You are on page 1of 3

REFUTES( Main Speech

)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So lets start with the basis of China's claim to the west philippine sea. "History".
China justified their claim by saying that their ancient chinese texts mention certain islands in the South
China sea.
However most of the historical evidences of China have a lot of loopholes. They are basing their rights on
their own
record of history which may or may not be true.
According to one of my sources
"China claims that Scarborough Shoal, which it calls Huangyan Island,
is the Nanhai Island that 13th century Chinese astronomer-engineer-mathematician Guo Shoujing
allegedly
visited in 1279 on the order of Kublai Khan, the first emperor of the Yuan Dynasty,
to conduct a survey of the Four Seas to update the Sung Dynasty calendar system."
This supposed visit is the only historical link that China claims to the scarborough Shoal.
However,Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio stressed that China already used the same
claim in another territorial dispute – against Vietnam over the Paracels islands.
He cited a January 30, 1980 document titled “China’s Sovereignty Over Xisha and Zhongsa Islands
Is Indisputable”
published in Beijing Review, saying that China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially declared that
the Nanhai Island that Guo Shoujing visited in 1279 was in Xisha or what is internationally called the
Paracels,
a group of islands more than 380 NM from Scarborough Shoal. China issued this official document to
bolster its claim to
the Paracels to counter Vietnam’s strong historical claims to the same islands.
This statement by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio , clearly indicates a loophole to Chinas claim to
the
scarborough shoal.
#1 Chinese texts claim
Ancient Chinese texts which mention the South China Sea islands mention those islands as foreign
lands,
not as China's territories, and do not describe which activities the authority of ancient China exercised on
the islands.
Therefore, there is no proof of China's jurisdiction over the islands. In the case of Scarborough shoal,
China argued that Kublai Khan's officials were the first to map out and to establish jurisdiction over those
islands
in 1279. However, Kublai Khan was the Great Khan of the Mongol Empire who conquered China.
If any country can inherit Scarborough shoal from Kublai Khan, it is Mongolia, not China.
In 1279, Kublai Khan's officials neither "discovered" nor "established jurisdiction" over Scarborough
shoal because
that place was already the historic water and traditional fishing ground of Filipino fishermen,
descendants of the Austronesian sailors who navigated the South China Sea and populated the Philippines
in 5000-2500 BC.
Scarborough shoal was known as "bajio de Masinloc", meaning shoal of Masinloc, in a Spanish-made map
of the Philippines
in 1734. Masinloc is not a Spanish word and is the name of a municipality on the Philippines' main island,
confirming that Filipino fishermen had been to and had named the islands after their own tongue for
centuries
Also, according to one of my researches, People of the Austronesian language family, more specifically

. And not only them. 2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Scarborough 219. and since China ratified the UNCLOS. were the first to navigate the South China Sea.89 km if 370km spratleys 232. the Philippines should push and win our way for the sovereign rights of the West Philippine sea. the filipinos also have our own history of owning the scarborough shoal. But now.(Article 12 section 2) Even with the invalidity of their claim.In short. If the Arctic Ocean is a "common heritage for all of humankind". and Vietnam. shoals. Countries that had historical border with the Arctic Ocean formed the Arctic Council to divide the Arctic natural resources according to the rules of UNCLOS. and delimited. According to Carpio. RE-ESTABLISH -------------------------------------------------------------------Based on these statement of Chinas claim which is technically invalid. let us believe for an instance that Chinas Historical Evidence is valid. Fishing rights that other states historically enjoyed within the EEZ of a coastal state automatically terminated upon the effectivity of UNCLOS. demarcated. Whether one of them is true or not. If China presented a map claiming their ownership. this signifies that even China's Historical evidence about their claim that they were the first ones to discover and navigate the seas are doubtable. In its territorial disputes with neighboring India. yet China asked to join the Arctic Council in order to have a share of Arctic natural resources.91 km of 370 km. it should no longer be honored under international law. introducing Indian philosophies to Southeast Asia. UNCLOS does not recognize ‘ historical rights’ as basis for claiming the EEZs or ECSs of other coastal states. the Murillo Map created by Father pedro murillo veralde on 1734 shows scarborough shoal and for the first time scarborough shoal was given a name called panacot. and reefs in the South China Sea. Even destroying coral reefs that could greatly affect our economy. Even then. However. leading to the formation of many Indianised states on Islands Southeast Asia in ancient time. Beijing always took the position that its land boundaries were never defined. they are bounded to its rules. when it comes to islands. particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).the Malayo-Polynesian branch. China never had any historical border with the Arctic Ocean. The South China Sea has always been an international waterway since prehistory. We. In other words. Burma. but also our rights to utilize the natural resources. China does not only violate the rules of UNCLOS. China already started utilizing the natural resources which are supposed to be ours. China’s claim that its land boundaries were historically never defined and delimited stands in sharp contrast with the stance that China’s maritime boundaries were always clearly defined and delimited. 1.213 years before China drew the 9 dash lines. arguing that the Arctic Ocean is a "common heritage for all of humankind". Indian traders navigated that sea early in prehistory. Beijing claims otherwise. Still according to Carpio "UNCLOS extinguished all historical rights of other states within the 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone of the adjacent coastal state. That is why this 200 NM zone is called ‘exclusive’ – no state other than the adjacent coastal state can exploit economically its resources. we.

proving that the world had accepted China's claim Traditional Chinese political thought which said that the world (All-under-heaven) is under the authority of Chinese emperors. . POI 1. not only for China.then the South China Sea is a common heritage for all the peoples who live on its shores. when China published a map of that sea with an eleven-dash line (predecessor of the nine-dash line). Can China argue that the world had accepted China's sovereignty over the world because nobody protested when the Chinese emperors declared that the world is under their authority? 2. nobody protested. MAP Argmuments China further argued that in 1947.