MANILA: China to Philippines: Quit Scarborough Shoal

World atlas wrote:

imagine and judge it by themself again, UNCLOS wont occupy others territories to judge it to the closer, only the closer tried to judge it by themself. Economic zone not the severeignty zone! Also UNCLOS allow the country have the island or territory close to other.

Fifth, even
if Chinese people were the first to navigate the South China Sea (not
true), China cannot claim sovereignty over the water that is used by
many other countries. The Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia do not
claim sovereignty over the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean and the
Pacific Ocean even though their Austronesian ancestors were the first to
navigate those waters. Norway does not claim sovereignty over the
Norwegian Sea even though the Norsemen (Vikings) were the first to
navigate that water to populate Iceland and Greenland in the 9th
century. Portugal does not claim sovereignty over the water off the West
African coast, the water around the Cape of Good Hope and the Indian
Ocean even though Portuguese under Bartolomeu Diaz and Vasco da Gama
were the first to navigate those waters in 1488 and 1498. Spain does not
claim sovereignty over the Atlantic Ocean, the Magellan Strait and the
Pacific Ocean even though Spaniards under Christopher Columbus and
Ferdinand Magellan were the first to navigate those waters in 1492 and
1521. Russia does not claim sovereignty over the Bering Sea even though
Russians under Vitus Bering were the first to navigate that water in
1741.

Sixth, ancient Chinese texts which mention the South China
Sea islands do not describe discovery of the islands but only describe
general knowledge about the islands, knowledge shared among the
fishermen, merchants and pirates from various countries who navigated
that sea since prehistory. Chinese writers were the first to write about
the South China Sea islands because China invented writing earlier, not
because Chinese people were the first to navigate that sea or the first
to discover the islands. This principle is illustrated by the Sea of
Japan and the Black Sea.
Japan first appeared in written records
in 57 AD in China’s Book of the Later Han as followed:“Across the sea
from Lelang were the people of Wa”. Lelang was a Han Empire’s military
outpost in Korea and Wa referred to Japan. The sea between Lelang and Wa
is now known as Sea of Japan. Chinese writers were the first to write
about Japan and Sea of Japan because China invented writing early, not
because Chinese people were the first to navigate the Sea of Japan or
the first to discover Japan. Korean and Japanese peoples lived by the
Sea of Japan since prehistory and sailed into that sea to fish and to
trade with each other, and knew about the existence of each others since
prehistory, long before Chinese writers wrote about Japan and Sea of
Japan.
The Black Sea first appeared in written records in 5th
century BC in the writing of the Greek poet Pindar as “Pontos Axeinos”.
By the 5th century BC, the Greeks had established many colonies by the
Black Sea. Greek writers were the first to write about the Black Sea
because Greece invented writing early, not because Greeks were the first
to discover or the first to navigate the Black Sea. There were other
peoples who lived by the Black Sea alongside with the Greeks and had
sailed into that water to fish and to trade since prehistory, even
though they did not invent writing to write about that. The Black Sea,
like the South China Sea, is a common heritage for all the peoples who
live on its shores.

World atlas wrote:

Filipinos not allow other to have the territory close to them is illegal, UNCLOS wont support that.
Phil occupied other territories and judge it belong to them by their own judge also illegal!

Seventh, ancient Chinese texts which mention
the South China Sea islands mention those islands as foreign lands, not
as China’s territories, and do not describe which activities the
authority of ancient China exercised on the islands. Therefore, there is
no proof of China’s jurisdiction over the islands. In the case of
Scarborough shoal, China argued that Kublai Khan’s officials were the
first to map out and to establish jurisdiction over those islands in
1279. However, Kublai Khan was the Great Khan of the Mongol Empire who
conquered China. If any country can inherit Scarborough shoal from
Kublai Khan, it is Mongolia, not China.
In 1279, Kublai Khan’s
officials neither “discovered” nor “established jurisdiction” over
Scarborough shoal because that place was already the historic water and
traditional fishing ground of Filipino fishermen, descendants of the
Austronesian sailors who navigated the South China Sea and populated the
Philippines in 5000-2500 BC. Scarborough shoal was known as “bajio de
Masinloc”, meaning shoal of Masinloc, in a Spanish-made map of the
Philippines in 1734. Masinloc is not a Spanish word and is the name of a
municipality on the Philippines’ main island, confirming that Filipino
fishermen had been to and had named the islands after their own tongue
for centuries.

