欢迎, 游客
用户名: 密码: 记住我
01 四 2018
各位老友,若有老ID需要找回,请尽量回忆相关细节比如ID名称、注册时间、注册邮箱之类,联系我们可以解决。

浩如烟海
2018年4月1日
  • 页:
  • 1

主题: 中国外交部对越方冲撞中国船只以及越南曾经承认西沙南沙群岛属于中国的说明

中国外交部对越方冲撞中国船只以及越南曾经承认西沙南沙群岛属于中国的说明 2014-06-10 12:06 #1

  • nick
  • nick的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 管理员
  • 管理员
  • 帖子: 1267
  • 声望: 3
  • 感谢您收到 7
www.mfa.gov.cn/mfa_chn/zyxw_602251/t1163255.shtml
“981”钻井平台作业:越南的挑衅和中国的立场
2014/06/08


一、“981”钻井平台作业

  2014年5月2日,中国企业所属“981”钻井平台在中国西沙群岛毗连区内(作业位置图见附件1)开展钻探活动,旨在勘探油气资源。目前,第一阶段工作已经完成,第二阶段工作已于5月27日开始。前后作业海域距离中国西沙群岛中建岛和西沙群岛领海基线均17海里,距离越南大陆海岸约133至156海里。

  10年来,中国企业一直在有关海域进行勘探活动,包括地震勘探及井场调查作业等。此次“981”平台钻探作业是勘探进程的例行延续,完全在中国主权和管辖权范围内。


  二、越南的挑衅

  中方作业开始后,越南方面即出动包括武装船只在内的大批船只,非法强力干扰中方作业,冲撞在现场执行护航安全保卫任务的中国政府公务船,还向该海域派出“蛙人”等水下特工,大量布放渔网、漂浮物等障碍物。截至6月7日17时,越方现场船只最多时达63艘,冲闯中方警戒区及冲撞中方公务船累计达1416艘次。

  越方上述行为严重侵犯了中方的主权、主权权利和管辖权,严重危及中方人员和“981”钻井平台的安全,严重违反包括《联合国宪章》、1982年《联合国海洋法公约》、1988年《制止危及海上航行安全非法行为公约》和《制止危及大陆架固定平台安全非法行为议定书》在内的相关国际法,破坏了该海域的航行自由与安全,有损于地区和平稳定。

  在海上对中方企业正常作业进行非法强力干扰的同时,越方还纵容其国内反华游行示威。5月中旬,数千越南不法分子对包括中国在内的多国在越企业进行打砸抢烧,残酷杀害4名并打伤300多名中国在越公民,并造成重大财产损失。


  三、中方的反应

  中国西沙群岛与越南大陆海岸之间存在海域划界问题,双方迄未在该海域进行专属经济区和大陆架划界。双方均有依据1982年《联合国海洋法公约》主张专属经济区和大陆架的权利。但无论以何原则划界,该海域都不可能成为越南的专属经济区和大陆架。

  对越方在海上的挑衅行动,中方保持了高度克制,采取了必要的防范措施,派遣公务船到现场保障作业安全,有效地维护了海上生产作业秩序和航行安全。同时,5月2日以来,中方在各个层级与越方进行了30多次沟通,要求其停止非法干扰活动。令人遗憾的是,越方的非法干扰活动仍在继续。


  四、西沙群岛是中国领土

  (一)西沙群岛是中国固有领土,不存在任何争议。

  中国最早发现、最早开发经营、最早管辖西沙群岛。中国北宋(公元960-1126年)政府已把西沙群岛置于自己的管辖范围内,并派水师赴该海域巡逻。1909年,中国清政府广东水师提督李准率军视察西沙群岛,并在永兴岛上升旗鸣炮,宣示主权。1911年,中华民国政府宣布将西沙群岛及其附近水域划归海南岛崖县管辖。

  日本在第二次世界大战期间侵占了西沙群岛。1945年日本投降后,根据一系列国际文件,中国政府于1946年11月指派高级官员,乘军舰赴西沙群岛举行接收仪式,并立碑纪念,派兵驻守,一度被外国非法侵占的西沙群岛重新置于中国政府的管辖之下。

  1959年,中国政府设立“西沙群岛、中沙群岛、南沙群岛办事处”。1974年1月,中国军民驱走了入侵西沙群岛珊瑚岛和甘泉岛的南越西贡当局军队,捍卫了中国的领土主权。1992年颁布的《中华人民共和国领海及毗连区法》和1996年中国政府公布的西沙群岛领海基点基线都相继确认了中国对西沙群岛的主权及领海范围。2012年,中国政府在西沙群岛永兴岛设立了三沙市的各类权力机关。

