The US rejects China's nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea.

The report was published just one week before the deadline set by the International Arbitration Tribunal for China to submit its arguments in the Philippines' lawsuit.

The U.S. State Department has just released a report refuting the nine-dash line, also known as the "cow tongue line," unilaterally put forward by China in the South China Sea. The report was released just one week before the deadline set by the International Arbitration Tribunal for China to submit its arguments in the case brought by the Philippines against Beijing's unreasonable sovereignty claims in the South China Sea.

The report, conducted by the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs of the U.S. Department of State, aims to study the maritime claims or boundaries of coastal states and assess the conformity of these claims with international law.

To date, China has yet to clarify its maritime claims related to the nine-dash line in a manner consistent with international law (photo: KT).

The report states that in 2009, China sent a diplomatic note to the UN Secretary-General, which included a map of the nine-dash line encompassing islands, waters, and other geographical features in the South China Sea.

The nine-dash line encompasses approximately 2 million square kilometers of sea area (equivalent to 22% of China's land area) and 13 square kilometers of land in the South China Sea, including the Paracel and Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal.

The report states that the nine-dash line is located quite close to the coastlines of countries bordering the South China Sea, with segment number 1 only 50 nautical miles from the Vietnamese coast and 36 nautical miles from Ly Son Island of Vietnam.

According to a report by the US State Department, the first map containing the "nine-dash line" is believed to have appeared in China in 1947, before the establishment of the People's Republic of China.

China's 2009 "nine-dash line" map has many inconsistencies with other maps, including the 11-segment map published in 1947. For example, the second dashed segment is located more than 45 nautical miles closer to the Vietnamese coast than the closest segment on the 1947 map, while the first segment is 15 nautical miles closer.

The report emphasizes that, to date, China has failed to clarify its maritime claims related to the nine-dash line in a manner consistent with international law. China's laws, statements, and official actions all present contradictory evidence regarding the nature and scope of its claims, suggesting at least three different interpretations Beijing intends to present.

First, the nine-dash line is the area where China claims sovereignty over the islands and related waters established based on these islands according to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Second, the nine-dash line represents China's national boundary lines. Third, the nine-dash line is the boundary of what China calls its "historical maritime claims."

The US State Department report states that in the first case, if the nine-dash line represents islands over which China claims sovereignty, then maritime claims within this nine-dash line must conform to UNCLOS provisions regarding territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf established on coastlines and geographical features as defined in Article 121 of the convention.

The U.S. State Department argues that because there are ongoing disputes over sovereignty of islands in the South China Sea, the maritime areas surrounding these islands are also subject to dispute.

Furthermore, even if China were to have sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, the boundaries of any maritime zones established based on these islands under Article 121 of UNCLOS would still have to be delimited among the countries concerned.

In the second case, if the nine-dash line represents China's national boundaries, these lines have no legal basis consistent with the law of the sea. According to international law, maritime boundaries are established based on agreements between neighboring countries, and therefore, a country cannot unilaterally establish a maritime boundary with another country.

Furthermore, such a boundary line is inconsistent with international practice and law, which dictates that the location of a maritime boundary is determined by a long, continuous, opposite coastline, not by very small and isolated islands as in the South China Sea.

Furthermore, segments 2, 3, and 8 on China's 2009 map are not only located relatively close to the coastlines of other countries, but all or part of these segments lie outside the 200-nautical-mile limit from any geographical features over which China claims sovereignty.

In the third case, if the nine-dash line represents an area where China claims so-called "historic waters" or "historical rights," these claims would not fall under the category of "historical claims" as defined in Articles 10 and 15 of UNCLOS.

According to the U.S. State Department, the South China Sea is a large, semi-enclosed body of water in which many coastal states enjoy the right to exclusive economic zones and continental shelves under the law of the sea. The law of the sea does not allow one nation's maritime claims based on "historical" factors to supersede the rights of another nation.

China also fails to meet the legal criteria for a claim to “historic waters,” including the public, widely known, continuous, and effective exercise of sovereignty in the South China Sea; and recognition of such exercise by other countries. The report concludes that, for these reasons, China’s current claim to the nine-dash line is inconsistent with international maritime law.

The US State Department report was released just days before the deadline for the International Arbitration Tribunal to require China to submit its arguments in the case brought by the Philippines (December 15, 2014) against Beijing's unreasonable sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. On December 7, China announced that it would not participate in the case.

According to VOV