Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:51, 4 February 2013

Scarborough Shoal or Scarborough Reef, also known as Huangyan Island (simplified Chinese: 黄岩岛; traditional Chinese: 黃岩島; pinyin: Huángyán Dǎo) or Panatag Shoal (Filipino: Kulumpol ng Panatag), is located between the Macclesfield Bank and Luzon Island of the Philippines in the South China Sea. It is more correctly described as a group of rocks or very small islands plus reefs in an atoll shape, rather than as a shoal.

It is a disputed territory claimed by the People's Republic of China, Republic of China (Taiwan), and the Philippines. The shoal's status is often discussed in conjunction with other territorial disputes in the South China Sea such as those involving the Spratly Islands or the Paracel Islands. Since the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff, the territory has been controlled by the People's Republic of China.

The shoal was named after the East India Company tea-trade ship Scarborough which was wrecked on one of its rocks on 12 September 1784 with all lives lost.

Geography

Scarborough Shoal/Panatag forms a triangle-shaped chain of reefs and rocks or very small islands 55 kilometres (34 mi) in circumference with a total area including shallow water areas of 150 square kilometers. The shoal encompasses a shallow lagoon measuring 130 km² and approximately 15 metres (49 ft) deep. The shoal is a protrusion from a 3,500 m deep abyssal plain. Several of the rocks or small islands including "South Rock" are 1/2 m to 3 m high, and many of the reefs are just below water at high tide. To the east of the shoal is the 5,000 - 6,000 meter deep Manila Trench. Near the mouth of the lagoon are the ruins of an iron tower, 8.3 m high, that was constructed by the Philippine Navy as a lighthouse in 1965.

The shoal is about 123 miles (198 km) west of Subic Bay. The nearest landmass is Palauig, Zambales, on Luzon Island in the Philippines, 137 miles (220 km) due east.

Activities in the surrounding area

The shoal and its surrounding area are rich fishing grounds. A significant number of Chinese fishermen have been arrested by Philippine officials in this area, particularly during 1998-2001. Most arrests were for alleged using illegal methods of fishing and catching endangered and protected species.

There are thick layers of guano lying on the rocks in the area. Several diving excursions and amateur radio operations, DX-peditions (1994, 1995, 1997 and 2007), have been carried out in the area.

Sovereignty dispute

Claims by China and Taiwan

The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) claim that Chinese people discovered the shoal centuries ago and that there is a long history of Chinese fishing activity in the area. The shoal lies within the nine-dotted line drawn by China on maps marking its claim to around two-thirds of the total area of the South China Sea. An article published in May 2012 in the PLA Daily states that Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing went to the island in 1279, under the Yuan dynasty, as part of an empire-wide survey called "Measurement of the Four Seas" (四海测验). In 1979 historical geographer Han Zhenhua (韩振华) was among the first scholars to claim that the point called "Nanhai" (literally, "South Sea") in that astronomical survey referred to Scarborough Shoal. In 1980 during a conflict with Vietnam for sovereignty over the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands), however, the Chinese government issued an official document claiming that "Nanhai" in the 1279 survey was located in the Paracels. Historical geographer Niu Zhongxun defended this view in several articles. In 1990, a historian called Zeng Zhaoxuan (曾昭璇) argued instead that the Nanhai measuring point was located in Central Vietnam. Historian of astronomy Chen Meidong (陈美东) and historian of Chinese science Nathan Sivin have since agreed with Zeng's position in their respective books about Guo Shoujing.

In 1935, the Chinese government, at that point the Republic of China, regarded the shoal as part of the Zhongsha Islands. That position has since been maintained by both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. In 1947 the shoal was given the name Minzhu Jiao (Chinese: 民主礁; lit. 'Democracy Reef'). In 1983 the People's Republic of China renamed it Huangyan Island with Minzhu Jiao reserved as a second name. In 1956 China, by then governed by the People's Republic of China, protested Philippine remarks that the South China Sea islands in close proximity to Philippine territory should belong to the Philippines. China's Declaration on the territorial Sea, promulgated in 1958, says in part,

The breadth of the Territorial Sea of the People's Republic of China shall be twelve nautical miles. This applies to all territories of the People's Republic of China, including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands, as well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands, the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands , the Nansha Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.