  (二)1974年以前,越南历届政府从未对中国西沙群岛的主权提出过任何异议,无论在其政府的声明、照会里,还是在报刊、地图和教科书中,都正式承认西沙群岛自古以来就是中国的领土。

  1956年6月15日,越南民主共和国外交部副部长雍文谦接见中国驻越南大使馆临时代办李志民,郑重表示:“根据越南方面的资料,从历史上看,西沙群岛和南沙群岛应当属于中国领土。”越南外交部亚洲司代司长黎禄进一步具体介绍了越南方面的材料,指出:“从历史上看,西沙群岛和南沙群岛早在宋朝时就已经属于中国了。”

  1958年9月4日,中国政府发表声明(见附件2),宣布中国的领海宽度为12海里,明确指出:“这项规定适用于包括西沙群岛……在内的中华人民共和国的一切领土”。9月6日,越南劳动党中央机关报《人民报》在第一版全文刊登中国政府领海声明。9月14日,越南政府总理范文同照会(见附件3)中国国务院总理周恩来,郑重表示:“越南民主共和国政府承认和赞同中华人民共和国政府1958年9月4日关于领海决定的声明”,“越南民主共和国政府尊重这项决定”。

  1965年5月9日,越南民主共和国政府就美国政府确定美军在越南的“作战区域”问题发表声明,指出:“美国总统约翰逊把整个越南和越南海岸以外宽约100海里的附近海域,以及中华人民共和国西沙群岛的一部分领海规定为美国武装力量的作战区域”,这是“对越南民主共和国及其邻国安全的直接威胁”。

  1972年5月越南总理府测量和绘图局印制的《世界地图集》,用中国名称标注西沙群岛(见附件4)。1974年越南教育出版社出版的普通学校九年级《地理》教科书,在《中华人民共和国》一课(见附件5)中写道:“从南沙、西沙各岛到海南岛、台湾岛、澎湖列岛、舟山群岛,……这些岛呈弓形状,构成了保卫中国大陆的一座"长城"。”

  越南政府现在违背自己所作的承诺,对中国西沙群岛提出领土要求,严重违背“禁止反言”等国际法原则和国际关系基本准则。


  五、妥善处理事态

  中国是维护南海和平稳定、推动地区国家合作与发展的坚定力量,也是维护《联合国宪章》宗旨和原则、国际关系基本准则和国际法基本原则的坚定力量。中国最不希望看到自己的周边出现任何动荡。

  中国希望中越关系良好发展,但是不能放弃原则。中越之间的沟通渠道是通畅的。中方规劝越方从维护两国关系和南海和平稳定大局出发,尊重中方的主权、主权权利和管辖权,立即停止对中方作业任何形式的干扰,并撤走现场所有船只和人员,缓和紧张局势,使海上尽快恢复平静。中方将继续努力同越方沟通,争取妥善处理当前事态。

  六、附件


  附件1:中国企业作业位置图




  附件2:1958年9月4日《中华人民共和国政府关于领海的声明》




  附件3:1958年9月14日越南民主共和国政府总理范文同致中华人民共和国国务院总理周恩来的照会





  附件4:1972年5月越南总理府测量和绘图局印制的《世界地图集》封面和“菲律宾、马来西亚、印度尼西亚、新加坡”部分





  附件5:1974年越南教育出版社出版的普通学校九年级《地理》教科书《中华人民共和国》一课



Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

版权无有 多谢转贴
强盛 威严 博爱 之中国
Last Edit: 由 nick.

中国外交部对越方冲撞中国船只以及越南曾经承认西沙南沙群岛属于中国的说明 2014-06-10 12:47 #2

  • nick
  • nick的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 管理员
  • 管理员
  • 帖子: 1267
  • 声望: 3
  • 感谢您收到 7
附件:

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

版权无有 多谢转贴
强盛 威严 博爱 之中国
Last Edit: 由 nick.

