• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Future Issues And Technology (FIT)
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Cohesive Societies
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • COVID-19 Resources
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Future Issues And Technology (FIT)
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Cohesive Societies
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • COVID-19 Resources
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO10116 | South China Sea: How China Could Clarify its Claims
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO10116 | South China Sea: How China Could Clarify its Claims
    Robert C. Beckman

    16 September 2010

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Synopsis

    China’s recent submission to the United Nations on its claim in the South China Sea has caused some confusion. This can be resolved by Beijing clarifying its claim by bringing it into conformity with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

    Commentary

    CONFUSION IN the international community over the nature of China’s claim in the South China Sea has created apprehension and misunderstanding. One of the main causes of this confusion was the Note Verbale sent by China to the United Nations Secretary-General on 7 May 2009, objecting to the Joint Submission of Malaysia and Vietnam to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS).

    In its Note Verbale, China made the following statement about its claims in the South China Sea: “China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof (see attached map).”

    Controversial U-Shaped Line on China’s Map

    China’s critics have focused on the attached map, rather than on the words of the Note. This map, originally published by the Republic of China Government in 1947, has nine dashes drawn in a u-shape around the South China Sea. The u-shaped line encompasses most of the South China Sea, and comes very close to the mainland territories of the Philippines, East Malaysia and Vietnam.

    What some observers regard as particularly significant is that this is apparently the first time China attached the map to an official communication to the UN. This has led some to conclude that China is officially claiming all the waters within the u-shaped line as its territorial or historic waters, a position which is contrary to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS).

    Observers in the United States have interpreted Chinese actions as a threat to the high seas freedoms of overflight and navigation in the South China Sea. This has prompted statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting in Hanoi in July 2010 which brought the US into what has always been regarded as a regional dispute. The result has been that China’s claim in the South China Sea is now perceived by most of the international community as contrary to UNCLOS and therefore illegitimate.

    Ten Points to reconcile China’s Claim with UNCLOS

    China could make its claim in the South China Sea consistent with UNCLOS and at the same time protect its national interests by making the following points:

    First, China claims sovereignty over all the islands within the u-shaped line, including those islands which are currently occupied by other states or by Taiwan, as well as sovereignty in a 12 nautical mile territorial sea adjacent to the islands;

    Second, China claims an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) beyond 12 nm from those islands which are capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of their own as set out in Article 121 of UNCLOS, and China has the sovereign right to explore and exploit the living resources in the water and the living and non-living resources of the sea-bed and subsoil in the EEZ;

    Third, China recognises that all states enjoy high seas freedoms in the EEZ claimed from those islands, including the freedoms of overflight, navigation and the right to lay submarine cables and pipelines;

    Fourth, sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea is not governed by UNCLOS, and disputes concerning sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea cannot be referred to any international court or tribunal without China’s express consent;

    Fifth, given the highly sensitive nature of the sovereignty claims, it is unlikely that China and the other claimant states will be able to agree to settle the issue of sovereignty over the islands in the foreseeable future;

    Sixth, although Malaysia and Vietnam have made submissions to the CLCS in which they claim an extended continental shelf beyond the limits of their 200 nm EEZ claims, the CLCS cannot consider those submissions under its rules of procedure because of the existence of a maritime dispute in the area;

    Seventh, China ’s claim to an EEZ from the islands in the South China Sea will overlap substantially with the EEZ claims and the extended continental shelf claims of Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. Such overlapping maritime boundary claims cannot be referred to any international court or tribunal without the consent of all the parties, including China. This is because China has exercised its right under Article 298(1) to opt out of the compulsory binding dispute settlement procedures in UNCLOS for disputes relating to the delimitation of maritime boundaries. Furthermore, the overlapping maritime boundary claims cannot be agreed upon until the sovereignty claims over the islands in the South China Sea have first been resolved;

    Eighth, pending final settlement of the sovereignty and maritime boundary claims, the states concerned have little choice but to enter into “provisional arrangements of a practical nature” as called for in the UNCLOS provisions on boundary delimitation, provided that such provisional arrangements are without prejudice to the final determination of the sovereignty claims and to the final agreements on maritime boundaries;

    Ninth, China is willing to work with the ASEAN member states on the development of confidence-building measures and cooperative measures as called for in the 2002 China-ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea; and

    Finally, China reaffirms its position that the claimant states should agree to set aside the sovereignty and maritime boundary disputes, and negotiate a mechanism which allows for joint development of the natural resources.

    Towards a Long-term Solution

    If China were to clarify its claim in the South China Sea in the above manner, it would enhance the legitimacy of its claim and provide a setting for discussions with its neighbours on the only viable long-term solution in the South China Sea, namely, the establishment of provisional arrangements of a practical nature in the South China Sea, including joint development of the natural resources.