China reaffirmed its claim of sovereignty over the Zhongsha Islands in its 1992 Law on the territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. China claims all the islands, reefs, and shoals within a U-shaped line in the South China Sea drawn in 1947 as its territory. Scarborough shoal lies within this area.

China further asserted its claim shortly after the departure of the US Navy force from Subic, Zambales, Philippines. In the late 1970s, many scientific expedition activities organized by State Bureau of Surveying, National Earthquake Bureau and National Bureau of Oceanography were held in the shoal and around this area. In 1980, a stone marker reading "South China Sea Scientific Expedition" was installed on the South Rock, but was removed by Philippines in 1997.

An article on the Chinese website of the Global Times and an editorial in the People's Daily claim that the ambassador of the Philippines in Germany sent a letter to radio amateur "Dieter" in February 1990 stating that the Scarborough Shoal was not part of the Philippines; they also claim that in 1994 the Philippines Department of the Environment and Natural Resources and the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority separately confirmed to the American Amateur Radio Association that the Philippines did not hold sovereignty over the shoal.

Claim by the Philippines

The Philippines claims that its sovereignty claim for the shoal is based on the juridical criteria established by public international law on the lawful methods for the acquisition of sovereignty. Among the criteria (effective occupation, cession, prescription, conquest, and accretion), the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has asserted that the country exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence. Thus, it claims to have erected flags in some islands and a lighthouse which it reported to the International Maritime Organization. It also asserts that the Philippine and US Naval Forces have used it as impact range and that its Department of Environment and Natural Resources has conducted scientific, topographic and marine studies in the shoal, while Filipino fishermen regularly use it as fishing ground and have always considered it their own.

The DFA also claims that the name Bajo de Masinloc (translated as "under Masinloc") itself identifies the shoal as a particular political subdivision of the Philippine Province of Zambales, known as Masinloc. As basis, the Philippines cites the Island of Palmas Case, where the sovereignty of the island was adjudged by the international court in favor of the Netherlands because of its effective jurisdiction and control over the island despite the historic claim of Spain. Thus, the Philippines argues that the historic claim of China over the Scarborough Shoal still needs to be substantiated by a historic title, since a claim by itself is not among the internationally recognized legal basis for acquiring sovereignty over territory.

It also asserts that there is no indication that the international community has acquiesced to China's historical claim, and that the activity of fishing of private Chinese individuals, claimed to be a traditional exercise among these waters, does not constitute a sovereign act of the Chinese State.

The Philippine government argues that since the legal basis of its claim is based on the international law on acquisition of sovereignty, the Exclusive Economic Zone claim on the waters around Scarborough is different from the sovereignty exercised by the Philippines in the shoal.

The Philippine government has proposed taking the dispute to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) as provided in Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the Chinese government has rejected this, insisting on bilateral discussions.

The Philippines also claims that as early as the Spanish colonization of the Philippines, Filipino fishermen were already using the area as a traditional fishing ground and shelter during bad weather.

Several official Philippine maps published by Spain and United States in 18th and 20th centuries show Scarborough Shoal as Philippine territory. The 18th-century map "Carta hydrographica y chorographica de las Islas Filipinas" (1734) shows the Scarborough Shoal then was named as Panacot Shoal. The map also shows the shape of the shoal as consistent with the current maps available as today. During the 1900s, Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila, and US Coast and Geodetic Survey Map include the Scarborough Shoal named as "Baju De Masinloc." In 1792, another map drawn by the Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. The map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine Census, which was published in Manila a year later and predates the controversial 1947 Chinese South China Sea Claim Map that shows no Chinese name on it. Another topographic map drawn in 1820 shows the shoal, named there as "Bajo Scarburo," as a constituent part of Sambalez (Zambales province).

