On June 17 of this year, a Philippine supply ship and two inflatable boats intruded into the waters near Ren’ai Jiao in China’s Nansha Qundao, attempting to deliver supplies, including construction materials, to an illegally grounded warship. On August 19, two Philippine Coast Guard vessels entered waters near Xianbin Jiao in the Nansha Qundao, deliberately colliding with a Chinese Coast Guard vessel on duty, disregarding warnings and persuasion.
Such incidents have become increasingly frequent in recent years. Western media, amplifying the unilateral rhetoric from the Philippines, has been fanning the flames and distorting the facts while selectively ignoring the historical context and the truth. Traditionally, there are five modes of territory acquisition, namely cession, effective occupation, accretion, conquest and prescription.
Regarding the South China Sea issue between China and the Philippines, the Philippines has three so-called “claims”, none of which holds up. This article will refute these claims respectively, using Huangyan Dao as an example.
First, the principle of geographical proximity.
The Philippines claims jurisdiction over Huangyan Dao based on its proximity and geographical features. However, “geographical proximity” has never been a valid basis for territorial sovereignty in international law. “The Island of Palmas case ruling” clearly stated that “proximity as a basis of territorial sovereignty has no foundation in international law.” Many countries have territories far away from their metropolitan areas. Examples include the French islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique in the Caribbean, among many others.
Second, Huangyan Dao’s location within the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The Philippines argues that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) grants coastal states the right to claim a 200-nautical-mile EEZ, and since Huangyan Dao falls within this zone, the Philippines asserts that it should have jurisdiction over its resource exploration and development.
This claim completely violates the principle that land dominates the sea. This important customary international law principle states that territorial sovereignty is the fundamental basis for maritime rights, which are derived from land sovereignty. While UNCLOS stipulates that coastal states have sovereign rights for exploring and exploiting resources in their EEZ, this only applies when the sovereignty over a maritime feature is undecided. The Philippines’ attempt to use the newly established EEZ system under UNCLOS to violate China’s territorial sovereignty over Huangyan Dao is an illegal claim that contradicts UNCLOS itself.
Third, long-term effective control.
The Philippines asserts that it has “effectively occupied and administered Huangyan Dao since independence.” It cites “the Island of Palmas case” and other international judicial practices, claiming that one form of acquiring territorial sovereignty is through effective administration. The Philippines argues that “discovery” only creates “inchoate title”, which must be maintained through long-term, continuous exercise of state authority, and that China has not met these criteria for Huangyan Dao.
However, what the Philippines deliberately ignores is, “the Island of Palmas ruling” also elaborated on the international law principle of “occupation”, clearly stating that the object of occupation must be terra nullius no man’s land, and that occupation must be “effective”. The subsequent “Clipperton Island arbitration case” refined the criteria for judging “effective occupation”, stating that for small, desolate islets far from the mainland, symbolic occupation by the discovering country should be considered effective administration.
China has continuously, peacefully and effectively exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Huangyan Dao centuries before the Philippines gained symbolic independence in 1898. The Philippines’ claim of “effective occupation and administration since independence” only highlights its weak position against China’s longstanding exploration, exploitation and administration of the island.
Chinese historical records clearly document administrative activities in the Huangyan Dao area, such as the “Measurement of the Four Seas” led by Guo Shoujing in 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty. This territory survey included 27 observation points, with the Huangyan Dao area being the southernmost point. Huangyan Dao is also marked on Qing Dynasty maps such as Xi Nan Yang Ge Fan Zhen Lu Fang Xiang Tu (西南洋各番针路方向图) and Dong Yang Nan Yang Hai Dao Tu (东洋南洋海道图), demonstrating ancient China’s continuous sovereignty and jurisdiction over the island.
In 1935, China’s Committee for the Examination for the Land and Sea Maps published its first issue, which included a “Chinese-English Name Comparison Table of Islands Along China’s Coast”, officially listing 132 islands, reefs, shoals and sandbanks in the South China Sea, including Huangyan Dao. During World War II, Japan occupied some islands and reefs of China’s Dongsha Qundao, Xisha Qundao and Nansha Qundao from 1938 to 1939. After Japan’s unconditional surrender in 1945, China reclaimed all lost territories, including the Nanhai Zhudao, in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation. China stationed troops and established various military and civil facilities on the islands, legally and factually restoring sovereignty over the South China Sea islands. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, multiple scientific surveys and mappings of Huangyan Dao were conducted, and a sovereignty marker was erected on the island in 1990. From ancient times to the present, China has continuously reaffirmed and consolidated its territorial sovereignty over Huangyan Dao, fully meeting the standards required by the rules of territorial sovereignty acquisition and maintenance in various historical periods.
In summary, the Philippines’ claims to sovereignty over Huangyan Dao and some other islands and reefs in China’s Nansha Qundao are entirely unfounded. Notably, prior to 1997, the Philippines never raised any objections to China’s exercise of sovereignty, administration, and development of Huangyan Dao. Philippine officials had repeatedly stated that Huangyan Dao was outside Philippine territory. In a letter dated February 5, 1990, from the Philippine Ambassador to Germany Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr. to German radio enthusiast Dieter Löffler, it was clearly stated that “According to the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, the Scarborough Reef or Huangyan Dao does not fall within the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines.” Documents issued by the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority on October 28, 1994, and the Philippine Amateur Radio Association on November 18, 1994, to the American Radio Relay League both confirmed that “based on Article III of the Treaty of Paris signed on December 10, 1898, Scarborough Reef (Huangyan Dao) lies just outside the territorial boundaries of the Philippines.” However, in April 1997, the Philippines suddenly reversed its previous position that “Huangyan Dao is not Philippine territory” and began to claim sovereignty over it, clearly violating the international law principle of “estoppel” and constituting an act of bad faith.
What, then, has prompted the Philippines to repeatedly provoke China? On one hand, the discovery of rich oil and gas resources in the South China Sea region in the late 1960s has driven resource interests. On the other hand, it is heavily related to the instigation and support of some external powers.
In January 2009, the Obama administration took office, marking a directional shift in U.S. foreign policy. Under the “pivot to Asia” strategic layout, the South China Sea issue quickly became an important tool for the United States to maintain its regional hegemony and strategically contain China.
On March 10, 2009, then Philippine administration disregarded strong opposition from China and formally signed Republic Act No. 9522, the “Philippine Baselines Law”, which brazenly incorporated China’s Huangyan Dao and some islands and reefs of the Nansha Qundao into Philippine territory.
On January 22, 2013, the then Philippine government, disregarding its previous commitments to resolve South China Sea issue through negotiation and consultation, unilaterally initiated an arbitration concerning the South China Sea issue. Facts clearly show that the South China Sea Arbitration was entirely a “scheme” instigated and manipulated by the United States, spearheaded by the Philippines, and objectively facilitated by the arbitral tribunal, targeting China.
As this commentary is being written, Philippine vessels continue to lurk around China’s Huangyan Dao and other parts of the Nansha Qundao. At Ren’ai Jiao, an old Philippine landing vessel, the “Sierra Madre”, has been deliberately grounded since 1999, with marines stationed aboard, and the hull reinforced with construction materials, severely damaging the surrounding ecological environment. In April this year at Xianbin Jiao, a Philippine Coast Guard vessel entered the lagoon and refused to leave after anchoring, while other Philippine vessels continue to intrude.
In the South China Sea issue between China and the Philippines, the troublemaker has always been the Philippines.