    About the Author

    Robert Beckman is Director, Centre for International Law and Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore, as well as an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: Commentaries / Maritime Security / Southeast Asia and ASEAN

    Last updated on 13/10/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Synopsis

    China’s recent submission to the United Nations on its claim in the South China Sea has caused some confusion. This can be resolved by Beijing clarifying its claim by bringing it into conformity with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

    Commentary

    CONFUSION IN the international community over the nature of China’s claim in the South China Sea has created apprehension and misunderstanding. One of the main causes of this confusion was the Note Verbale sent by China to the United Nations Secretary-General on 7 May 2009, objecting to the Joint Submission of Malaysia and Vietnam to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS).

    In its Note Verbale, China made the following statement about its claims in the South China Sea: “China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof (see attached map).”

    Controversial U-Shaped Line on China’s Map

    China’s critics have focused on the attached map, rather than on the words of the Note. This map, originally published by the Republic of China Government in 1947, has nine dashes drawn in a u-shape around the South China Sea. The u-shaped line encompasses most of the South China Sea, and comes very close to the mainland territories of the Philippines, East Malaysia and Vietnam.

    What some observers regard as particularly significant is that this is apparently the first time China attached the map to an official communication to the UN. This has led some to conclude that China is officially claiming all the waters within the u-shaped line as its territorial or historic waters, a position which is contrary to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS).

    Observers in the United States have interpreted Chinese actions as a threat to the high seas freedoms of overflight and navigation in the South China Sea. This has prompted statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting in Hanoi in July 2010 which brought the US into what has always been regarded as a regional dispute. The result has been that China’s claim in the South China Sea is now perceived by most of the international community as contrary to UNCLOS and therefore illegitimate.

    Ten Points to reconcile China’s Claim with UNCLOS

    China could make its claim in the South China Sea consistent with UNCLOS and at the same time protect its national interests by making the following points:

    First, China claims sovereignty over all the islands within the u-shaped line, including those islands which are currently occupied by other states or by Taiwan, as well as sovereignty in a 12 nautical mile territorial sea adjacent to the islands;

    Second, China claims an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) beyond 12 nm from those islands which are capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of their own as set out in Article 121 of UNCLOS, and China has the sovereign right to explore and exploit the living resources in the water and the living and non-living resources of the sea-bed and subsoil in the EEZ;

    Third, China recognises that all states enjoy high seas freedoms in the EEZ claimed from those islands, including the freedoms of overflight, navigation and the right to lay submarine cables and pipelines;

    Fourth, sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea is not governed by UNCLOS, and disputes concerning sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea cannot be referred to any international court or tribunal without China’s express consent;

    Fifth, given the highly sensitive nature of the sovereignty claims, it is unlikely that China and the other claimant states will be able to agree to settle the issue of sovereignty over the islands in the foreseeable future;

    Sixth, although Malaysia and Vietnam have made submissions to the CLCS in which they claim an extended continental shelf beyond the limits of their 200 nm EEZ claims, the CLCS cannot consider those submissions under its rules of procedure because of the existence of a maritime dispute in the area;

    Seventh, China ’s claim to an EEZ from the islands in the South China Sea will overlap substantially with the EEZ claims and the extended continental shelf claims of Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. Such overlapping maritime boundary claims cannot be referred to any international court or tribunal without the consent of all the parties, including China. This is because China has exercised its right under Article 298(1) to opt out of the compulsory binding dispute settlement procedures in UNCLOS for disputes relating to the delimitation of maritime boundaries. Furthermore, the overlapping maritime boundary claims cannot be agreed upon until the sovereignty claims over the islands in the South China Sea have first been resolved;

    Eighth, pending final settlement of the sovereignty and maritime boundary claims, the states concerned have little choice but to enter into “provisional arrangements of a practical nature” as called for in the UNCLOS provisions on boundary delimitation, provided that such provisional arrangements are without prejudice to the final determination of the sovereignty claims and to the final agreements on maritime boundaries;

    Ninth, China is willing to work with the ASEAN member states on the development of confidence-building measures and cooperative measures as called for in the 2002 China-ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea; and

    Finally, China reaffirms its position that the claimant states should agree to set aside the sovereignty and maritime boundary disputes, and negotiate a mechanism which allows for joint development of the natural resources.

    Towards a Long-term Solution

    If China were to clarify its claim in the South China Sea in the above manner, it would enhance the legitimacy of its claim and provide a setting for discussions with its neighbours on the only viable long-term solution in the South China Sea, namely, the establishment of provisional arrangements of a practical nature in the South China Sea, including joint development of the natural resources.

    About the Author

    Robert Beckman is Director, Centre for International Law and Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore, as well as an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: Commentaries / Maritime Security

    Last updated on 13/10/2014

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    CO10116 | South China Sea: How China Could Clarify its Claims

    Synopsis

    China’s recent submission to the United Nations on its claim in the South China ...
    more info