How many times do I have to keep telling you Indians that international guideline UNCLOS (which the U.S. refuses to recognize) specifically states that it does not pre-empt pre-existing 2,000-year-old Chinese historical territories from the Han Dynasty in the South China Sea?
1. Stop calling it a law. It is not a law. The U.S. does not recognize UNCLOS.
2. Article 15 of UNCLOS specifically exempts pre-existing historical claims from its guidelines (see citation below). Stop lying to people.
----------
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
"
Article15
Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured.
The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith."
Maybe you should read this:
Lecture concludes China's historical claim to Panatag not enough
AMANDA LAGO, GMA NEWS June 5, 2012 11:44pm
Excerpt:
At a lecture held at the Ortigas Foundation Library Monday, the claims of China and the Philippines on the disputed Panatag Shoal were presented and examined by Beijing-based journalist Chito Sta. Romana, and lawyer Harry Roque respectively.
“Historically, [China says] that they discovered it and drew it into their map in the Yuan Dynasty, which is the 13th up to the 14th century," Sta. Romana explained.
“They say that in 1279, the Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing performed a survey of the seas around China for the Mongolian emperor at that time, Kublai Khan," he added.
The veteran journalist also said China claims that the shoal, which they call Huangyan Island, has been, since ancient times, “a traditional fishing place for Chinese fishermen."
As for the Philippine claim, Roque said, “It’s historical, like China’s, except that it does not extend to as early as the 1300s."
“I discovered a 1724 map on deposit with the British library and I have procured a copy of that map, which in fact reflects that Scarborough Shoal is part of the Philippine archipelago. There is also a 1750 map and another chart, which gave the name Bajo de Masinloc to what is known as Scarborough," he explained.
However, Roque warned that in international tribunals, maps are often disregarded because “number one, the maps are inaccurate, number two, the names and titles found in maps are, more often than not, unreliable."
Historical claim not enough
Sta. Romana agreed, emphasizing that
“a historical claim does not necessarily constitute a historical title to Scarborough Shoal. To prove that your claim should be with a title, you have to show that you exercised effective occupation and jurisdiction over a long period of time."
In that respect, according to both Sta. Romana and Roque, the Chinese claim falters.
“Discovery alone brings about only an inchoate right which still must be perfected through effective occupation. While China highlights that they discovered the island in 1200s, the earliest evidence of effective occupation that they would invoke is as late as 1935," Roque said.
He then went on to specify evidence of the Philippines invoking effective occupation, most obviously through the fishermen. He specified the regular patrols by the Philippine Navy and Air Force, as well as the apprehension by the Philippine Coast Guard of local and foreign fishermen who have been caught harvesting protected marine species.
Roque also mentioned military and weapon exercises and marine scientific experiments, and highlighted the construction of a lighthouse in 1965, that has since been destroyed in a typhoon.
“The building of a lighthouse is evidence that you are in the discharge of a sovereign function to promote safety of navigation," he said.
Lecture concludes China's historical claim to Panatag not enough | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere
Question: Who have exercised effective occupation and jurisdiction over a long period of time over Scarborough shoal??? Answer: PHILIPPINES.
What China has is only historical claim and not historical title.
Reminder:
WikiLeaks said.
Cable 08BEIJING3499, sent to Washington by the US embassy in Beijing in September 9, 2008, said a
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) official and a local scholar could not identify specific historical records to justify China's "Nine Dashes" claim that covers the whole Spratlys and areas within other countries' exclusive economic zones (EEZs).