Eighth, official maps of the Yuan Dynasty and Ching
Dynasty, including but not limited to Da Qing Zhi Sheng Quan Tu
(published in 1862) and Huang Chao Yi Tong Yu Di Zen Du (published in
1894), show that the southernmost extent of China ends at Hainan islands

Finally, the Chinese empire originated on the Yellow
river basin and eventually conquered many lands and peoples, including
Tibet and Sinkiang, which is why China is a multiethnic, multi-languages
country. At the time when China allegedly discovered the South China
Sea islands, China’s border on the mainland was not what it is today,
Tibet and Sinkiang were independent countries of the Tibetans and the
Uyghurs, respectively. If China is serious about its historical claim, it
should return to its historical border on the mainland, return Tibet and
Sinkiang to the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, respectively.

An Article from YALE UNIVERSITY

LINK: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/chinese-hi...

As for claims to the South China Sea and its islands (referring to China) based on visits by fishermen ignore the fact that commerce in that sea, and into and across the Indian Ocean was run by Malay vessels and crews hundreds of years before Chinese mariners and merchants ventured far from their coast. Chinese Buddhist pilgrims to Sri Lanka went on Malay boats via Java or Sumatra. Nearly two thousand years ago Roman merchants brought spice island products from southern India whence they had been brought by Malay and Indian sailors. At much the same time, Malays with 20-meter ships with outriggers were crossing the southern part of the Indian Ocean, settling the huge island of Madagascar and leaving marks in Africa. Even today, after migration from Africa, Arabia and India, Madagascar’s human gene pool is 50 percent Austronesian and its language 80 percent.
The modern states that are the successors of those seafaring, migrant and trading Malays lack – unlike the Chinese – the written records to show their history. Nor is there much local elite awareness in those nations of their histories prior to the arrival of Islam and, very soon afterwards, of European traders and imperialists. But advances in archaeology, in genetics and other sciences which can make up for gaps in written history, are beginning to make the broad Malay world better aware of its past and of its right both to contest Chinese claims and resist further Han expansion into Southeast Asia.

Cev wrote:

<quoted text>
We're already over that phase Chinaman. That topic has already been discussed countless times in this thread, and a conclusion achieved as per China's recent actions.
This issue is international in nature, and your wimpy excuses are just for running away from the law.

Only bitches like you resort to "international laws" to doninators like us and the US, there is no laws, our interest is the law which you bitche will never get it as you have been a submissive bitch of the US for too long.

World atlas wrote:

Filipinos not allow other to have the territory close to them is illegal, UNCLOS wont support that.
Phil occupied other territories and judge it belong to them by their own judge also illegal!

INTERNATIONAL LAW and CHINA'S Historical Claim

Chinese assertion based on historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. It should be noted that under public international law, historical claims are not historical titles. A claim by itself, including historical claim, could not be a basis for acquiring a territory.

Under international law, the modes of acquiring a territory are: discovery, effective occupation, prescription, cession, and accretion. Also, under public international law, for a historical claim to mature into a historical title, a mere showing of long usage is not enough.

Other criteria have to be satisfied such as that the usage must be open, continuous, adverse or in the concept of an owner, peaceful and acquiesced by other states. Mere silence by other states to one's claim is not acquiescence under international law. Acquiescence must be affirmative such that other states recognize such claim as a right on the part of the claimant that other states ought to respect as a matter of duty. There is no indication that the International community have acquiesced to China's so-called historical claim.

In relation to name giving and maps, name-giving (or names in general) and placing of land features on maps, these are also not bases in determining sovereignty. In International case law relating to questions of sovereignty and ownership of land features, names and maps are not significant factors in the determination of international tribunals' determination of sovereignty.

Under international law, fishing rights is not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a State nor can be considered as a display of State authority. Fishing is an economic activity done by private Individuals. For occupation to be effective there has to be clear demonstration of the intention and will of a state to act as sovereign and there has to be peaceful and continuous display of state authority, which the Philippines has consistently demonstrated.

Besides when UNCLOS took effect, it has precisely appropriated various maritime zones to coastal states, thus eliminating so called historical waters and justly appropriating the resources of the seas to Coastal States to which said seas are appurtenant.'Traditional fishing rights" is in fact mentioned only in Article 51 of UNCLOS, which calls for archipelagic states to respect such rights, if such exist, in its archipelagic waters.