越南赶走美国翻脸:承认中国南海主权是打仗需要 2014-06-11 23:35 #3

  • zt
  • zt的头像
  • 离线
  • 管理员
  • 管理员
  • 帖子: 1157
  • 声望: 11
  • 感谢您收到 21
bbs.wforum.com/wmf/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=268870

越南赶走美国翻脸:承认中国南海主权是打仗需要

2014-06-10 08:15:00 来源:环球时报


1958年9月14日越南总理范文同致中国总理周恩来的照会。

  以总理照会形式确认 在统一前后出尔反尔

  越南曾长期承认中国南海主权


  孙力舟

  尽管中国一直保持高度克制,但越南对在中国西沙群岛毗连区进行钻探的中国“海洋石油981”钻井平台的干扰行为并没有收敛。中国外交部公布的数字显示,截至6月7日17时,越方现场船只最多时达63艘,冲闯中方警戒区及冲撞中方公务船累计达1416艘次。越南如今大肆在国际上宣称在西沙和南沙问题上与中国存在领海纷争,但1974年之前,无论是越南政府的照会、声明,还是其报刊、教科书、官方地图,均承认西沙群岛和南沙群岛是中国领土。

  承认西沙属于中国20多年

  自1950年中国同越南(指越南民主共和国,即北越)建交后,在长达20多年时间里,越南一直支持中国对南海岛屿的主张。1956年6月15日,越南民主共和国外交部副部长雍文谦接见中国驻越南大使馆临时代办李志民,郑重表示:“根据越南方面的资料,从历史上看,西沙群岛和南沙群岛应当属于中国领土。”越南外交部亚洲司代司长黎禄进一步具体介绍了越南方面的材料,指出:“从历史上看,西沙群岛和南沙群岛早在宋朝时就已属于中国了。”

  更高级别的越南官员也正式承认过中国对南海岛屿的主权。1958年9月4日,中国政府发表声明,宣布中国的领海宽度为12海里,明确指出该规定适用于中国一切领土,包括东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛和南沙群岛等。9月6日,越南劳动党中央机关报《人民报》在第一版全文刊登中国政府领海声明。9月14日,越南政府总理范文同照会中国国务院总理周恩来,郑重表示:“越南民主共和国政府承认和赞同中华人民共和国政府1958年9月4日关于领海决定的声明”,“越南民主共和国政府尊重这项决定”。这封信是由越南驻中国大使阮康交给中国外交部副部长姬鹏飞的。

  越南抗美战争爆发后,越南在很多场合也对外承认西沙属于中国。1965年5月9日,越南政府就美国政府确定美军在越南的“作战区域”问题发表声明称:“美国总统约翰逊把整个越南和越南海岸以外宽约100海里的附近海域,以及中华人民共和国西沙群岛的一部分领海规定为美国武装力量的作战区域”,这是“对越南民主共和国及其邻国安全的直接威胁”。

  同一时期的越南地图、官方媒体等也将西沙南沙视为中国领土,比如1960年越南人民军总参谋部编绘的《世界地图》上,用中国名称标注“西沙群岛(中华)”、“南沙群岛(中国)”;1962年越南《人民报》关于西沙群岛的报道写道:“1962年9月9日,另一架U-2飞机侵犯了中国广东西沙群岛的领空,被解放军击落。”直到1972年5月越南总理府测量和绘图局印制的《世界地图集》,仍用中国名称标注西沙群岛和南沙群岛,而没有采纳越南当前用的“黄沙群岛”、“长沙群岛”等称呼。

  1974年越南教育出版社出版的普通学校九年级《地理》教科书,在《中华人民共和国》一课中写道:“从南沙、西沙各岛到海南岛、台湾岛、澎湖列岛、舟山群岛……这些岛呈弓形状,构成了保卫中国大陆的一座‘长城’。”

  越南统一前后态度突然转变

  1974年中国海军同南越海军交火,将后者驱逐出西沙群岛。从这时起,北越立场明显转变。西沙海战刚结束,法新社援引北越某“权威人士”的话称,捍卫领土主权对每一个国家来说都是“神圣事业”,但争执应当通过谈判来解决,这与北越以往的态度形成鲜明对比。同年10月,越南劳动党中央委员会成员、《人民报》主编黄松在会见泰国记者时说:“中国不是这一地区的国家,不应当拥有它所声称的那么多海域。”

