I want you to read this in response to your bold claim and tell me what you think of this.
During the Second World War, Japanese expelled the French troops and took over the islands in spite of the 1938 declaration. The Spratlys and the Paracels were conquered by Japan in 1939. Japan administered the Spratlys via Taiwan's jurisdiction and the Paracels via Hainan's jurisdiction.[34] The Paracels and Spratlys were handed over to Republic of China control from Japan after the 1945 surrender of Japan,[35] since the Allied powers assigned the Republic of China to receive Japanese surrenders in that area.[36] At the end of the war (Asian-Pacific Region), Nationalist China formally retook the Paracels, Spratlys and other islands in the South China Sea in October and November 1946. In Geneva accord of 1954 Japan formally renounced all of its claims to, inter alia, the South China Sea islands which it had occupied during the World War II.[37] After WW2 ended, the Republic of China was the "most active claimaint". The Republic of China then garrisoned Woody island in the Paracels in 1946 and posted Chinese flags and markers on it, France tried, but failed to make them leave Woody island.[38] The aim of the Republic of China was to block the French claims.[39][40] The Republic of China drew up the map showing the U shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[41]
Under what reason do you believe that the area we operated does not have EEZ? Do you know the Woody Island alone is large enough and has fresh water and can sustain human habitation?
There is a difference between fully occupied like in your Vietnam case and our case where we never declare surrender and the fight continued until Japan surrendered. This is important in legal matter. Please learn, my friend.
As I said, sovereignty could be lost if state ceased to exercise it~ that is the precedent set by ICJ
Did china really exercise jurisdiction surrounding the islands as soon as Japan surrendered? No~ China was busy fighting their own (CCP vs. KMT)
Why do you think it is in the first place those islands were occupied by Vietnam and Philippines?
Regarding EEZ, Woody Island was only among few large enough able to support human habitation. But how can you justifies 9-dash line base on a few of island? Certainly the shape of the EEZ boundaries won;t be as swath as 9-dash line that protrude far to Natuna Sea.
Even more the 9-dash line ignored all neighboring countries EEZ from their respective coastal area. How in the hell can Vietnam's and Philippine's EEZ be smaller despite they have the longest coastal line?
As set by ICJ, the provision of UNCLOS calls for equatable EEZ, and you could refer to the case of Nicaragua vs. Colombia to see how "equatable" means. In the case of Nicaragua vs. Colombia, only San Andres Island (Colombia) can support human habitation an therefore entitled EEZ, however, UNCLOS "equatable" provision barred colombia from claiming swath of EEZ close to Nicaragua coast. Instead, the sea surrounding San Andres Island that face Nicaragua coast was only entitled 12 nm territorial zone (Point 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9), while that facing Carribean sea was entitle full 200 nm