It should also be noted, that in this particular case, the activities of these so-called fishermen can be hardly described as fishing. The evidence culled by the Philippine Navy showed clearly that these are poaching activities involving the harvesting of endangered marine species which is illegal in the Philippines and illegal under international law, specifically the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

World atlas wrote:

defend treaty

Philippines' Claim and the International Law

1. UNCLOS - CHINA AGREED WITH IT. A SLAP TO CHINA'S FACE. China signed and ratified UNCLOS IN 1982.

The Convention concluded in 1982. To date, 162 countries INCLUDING CHINA have joined in the Convention.

1982 IS PRETTY RECENT. By law, NEWER treaties INVALIDATES "OLDER" TREATIES.

When China ratified UNCLOS in 1996, it gave up whatever historic rights it had to the natural resources in areas that are now the EEZ or continental shelf of other States. China's legal relations with other Parties to UNCLOS are now governed by UNCLOS, and China cannot use its domestic law as an excuse not to fulfill its international obligations under UNCLOS.

First, Article 10 (Part II, Article 10,#6) on bays provides that States may draw closing lines across the mouths of bays if such lines do not exceed 24 nm. Article 10 also states that the provision on bays does not apply to UNCLOS and contains only two provisions which are possibly relevant to so-called “historic bays”. Second, Article 15 (Part II, Article 15) on the delimitation of territorial sea boundaries provides that as a general rule, the median line should be applied in determining the territorial sea boundary, unless it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the boundary in another matter. Third, Article 298 gives States Parties the right to opt out of the compulsory binding dispute settlement system in section 2 of Part XV for disputes involving “historic bays or titles”. Given these provisions, it can be argued that UNCLOS does not recognize any “historic waters” or “historic rights” in areas outside of the territorial sea.

Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)
These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights.

Continental shelf
The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin’s outer edge, or 200 nautical miles from the coastal state’s baseline, whichever is greater. A state’s continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles (650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190 kilometres; 120 miles) beyond the 2,500 meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.

Philippines' 200 Mile EEZ

http://i49.tinypic.com/34xkghe.png

PART VIII of UNCLOS

Official UNCLOS SITE: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreem...
REGIME OF ISLANDS

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Picture of Scarborough Shoal
http://i47.tinypic.com/33z68pc.jpg

Scarborough Shoal is not an island and it cannot support human habitation therefore it cannot have 200 EEZ

Scarborough Shoal is submerged at high tide. It is unimaginable how the ancient Chinese could have inhabited it.

UNCLOS allow other to have the territory close to Phil, every country have the right to have the territory close to each other. Even close to its mainland or stuck with its mainlands.

dzhou wrote:

<quoted text>
Only bitches like you resort to "international laws" to doninators like us and the US, there is no laws, our interest is the law which you bitche will never get it as you have been a submissive bitch of the US for too long.

The Chinese think the older the map, the stronger it is as evidence.

Assuming that the Chinese really have the 1270's map in their possession and presents it as evidence, the document proves the Chinese MAY have discovered the shoal back then and documented it.

But the Philippines is using the 1600's map not for determining who mapped the area first, but to prove that they exercised effective jurisdiction of the area since the1600's.

Some European Maps

1. http://i46.tinypic.com/4kbp1y.jpg - Spain (Treaty of Paris Party)

2. http://i45.tinypic.com/33feyvl.jpg - Spain

3. http://i45.tinypic.com/oqjb6u.jpg - Italy

Who wins the legal battle then when these two evidences are presented? Obviously, the Philippines!

Effective jurisdiction supersedes discovery in any territorial claim.

Chinese historical claims are not recognized under international law.

The 1279 surveying point mentioned in Guo Shoujing's (chinese astronomer) work was actually a place along the coast of central Vietnam NOT the Scarborough shoal.(p.202 of Guo Shoujing pingzhuan, Nanjing University Press, 2003).

How can a 1279 Yuan dynasty map be a basis of today’s claim of territorial ownership? Like what I have pointed out, Italy cannot claim most of Europe today based on Alexander the Great's Roman Empire hundreds of years ago. That is also true with what Gheng His Khan and Napoleon Bonaparte conquered territories in Asia and Europe also hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Again, historical claims are not recognized in international law.