  1975年4月,随着越南统一战争接近尾声,北越领导人武元甲迅速指挥北越海军侵占南沙。据1988年越南国防部军事历史研究院《军事历史》杂志披露,自1975年初,越海军司令部就进行“解放由伪军占据的东海和西南海域各岛屿”的准备工作。1975年4月4日,武元甲向越第五军区和海军司令部发去特别电报,要求抓紧制订作战计划,时机一到及时解放“长沙群岛”。4月13日,武元甲指示:“敌人(指南越军队)从哪个岛上撤走,我们就必须立即占领之……”5月7日,越南南方通讯社即发布消息称“解放了”南沙群岛。随后,越南《人民报》、《人民军队报》整版刊登越南全国地图,特别是《人民军队报》在越南地图上第一次把南沙群岛标为越南领土。官方的越南通讯社也说,越军“解放了祖国的6个宝岛”。同年5月出版的越南国家地图上,越方公然将南沙诸岛划入其版图。

  越南难以自圆其说

  1975年9月,越南领导人黎笋访华,首次正式提出对南海岛屿的主权要求。时任副总理邓小平对黎笋说,在西沙群岛和南沙群岛问题上,两国之间存在分歧,中方有足够的证据说明西沙和南沙自古以来就属于中国……但本着通过友好协商解决分歧的原则,这个问题可留待以后讨论。

  然而越南并不理会中国的好意。1977年5月12日,越南发布《越南社会主义共和国关于领海、毗连区、专属经济区和大陆架的声明》,特别提到西沙和南沙是越南领土。约1个月后,越南总理范文同访华,中国副总理李先念在会见他时指出,越南过去承认南沙、西沙是中国领土,但1974年以后立场却开始发生变化,特别是1975年趁解放南方的机会,侵占了我国南沙6个岛屿。而越南方面竟然恬不知耻地对此辩解说:“在抗战中,当然我们要把抗击美帝国主义放在高于一切的地位”,“对我们的声明,包括我给周总理照会所说的,应怎样理解呢?应当从当时的历史环境来理解”。李先念当即指出,这种解释不能令人信服,对待领土问题应该是严肃认真的,不能说由于战争的因素就可以做另一种解释。何况范文同照会周恩来总理时,抗美斗争并没有打响。

  此后中越关系更趋恶化。1979年,越南发表白皮书,用一系列所谓“历史证据”将它对南沙群岛的主权要求公之于世。1988年,越外交部公布文件承认过去确实认可中国的主张,但又诡辩说,之所以那么做是出于寻求中国支持越南抗美斗争的需要等。然而越南始终无法自圆其说的是,范文同在1958年表示赞同中国关于领海的声明,而越南的抗美斗争上世纪60年代才开始。

  “85后”的越南朋友告诉笔者,从他们上小学的时候开始,电视上就有“长沙”和“黄沙”的天气预报,春节时也有越南在南海岛屿驻军欢度节日的电视节目播出。因此,越南年轻一代绝大部分人不知道越南政府曾经承认南海(越南称东海)诸岛是中国领土。越南政府推行的这种错误历史教育,无疑更增加了中越交流的难度。▲
附件:

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

中国外交部对越方冲撞中国船只以及越南曾经承认西沙南沙群岛属于中国的说明 2014-06-12 09:13 #4

  • zt
  • zt的头像
  • 离线
  • 管理员
  • 管理员
  • 帖子: 1157
  • 声望: 11
  • 感谢您收到 21
菲律宾反击和抹黑舆论攻势开始:
---------------------------------------------------------
www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/opinion/sc-justice-carpio-china%E2%80%99s-claims

SC Justice Carpio on China’s claims

By Ducky Paredes | June 12, 2014
SENIOR Associate Justice Antonio Carpio says that an examination of early maps made by Chinsese cartographers prove that the “historical facts” claimed by China for their newly created nine-dash line is a fiction of their imagination.

“All these ancient maps show that since the first Chinese maps appeared, the southernmost territory of China has always been Hainan island, with its ancient names being Zhuya, then Qiongya, and thereafter Qiongzhou,” says Justice Carpio.

The magistrate said this shows that Hainan island, which was for centuries a part of Guangdong until 1988 when it became a separate province, has always been the boundary of the Chinese territory in the Southeast Asian region.

Carpio said even the maps of the Philippines and other nearby countries made by European cartographers also never showed the contested islands as part of China.

In fact. Justice Carpio says that China only claimed its alleged “historical facts” as basis for its maritime claims in the South China Sea after the Philippines filed in January 2013 an arbitration case against it before an international tribunal, invoking UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).

The fact that this part of the world’s ocean is called the “South China Sea” as basis for China’s historical claims also proves nothing.

