What's ironic about this article of "History of Nine-Dash Line", is that it mentioned ROC (Republic Of China) 0 times, and only mentioned Taiwan twice (in either cases related to the actual history). The fact is that the original Eleven-Dash Line/Nine-Dash Line was established by ROC (now Taiwan) who still holds the claim, and is furious about the recent "ruling". I guess nobody gives an F what Taiwan thinks in this matter is probably because... well who cares about Taiwan, when we are talking about the Big Bad China, right? Sarcasm aside, if you want to talk about history, at least get the actual history part right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
This recent ruling is absurd in that it redefines the concept of island. For example, the largest island in South China Sea, Taiping Island, which has natural fresh water, and is continuously populated by Taiwan since WWII, is no longer considered an island. If this ruling is to be followed, many countries claims on islands all over the planet would be null and void, including some of USA's.
I'm no international law lawyer, and didn't really look too much into the details of the "ruling", which I think, as any law, would be pointless unless there's enforcement (by whom?). It just baffles me that an article about the "history" of something didn't mention one of the first questions regarding the history of anything: where does it come from? It's not that hard to look up, it's right there in the first sentence on wikipedia....
You are misreading the ruling. It doesn't say that Itu Aba (Taiping Island) isn't an island. What it says is that Itu Aba is a maritime feature that "cannot sustain human habitation or an economic life of their own". Every high-tide elevation of this sort is referred to as "rock" in UNCLOS.
Being a "rock" here doesn't mean it's not an island; it simply means the maritime feature concerned -- should it be an island, an islet, a reef or whatever -- is not entitled to the full rights (i.e. having an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf) of a full-fledged island. The concept of "rock" here is not a geological one but a legal one.
The UN tried to standardize offshore claims with the International Law of the Sea treaty. China is a signatory, but the US is not.[1]
Most of the problems come from areas which have many small islands off a continental coastline. An island in the coastal zone extends ownership. In the South China Sea, there are many islands which are in the coastal zone of more than one country. Hence the problem.
International Law of the Sea regulates issues related to the seas, not lands (including islands). Countries signed the treaty on the understanding that the treaty does not cover sovereign claims of islands.
What creative about this new arbitration ruling is that it redefines the concept of island, so many islands are now classified as rocks, in order for them to fall into the jurisdiction of the Law of the Sea. However, I don't think this works, as a law about seas cannot unilaterally defines what constitutes lands.
The nine-dash line is self-evident absurdity. One glance at it on a map is enough to know it's ridiculous. It's like if Spain claimed the entire Mediterranean Sea all the way to the Suez Canal. I'm sorry if China is upset by this Hague ruling, but the historical conditions of 500 years ago don't mean they get to extend a giant territorial pseudopod into a body of water and muscle out five other countries, many of which have more coastline on it.
Taking glance at the map is exactly the wrong way to look at this. If that works, how would you explain Hawaii and Alaska? What about taking a glance at the map of Greece vs Turkey, with Greeks taking all the islands offshore Turkey? Guess what, you will probably invoke history for that. Once you do that, the Chinese claim does not sound that absurd, isn't it?
Yeah, it is true that there have been many conflicts in the history everywhere. However, in the modern period, all political borders are drawn and recognized by respecting the current international laws. If not, wars would keep on going forever.
China thinks that it is powerful enough that it can ignore all the laws or re-define them. What they want to say is "I dare any country to cross my paths".
The problem with China is rooted with its expansionism which has brainwashed the majority of its own people. If one cares to trace the history of China back to 2500 yrs ago until the modern days, you can see how China border keeps expanding by eating up its smaller neighboring countries and assimilating them. In this expansionism policy, anywhere a Chinese person touches anytime in the history, in China government's view, that is where China border is. To go along to brainwash its people with this policy, its current and past governments have oppressed their own people and used all of the internal resources, ignoring how unhappy and depressed their citizens are, to support this policy.
Yeah, China, you are powerful now but no countries look at you with respects. I think China only stops when it finishes conquering the entire world.
" If one cares to trace the history of China back to 2500 yrs ago until the modern days"
LOL try trace US instead, and try draw a conclusion using that.
China appears to be testing if they can push this far. It's not just a matter of military power; China's economy depends on their exports to Europe and Northern America (so sanctions can really hit hard), and shipping through the South China Sea is a big deal to Europe, Northern America, South Korea, and Japan.