In 1957, the Philippine government conducted an oceanographic survey of the area and together with the US Navy force based in then U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay in Zambales, used the area as an impact range for defense purposes. An 8.3 meter high flag pole flying a Philippine flag was raised in 1965. A small lighthouse was also built and operated the same year. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it to the International Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights. As of 2009, the military-maintained lighthouse is non-operational.

The Scarborough Shoal is not included within the territorial lines defined in the Treaty of Paris (1898), Treaty of Washington (1900), Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (1930), 1935 Constitution of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 3046 "Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines"(1961), or the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) asserts that the basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris, and argues that the matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.

By virtue of the Presidential Decree No. 1599 issued by President Ferdinand Marcos on June 1978, the Philippines claims an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the baselines from which their territorial sea is measured. In 2009, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo enacted the Philippine Baselines Law of 2009 (RA 9522). The new law classifies the Spratly Islands and the Scarborough Shoal as a regime of islands under the Republic of the Philippines.

See also

• China–Philippines relations
• Sansha
• South China Sea Islands
• List of territorial disputes

Other East Asian territorial disputes involving islands

• Territorial disputes in the South China Sea
• 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff
• Paracel Islands
• Spratly Islands dispute
• Senkaku Islands dispute
• Nine-dotted line
• Pratas Islands
• Macclesfield Bank
• Liancourt Rocks dispute
• Tsushima Island
• Kuril Islands dispute

