China’s Legal Justifications in the South China Sea: A Closer Look at the Controversy
- Cyberwatch UNLTD
- Aug 19
- 5 min read
Updated: Aug 19
In essence, China’s legal interpretation of its claims in the South China Sea primarily hinges on "historical rights" — specifically the Nine-Dash Line — which they argue reflects centuries of use and control by Chinese fishermen, naval patrols, and administration.
What is the Nine-Dash Line?
The "nine-dash line" is a demarcation line used by China to claim large areas of the South China Sea. It's a highly controversial issue in international law and geopolitics, especially because the South China Sea is a strategic and resource-rich region.
It is a U-shaped line that encompasses about 90% of the South China Sea, including areas that are hundreds of miles from China’s mainland but much closer to other countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia.
This line was originally introduced by the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the late 1940s as an eleven-dash line and later modified to nine dashes by the People's Republic of China in the 1950s.
China uses this line to justify “historical rights” over the waters and islands inside the boundary.
The line was not based on modern international legal principles, but rather on historical narratives, such as:
Chinese fishermen using the waters for centuries.
Ancient maps showing Chinese names or activities in the region.
Is it a Method Used by Other Countries?
The Nine-Dash Line is a unique concept employed by China. No other country has used a similar method to claim maritime territory under international maritime law, either historically or in the present day.
Is it Legal or Legitimate?
Under international law, the Nine-Dash Line is not generally regarded as legal or legitimate.
Here's why:
1. UNCLOS – United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Most countries, including China, are parties to UNCLOS, which defines countries’ rights over the sea.
According to UNCLOS:
A country can claim up to 12 nautical miles of territorial sea.
It also gets an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) up to 200 nautical miles from its coast, where it has rights to marine resources.
The nine-dash line extends far beyond China’s EEZ.
2. 2016 Hague Tribunal Ruling
In 2013, the Philippines filed a case against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
In 2016, the tribunal ruled that China’s claims to historic rights within the nine-dash line have no legal basis under UNCLOS.
While the ruling was binding, China rejected it and continues to assert the claim.
Why It's Problematic
The Nine-Dash Line does not align with UNCLOS principles, such as equidistance from coasts.
It is vague and shifting, as China does not provide clear, consistent coordinates for the line.
It overlaps with the EEZs of other countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, creating maritime disputes.
The claim has led to tensions and confrontations between naval and coast guard forces in the region.
It complicates activities such as oil and gas exploration, fishing rights, and freedom of navigation.
There is the potential for these disputes to escalate into broader regional or global conflict.
China's Claim and Justifications
1. “Historical Rights” Trump UNCLOS
China argues that it has “historical rights” to the South China Sea based on centuries of use, long before the creation of UNCLOS.
What They Mean:
Ancient Chinese maps or documents mention certain islands or waters.
Chinese fishermen and traders historically used the region.
Therefore, these activities give China legal entitlement to those waters today.
Why This Fails:
UNCLOS explicitly supersedes vague historical claims. It defines maritime zones strictly based on distance from land, not history.
The 2016 tribunal ruled that there is no legal foundation for China to claim historical rights to resources beyond its EEZ.
Historical use does not create sovereignty or exclusive rights, especially when those waters are clearly within other nations’ EEZs.
2. “China’s Sovereignty Is Not Subject to Arbitration”
China argues that the tribunal had no jurisdiction, asserting that the case is about sovereignty over territory and not maritime entitlements.
Half-True But Misleading:
It’s true that UNCLOS doesn’t directly address sovereignty over islands, but the Philippines did not ask about island ownership—it focused on whether China’s maritime claims violated UNCLOS rules, which was within the tribunal’s authority.
The tribunal made clear that it was not deciding ownership of the Spratly Islands, only what maritime rights China could claim under UNCLOS.
3. “China Is Not Bound by the Tribunal’s Decision”
China claims that it is not bound by the arbitration’s outcome, as it did not participate.
Legally Incorrect:
Once a country becomes a party to UNCLOS, it is automatically bound by the convention’s dispute resolution mechanisms—even if it refuses to participate.
The tribunal stated that “A party’s refusal to participate does not affect the validity of the proceedings or the binding nature of the outcome.”
4. Selective Interpretation of “Historic Waters”
China sometimes uses the term “historic waters”, a concept recognized in maritime law. Some countries have historic bays or internal waters they’ve controlled for centuries.
Why China’s Use Fails:
The entire South China Sea does not meet the criteria for historic waters, as it was never under exclusive Chinese control.
Other countries have also historically navigated and fished in these waters. It was never solely controlled by China.
What This Looks Like in Practice:
Selective Use of Legal Terms
China uses terms like “historic rights,” “sovereignty,” and “jurisdiction” to support its claims. However, the application of these terms differs from how they are typically interpreted in international legal practice, and this selective application is often viewed as strategically advantageous to China’s interests.
Interpretation of UNCLOS
China adheres to certain provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that align with its interests, such as freedom of navigation and rights over its continental shelf resources. However, it has been noted that China does not fully adhere to other provisions, such as those concerning the 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or binding dispute resolution mechanisms, which are key components of UNCLOS.
Reframing the Issue
Rather than accepting legal rulings, like the 2016 arbitration decision, as addressing maritime rights, China often frames the issue as a broader sovereignty dispute. It sometimes portrays the situation as a matter of “historical justice” or as a response to what it views as Western attempts to limit its influence. This reframing serves to:
Appeal to nationalism within China.
Shift the narrative from a legal to a political or historical issue, potentially deflecting international criticism.
"Lawfare" and International Messaging
China actively promotes its perspective on the legal status of the South China Sea in international forums, seeking to influence public opinion, especially in countries with strong trade ties to China. This approach aims to shape global perceptions and diminish resistance to its maritime claims.
Bottom Line:
China’s legal strategy in the South China Sea appears to be highly strategic and selective. This is not a case of misunderstanding—it is a deliberate legal and political approach designed to:
Legitimize a claim that might otherwise lack legal basis.
Avoid international isolation or being branded as an aggressor.
Shape global opinion, especially among countries that might remain neutral.
Buy time to alter the “facts on the water” (e.g., by building artificial islands and expanding its military presence).
Related Topics:
Comments