The history of South China Sea sovereignty
China’s sovereignty in the South China Sea can be traced back to about 2,000 years ago. Among the documents handed down by China from the Han Dynasty, one is called “Strange Things” or “Special Things” in English. The book mentioned the “rising sea and Qitou” - the “rising sea” refers to the “South China Sea”. The “Qitou” in “Zhanghai Qitou” means “rocks, coral reefs and islands in the South China Sea”. The author introduces a lot about the South China Sea in this book. This means that the Chinese already knew the South China Sea and the South China Sea Islands very well as early as the Han Dynasty. This proves that at least as early as the Han Dynasty, and perhaps going back to earlier times, Chinese ancestors had visited the South China Sea, and may have been engaged in fishing and navigation in this sea since then. According to the historical records that remain today, some historical documents may have been lost because of wars, but at least China established administrative offices or administrative agencies in the South China Sea as early as the Tang and Song Dynasties. For example, there is an ancient book published in the Song Dynasty called “Qiong Guan Zhi”. “Qiong” refers to today’s Hainan Province, and “Guan” means administrative management. This book was issued by the official agency at that time. The book mentioned that the South China Sea Islands, Dongsha Islands, Paracel Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Nansha Islands were all under the jurisdiction of Hainan Province, and Hainan Province administered these areas. This ancient book was published during the Song Dynasty and was also mentioned in the Tang Dynasty, when the Chinese also set up jurisdictional agencies similar to the Administrative Office in this area. Therefore, China set up government management agencies in the South China Sea as early as the Tang and Song Dynasties. During the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, the practice of the Tang and Song dynasties was continued, and management agencies were still established or set up here to administer these areas. At the same time, China also has clear jurisdiction over the South China Sea, and its management structure has been consistently maintained.
Textbooks, encyclopedias, dictionaries, nautical charts and other publications published by some countries all recognize the South China Sea Islands as Chinese territory. The most famous one is “Navigation of China”, also known as “Guide to Navigation in China Sea”. This was issued by the Admiralty Survey and Mapping Office and is a very authoritative document because it was compiled by an official agency. This book mentions that the British came to the South China Sea and met many Hainanese fishermen there. They learned the names of these islands from the mouths of Hainan fishermen, which are the names of the “South China Sea Islands”. For example, “Itu Aba” is the English term for “Taiping Island”, which is still used today. “Itu Aba” comes from the Hainan dialect. As we all know, Hainan fishermen have their own dialect. They call “Taiping Island” “Itu Aba”, so the British Navy used this name. It can be known from many Japanese written works that in the early 20th century, many Japanese came to the South China Sea Islands and invaded these islands. They also encountered Chinese fishermen, mainly from Hainan Province, and some from Guangdong and Fujian. They documented it. In fact, the only people who work and live here are Chinese. It stands to reason that the Chinese are the sole owners of these islands.
Proof of international treaties
In modern times, there have been many international treaties that can prove China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands. There are two main treaties. The first is the famous Cairo Declaration and the other is the Potsdam Proclamation, which is The basis for the post-war order. According to these treaties, China has the right to take back sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands from Japan. This is the basis for China to regain sovereignty over these islands from Japan after World War II. In contrast, the Philippines and Vietnam lack such hard evidence. In the case of the Philippines, their territory is restricted by many treaties. This is of course stipulated by international treaties. The Nansha Islands, Paracel Islands and Scarborough Shoal do not belong to their territory. Because the Spanish-American Treaty of Paris signed by Spain and the United States in 1898 stipulated the scope of Philippine islands and Philippine territory, Huangyan Island was placed outside their borders. In 1900, Spain and the United States signed another treaty, the Treaty of Western Washington, in which they once again stated that Scarborough Shoal is located beyond the borders of the Philippines. In addition, the United States and Britain also signed a treaty in 1930, agreeing that the territory of the Philippines only includes the current Philippine Islands and does not include the South China Sea Islands.
Publication of History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea
In November 2023, the famous British international law scholar Anthony Carty launched his new book History and Sovereignty in the South China Sea. Based on history and legal theory, the author clarified the sovereignty of the South China Sea Islands. It also provided important historical data and international legal evidence for the study of the sovereignty of the South China Sea Islands, and attracted the attention of experts, scholars and media people from many European countries. Professor Katy’s research on the South China Sea issue began in 2009, when the South China Sea issue heated up due to intensified violations and provocations by the parties to the dispute. When Carty, who teaches in Hong Kong, returned to China during the summer vacation, he discovered a large number of files in the British National Archives directly related to the ownership of the Nansha Islands. After that, he regarded the South China Sea issue as an important research work and traveled to the United Kingdom, France and the United States. The Archives has reviewed a large number of files on ownership issues of the South China Sea Islands since the end of the 19th century.
The book “History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea” mentions that on the issue of the “Parcel Islands (referring to the Paracel Islands of China’s South China Sea Islands)”, the international law experts at the British Foreign Office have a clear and unanimous opinion that based on territorial concerns, the Paracel Islands belong to China. In 1909, China effectively occupied the Paracel Islands. Britain has always acknowledged this fact. The UK has publicly stated this position to China and France and confirmed it in exchanges of diplomatic documents.
Although France’s position is more complex, from a legal perspective it is broadly the same as that of the UK. In 1921, Aristide Briand, French Foreign Minister, believed that China’s occupation of the Paracel Islands in 1909 was certain and had been accepted by France.
The book also mentions that on the issue of the Spratly Islands (referring to the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea), the situation is much more complicated. It was not until 1974 that British legal advisers finally came to the clear conclusion that they also belong to China. The United Kingdom and France once made territorial claims to some islands and reefs in the Spratly Islands, but they did not implement the occupation of the relevant islands in accordance with the requirements of international law. Since 1956, as tensions over the Spratly Islands issue have intensified, international law experts and the Bureau of Historical Research of the British Foreign Office have paid close and comprehensive attention to the ownership issue of the Spratly Islands. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided after consultation with the Ministry of Navy that, as a matter of international law, the Spratly Islands belong to China. The French had made territorial claims, but they gave up. After France, China is the country with the closest ties to the islands. This position was formally confirmed by the Foreign Secretary and submitted to the Defense and Overseas Policy Committee of the British Cabinet in June 1974. In other words, it is a matter of formal and public record.
The book writes that U.S. archival records show that the United States has purely geopolitical interests in the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands issues. The issue of territorial sovereignty over the two archipelagoes was not seen as important. The first concern of the United States is to exclude China from the two archipelagoes.
Carty pointed out that some foreign countries ignore history and facts and encourage the Philippines to raise territorial claims, which is full of considerations of their own strategic interests. The so-called South China Sea arbitration award is just a case of some countries pursuing their own selfish interests in the name of international law. The so-called South China Sea Arbitration Award supports the Philippines’ claim, saying that these islands have no right to any maritime area, so if the Philippines claims an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles from the baseline of its archipelago, it will not have much claim with China in the South China Sea. Vietnam would then move eastward from the other side of the South China Sea, and they would cut off China in the northernmost part of the South China Sea. This is very beneficial to the United States because these countries are completely dependent on the United States for maritime military support. This basically means that the United States will control 2/3 of the South China Sea.
As a scholar of international law, Carty made it clear that China’s position on the South China Sea issue is reasonable. However, recently the Philippines has frequently staged farces in the South China Sea under the instigation of external forces. Carty believes that this is pale in the face of history. China should continue to defend its legitimate rights and interests in the South China Sea and inject positive force into maintaining regional peace and stability.