoal was an island. In 1935 an RoC committee had translated its name as Zeng-mu (the transliteration of James) ‘Tan’ – where Tan means a sandbank. It was only in December 1947 that the cartographers realized their mistake and borrowed the literary word ‘Ansha’ to use as an equivalent to ‘shoal’. The line the cartographer drew, incorporating this non-existent island and vast areas of sea, remains with us to this day. I have argued elsewhere that the shape of the line is a legacy of a series of ‘maps of national humiliation’ drawn by Chinese nationalists in the first half of the twentieth century.[14] As such it owes more to those nationalists’ misunderstandings about Southeast Asian history than it does to any real assertion of historic Chinese sovereignty. It’s a mistake now being forced upon the region with ideological rigour. [...] China’s Historical Claim in the South China Sea.MA Thesis, Departent of History, University of Calgary, Alberta. September, 2013 [14] Bill Hayton, China’s false memory syndrome. ProspectMagazine.co.uk 10 July 2014.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2023-09-06): The arguments were not resolved until 14 April 1947, when the Ministry of the Interior convened a meeting with representatives from the Ministry of National Defence, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Navy Command Headquarters. According to research by Tsung-Han Tai and Chi-Ting Tsai, it was this meeting that officially decided that the southernmost point of the Chinese claim should be a feature by the name of James Shoal. However, even this claim was not clear cut. When the Ministry of Information of the ROC published a new edition of its "Handbook" later in 1947, it noted the following on page 1, "the southernmost … boundaries remain to be settled … and the sovereignty of the Tuansha Islands on the south are contested among China, the Commonwealth of Philippines and Indochina". It is worth noting that the official Chinese name for the Spratly Islands at this time was "Tuansha", not Nansha. Tuansha – literally "chaotic sands" — seems to have been a translation of the term "dangerous ground", which appeared on English-language maps of the time. The Chinese name for James Shoal is "Zengmu Ansha", a transliteration of the English name using the letters "J" and "M".
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2023-10-24): When Japan surrendered three years later, the then-Nationalist government of China (known as the Republic of China) seized the opportunity to stake its claim to the waters and published a national map of China in 1947, including an eleven-dash claim to the South China Sea. [...] In the 20 years since, China has reinforced the map with more concrete signs of its claim – building on rocks and islets and expanding its military facilities on these man-made outposts. It has also backed up its claims with ships from its coast guard, maritime militia and fishing fleets. [...] After referring to the shoal by its Chinese name – Huangyan Island – Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Wang Wenbin issued a warning: "We advise the Philippines not to provoke or stir up trouble."
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-04-03): Article 11 of the Maritime Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China provides, ‘Military vessels of foreign nationality may not enter the territorial waters of the People’s Republic of China without the approval of the Government of the People’s Republic of China.’ 28. [...] "In several thousand years of history it has been constantly under the actual jurisdiction of our country, and not only has our country always considered it as an internal sea, but also [in fact] is internationally recognized". Fu Chu, Concerning the Question of Our Country’s Territorial Sea, Beijing, 1959; translated in J.A. Cohen and Hungdah Chiu, People’s China and International Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974) at 484. [...] See ‘Statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on China’s Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Rights and Interests in the South China Sea’, 12 July 2016, available at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/nanhai/eng/snhwtlcwj_1/t1379493.htm.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-24): A 2012 Chinese eighth-grade geography textbook includes a map of China with the nine-dash line and the text "The southernmost point of our country's territory is Zengmu Ansha (James Shoal) in the Nansha Islands." Shan Zhiqiang, the executive chief editor of the Chinese National Geography magazine, wrote in 2013: "The nine-dashed line ... is now deeply engraved in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people."[42] [...] - ^ a b c Jamandre, Tessa (14 April 2011). "PH protests China's '9-dash line' Spratlys claim". Malaya. Archived from the original on 19 April 2011. Retrieved 2 June 2011. [...] 人民日报：中国在南海断续线内的历史性权利不容妄议和否定 - ^ a b c "外交部「南海議題及南海和平倡議」講習會媒體提問紀要". Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of China (Taiwan) (in Chinese). 8 April 2016. Retrieved 31 October 2021.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-07-21): Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines objected. They asserted that, among other things, China’s claim was without basis under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). China signed Unclos in 1996. Other than Taiwan, the other claimants to the sea are signatories too. [...] But, he wrote, the tribunal will most likely say that the features China occupies don’t have EEZs under Unclos, and in some cases not territorial waters either. That makes them much less strategically valuable to China. It might give other nations the confidence to conduct their own freedom-of-navigation operations or join US ones, to reassert their rights to the sea. It might also, Ku says, encourage other countries bring their own cases against China to the tribunal. [...] Another possibility, which China has threatened, is to simply pull out of Unclos altogether. Ku says he’d be surprised: "China is seeking to gain international recognition for its delimitation of its continental shelf, and future maritime delimitations with Korea and Japan. It would not be able to use the UN processes for that if it withdrew."
