China's Island Building and International Law

[William Hung]

China's island building and international law - The Nation

Land reclamation in the South China Sea will neither enhance Beijing's claims to sovereignty nor change the legal status of reefs.

First, will the reclamation works strengthen China's sovereignty claim to the Spratlys under international law? The answer is no. Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan also claim sovereignty over the islands/features occupied by China. Once there is a dispute over sovereignty, the state that occupies and controls the territory in question cannot strengthen its claim by undertaking reclamation or building installations and structures.

Second, can China use reclamation to convert submerged reefs into islands capable of supporting human habitation or economic life that are thus entitled to maritime zones of their own? Again, the answer is no. This is because an "island" is defined as a "naturally formed" area of land surrounded by and above water at high tide. If a feature is above water at high tide because of reclamation work, it is an "artificial island". Under UNCLOS, an artificial island is not entitled to any maritime zones of its own. Therefore, the reclamation works on features that are submerged at high tide will not change their legal status.

Third, can China use reclamation to convert a "rock which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of its own" into an island that would be entitled to an EEZ and continental shelf of its own? There is no clear answer to this question. However, since an island is defined as a "naturally formed area of land" surrounded by and above water at high tide, it seems reasonable to conclude that it should not be permissible to use artificial means to change a rock into an island entitled to an EEZ and continental shelf of its own.

 

[Huaren]

lol China is not building up island only for show but for more people to stay, work and easily moving around to spread and maintain influence in the area, thats how real sovereignty is established, before that was mostly only historical records from every sides with claims now at least china is able to realize and support new methode to dramatically increase human settlement in previously uninhabitable area, you could either 1)fight us with force 2)compete with us at this game without war and lets see who comes out at the top 3) Bitching endlessly while we do our work(see if we care)

 

[BoQ77]

lol China is not building up island only for show but for more people to stay, work and easily moving around to spread and maintain influence in the area, thats how real sovereignty is established, before that was mostly only historical records from every sides with claims now at least china is able to realize and support new methode to dramatically increase human settlement in previously uninhabitable area, you could either 1)fight us with force 2)compete with us at this game without war and lets see who comes out at the top 3) Bitching endlessly while we do our work(see if we care)

Vietnam could get foreigner contractors to build military bases for rent there, as they have several real islands in Spratlys.

 

[William Hung]

lol China is not building up island only for show but for more people to stay, work and easily moving around to spread and maintain influence in the area, thats how real sovereignty is established, before that was mostly only historical records from every sides with claims now at least china is able to realize and support new methode to dramatically increase human settlement in previously uninhabitable area, you could either 1)fight us with force 2)compete with us at this game without war and lets see who comes out at the top 3) Bitching endlessly while we do our work(see if we care)

The article was written from a legal perspective. Whether or not China can create a stronger legal claim to sovereignty through land reclamation.

Vietnam could get foreigner contractors to build military bases for rent there, as they have several real islands in Spratlys.

You've raised a very interesting point. If VN make an agreement with India or the US to build permanent fishery research centers or weather stations on those Islands, then it will be difficult for other countries to want to attack and take over those Islands. Would any government dare to attack US civilians?

 

[Huaren]

Vietnam could get foreigner contractors to build military bases for rent there, as they have several real islands in Spratlys.

1) If thats a way to claim your territory it would be pathetic and meaningless as to get even more foreigner involved, it shows that you are not capable to maintain your claim, also as china has already experienced several incident with the US and there isnt a single case in which China backed down, much less anybody else.
2) Not only does China have have real islands in fact we are capable of making our own islands, lets see who can keep up lol.

 

[Zsari]

China's island building and international law - The Nation

The real question should be is China's island building detract its claim to sovereignty over the island. If not, then why not.
Of course what this "legal expert" forget is that if China can make these island inhabitable, then nothing demonstrates an exercise of sovereignty more than having Chinese citizen reside on those islands.

 

[BoQ77]

The real question should be is China's island building detract its claim to sovereignty over the island. If not, then why not.
Of course what this "legal expert" forget is that if China can make these island inhabitable, then nothing demonstrates an exercise of sovereignty more than having Chinese citizen reside on those islands.

your voice is the voice of imperialism, not reflect the international laws that China signed.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

LOL, what great powers follow international law?

Did America get authorization from the UNSC before invading Iraq? How about Guantanamo Bay? Neither of these were on American soil, yet they were authorized under American domestic law.

How about Russia, did they get authorization from the UN to annex Crimea? Or to invade Georgia?

The important law here is domestic law, specifically Chinese domestic law.

 

[BoQ77]

LOL, what great powers follow international law?