It doesn't matter who can produce the oldest map because old maps do not determine today's boundaries! What's important is that international law (based on international customs and treaties such as UNCLOS) sides with the Philippines. China cannot claim Scarborough as an integral part of its territory or its baseline because Scarborough is a shoal that is INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING PERMANENT HUMAN SETTLEMENT.

Fact: Chinese historical claim is based on a HOAX. NO Chinese official or scholar have ever identified the specific historical document supporting Beijing's claim. The rest of the world relies on EVIDENCE. All the official Chinese Imperial Maps that I've seen show that the southernmost extent of China ends at Hainan islands.

The Chinese claims they have been fishing there since ancient times. Let me ask you these questions:

Again we are talking about Ancient Times

1. During Ancient times (consider basic traditional boats, bad weather, and other navigational hardness), how many weeks or months does it take for a small Chinese fishing vessel without motor and relying on the wind alone to reach Scarborough Shoal or Spratlys and back?

2. What do they fish there and what do they bring back to China after months WITHOUT REFRIGERATION? ROTTEN FISH?

3. You don't have enough fish near China that you have to go alllllllllllllllllllll the way to the Philippines to fish huh? Since ancient times???

So funny. Common sense please.

Under international law, fishing rights is not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a state nor can be considered as a display of state authority. Fishing is an economic activity done by private individuals. For occupation to be effective, there has to be clear demonstration of the intention and will of a state to act as sovereign, and there has to be a peaceful and continuous display of state authority, which the Philippines has consistently demonstrated.

dzhou wrote:

<quoted text>
Only bitches like you resort to "international laws" to doninators like us and the US, there is no laws, our interest is the law which you bitche will never get it as you have been a submissive bitch of the US for too long.

China claims that they first EXERCISED Jurisdiction over the Islands

Questions

1. How could the Chinese possibly control those islands when they are too far from them?

*Again we are talking about ANCIENT TIMES- consider sailing and navigational hardness worsened by typhoons and bad weather (let's just say).

Let’s face the reality, during ancient times, how could Chinese fishermen have inhabited those Islands without water, food, and proper shelter? Common sense, even today, people there need to be supplied with foods, supplies, electricity etc.

2. Are the Chinese not familiar with Kingdoms with very EFFICIENT navigational skills that leave very very close to the disputed islands during that time? Vietnam was even trading with the Philippines (you will see below).

Austronesian People

The Austronesians were able to discover the Pacific Islands and Madagascar which is in Afica from South East Asia. Though they did not invent writing to record their discovery, it would be ludicrous to deny their discovery of the islands so close to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Borneo in light of the fact that they were able to discover the various islands in the vast Pacific and Indian Ocean.

The Austronesians, specifically the Malayo-Polynesian speakers controlled the TRADE traffic between India and China.

Austronesian Kingdoms of South East Asia

Ausronesians Controlled the PACIFIC OCEAN including SOUTH CHINA SEA before the European Colonization.

1. Kingdom of CHAMPA (0192–1832)- Central and Southern Vietnam. The Malay-speaking, Hinduized Cham seagoing empire of central Vietnam dominated South China Sea trade until it was conquered by the Vietnamese about the time the European traders began to arrive in Asia, while trade between Champa (present-day central and southern Vietnam) and Luzon (Philippines) was well established long before the Chinese drew their 13th century map.

Indeed, long before Chinese ships began to regularly sail it, the sea was known to the 10th-century Arab traveler and geographer al-Masudi as the Cham Sea. This was in recognition of the fact that at the time, and for another 400 years, the principal seafarers and merchants in the region were from Champa, the Malay (in its broadest sense)-speaking, Hindu-worshipping nation based on the central Vietnam coast.

It was probably from Champa that the Philippines acquired the Indian-type scripts used on the islands prior to the arrival of the Spanish.

2. Majapahit Empire (1293 -1500)- According to the Nagarakretagama (Desawarñana) written in 1365, Majapahit was an empire of 98 tributaries, stretching from Sumatra to New Guinea; consisting of present day Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, southern Thailand, the Philippines, and East Timor (The Spratlys are within these boundaries)

3. Srivijaya 7th century–13th century - The empire thus grew to control the trade on the Strait of Malacca, Sunda Strait, the SOUTH CHINA SEA, the Java Sea, and Karimata Strait.