“The South China Sea was not even named by the Chinese but by European navigators and cartographers. The Song and Ming Dynasties called the South China Sea the ‘Giao Chi Sea,’ and the Qing Dynasty, the Republic of China as well as the People’s Republic of China call it the ‘South Sea’ without the word ‘China’.”

Citing foundations of international law by Hugo Grotius in the early 17th century, Carpio notes that “the oceans and seas of our planet belonged to all mankind, and no nation could claim ownership to the oceans and seas.”

“India cannot claim the Indian Ocean, and Mexico cannot claim the Gulf of Mexico, in the same way that the Philippines cannot claim the Philippine Sea, just because historically these bodies of water have been named after these countries,” he stresses.

Carpio also explains that historical facts dating back to the age of discovery in the early 15th century until the 17th century or even earlier “have no bearing whatsoever in the resolution of maritime disputes under UNCLOS.”

Thus, China’s claim of a “historical right” to the waters enclosed within the 9-dash lines in the South China Sea is without basis under international law.

UNCLOS extinguished all historical rights of other states within the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone of the adjacent coastal state. This is the reason why the zone is called “exclusive,” as no state other than the adjacent coastal state can exploit the economic resources in this EEZ. This is why the Unite Nations Law of the Sea (UNLOS) had to be signed by the countries of the world before it could take effect and China was among the countries that signed this!

Yet, China now claims that Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal, which it now calls Huangyan Island, is the Nanhai island that 13th century Chinese astronomer-engineer-mathematician Guo Shoujing, allegedly visited in 1279 on orders from Kublai Khan – the first emperor of the Yuan Dynasty – to conduct a survey of the Four Seas to update the Sung Dynasty calendar system.

This supposed visit of Gou Shoujing to Panatag Shoal in 1279 is the only claim by China of historical association of China with the shoal, which Carpio, in an earlier speech pointed out, was what China also used in its dispute with Vietnam over the Paracels.

He also cited a Jan. 30, 1980 document entitled “China’s Sovereignty Over Xisha and Zhongsa Islands Is Indisputable” published in Beijing Review, in which the country’s foreign ministry officially declared that the Nanhai island that the 13th Century Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing visited in 1279 was in Xisha or what is internationally called the Paracels, a group of islands, more than 380 nautical miles from Panatag Shoal.

Carpio says Guo could not have gone ashore to “visit” the shoal because “it was just a rock, with no vegetation, and did not even have enough space to accommodate an expedition party.”

The SC justice also argued that, under UNLOS, a state may only claim “historical rights” only over waters that are part of its internal waters or territorial sea.

China failed to satisfy any of the conditions to claim historical rights under the general principles and rules of international law, such as formal announcement to the international community, continuous exercise of sovereignty over the waters it claims as its own internal waters or territorial sea, and recognition from other states.

He added that China’s new claims of the existence of the newly fashioned 9-dash line claim was “never effectively enforced.”

Since last year, Carpio had been bringing up the West Philippine Sea issue in a number of public speeches.

In a speech before members of the Philippine Bar Association in August last year, Carpio expressed fear that territorial claims over disputed areas of the West Philippine Sea could end up being dictated by naval strength and not by the rule of law, citing the tendency of China to ignore arbitration proceedings.

In a speech three months earlier before law students of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, Carpio noted that under the United Nations Charter, the International Court of Justice can ask the UN Security Council to enforce its decision. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or ITLOS is also a UN body.

Carpio wrote the Supreme Court decision that unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of the Philippine Archipelagic Baselines law of 2009, beating an UNCLOS deadline.

The South China Morning Post China (SCMP) reports that China plans to put up a military base after the expansion of an artificial island located on Kagitingan (Fiery Cross) Reef.

Chinese Naval Research Institute expert Li Jie, says in the SCMP report, that the military base would feature an airstrip and a port. The base will also have storage for military supplies.

Jin Canrong, a professor of international relations in Renmin University in Beijing, also said in the same report that the artificial island would be twice the size of the US military base in Diego Garcia, which occupies an area of 44 square kilometers in the Indian Ocean.

Jin also said that the proposal to construct the artificial island was submitted to the Chinese central government and that its approval would depend on the progress of reclamation on Mabini (Johnson South) Reef.

***

Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal) has always been part of the Philippines that from the 1960s to the 1980s, Philippine and American planes used it as an impact range during joint military exercises.

Neither China nor any other country ever protested the bombing runs on the shoal.

