Advertisement

A One-Dot Theory Critique of the UNCLOS: Is the Chinese U-Shaped Line Really Infamous?

  • Peter Kien-hong YU
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter attempts to conduct a thorough critique of the December 1982 United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or LOS Convention) from article 1 to article 320 (http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm, accessed on August 31, 2013) plus the following, to wit, Preamble and a historical perspective, by applying my one-dot theory, to see whether the U-shaped line in the South China Sea (SCS), which can be dialectically and collectively described as (extended) internal waters, territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and other sea areas under the Chinese jurisdiction is, indeed, infamous. As a reminder, the original boundary marker of the U-shaped line is the same as the ones on land in the Republic of China (ROC) before October 1949: -(·)-(·)-(·)-(·)-(·)-(·)-(·)-(·)-(·)-(·)-(·).

Flaws, loopholes, as well as ambiguities and deficiencies in UNCLOS, etc. will be accordingly identified and commented. I also categorize them in terms of the international regimes and non-“international regimes” dimensions. Moreover, I wanted to find out whether the existence of those flaws, etc., can put both sides of the Taiwan Strait at a better position in defending their U-shaped line.

It is suggested that a thorough revision of UNCLOS should be carried out, if not once and for all. Before any revision is carried out, critics and detractors of the U-shaped line should cease throwing their diatribes and be more objective in making their remarks and commentaries.

Keywords

U-shaped line South China Sea Law of the sea Dialectics One-dot theory 

References

  1. Beckman, R. C. (2012a). The China-Philippines dispute in the South China Sea. RSIS Commentaries (hereinafter RC) (Singapore), No. 036/2012, dated March 7, 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Beckman, R. C. (2012b). Scarborough Shoal. RSIS Commentaries, No.072/2012, dated April 24, 2012.Google Scholar
  3. Fu, K.-C. (1990). WaiGuo FaYuan Jiu WoGuo YuChuan FeiFa RuJing AnJian Suo Zuo CaiPan Zhi YanJiuBaoGao (Study on Decisions Made by Foreign Courts Regarding Our Fishing Vessels in Other Countries’ Waters). Report commissioned by the Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan, Republic of China (ROC) and Commission on Fisheries Development in the Taiwan Area, August 31, 1990, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  4. Fu, K.-C. (1995). Legal Studies of the South (China) Sea (p. 3). Taipei: 123 Information Company.Google Scholar
  5. Lowell, B. (2011). Philippine territorial boundaries. Jati, 16, 35–53.Google Scholar
  6. Yu, P. K.-H. (2007). Setting up international (adversary) regimes in the South China Sea: Analyzing the obstacles from a Chinese perspective. Ocean Development & International Law, 38(1/2), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Quemoy UniversityJinmen CountyChina

Personalised recommendations