By the twelfth century, the kingdom included parts of Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula, Western Java, Sulawesi, the Moluccas, BORNEO and the PHILIPPINES.

4. Kingdom of Brunei - Northern Borneo, some parts of southern Philippines and MANILA

5. Sultanate of Sulu (1457–1917)- Dates back from the Mahjapahit and Shrivijaya empires, which extended from Sabah, the Sulu archipelago, Palawan, parts of Mindanao, the islands now known as the Spratlys, Palawan, and up to the Visayas and Manila.

World atlas wrote:

UNCLOS allow other to have the territory close to Phil, every country have the right to have the territory close to each other. Even close to its mainland or stuck with its mainlands.

The historical facts are that the Chinese were latecomers to navigation in the South China Sea and beyond. They were invisible before the Tang Dynasty, and although vast amounts have been written about Chinese expeditions under Admiral Zheng around Asia and across the Indian Ocean to Africa in the early 15th century, these occurred more than a thousand years after Malay seafarers began to cross the Indian Ocean.

When Chinese Buddhist pilgrims like Faxian went to Sri Lanka in the 5th century, they went in ships owned and operated by Malay peoples. Ships from what is now the Philippines traded with Funan, a state in what is now southern Vietnam, 1,000 years before the Yuan dynasty. China makes much of the early 15th century expeditions of Zheng He to the Indian Ocean and Africa. But Indonesians had been crossing that ocean at least 1,000 years earlier, settling in Madagascar, the fourth-largest island in the world. Their twin-outrigger ships enabled quite swift passage across the ocean, and the Indonesians also left their mark on the coast of Africa before being supplanted by Indian and then Arab traders.

“The seafaring history of the region at least for the first millennium of the current era was dominated by the ancestors of today's Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos and (less directly) Vietnamese (Austronesian Chams).” This statement at least is supported by current historical and anthropological knowledge.(Victor T. King,“Ethnolinguistic Groups of Southeast Asia,” in Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor, ed. Ooi Keat Gin, pp. 492-498, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2004).

VARIOUS EUROPEAN COUNTIES HAVE ALSO DOMINATED THE AREA LIKE FRANCE, BRITAIN, AND SPAIN. HOW COULD HAVE THE CHINESE MAINTAINED EFFECTIVE CONTIUNOUS JURISDICTION SINCE 1270’s?

Just because China have old maps showing islands and shoals on their ancient maps doesn't mean it is theirs. They identified these shoals and islands as navigational tools. They went through these waters to trade or on their way to trade, not to claim these places as theirs. They needed to identify the shoals and other shallow waters as a warning so that their ships will not go aground.

The tendency of the Communist Party government in China, as elsewhere, to rewrite history to reflect changes in personnel or ideology is well known. Less noticed, however, is the tendency to rewrite national history to justify expansionist foreign policies. The recent stand-off between Chinese and Philippine ships is a case in point.
China’s case as expounded by the Foreign Ministry is one where the only history that matters is Han Chinese. Its claim reads:“It is China who first discovered Huangyan Island” and “drew into China’s map in China’s Yuan dynasty (1271-1368AD)”. This is like Europeans claiming that they got to Australia before the Aboriginals or the Americas before Native Americans.

The weakness of China’s case explains why it is not prepared to discuss overlapping claims with its regional neighbors as a group, and why it will not submit South China Sea issues to international arbitration under the terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the case of the (never inhabited) Scarborough Shoal, its claims would almost certainly be rejected.

World atlas wrote:

UNCLOS allow other to have the territory close to Phil, every country have the right to have the territory close to each other. Even close to its mainland or stuck with its mainlands.

Now let's examine your 1279 ANCIENT MAPS and other Chinese ancient maps

China’s Ancient “Navigational” MAPS

http://postimage.org/image/jp48g3aer/

http://postimage.org/image/r6xdmmmbp/

http://postimage.org/image/r9h99gpz9/

It was most likely that those Islands were the Philippines, Taiwan, Borneo etc. as your history tells that they traded with the Austonesians (FIlipinos, Malays etc.)

The Spratly and Scarborough are so little. Your ancestors were not stupid enough to not know the size difference of LUZON, PALAWAN, BORNEO from the little Spratly and Scarborough.

YOU JUST NEED COMMON SENSE TO ANALYZE THESE ANCIENT MAPS OF YOURS.

