Some three years ago , I wrote a critique on the Chinese historic
claim in the South China Sea for the Haikou (China) conference in
2013; that is to say, on the supposed Chinese claim (based on its
nine-dash line’ of 1947/ maps) to historic rights in the South China
Sea (hereafter ‘SCS’). This was just as the arbitral proceedings in
the case of Philippines v. China were in their early stages. This
paper was subsequently published in book form1 ; and contains my
initial thinking on the supposed Chinese historic claim; which views
are to some degree ( I am pleased to see) reflected in the arbitral
award on the Merits on June 2016. At that (pre-2016) time not
only was the exact nature of the Chinese claim to historic rights in
this SCS area unclear2 (a matter much referred to in the Philippine
pleadings and arbitral Tribunal’s comments3 in the Philippines v.
China arbitral case) – even, perhaps deliberately ambiguous ; 4 but
so also were the customary law rules relating to the doctrine, most
particularly, its relationship with UNCLOS itself5 .
More infomation: Historic Rights and the ‘Nine-Dash Line’ in Relation to UNCLOS in the Light of the Award in the Philippines v.China Arbitration (2016) concerning the Supposed Historic Claims of China in the South China Sea:What now Remains of the Doctrine?Session-2-on-Historic-Rights-Clive-Symmons-Paper