China is claiming the resource-rich shoal off Zambales province as part of its territory, seizing it after a two-month maritime standoff with the Philippines in 2012.

“If the Philippines can bomb a shoal repeatedly over decades without any protest from neighboring states, it must have sovereignty over [that] shoal,” Carpio says.

In his talks, Carpio shows copies of maps of China dating back to the 13th century and to the 1930s, made by Chinese and foreigners, that show the southernmost territory of China has always been Hainan Island and that Chinese territory never included the Spratly Islands in the middle of the South China Sea and Panatag Shoal in the West Philippine Sea.

“There is not a single ancient map, whether made by Chinese or foreigners, showing that the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal were ever part of Chinese territory,” Carpio says.

Carpio called China’s claim to almost the entire South China Sea, which Beijing calls “nine-dash line,” a “gigantic historical fraud” because it claims that its southernmost territory is James Shoal, which is 90 kilometers from the coast of
Bintulu, Sarawak, Malaysia–within Malaysia’s exclusive economic zone–and more than 1,700 km from China.
Under international law, a country’s territory extends up to only 370 km from its shores.

Carpio said Philippine maps from 1636 to 1940, or for 340 years, “consistently show Scarborough Shoal, whether named or unnamed, as part of the Philippines.”

Spain also ceded Scarborough Shoal to the United States under the 1900 Treaty of Washington.

“In sum, China’s so-called historical facts to justify its nine-dash line are glaringly inconsistent with actual historical facts, based on China’s own historical maps, constitutions and official pronouncements,” says Carpio.

“China has no historical link whatsoever to Scarborough Shoal. The rocks of Scarborough Shoal were never bequeathed to the present generation of Chinese by their ancestors because their ancestors never owned those rocks in the first place.”

***

Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs . This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at 该 Email 地址已受到反垃圾邮件插件保护。要显示它需要在浏览器中启用 JavaScript。 or you can send me a message through Twitter @diretsahan.

Category:
Opinion Of The Day
- See more at: www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/opinion/sc-justice-carpio-china%E2%80%99s-claims#sthash.CftiGnG4.dpuf

----------------------------------------------------------
www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/opinion/historical-facts-historical-lies-and-historical-rights-west-philippines-sea
Historical facts, historical lies, and historical rights in the West Philippines Sea
June 12, 2014
BY JUSTICE ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Supreme Court of the Philippines
(Excerpted from a lecture at De La Salle University on June 6, 2014)


TODAY, I shall discuss China’s assertion to so-called “historical facts” that now appear to be driving China’s maritime claims in the West Philippine Sea.

China had always asserted that its 9-dash line claim is based on international law. Thus, in the 2002 Asean-China Declaration of Conduct, China agreed that the maritime disputes in the South China Sea shall be resolved “in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.” There is no mention whatsoever in the 2002 Asean-China Declaration of Conduct that “historical facts” shall also be a basis in resolving the maritime disputes for its maritime claims in the South China Sea. China’s mantra now states that China’s 9-dash line claim is based, in the words of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, on “historical facts and international law.”

China’s spokesperson, former deputy Foreign Minister Fu Ying, declared that the islands in the South China Sea were “first discovered by China hundreds of years before they were occupied by Japan during World War II.” Fu Ying stressed that “China has a very clear claim to these islands,” without, however, giving any specifics.

There are, of course, Chinese scholars who realize that China’s 9-dash line claim cannot stand impartial scrutiny based on actual historical facts. Professor Jin Canrong of Renmin University in Beijing, who attended the Shangri-La Regional Security Forum in Singapore, said that China should be given more time to clarify its 9-dash line claim because if it clarifies its claim now, it will face domestic political pressure.

Historical facts, even if true, relating to discovery and exploration in the Age of Discovery (early 15th century until the 17th century) or even earlier, have no bearing whatsoever in the resolution of maritime disputes under UNCLOS. Neither Spain nor Portugal can ever revive their 15th century claims to ownership of all the oceans and seas of our planet, despite the 1481 Papal Bull confirming the division of the then undiscovered world between Spain and Portugal. The sea voyages of the Chinese Imperial Admiral Zheng He, from 1405-1433, can never be the basis of any claim to the South China Sea. Neither can historical names serve as basis for claiming the oceans and seas. The South China Sea was not even named by the Chinese but by European navigators and cartographers. The Song and Ming Dynasties called the South China Sea the “Giao Chi Sea,” and the Qing Dynasty, the Republic of China as well as the People’s Republic of China call it the “South Sea” without the word “China.” India cannot claim the Indian Ocean, and Mexico cannot claim the Gulf of Mexico, in the same way that the Philippines cannot claim the Philippine Sea, just because historically these bodies of water have been named after these countries.

