10 ms·

History of China's Nine-Dash Line

40 points by smaili 10y ago

Zikes 10y ago
Journalists these days really love "tell, don't show" don't they. In case anyone else wants to actually see what the Nine-Dash Line looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line#/media/File:9_dotted_line.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line#/media/File:9_d...
- wl 10y ago
  Link to the file page, for those who can't stand Media Viewer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9_dotted_line.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9_dotted_line.png
  - x1798DE 10y ago
    I'll I'm surprised "those who can't stand media viewer" isn't everyone. Thankfully, Wikipedia falls back really gracefully without JS, and if you block JS you don't get MediaViewer or modal dialog during the pledge drive, even when logged out (almost cancelled my recurring donation over the modal dialog).
- cttet 10y ago
  How the maps look like does not matter when you are talking about which country a piece of territory belongs to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#/media/File:USA_orthographic.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#/media/File:USA_...
Analemma_ 10y ago
The nine-dash line is self-evident absurdity. One glance at it on a map is enough to know it's ridiculous. It's like if Spain claimed the entire Mediterranean Sea all the way to the Suez Canal. I'm sorry if China is upset by this Hague ruling, but the historical conditions of 500 years ago don't mean they get to extend a giant territorial pseudopod into a body of water and muscle out five other countries, many of which have more coastline on it.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Two questions: First - are the armies of the countries bordering south china sea able to win armed conflict with China? Second - is the US willing to risk war with nuclear armed China over that? If the both answers are No - then this is neither self evident or absurdity. Might makes right. And China probably has enough of it.
  - jayess 10y ago
    Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Your comment is a dose of realpolitik.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Realpolitik is not well loved on Hacker News.
    - hx87 10y ago
      It's a conflict between prescriptive and descriptive readings of the issue. Prescriptively, China has no historical reason to the territory enclosed by the nine-dash line. None of the preceding Chinese governments and dynasties ever held de jure or de facto sovereignty over that area. There's just no precedent for the claim. Descriptively, if China wants the territory badly enough, it has a good chance of taking and keeping it, albeit at the cost of alienating the crap out of everyone else for at least a generation, if not more. Realpolitik does not prescribe, but only describes.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    As long as the Americans care, China's options are extremely limited. But even without the Americans, they are trying to claim territory far away from hainan and right next to other countries who don't agree with them. Their naval projection capabilities are quite limited, and you can only do so much with an expanded atoll.
  - niftich 10y ago
    These are excellent points. Obviously, the extend of the claimed area is... 'creative', as in there is no precedent for such a bulbous, remote extension of claimed seas by any other sovereign state. It's disputed by several parties, in claims that are more in line with common international practice. But given China's island and airstrip buildup in the Spratly Islands, they're determined to project power into this region. The question will come, will anyone other than an international court that lacks the ability for enforcement check them on their maneuvers? As the parent comment says, if no one is willing to risk nuclear war over a few reefs and fisheries (and the uncertain, vague promise of hydrocarbon extraction), then the status quo will stand, and China is intent on nudging the status quo its way.
fredliu 10y ago
What's ironic about this article of "History of Nine-Dash Line", is that it mentioned ROC (Republic Of China) 0 times, and only mentioned Taiwan twice (in either cases related to the actual history). The fact is that the original Eleven-Dash Line/Nine-Dash Line was established by ROC (now Taiwan) who still holds the claim, and is furious about the recent "ruling". I guess nobody gives an F what Taiwan thinks in this matter is probably because... well who cares about Taiwan, when we are talking about the Big Bad China, right? Sarcasm aside, if you want to talk about history, at least get the actual history part right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
- huahaiy 10y ago
  This recent ruling is absurd in that it redefines the concept of island. For example, the largest island in South China Sea, Taiping Island, which has natural fresh water, and is continuously populated by Taiwan since WWII, is no longer considered an island. If this ruling is to be followed, many countries claims on islands all over the planet would be null and void, including some of USA's.
  - fredliu 10y ago
    I'm no international law lawyer, and didn't really look too much into the details of the "ruling", which I think, as any law, would be pointless unless there's enforcement (by whom?). It just baffles me that an article about the "history" of something didn't mention one of the first questions regarding the history of anything: where does it come from? It's not that hard to look up, it's right there in the first sentence on wikipedia....
  - The_suffocated 10y ago
    You are misreading the ruling. It doesn't say that Itu Aba (Taiping Island) isn't an island. What it says is that Itu Aba is a maritime feature that "cannot sustain human habitation or an economic life of their own". Every high-tide elevation of this sort is referred to as "rock" in UNCLOS. Being a "rock" here doesn't mean it's not an island; it simply means the maritime feature concerned -- should it be an island, an islet, a reef or whatever -- is not entitled to the full rights (i.e. having an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf) of a full-fledged island. The concept of "rock" here is not a geological one but a legal one.
Animats 10y ago
The UN tried to standardize offshore claims with the International Law of the Sea treaty. China is a signatory, but the US is not.[1] Most of the problems come from areas which have many small islands off a continental coastline. An island in the coastal zone extends ownership. In the South China Sea, there are many islands which are in the coastal zone of more than one country. Hence the problem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t...
- huahaiy 10y ago
  International Law of the Sea regulates issues related to the seas, not lands (including islands). Countries signed the treaty on the understanding that the treaty does not cover sovereign claims of islands. What creative about this new arbitration ruling is that it redefines the concept of island, so many islands are now classified as rocks, in order for them to fall into the jurisdiction of the Law of the Sea. However, I don't think this works, as a law about seas cannot unilaterally defines what constitutes lands.
walrus01 10y ago
see also, "great wall of sand": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_wall_of_sand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_wall_of_sand

