The historical context of the South China Sea territorial conflict

On July 12, nine years ago, the Permanent Court of Arbitration delivered its final ruling on the case filed by the Philippines against China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. The court affirmed that China’s claim, as embodied by its nine-dash line, has no basis under international law.

This piece provides the historical context of the disputed waters.

The waters first appeared in Indian, Arab and Chinese historical records as early 206 BCE. The waters were depicted as fishing grounds and trading routes that connected Eastern and Western Asia to Southeast Asia. The waters are peppered with tiny islands and sunken reefs. There, safe havens were built by ancient seafarers as they navigated the open sea. Artifacts originating from a myriad of cultures were found in the islets, suggesting that they were used not by one but by a host of civilizations.

Fast forward to World War 2 and it became clear that the waters are strategic in a time of war. They were used by Japan as naval outposts during the expansion of its empire in Southeast Asia.

In the 60s, it was discovered that beneath the seas lie an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil, 190 trillion feet of natural gas and 10 percent of the world’s fishing resources. It has also emerged as one of the most important global trading routes. The strategic importance of the waters could not be denied.

Of particular interest is the Spratly Islands. The Spratlys is a group of some 100 islets, reefs and shoals. It straddles the Philippines to the east, Vietnam to the west, Malaysia and Brunei to the south and China and Taiwan to the north. Control over the Spratlys allows military projection and surveillance over the entire Asian region.

Six nations claim ownership of the Spratlys but China claims not only the Spratlys but all of the South China Sea. Satellite images show that Beijing had already constructed artificial islands with airstrips, missile platforms and harbors at Kagitingan (Fiery Cross) Reef, Zamora (Subi) Reef and Panganiban (Mischief) Reef, among others.

Tensions have been escalating, thanks to China’s coercive activities and bad behavior. To defuse tensions, ASEAN called for the establishment of a code of conduct as early as 2002. But drafting the code did not start until 2017.

By mid-2023, the second version of the code of conduct was completed, with China and ASEAN agreeing to write a third version due to significant disagreements. ASEAN claimants (notably the Philippines, Vietnam) want a legally binding agreement enforceable under international law. China insists on a non-binding framework. Moreover, China is pushing to exclude third-party military navies (like the US) from the agreement, which ASEAN found self-serving and unacceptable.

Without a functioning code of conduct, China has aggressively asserted its claims by way of coercion and deployment of grey zone tactics.

The Philippines-China conflict

The Philippines-China stand-off started in 2013 when, in a unilateral act of aggression, China announced that the Spratlys, Parcel islands and Macclesfield Bank would be administered by Sasha city, a territory of China. Suspicions were rife that China would build a military base to support its navy and air force – something China vehemently denied. Years later, the suspicions were proven true and China was caught in its own lie.

The Chinese Coast Guard roped off the entrance of the Panatag (Scarborough) lagoon, preventing Philippine vessels from entering, including those of fishermen. The Chinese accosted Philippine vessels that traversed the area, confiscated their contents and detained the crew. It was a blatant disrespect of Philippine sovereignty.

The Philippines resisted China’s bullying and moved swiftly to defend its sovereignty. It did what any law-abiding republic would do – it took China to court. It was the only claimant of the disputed territories with the courage to do so.

In 2014, the Philippines filed a case against China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Philippines argued that China’s territorial claim was in defiance of the UNCLOS accord, for which both China and the Philippines are signatories. The Philippines further argued that the basis of China’s claim, its nine-dash line, was conjured out of convenience only in 1946 in contrast to Philippine historical claims whose bases are nautical records dating back to the 15th century.

For those unaware, China’s campaign to claim the entire South China Sea for itself started when a power vacuum arose after Japan’s defeat in World War 2. In 1946, China’s Ministry of Interior Committee deployed two geography students named Fu Jiaojin and Zheng Ziyue to define China’s boundaries in the South China Sea. The basis of their claim was an atlas drafted in 1936 by Bai Meichu, a Chinese professor whose atlas was proven to be riddled with errors.

The dashes drawn by the two students were a cartographic sketch, without clearly defined boundaries. It does not specify where exactly the sovereignty ends and what rights China claims (sovereignty, historic fishing rights, administrative control, etc). Its ambiguity was deliberate as it allows China to assert a wide range of claims flexibly.

The nine-dash line is a preposterous claim by any account. It is for this reason that the international community supports the Philippines’ legal argument and absolutely no nation supports China’s claim.

In 2016, the tribunal ruled in the Philippines’ favor, saying that China’s nine-dash line is invalid and illegal. It further ruled that China has no legal claim nor historical rights over the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone and that it had behaved unlawfully. The ruling bestows upon the Philippines the legal rights on the waters.

On the next installment, expect a deep dive on the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @aj_masigan