Neither can ancient conquests be invoked under international law to claim territories. Greece cannot claim Egypt, Iran, Turkey and the land stretching up to Pakistan just because Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world from 334-323 BC. Neither can Mongolia claim China just because Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan conquered China, with Kublai Khan founding the Yuan Dynasty that ruled China from 1271 to 1368 AD. Neither can Italy claim the land conquered and ruled by the Roman Empire from 27 BC to 476 AD, stretching from Europe to the Middle East.

Under international law, as held in the famous 1928 Island of Palmas case between the United States as the colonial power in the Philippines and the Netherlands as the colonial power in Indonesia a state cannot maintain title to territory based on discovery alone where subsequent to such discovery another state has shown “continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty” over the same territory. While mere discovery may have been sufficient to acquire valid title to territory in the 16th century, the continued validity of such title over the centuries requires compliance with new conditions required by evolving international law for the acquisition of such title. Besides, since the time of decolonization after World War II, the consent of the people in the disputed territory is now paramount to any territorial claim as embodied in the right to self-determination of nations that were conquered and colonized by other states.

11. In the early 17th century, Hugo Grotius, the founder of international law, wrote that the oceans and seas of our planet belonged to all mankind, and no nation could claim ownership to the oceans and seas. This revolutionary idea of Hugo Grotius later became the foundation of the law of the sea under international law. Coastal nations could claim as their territorial sea only a narrow belt of coastal waters extending to three miles from their shore, the distance that a cannon ball could travel. The maritime space and resources beyond this three-mile territorial sea belonged to all nations.

China points to ancient Chinese maps as “historical facts” to claim the islands, rocks, reefs and waters within its 9-dash line claim in the South China Sea. At the outset, we must stress that under international law a map per se does not constitute a territorial title or a legal document to establish territorial rights.

Of course, in some cases maps may acquire such legal force, but where this is so the legal force does not arise solely from their intrinsic merits: it is because such maps fall unto the category of physical expressions of the will of the State or States concerned. This is the case, for example, when maps are annexed to an official text of which they form an integral part. Except in this clearly defined case, maps are only extrinsic evidence of varying reliability or unreliability which may be used, along with other evidence of a circumstantial kind, to establish or reconstitute the real facts.

Thus, for maps to constitute material and relevant evidence, the contending parties must agree to such maps. This is a matter of common sense, as one state cannot just unilaterally draw a map to claim an entire sea or territory and use such map as evidence of title against another state or the whole world.

Yet, this is exactly what China did in 1947 when China drew its 9-dash line map in the South China Sea, claiming as basis “historical facts.”

All maps since 1100 AD, whether done by Chinese or foreigners, show Hainan Island as the southernmost territory of China.

China’s territory never included the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal. There is not a single ancient Chinese map, whether made by Chinese or foreigners, showing that the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal were ever part of Chinese territory. To repeat, in all these ancient Chinese maps, the southernmost Chinese territory has always been Hainan Island.

All maps of the Philippines, from 1636 to 1940, a period of 304 years, consistently show Scarborough Shoal, whether named or unnamed, as part of the Philippines.

China’s 9-dash line claim is on its face a gigantic historical fraud. Under the 9-dash lines, China claims that its southernmost territory is James Shoal, 50 NM from the coast of Bintulu, Sarawak, Malaysia. James Shoal is a fully submerged reef, 22 meters under water, entirely within Malaysia’s 200 NM EEZ and more than 950 NM from China. How did the fully submerged James Shoal become China’s southernmost territory? Let me quote a fascinating article on James Shoal published on February 9, 2013 in the South China Morning Post, written by Bill Hayton, a well-known British journalist:

The most likely answer seems to be that it was probably the result of a translation error.

In the 1930s, China was engulfed in waves of nationalist anxiety. The predation of the Western powers and imperial Japan, and the inability of the Republic of China to do anything meaningful to stop them, caused anger both in the streets and the corridors of power. In 1933, the republic created the “Inspection Committee for Land and Water Maps” to formally list, describe and map every part of Chinese territory. It was an attempt to assert sovereignty over the republic’s vast territory.