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2016-09-28): The committee’s naming efforts took them as far south as James Shoal, a small bank just 100km from the coast of Borneo, and as far south-west as Vanguard Bank (between James Shoal and the Vietnamese coast). It is not entirely clear why they did so: both of these features are underwater and so not islands at all. It appears that the committee simply copied a map produced by Edward Stanford Ltd. of London in 1918, which gives particular prominence to both James Shoal and Vanguard Bank. The committee then mistranslated the words ‘shoal’ and ‘bank’ – both of which refer to underwater features in English nautical terminology – by using the Chinese word tan, which means "sandbank," an above-water feature. As a result, the official map published in 1935 featured two non-existent islands. This became highly significant in 1947 when another Chinese government committee declared the James Shoal to be China’s southernmost point. The legacy of this map-making is that China has been left claiming an underwater feature, 1,500km from its undisputed coastline, as an integral part of its territory. Untangling this particular cartographic knot is not going to be easy.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-11): China is the first to have discovered, named, and explored and exploited Nanhai Zhudao: There is no archaeological or textual evidence of any Chinese ship sailing across the South China Sea before the tenth century. All the early navigation was conducted by Malay, South Asian and Persian merchants.15Michael Flecker, ‘Early Voyaging in the South China Sea: Implications on Territorial Claims’, ISEAS – Yusok Ishak Institute Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre, 08/2015, https://www.iseas.edu.sg/ (checked: 28/08/2024). The current Chinese names of the rocks and reefs are either translations/transliterations of English names or names that were chosen by Chinese government committees in 1947 and 1983. For example, ‘Money Island’ in the Paracels is named after a manager of the East India Company (William Taylor Money) and the Chinese name Jinyin Dao [金银岛] is simply a translation. Zengmu Ansha [曾母暗沙], an underwater feature that is officially the southernmost point of Chinese territory is simply a transliteration of the English name ‘James Shoal’ (the Chinese name was revised from Zengmu Tan in 1947).
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-05-13): The PRC cannot lawfully assert a maritime claim – including any Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims derived from Scarborough Reef and the Spratly Islands – vis-a-vis the Philippines in areas that the Tribunal found to be in the Philippines’ EEZ or on its continental shelf. Beijing’s harassment of Philippine fisheries and offshore energy development within those areas is unlawful, as are any unilateral PRC actions to exploit those resources. In line with the Tribunal’s legally binding decision, the PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal, both of which fall fully under the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction, nor does Beijing have any territorial or maritime claims generated from these features. [...] The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the "southernmost territory of China." International law is clear: An underwater feature like James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2020-12-01): As the United States has previously stated, and as specifically provided in the Convention, the Arbitral Tribunalâs decision is final and legally binding on both parties. Today we are aligning the U.S. position on the PRCâs maritime claims in the SCS with the Tribunalâs decision. Specifically: The PRC cannot lawfully assert a maritime claim â including any Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims derived from Scarborough Reef and the Spratly Islands â vis-a-vis the Philippines in areas that the Tribunal found to be in the Philippinesâ EEZ or on its continental shelf. Beijingâs harassment of Philippine fisheries and offshore energy development within those areas is unlawful, as are any unilateral PRC actions to exploit those resources. In line with the Tribunalâs legally binding decision, the PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal, both of which fall fully under the Philippinesâ sovereign rights and jurisdiction, nor does Beijing have any territorial or maritime claims generated from these features. [...] The PRC has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to (or derived from) James Shoal, an entirely submerged feature only 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and some 1,000 nautical miles from Chinaâs coast. James Shoal is often cited in PRC propaganda as the âsouthernmost territory of China.â International law is clear: An underwater feature likeÂ James Shoal cannot be claimed by any state and is incapable of generating maritime zones. James Shoal (roughly 20 meters below the surface) is not and never was PRC territory, nor can Beijing assert any lawful maritime rights from it.
Claim: James Shoal is a territory of Republic of China (James Shoal, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2020-08-18): Pompeo’s announcement deviated from 25 years of US neutrality over three key issues. First, the US now argues that Mischief Reef and the Second Thomas Shoal, located 130 nautical miles and 105 nautical miles west of the Philippine Palawan Island respectively, are not Chinese but Philippine territories. Second, the announcement amounted to a declaration that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has no lawful territorial or maritime claim to James Shoal. Although the Chinese government claims James Shoal as its southernmost territory, it is an entirely submerged feature, 50 nautical miles from Malaysia and 1,000 nautical miles from China’s coast. Under international law, underwater features cannot be claimed by any state. So the US declared that James Shoal "is not and never was PRC territory". [...] The strengthening of the US position on the South China Sea signals an effort to build a coalition of allies and partners to counter and – in Esper’s words "openly compete" with – China. In more substantial terms, the US may be considering deeper defence support to regional states such as the Philippines and Malaysia, which has effectively managed James Shoal, to confront Chinese encroachment there.