China is actively trying to influence the situation with soft power as well. The Chinese ambassador in The Netherlands paid for a full page advert in a national newspaper to publish a letter condemning the 'illegitimate' court that ruled on this dispute with The Philippines. The fact that he couldn't get his letter published normally (and for free) in the op/ed sections of any Dutch newspaper is telling though.
I suspect they are going for an absurd claim in order to 'graciously' come to a compromise of about half of that (certainly including the Paracel Islands) after a while, but the situation is certainly unique. They are more than likely strengthened in their confidence by the lack of consequences of the Crimean annexation by Russia (although the economic sanctions hurt Russia quite bad).
this is the way chinese negotiate in all business deals. First the seller quotes an absurd price like ten times the value of what they are selling then the buying offers an absurd low price maybe 10% or even 1% the value of the item then they both slowly move towards the real price over the course of dozens of back and forth offers. It would be unheard of for a chinese business deal to close after a single round of negotiating. Every country that has resolved their disputes with china has gone through this and china has come down from their original ask to something reasonable but of course in china's overall favor
Imo they are ideologically strengthened for historical reasons. You can't grab pieces of the world for two centuries and subvert democratically elected governments with military dictatorships that are favorable to you and then once a strong contender appears tell them its the 21st century now and not how things are done anymore. They aren't stupid and they know that might makes right.
China is on an upswing trajectory and their people know it from increases in real income for vast majority of the population. It was the strongest country in the world for centuries, and they'll regain that title again, eventually.
Russia lost too much brainpower in the past 25 years. Too many Russians and Russian Jews emigrated to US to use their PhDs to make money on Wall St. They're not coming back, and it will take another 25 years to grow a new generation of minds to lead Russia. Yes, Chinese students go to foreign universities but in general China doesn't have a brain drain problem, and thats why they'll win.
They're on the upswing until the bubble pops, anyway. They've got some demographic issues coming down the pike at them, as well.
I hope things don't deteriorate into massive bloodshed and revolt when the music stops and the economy backslides, but that's what has tended to happen in the past, and Chinese history is more cyclical than most...
And they're very proactive in handling their issues. I do agree with you that history moves into cycles - some of the most most powerful entities that were at least in part democracies (athens, poland, etc..) were bested by absolutist regimes , which afterwards were overcome by democracies themselves.
Top-down approach doesn't always work, but did wonders for them for the past 30 years. Meanwhile members of the British working class have voted for Brexit to protect their interests (good for them), and US might follow soon with Trump. How confident were they in things getting better compared with the Chinese?
The causes are different though. What you've linked mentions it quite clearly the wealthy are emigrating to to weather any potential storms related to seizure of their assets. A lot of foreign students belong to this category as well, otherwise they would not be able to afford foreign tuition. This isn't your middle class emigrating abroad as has happened with Russia.
These are excellent points. Obviously, the extend of the claimed area is... 'creative', as in there is no precedent for such a bulbous, remote extension of claimed seas by any other sovereign state. It's disputed by several parties, in claims that are more in line with common international practice.
But given China's island and airstrip buildup in the Spratly Islands, they're determined to project power into this region. The question will come, will anyone other than an international court that lacks the ability for enforcement check them on their maneuvers?
As the parent comment says, if no one is willing to risk nuclear war over a few reefs and fisheries (and the uncertain, vague promise of hydrocarbon extraction), then the status quo will stand, and China is intent on nudging the status quo its way.
It's a conflict between prescriptive and descriptive readings of the issue.
Prescriptively, China has no historical reason to the territory enclosed by the nine-dash line. None of the preceding Chinese governments and dynasties ever held de jure or de facto sovereignty over that area. There's just no precedent for the claim.
Descriptively, if China wants the territory badly enough, it has a good chance of taking and keeping it, albeit at the cost of alienating the crap out of everyone else for at least a generation, if not more.
Realpolitik does not prescribe, but only describes.
US & The Philippines have a Mutual Defense Treaty in place. It is highly beneficial for the US that China does not have full control.
So if push comes to shove, the US will be right there. I also believe that other countries such as France, etc... has backed the ruling and are in full support of the 5 other countries
As long as the Americans care, China's options are extremely limited. But even without the Americans, they are trying to claim territory far away from hainan and right next to other countries who don't agree with them. Their naval projection capabilities are quite limited, and you can only do so much with an expanded atoll.
I'll I'm surprised "those who can't stand media viewer" isn't everyone. Thankfully, Wikipedia falls back really gracefully without JS, and if you block JS you don't get MediaViewer or modal dialog during the pledge drive, even when logged out (almost cancelled my recurring donation over the modal dialog).