---

http://postimage.org/image/upvu365t7/ - I won’t be surprised if one day China will claim the Entire Southeast Asia because they “MAPPED” it.

Do you think the International Court will honor these OLD NAVIGATIONAL MAPS?

Lol, HECK NO!!!!!

Most Chinese maps don’t include Scarborough and Spratlys as their territories!

Just because China have old maps showing islands and shoals on their ancient maps doesn't mean it is theirs. They identified these shoals and islands as navigational tools. They went through these waters to trade or on their way to trade, not to claim these places as theirs. They needed to identify the shoals and other shallow waters as a warning so that their ships will not go aground.

Do you know of any international law that supports China's claims that the whole China Sea is theirs?

Do you think Historians, Archaeologists, Anthropologists, and Linguists BASE ON THIS MAP will agree that China RULED the South China Sea?

“The seafaring history of the region at least for the first millennium of the current era was dominated by the ancestors of today's Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos and (less directly) Vietnamese (Austronesian Chams).” This statement at least is supported by current historical and anthropological knowledge.(Victor T. King,“Ethnolinguistic Groups of Southeast Asia,” inSoutheast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor, ed. Ooi Keat Gin, pp. 492-498, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2004).

dzhou wrote:

<quoted text>
Only bitches like you resort to "international laws" to doninators like us and the US, there is no laws, our interest is the law which you bitche will never get it as you have been a submissive bitch of the US for too long.

Only bitches resort to international law? HAHAHAHA

What a CRIMINAL way of thinking Chinaman!

Perfect for your CRIMINAL country!:)

World atlas wrote:

UNCLOS allow other to have the territory close to Phil, every country have the right to have the territory close to each other. Even close to its mainland or stuck with its mainlands.

Only 200 nautical miles from your baseline, Chink.

and let's keep it that way.

Those areas involved are too far from your baseline in HaiNan Island.

Now fck off Philippine territory.

World atlas wrote:

imagine and judge it by themself again, UNCLOS wont occupy others territories to judge it to the closer, only the closer tried to judge it by themself. Economic zone not the severeignty zone! Also UNCLOS allow the country have the island or territory close to other.

So China is using these 1279 maps to determine "today's boundaries"

1. http://postimage.org/image/jp48g3aer/ - The map doesn't show TIBET and West China.

So, if Tibet and WESTERN CHINA were not included, then China should give them up because they're saying that they are claiming Spratlys and Scarborough because they were included in this map.

2. http://postimage.org/image/r6xdmmmbp/ - Japan, Korea, Russia, and Indonesia were in this map.

If China is claiming Spratlys and Scarborough because they were included in this map, then they should also claim Japan, Korea, Russia, and Indonesia because they were also in this map.

3. http://postimage.org/image/r9h99gpz9/ - So as this one. They should also claim Indonesia, the entire Philippines etc. not only Spratlys and Scarborough because they were also included in their ancient map.

World atlas wrote:

UNCLOS allow other to have the territory close to Phil, every country have the right to have the territory close to each other. Even close to its mainland or stuck with its mainlands.

The Chinese are telling the PHILIPPINES

to Follow the TREATY OF PARIS and the TREATY OF WASHINGTON

THEN CHINA FOLLOW ALSO

THE TREATY OF SAN FRANCISCO

1951: At the San Francisco Conference, the Peace Agreement with Japan did not state clearly which country had sovereignty over the islands. None of the 51 countries participated protested. The USSR proposed that the two archipelagos be given to China, but it was rejected with 46 votes against, 3 votes for.

The Islands were not given to CHINA!

If you say because China did not participate in the treaty of PARIS

the FILIPINOS also did not participate in the TREATY OF PARIS and the TREATY OF WASHINGTON!!!!

If you claim that the TREATY OF PARIS and the TREATY OF WASHINGTON

set the boundaries of the Philippines

then

the TREATY OF SAN FRANCISCO also set the boundaries of CHINA!

World atlas wrote:

defend treaty between Phil and US are also not included the dispute territories! That's why US not assist Phil, In constitutions of Phil in 1899 to 2009 the dispute territories not included in Phil boundaries

China is using its 1279 map to SET today's boundaries even if

MING, HAN, Yuan etc. are now all DEAD!

let's look at their 1279 maps

http://postimage.org/image/jp48g3aer/

http://postimage.org/image/r6xdmmmbp/

http://postimage.org/image/r9h99gpz9/

So if China wants to use these maps to SET today's boundaries (modern time)

then they should give up TIBET, Inner Mongolia, Sinkiang, and West China as these lands were not included in their 1279 map!!!

