The Validity of the 9 Dash Line

Background:

In 1935 the Chinese government put out a map titled "Map of Chinese Islands in the South China Sea" this map had eleven dashes on it. In 1949 the Chinese government dropped their claim of the Gulf of Tonkin and the now infamous nine-dash line was created. Over the next seventy years, China's rightful claim of this land has been contested by many groups, but no matter what other parties believe, this region has always been and always will be under China's jurisdiction.

Argument:

The nine-dash line represents the maximum extent of Chinese historical claims within the South China Sea. China's claim is not that the entire space within the nine-dash line is there territory to control, but that the islands within it, the Paracel, Spratly, Zhongsha, and Pratas, all belong to them. If China's is given their rightful land, they will have exclusive economic control over the remainder of the area inside the nine-dash line. China was the first country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources of the South China Sea islands and the first to continuously exercise sovereign powers over them. The South China Sea has been under China's control for over 2000 years and the vital trade route should be rightfully theirs.

UN Ruling:

In 2016, the UN ruled against China in their dispute with the Philippines over the South China Sea. China has rightfully decided to disregard this ruling. China, as a sovereign state, is entitled to choose its preferred means of dispute resolution — a legitimate right under international law. Moreover, the Philippines’ case is inherently flawed and illegitimated by such irregularities as the country’s abuse of the dispute settlement procedures, its distortion of concepts, and its deliberate disguise of the real nature of the disputes.

Effect on China:

It's estimated that 3.4 Trillion dollars of trade passed through the South China Sea in 2016 alone. If China had it's rightful control over this region then they would be able to benefit from this much needed economic activity. China could use it's profits to help their massive population by providing more social programs and other benefits that require more funding. Countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam want to prevent this, and reap their own rewards by taking from the desperate Chinese people.

Although the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei all have exclusive economic zones that conflict with China's 9 dash line, only the Philippines and Vietnam express consistent, vehement opposition to the boundary. Therefore, due to the moderate disposition of Malaysia and Indonesia on the issue, along with Brunei's publicly passive stance on the problem, this presentation will only discuss the territorial dispute through the perspective of the most vocal opposition states: The Philippines and Vietnam.

• It is illegal
• It endangers the sovereignty of multiple states with exclusive economic zones in the south china sea

In accordance with article 56 of the United Nations Conventions and Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) of which China is a signatory, states have the exclusive right to exploit the resources of and build artificial islands within their exclusive economic zones (EEZ) (UNCLOS 43-44). Therefore, any portion of the 9 dash line that is within another country's EEZ is unlawful; International law prohibits China from capturing resources and creating islands in other states' EEZ's (UNCLOS 43-44). Consequently, all of the dashes on China's 9 dash line that are within the Philippine's and Vietnam's individual EEZ's marked on the map below are illegal claims.

Additionally, most of China's claims to territory within no states' EEZ are illegal. In 2016, an international tribunal ruled that China's historical claims used to justify the 9 dash line are baseless and illegitimate (PCA Case No 2013-19 112). Therefore, China's declarations of ownership regarding territory within no states' EEZ through historical precedent are completely unlawful.

China's only valid claim to territory within no states' EEZ is through the technical status of the land features they occupy (Whether the land features they occupy are islands, rocks, or low tide elevations determines the extent of their surrounding boundaries). For instance, the artificial islands China has built on the Subi, Gaven, and Fiery Cross reefs are in an area beyond the EEZ's of any state in the South China Sea. But, since the Gaven and Fiery Cross artificial islands are founded upon rocks (Dickinson 928) and Subi reef is based upon a low tide elevation (Dickinson 928), the former is only entitled to twelve miles of territorial sea and the latter is entitled to no lawful boundaries according to UNCLOS. Therefore, China at most can claim sovereignty over a twelve mile radius around Gaven and Fiery Cross reefs while any further territorial claim is criminal.

Citations:

Isdp, et al. “Understanding China's Position on the South China Sea Disputes.” Institute for Security and Development Policy, 29 Sept. 2016, isdp.eu/publication/understanding-chinas-position-south-china-sea-disputes/. 

Ying, Fu. “Why China Says No to the Arbitration on the South China Sea.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 11 July 2016, foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/10/why-china-says-no-to-the-arbitration-on-the-south-china-sea/. 

Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397.

Adam W. Kohl, China’s Artificial Island Building Campaign in the South China Sea: Implications for the Reform of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 122 Dick. L. Rev. 917 (2018). Available at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol122/iss3

South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v China) (2016)

Chang, Felix K. “The Next Front: China and Indonesia in the South China Sea.” Foreign Policy Research Institute, 24 Nov. 2020, www.fpri.org/article/2020/01/the-next-front-china-and-indonesia-in-the-south-china-sea/. 

Cochrane, Joe. “Indonesia, Long on Sidelines, Starts to Confront China's Territorial Claims.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/10/world/asia/indonesia-south-china-sea-military-buildup.html. 

Vu, Khanh. “Vietnam Demands Chinese Ship Leaves Its Exclusive Economic Zone.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 16 Aug. 2019, www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-china-southchinasea/vietnam-demands-chinese-ship-leaves-its-exclusive-economic-zone-idUSKCN1V61CO.