Did America get authorization from the UNSC before invading Iraq? How about Guantanamo Bay? Neither of these were on American soil, yet they were authorized under American domestic law.

How about Russia, did they get authorization from the UN to annex Crimea? Or to invade Georgia?

The important law here is domestic law, specifically Chinese domestic law.

You cannot both criticize American while follow their track.

 

[dichoi]

sea pirates are always don't respect rules of law of Human kind.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You cannot both criticize American while follow their track.

Yes we can, but anyway we are not declaring any wars are we?

But if we do, they will only require authorization from within China. Like Russia and America, we have veto power in the UNSC which makes it powerless over us.

Who do you think makes international law? The same UNSC.

Ask the UNSC why we took Xisha islands and Scarborough shoal? Any resolution you bring will be vetoed instantly, so that's why you guys don't even bother.

 

[William Hung]

The real question should be is China's island building detract its claim to sovereignty over the island. If not, then why not.

From a legal perspective, China's land reclamation cannot detract nor enforce it's legal claim to sovereignty.

Whether land reclamation can bring other non-legal benefits or not, such as bringing comfort to the stationed personnel, is another issue.

However, these land reclamation works may have some legal issues that the Philippines may bring to the International Arbitral Tribunal. Here's the rest of the article:

One issue is whether China's large-scale reclamation works are consistent with its obligation under UNCLOS to protect and preserve the marine environment. If a state is planning activities in an area under its jurisdiction and control that may have significant harmful effects on the marine environment of other states, it has a "duty to cooperate" with those states. It must consult the states that might be affected in advance and do so in good faith.

It may also have to undertake an environmental impact assessment and share the results with the potentially affected states. In this case, the Philippines is a potentially affected state because three of the features on which China is undertaking reclamation work are either just inside or just outside its 200-mile EEZ. Vietnam is also a potentially affected state because it occupies reefs very close to those occupied by China.

In addition, given that the geographic features in question are in the middle of an area that is the subject of highly contentious sovereignty and maritime disputes, China is obliged under international law to exercise restraint and not take unilateral action that would permanently change the status quo regarding the features in question. This is especially so in this case because the status of the very features on which China is doing major reclamation work are the subject of an ongoing case before an international arbitral tribunal.

In other words, China could be breaking some international laws or convention (in which China is signatory) with its land reclamation works. The Philippines can use this against China in its arbitration case.

Of course what this "legal expert" forget is that if China can make these island inhabitable, then nothing demonstrates an exercise of sovereignty more than having Chinese citizen reside on those islands.

Those reefs were already habitable before the land reclamation works (but cannot sustain life on its own). Land reclamation would only allow more people to be stationed there, and make the dwelling more comfortable. In terms of sovereignty claim, it doesnt reinforce any legal claim. Claims to these disputed reefs are not determined by the size of the population.

 

[William Hung]

LOL, what great powers follow international law?

Did America get authorization from the UNSC before invading Iraq? How about Guantanamo Bay? Neither of these were on American soil, yet they were authorized under American domestic law.

How about Russia, did they get authorization from the UN to annex Crimea? Or to invade Georgia?

The important law here is domestic law, specifically Chinese domestic law.

I don't quite get 100% what you are saying. Are you trying to say that China's reclamation works or claims to sovereignty are not based on international law? That China don't need to worry about any international law?

Yes we can, but anyway we are not declaring any wars are we?

But if we do, they will only require authorization from within China. Like Russia and America, we have veto power in the UNSC which makes it powerless over us.

Who do you think makes international law? The same UNSC.

Ask the UNSC why we took Xisha islands and Scarborough shoal? Any resolution you bring will be vetoed instantly, so that's why you guys don't even bother.

Read my post above and the rest of the article that I've posted. The author is saying that China could be breaking international law in their land reclamation works.

If the Philippines succeed in its arbitration case, China would either have to accept the tribunal's ruling or say "I don't care about international law."

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

If the Philippines succeed in its arbitration case, China would either have to accept the tribunal's ruling or say "I don't care about international law."

LOL the Philippines, we already took the Scarborough shoal in 2012.

You guys can cry as much as you want, but nobody else in the world even cares. Ask any random person in the world what happened to Scarborough shoal, they won't know or care.

 

[Rechoice]

Yes we can, but anyway we are not declaring any wars are we?

But if we do, they will only require authorization from within China. Like Russia and America, we have veto power in the UNSC which makes it powerless over us.

Who do you think makes international law? The same UNSC.

Ask the UNSC why we took Xisha islands and Scarborough shoal? Any resolution you bring will be vetoed instantly, so that's why you guys don't even bother.

In San Francisco conference in US 1951, claim of China over Paracel and Spratly is rejected by voting. Eleven dash claim of China 1948 is baseless.