China’s historical arguements definitely unfounded

24/06/2014


Recently, in a number of international conferences, many senior officials, generals, diplomats, scholars from China voiced that from the second century BC, the Chinese had conducted maritime operations in the South China Sea and discovered “Xisha” (Hoang Sa) and it had sovereignty over “Nansha”  island (Spratly)... All “arguments” that are aimed at justifying the Paracel and Spratly Islands locating in the territory of China. However, if we have futher analysis, we will see them as baseless arguments from the Chinese.
Principles for determining the “right of acquiring territory” in international law
In the long historical development of international law, the principles and establishment of legal sovereignty have been formed on the basis of international practice but the principle of “territorial acquisition” is new method of objectively assessing science for a legal opinion by the parties, who have disputes, outlined principles and are recognized by the world and widely used such as the principle of “the right of acquiring territory”.
From the sixteenth century, the global maritime powers figured out the legal principles to the acquisition of territory to the discovered territory, including the principle of “priority to possess” (or also known as the principle of “right to discovery”) and together with the principle that “truly possess”.
Under the principle of “the right to possess priority”, international law takes precedence to nation discovered that territory first. The “discovery” was later supplemented by the “nominal possessor”, ie countries discovered a territory must leave traces on the newly discovered territories. However, the principle of “nominal possess” does not basically solve complicated disputes between the great powers for the “promised land”, in contrast, leads to many drastical confrontations between major powers bacause of unexplainable the concept of “nominal possess”... So how, after meeting in Africa in 1885 among 13 European countries and United States, especially, after the session of the International Law Institute in Lausanne (Switzerland) in 1888, it was agreed to adopt a new rule acquisition, which is the principle of “truly possess”.
Due to the rationality and validity of this assumption so jurists and international tribunals applied this principle to resolve the sovereignty disputes over the islands.
Therefore, the arguments that China uses to justify their views after using force to occupy Hoang Sa and Truong Sa of Vietnam based on the so-called theory of “historic rights” is an extremely thesis backward, contrary to international law and is not used to handle disputes over territorial acquisition of the Archipelago.
Vietnam has sovereignty over Hoang Sa and Truong Sa
First, Vietnam has sufficient historical evidences and legal basis to assert sovereignty over the Paracels and Spratlys. The official historical records have shown that, at least since the seventeenth century, the emperors of Vietnam has established its sovereignty and activities claims, enforced state sovereignty peacefully and continuously for the Paracels and Spratlys when the territory was considered derelict. After the Nguyen Dynasty, the French protectorate and Vietnam continued to maintain sovereignty and manager for the two islands.
On August 1951, at San Francisco peace conference to resolve territorial disputes after World War II, 51 national leaders, recognized the sovereignty of Vietnam over Paracels and Spratlys. On July 1954, the parties, including China, participated in the 1954 Geneva Convention on restoring peace in Indochina, signed the Geneva Treaty to recognize and respect the independence and territorial integrity of Vietnam. After the French’s withdrawal, in 1956, Chinese troops invaded eastern region and in January 1974, representing the left western region of Paracel Islands from Vietnam. Then, in March 1988, China used force to conquer the Johnson Island under Vietnam’s management.
According to international law, the use of force to take possession of territory is not recognized. The aforementioned action of China has violated a fundamental principle of international law that prohibits the use of force in international relations, stated in Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. Therefore, China’s occupation of the Paracel and Spratly islands today is not valuable, though how long China has been there and what measures implemented to enforce the management. China claims indisputable sovereignty for “Xisha” (Hoang Sa), “Nansha” (Truong Sa) is illegal.
The A decade ago, China introduced the concept of' “peaceful rise” and “peaceful development” then reassured the world of its development. However, with the aggression and provocation from 2009 back here in the South China Sea and East China Sea, the world has seen a growing gap between words and actions of China. The world is looking at China as a superpower is increasingly popular to use the power to change the status quo in the region, claims by creating the “new reality” in the South China Sea.


Chia sẻ bài viết ^^
Other post

All comments [ 10 ]


Quân Hoàng 24/6/14 12:29

China’s deployment of its drilling rig in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf is a serious violation of international law. Vietnam can sue China in the international court.

Huy Quốc 24/6/14 12:30

The coastal states have jurisdiction (allowing or not allowing, checking, monitoring, handling or judging) for the installation of artificial islands and works such as underground cables, underground pipelines, oil rigs.

Hoàng Lân 24/6/14 12:31

It is an exclusive right, meaning that if the coastal states do not explore or exploit natural resources in their continental shelf, no one has the right to exploit without the consent and agreement of that country (Article 77).

Vân Nhàn 24/6/14 12:32

The deployment of a drilling platform in Vietnam’s waters has seriously violated the laws of Vietnam, especially the Law of the Sea 2012.

Hùng Quân 24/6/14 12:33

China’s actions make the public feel like they have "forgotten" their responsibility to the commitments that they signed.

Lê Tín 24/6/14 12:34

China's actions have completely broken the agreement in principle resolving maritime issues between Vietnam and China that the most senior leaders of two sides signed in 2011.

Quốc Cường 24/6/14 12:36

The Law of the Sea 2012 was enacted on the basis of inheriting the laws of the sea that Vietnam had issued before, such as the Declaration of the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on Vietnam’s waters dated 12/5/1977; the Declaration of the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on Vietnam’s baseline dated 12/11/1982; the National Borders Act 2003 and other legal documents.

Huy Lâm 24/6/14 12:37

China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, must play an important role in the construction and protection of international law, and as an economic, military and cultural powerhouse, must be exemplary.

Quốc Kiên 24/6/14 12:39

The two sides should alternately hold biannual meetings between the heads of Government-level border negotiation delegations and extraordinary meetings if necessary.

Phạm Hiếu 24/6/14 12:41

China must establish a direct hotline between the government-level delegations to help with the timely resolution of maritime issues.

Your comments