Legal Nature And Function Of The Nine-dotted Line In The South China Sea

In recent decades coastal states in the South China Sea have been invading and occupying China’s islands located within the Nine-dotted Line in the South China Sea and have asserted claims to the relevant areas in the South China Sea and its outer limit of continental shelf. The dispute in the South China Sea has been under the spotlight. In 2013, Philippines proceeded an arbitration against China in Permanent Court of Arbitration, hoping to challenge China’s sovereignty of the South China Sea, ignoring the consensus that have reached among the coastal states. Because Philippines’s activity accords with the Western thinking pattern, and is backed up by the U.S. as well, it has put some pressure on China’s diplomacy. Therefore, it is important to give legal replies to Philippines’s legal activity from the academic perspectives, although the Chinese Government’s position is that the government will neither accept nor participate in Philippines’s arbitration.The primary question that Philippines raised is the legal nature and function of the Nine-dotted Line. The answers to this question will influence China’s claims to the South China Sea. Currently, there are four views regarding the Nine-dotted Line in academia:historical waters, historical rights, territory border, and island sovereignty.This paper discussed this question based on historical and modern perspectives. Firstly, the historical evolution of the Nine-dotted Line and China’s ancient jurisdiction of the South China Sea was studied and analysed and concluded that the nature of China’s ancient jurisdiction of the South China Sea is totally isolated from the western legal system. In modern times, although China was influenced by western legal system, the essence of China’s jurisdiction of the South China Sea was not substantially changed. The modern regimes and practice of China’s jurisdiction of the South China Sea are in accordance with its tradition.Secondly, this paper analysed the relationship between the historical jurisdiction and international law and no substantive conflicts were found. The claims based on the international law from other coastal states in the South China Sea should not surpass China’s historical jurisdiction. In addition, some regimes of the Law of the Sea support China’s historical jurisdiction.Lastly, this paper proposed that the Nine-dotted Line could be defined as the "historical jurisdiction line", to demonstrate that China’s jurisdiction of the South China Sea is different from the one generalised from western theory. This explanation could avoid the conflicts with China’s diplomatic claims and could give a legitimate and effective reply to Philippines’s claims.