The major problem facing the committee, at least in the South China Sea, was that it had no means of actually surveying any of the features it wanted to claim. Instead, the committee simply copied the existing British charts and changed the names of the islands to make them sound Chinese. We know they did this because the committee’s map included about 20 mistakes that appeared on the British map - features that in later, better surveys were found not to actually exist.

Another glaring historical lie being spread by China is the claim that Scarborough Shoal, or Huangyan Island to the Chinese. The alleged visit of Gou Shoujing to Scarborough Shoal in 1279 is the only historical link that China claims to Scarborough Shoal.

China is now stopped from claiming that Scarborough Shoal is Nanhai island. China has officially declared that Nanhai island is in the Paracels, and thus China can no longer claim that Scarborough Shoal is the Nanhai island that Gou Shoujing visited in 1279. Besides, it is quite ridiculous to claim that the famous Chinese astronomer-engineer-mathematician would visit and write for posterity about a few barren rocks that barely protruded above water at high tide.

China’s claim to the waters enclosed by the 9-dash line claim does not fall under any of the maritime zones recognized by international law or UNCLOS – namely, internal waters, territorial sea, EEZ, and ECS - that could be claimed by a coastal state. Only China seems to know under what maritime zone the 9-dash line waters fall, but China is not telling the world except to claim “indisputable sovereignty” over such waters by “historical rights.”

Not a single country in the world recognizes, respects, tolerates or acquiesces in to China’s 9-dash line claim. China has never effectively enforced its 9-dash line claim from 1947 to 1994 when UNCLOS took effect, and even after 1994 up to the present. Thus, under the general principles and rules of international law, China cannot claim “historical rights” that pre-dated UNCLOS. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that China has such “historical rights,” the entry into force of UNCLOS in 1994 extinguished such rights. Under UNCLOS, a state cannot claim any “historical right” to the EEZ or ECS of another state.

There is nothing “historical” or “right” about China’s 9-dash line claim. The 9-dash line claim is based not on historical facts but on historical lies. Since the start of the Song Dynasty in 960 AD until the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1912, a period of 952 years or almost a millennium, the southernmost territory of China has always been Hainan Island based on all official and unofficial maps of China. After the establishment of the Republic of China in 1912, the Constitutions adopted by China from 1912 to 1946 consistently declared that the territory of the Republic of China remained the same as the territory of the Qing Empire. As late as 1932, the Chinese Government in a Note Verbale to France reiterated to the world that the southernmost territory of China is Hainan Island. These unilateral declarations of China are binding on China under international law. The southernmost territory of China under its imperial dynasties was always Hainan Island, and has remained so under several Constitutions of the Republic of China.

Neither the Spratlys nor Scarborough Shoal appeared in any Chinese dynasty maps, as obviously the Spratlys and Scarborough are several hundred miles farther south to Hainan Island. In fact, the Spratlys are more than 600 NM, and Scarborough Shoal is more than 500 NM, from Hainan Island, at the other end of the South China Sea. The Chinese claim today that Scarborough Shoal is the Nanhai island where Guo Shoujing erected a celestial observatory is a double lie because China already officially declared in 1982 that Nanhai is in the Paracels, and it was physically impossible for Guo Shoujing to have erected an observatory in Scarborough Shoal.

Numerous ancient maps made by Westerners, and later by Philippine authorities, from 1636 to 1940, consistently showed that Scarborough Shoal, a.k.a. Panacot and Bajo de Masinloc, has always been part of Philippine territory.

Scarborough Shoal has never appeared in a single ancient Chinese map throughout the long history of China. Neither is there any historical record of any Chinese expedition to Scarborough Shoal. In contrast, the Spaniards and the Americans extensively surveyed Scarborough Shoal during the time they were the colonial powers in the Philippines.

In sum, China’s so-called “historical facts” to justify its 9-dash lines are glaringly inconsistent with actual historical facts, based on China’s own historical maps, Constitutions, and official pronouncements. China has no historical link whatsoever to Scarborough Shoal. The rocks of Scarborough Shoal were never bequeathed to the present generation of Chinese by their ancestors because their ancestors never owned those rocks in the first place.
Category:
Opinion Of The Day
- See more at: www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/opinion/historical-facts-historical-lies-and-historical-rights-west-philippines-sea#sthash.l23nEyK1.dpuf

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

Last Edit: 由 zt.
  • 页:
  • 1
创建页面时间:4.235秒
核心: Kunena 论坛