COMMON SENSE!!!

Italy doesn't claim the OLD boundaries of the ROMAN EMPIRE

Iran doesn't claim the OLD boundaries of the PERSIAN EMPIRE

Mongolia doesn't claim the OLD boundaries of the MONGOL EMPIRE

HAVE

COMMON SENSE

PLEASE!

World atlas wrote:

UNCLOS allow other to have the territory close to Phil, every country have the right to have the territory close to each other. Even close to its mainland or stuck with its mainlands.

Old European Maps showed Scarborough and Spratlys were not part of CHINA

BRITISH OLD MAPS

1. http://postimage.org/image/xqkb8ucjr/

2. http://postimage.org/image/z8unrt185/

3. http://postimage.org/image/9n9pjjy49/

4. http://postimage.org/image/6p7tr5iyz/

5. http://postimage.org/image/d54j2ukxf/

6. http://postimage.org/image/fq20nthp9/

Old European Maps showed Scarborough and Spratlys were not part of CHINA

OLD FRENCH MAPS

1. http://postimage.org/image/v1u0leunl/

2. http://postimage.org/image/jf9wka7ch/

3. http://postimage.org/image/wgxvz5dlz/

4. http://postimage.org/image/v0r5ao71b/

5. http://postimage.org/image/xyzvnuvgd/

6. http://postimage.org/image/bbkmhpfwd/

7. http://postimage.org/image/n9afc3fqx/

8. http://postimage.org/image/5bcgxh0bl/

9. http://postimage.org/image/g2hqrszs7/

Old European Maps showed Scarborough and Spratlys were not part of CHINA

OLD ITALIAN MAP

http://postimage.org/image/npzwrbarv/

OLD DUTCH MAP

http://postimage.org/image/a8228dwmt/

Old AMERICAN Map showed Scarborough and Spratlys were not part of CHINA

http://postimage.org/image/fk3izvjjv/

Other EUROPEAN MAP

http://postimage.org/image/fr059zl1n/

To Sum Up

1. Old European Maps support the Philippines Claim

2. Old European Maps showed Scarborough and the Spratlys not part of China

3. Maps published by CHINA also dont include Scarborough and the Spratlys

Chinese defend by their historical evidences, and Phil have nothing to do with the dispute islands, in Phil boundary are not included the dispute territories, such as their constitutions in 1899 to 2009 are not included the dispute territory, and other treaty can prove it as well. So they have no right to against chinese history or historical evidences, also chinese have the witnesses or ancients maps of other to support!

World atlas wrote:

UNCLOS allow other to have the territory close to Phil, every country have the right to have the territory close to each other. Even close to its mainland or stuck with its mainlands.

To sum up

1. No International Law supports China's 9 dash claim

2. No Legitimate country recognizes China's 9 dash claim

3. Modern Historical and Archaeological findings backed by MODERN SCIENCE contradict with China's Historical Claim.

4. Old Chinese maps did not include Scarborough and the Spratlys

5. Old European maps showed Scarborough and the Spratlys part of the Philippines

6. Old European maps did not include Scarborough and the Spratlys as part of China

7. Based on the Treaty of San Francisco, Treaty of Peace, Post Dam Declaration, and Cairo Declaration, JAPAN did not give the Island to China, therefore, China's Spratly and Scarborough claims are ILLEGAL!

----

Now Good Night!

Rebutt all my arguments!!!

I will read them tomorrow hahahaha

Cev wrote:

<quoted text>
Only 200 nautical miles from your baseline, Chink.
and let's keep it that way.
Those areas involved are too far from your baseline in HaiNan Island.
Now fck off Philippine territory.

Dont judge it by yourself!

World atlas wrote:

Chinese defend by their historical evidences, and Phil have nothing to do with the dispute islands, in Phil boundary are not included the dispute territories, such as their constitutions in 1899 to 2009 are not included the dispute territory, and other treaty can prove it as well. So they have no right to against chinese history or historical evidences, also chinese have the witnesses or ancients maps of other to support!

China has no right because you do not have any valid evidence to support your claim.

Take it from the international law experts if you do not want to listen to us.

They all say your claims are bullshit.