US rejects China's nine-dash line in the East Sea

The report was released just a week before the international arbitration court's deadline for China to submit its arguments in the Philippines' lawsuit.

The US State Department has just released a report refuting the nine-dash line, also known as the “cow tongue line,” that China unilaterally put forth in the East Sea. The report was released just one week before the deadline for the International Court of Arbitration to request China to submit documents arguing the Philippines’ lawsuit against Beijing’s unreasonable sovereignty claims in the East Sea.

The report, prepared by the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs of the U.S. Department of State, examines the maritime claims or maritime boundaries of coastal states and assesses their conformity 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 said that in 2009, China sent a note to the United Nations Secretary-General, attaching a map of the nine-dash line covering islands, waters and other geographical structures in the East Sea.

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

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

According to a report by the US State Department, the first map with the "cow tongue line" is said to have appeared in China in 1947, before the People's Republic of China was founded.

China’s 2009 “cow tongue line” map has many inconsistencies with other maps, including the 11-dash map published in 1947. For example, the second dashed line is 45 nautical miles closer to the Vietnamese coast than the closest line on the 1947 map, while the first line is 15 nautical miles closer.

The report stresses that China has so far failed to clarify its maritime claims related to the nine-dash line in a manner consistent with international law. China’s laws, official statements, and actions all present conflicting evidence regarding the nature and scope of its claims, suggesting at least three different interpretations that Beijing wants to express.

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 is China's national boundary. Third, the nine-dash line is the boundary of China's so-called "historic maritime claims".

The US State Department report stated that in the first case, if the nine-dash line represents the islands over which China claims sovereignty, then the maritime claims within the nine-dash line must be consistent with the provisions of UNCLOS on territorial waters, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves established based on the coast and geographical structures in accordance with the definition of "island" in Article 121 of this convention.

The US State Department believes that because there is a dispute over sovereignty over islands in the East Sea, the sea areas related to these islands are also subject to dispute.

Furthermore, even if China has 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 must be delimited between the countries concerned.

In the second case, if the nine-dash line is intended to represent China’s national boundaries, these lines have no legal basis in accordance 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 maritime boundaries with another country.

Furthermore, such a boundary is inconsistent with interstate practice and international law, according to which the location of the maritime boundary is determined based on the opposite, long and continuous coastline, not based on very small and isolated islands as in the East Sea.

Furthermore, not only do lines 2, 3, and 8 on China's 2009 map lie quite close to the coasts of other countries, but all or part of these lines lie beyond 200 nautical miles from any geographic features over which China claims sovereignty.

In the third case, if the nine-dash line is intended to represent the area where China claims so-called “historic waters” or “historic rights”, these claims are also not included in the “historical claims” section stipulated in Articles 10 and 15 of UNCLOS.

According to the US State Department, the South China Sea is a large semi-enclosed sea, in which many coastal states enjoy exclusive economic zones and continental shelves under the law of the sea. The law of the sea does not allow one country’s maritime claims based on “historical” factors to prevail over those rights of another country.

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

The US State Department’s report was released just days before the deadline for the International Court of Arbitration to require China to submit a written argument for the Philippines’ lawsuit (December 15, 2014) against Beijing’s unreasonable sovereignty claims in the East Sea. On December 7, China announced that it would not participate in the lawsuit./.

According to VOV