Looking into the Philippines' submission at the Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea, many confusing concepts aimed at denying China's historical rights have been found. But they only serve to expose the Philippines' ignorance and prejudice.
EXAMPLE ONE: INTERPRETING OUT OF CONTEXT
In its arbitration statement, the Philippines claimed that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has never mentioned historical rights.
The Philippines undoubtedly misinterpreted the content of the convention. In fact, many articles of the UNCLOS recognize the concepts of "historic bays" and "historic waters."
For example, Article 15 of the convention states: "The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith."
Some scholars believe that China's historical rights can be established from "historic bays" and "historic waters" in relevant articles of the UNCLOS.
Therefore, the UNCLOS offers strong support for China's stance, but not on the contrary.
EXAMPLE TWO: IGNORING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
The Philippines claimed that the historical rights mentioned by China had been clearly denied and abolished by the UNCLOS makers, attempting to imply that none of historical rights should be included in the international law.
In fact, however, no rights could come into being instantly and those rights established in history undoubtedly should be respected by the international law.
Several precedents in judicial practices also reinforced the claim for historical rights. The most typical one was the fishery case between Britain and Norway in 1949, which was related to historical rights.
The Norwegian royal family issued a decree in 1935, delimiting Norway's exclusive fishery area in accordance with Norwegian historical tradition, while Britain believed Norway's delimitation violated the international law and filed a law suit with an international court in 1949.
The court accepted the case as both Britain and Norway had agreed to accept the count's jurisdiction. In 1951, the court dismissed Britain's appeal and ruled that the Norwegian royal family's decree remained effective due to historical rights.