40 points by smaili 10y ago

Zikes 10y ago

Journalists these days really love "tell, don't show" don't they. In case anyone else wants to actually see what the Nine-Dash Line looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line#/media/File:9_dotted_line.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line#/media/File:9_d...

wl 10y ago
Link to the file page, for those who can't stand Media Viewer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9_dotted_line.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9_dotted_line.png
- x1798DE 10y ago
  I'll I'm surprised "those who can't stand media viewer" isn't everyone. Thankfully, Wikipedia falls back really gracefully without JS, and if you block JS you don't get MediaViewer or modal dialog during the pledge drive, even when logged out (almost cancelled my recurring donation over the modal dialog).
cttet 10y ago
How the maps look like does not matter when you are talking about which country a piece of territory belongs to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#/media/File:USA_orthographic.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#/media/File:USA_...

Analemma_ 10y ago

The nine-dash line is self-evident absurdity. One glance at it on a map is enough to know it's ridiculous. It's like if Spain claimed the entire Mediterranean Sea all the way to the Suez Canal. I'm sorry if China is upset by this Hague ruling, but the historical conditions of 500 years ago don't mean they get to extend a giant territorial pseudopod into a body of water and muscle out five other countries, many of which have more coastline on it.

venomsnake 10y ago
Two questions: First - are the armies of the countries bordering south china sea able to win armed conflict with China? Second - is the US willing to risk war with nuclear armed China over that? If the both answers are No - then this is neither self evident or absurdity. Might makes right. And China probably has enough of it.
- jayess 10y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Your comment is a dose of realpolitik.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Realpolitik is not well loved on Hacker News.
  - hx87 10y ago
    It's a conflict between prescriptive and descriptive readings of the issue. Prescriptively, China has no historical reason to the territory enclosed by the nine-dash line. None of the preceding Chinese governments and dynasties ever held de jure or de facto sovereignty over that area. There's just no precedent for the claim. Descriptively, if China wants the territory badly enough, it has a good chance of taking and keeping it, albeit at the cost of alienating the crap out of everyone else for at least a generation, if not more. Realpolitik does not prescribe, but only describes.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  As long as the Americans care, China's options are extremely limited. But even without the Americans, they are trying to claim territory far away from hainan and right next to other countries who don't agree with them. Their naval projection capabilities are quite limited, and you can only do so much with an expanded atoll.
- niftich 10y ago
  These are excellent points. Obviously, the extend of the claimed area is... 'creative', as in there is no precedent for such a bulbous, remote extension of claimed seas by any other sovereign state. It's disputed by several parties, in claims that are more in line with common international practice. But given China's island and airstrip buildup in the Spratly Islands, they're determined to project power into this region. The question will come, will anyone other than an international court that lacks the ability for enforcement check them on their maneuvers? As the parent comment says, if no one is willing to risk nuclear war over a few reefs and fisheries (and the uncertain, vague promise of hydrocarbon extraction), then the status quo will stand, and China is intent on nudging the status quo its way.

fredliu 10y ago

What's ironic about this article of "History of Nine-Dash Line", is that it mentioned ROC (Republic Of China) 0 times, and only mentioned Taiwan twice (in either cases related to the actual history). The fact is that the original Eleven-Dash Line/Nine-Dash Line was established by ROC (now Taiwan) who still holds the claim, and is furious about the recent "ruling". I guess nobody gives an F what Taiwan thinks in this matter is probably because... well who cares about Taiwan, when we are talking about the Big Bad China, right? Sarcasm aside, if you want to talk about history, at least get the actual history part right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line

huahaiy 10y ago
This recent ruling is absurd in that it redefines the concept of island. For example, the largest island in South China Sea, Taiping Island, which has natural fresh water, and is continuously populated by Taiwan since WWII, is no longer considered an island. If this ruling is to be followed, many countries claims on islands all over the planet would be null and void, including some of USA's.
- fredliu 10y ago
  I'm no international law lawyer, and didn't really look too much into the details of the "ruling", which I think, as any law, would be pointless unless there's enforcement (by whom?). It just baffles me that an article about the "history" of something didn't mention one of the first questions regarding the history of anything: where does it come from? It's not that hard to look up, it's right there in the first sentence on wikipedia....
- The_suffocated 10y ago
  You are misreading the ruling. It doesn't say that Itu Aba (Taiping Island) isn't an island. What it says is that Itu Aba is a maritime feature that "cannot sustain human habitation or an economic life of their own". Every high-tide elevation of this sort is referred to as "rock" in UNCLOS. Being a "rock" here doesn't mean it's not an island; it simply means the maritime feature concerned -- should it be an island, an islet, a reef or whatever -- is not entitled to the full rights (i.e. having an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf) of a full-fledged island. The concept of "rock" here is not a geological one but a legal one.

Animats 10y ago

The UN tried to standardize offshore claims with the International Law of the Sea treaty. China is a signatory, but the US is not.[1] Most of the problems come from areas which have many small islands off a continental coastline. An island in the coastal zone extends ownership. In the South China Sea, there are many islands which are in the coastal zone of more than one country. Hence the problem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t...

huahaiy 10y ago
International Law of the Sea regulates issues related to the seas, not lands (including islands). Countries signed the treaty on the understanding that the treaty does not cover sovereign claims of islands. What creative about this new arbitration ruling is that it redefines the concept of island, so many islands are now classified as rocks, in order for them to fall into the jurisdiction of the Law of the Sea. However, I don't think this works, as a law about seas cannot unilaterally defines what constitutes lands.

walrus01 10y ago

see also, "great wall of sand": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_wall_of_sand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_wall_of_sand