American scholarship on South China Sea misguided
Tensions have risen recently in the South China Sea amid disputes among nations in the area.
The disputes in the South China Sea are mainly about the sovereignty of some islets and the administration over some waters.
The US has taken an active part in the South China Sea issue in the past two years, but I think its actions are less than helpful in solving the problems.
One problem is that the current think tanks associated with the White House are short of experts who both know international law of the sea very well and have constant interest in the South China Sea.
This is partly because the area is relatively remote to the US, in sense of its geographical distance or its strategic interest, and partly because many of the US scholars who study the South China Sea issue are Republicans, and therefore are not employed to work in think tanks for the current Democratic administration.
International legal scholar Jonathan Charney used to dominate discussions on the South China Sea in the US.
He published an article in the prestigious American Journal of International Law in 1995, a core journal on international law, and misleadingly emphasized that China has no right to claim sovereignty over "all the islands" in the South China Sea.
That article has had a profound influence in the US.
However, as a matter of fact, China has never claimed over "all the islands" in the South China Sea.
The consistent stand of China is to claim sovereignty over the islands and their nearby waters within its historic waters boundary (the "U-shaped line") in the South China Sea which has been in the charge of China for centuries. This area only makes up half of the South China Sea.
Another contemporary leading scholar who publishes a lot on the South China Sea issue is a scientist, not an international lawyer.
He asserts that countries in this area could refer to the Antarctic Treaty to solve the issue. The South China Sea could then be open to all the countries in the area to enjoy the rights and responsibilities of exploitation and management.
But there are abundant historic proofs to prove that China has discovered first and controlled first these small, usually uninhabited islets before any other countries.
According to international law, that means China has already had undisputed sovereignty over this area. Then, unless for substantial reasons, why should China share its territory with other countries?
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has been regarded as the bible for solving the world's maritime issues peacefully. During her earlier visit to Vietnam, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on China to follow the UNCLOS.
However, more than 160 countries have joined in that Convention, but it has never been ratified by the US.
China ratified the UNCLOS in 1996, and has remained committed to solving the South China Sea issue through bilateral negotiations with reference to the UNCLOS and other pertaining international laws.
China's claims over those islands within its "U-shaped" historic water limits in the South China Sea also remain consistent with the UNCLOS.
I have found in recent forums on the South China Sea issue that scholars and politicians from the US are increasingly eager to listen to Chinese experts in international law and the South China Sea.
I hope that, with enough knowledge, the Americans will realize there is nothing wrong with China claiming its sovereignty within its U-shaped line in the South China Sea.
After that, they will really take a more constructive role to help peacefully solve the regional issues according to the UNCLOS and other pertaining international laws.
The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Shen Shushu based on an interview with Fu Kuen-chen, editor-in-chief of China Oceans Law Review and KoGuan Chair Professor of Law at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. shenshushu@globaltimes.com.cn