References

1. "At 'Karburo,' Filipinos fish, laugh, eat, drink with Chinese, Viet fishermen". Inquirer.net. 2012-04-26. Retrieved 2012-05-30.
2. "Disputes hurt Philippines'/Japan's tourism industry". International Business Times. Sept 17, 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. "Filipino says Huangyan Island belongs to China". May 4, 2012.
4. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/187721/ph-plane-flies-over-panatag-shoal
5. "Chinese 'occupation' of Bajo de Masinloc could reduce PH territorial waters by 38 percent". Malaya Business News Online. January 21, 2013. Retrieved January 23, 2013.
6. Richard Bayly (Colonel.) (1896). Diary of Colonel Bayly, 12th Regiment, 1796-1830. Naval & Military Press. p. 108.
7. Various (1801). The Oriental Navigator: Or, New Directions for Sailing to and from the East Indies, China, New Holland &c. London UK, Laurie and Whittle. p. 454
8. "In The Know: The Scarborough Shoal". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 12 April 2012. Retrieved 12 June 2012.
9. Philippine Lighthouse on Panatag (Scarborough Shoal), http://www.asianjournal.com/immigration/atty-roman-mosqueda/15891-panatag-scarborough-shoal-is-within-ph-exclusive-economic-zone-.html
10. ^ 陈若冰, 21 April 2012, 中国与菲律宾中沙黄岩岛之争 (The dispute between China and the Philippines over Zhongsha Huangyan Island), Sohu News. (English translation of original Chinese text available here.)
11. LUO, Zheng 罗铮; LÜ, Desheng 吕德胜 (10 May 2012). "Six Irrefutable Proofs: Huangyan Island Belongs to China 六大铁证：黄岩岛属于中国 (in Chinese)". PLA Daily 解放军报. Retrieved 22 May 2012. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-name-separator= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help) See under "Irrefutable proof 1: China discovered the Huangyuan Island long time ago" 铁证一：中国早发现黄岩岛.
12. HAN, Zhenhua 韩振华 (1979). "The South Sea as Chinese National Territory in the Yuan-Era 'Measurement of the Four Seas' 元代《四海测验》中的中国疆宇之南海 (in Chinese)". Research on the South China Sea 南海问题研究. 1979. Retrieved 22 May 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-name-separator= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help) A rough English translation of this article can be found here.
13. Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国外交部 (30 January 1980), China's Sovereignty Over the Xisha and Zhongsha Islands is Indisputable 中国对西沙群岛和南沙群岛的主权无可争辩 (in Chinese), p. 6. This document claims that "the Nanhai measuring point was 'where the pole star rises at 15 degrees ', which should correspond to 14.47 degrees; adding a margin of error of about 1 degree, its location falls precisely on today's Xisha Islands" (南海这个测点‘北极出地一十五度’应为北纬14度47分，加上一度左右的误差，其位置也正好在今西沙群岛), which shows that "the Xisha Islands were inside Chinese territory during the Yuan dynasty" (西沙群岛在元代是在中国的疆界之内).
14. See for instance NIU, Zhongxun (1998). "Investigation on the Geographical Location of Nanhai in the Yuan-Dynasty Survey of the Four Seas 元代四海测验中南海观测站地理位置考辨". Research on the Historical Geography of China's Frontiers 中国边疆史地研究. 1998 (2). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-name-separator= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help).
15. ZENG, Zhaoxuan 曾昭旋 (1990), "The Yuan-Dynasty Survey of Nanhai was in Champa: Guo Shoujing Did not Go to the Zhongsha or Xisha to Measure Latitude 元代南海测验在林邑考--郭守敬未到西中沙测量纬度 (in Chinese)", Historical Research 历史研究, 1990 (5) {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-name-separator= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help). Among other evidence, Zeng cites a Chinese geologist who argues that the Scarborough Shoal was still submerged under water during the Yuan dynasty.
16. CHEN, Meidong 陈美东 (2003), Critical Biography of Guo Shoujing 郭守敬评传, Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, pp. 78 and 201–4 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-name-separator= (help).
17. Sivin, Nathan (2009), Granting the Seasons: The Chinese Astronomical Reform of 1280, New York: Springer, pp. 577–79.
18. Zou 2005, p. 63.
19. Zou 2005, p. 62.
20. ^ Zou 2005, p. 64.
21. "The story of Chinese radio amateurs' 'remote expedition' to Huangyan Island 我国无线电爱好者"远征"黄岩岛始末 (in Chinese)". Global Times. October 19, 2011. Retrieved May 20, 2012. The expeditionary team also collected a letter dated 5 February 1990 from the ambassador of the Philippines in Germany to radio amateur Dieter, and a letter of attestation dated 28 February 1994 from the Philippines' Department of the Environment and Natural Resources; both documents explicitly state that the Philippines does not hold sovereignty over Huangyan Island. (远征队还收集了1990年2月5日菲律宾驻德国大使致德国爱好者迪特的信和1994年2月28日菲律宾环境及自然资源部的证明信，这两份文件明确说明菲律宾对黄岩岛不拥有主权.)
22. "China has legal basis for sovereignty over Huangyan Island". Editorial in the People's Daily. May 10, 2012. Retrieved May 20, 2012. On February 5, 1990, the Philippine ambassador to Germany made it clear that according to the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority, the Huangyan Island is not within the Philippine territory in a letter to Dieter, a German radio amateur. In documents sent to the American Amateur Radio Association on Oct. 18, 1994 and Nov. 18, 1994, the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority and Philippine Amateur Radio Association had confirmed that the borders and sovereignty of Philippines is defined in the third clause of the Treaty of Paris on Dec. 10, 1898 and the Huangyan Island is located outside the borders of Philippine territory.
23. ^ Philippine Position on Bajo de Masinloc and the Waters Within its Vicinity (18 April 2012), The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines.
24. "Philippine Position on Bajo de Masinloc and the Waters Within its Vicinity". April 18, 2012.
25. ^ PH sovereignty based on Unclos, principles of international law (20 April 2012), The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines (as reported by globalnation.inquirer.net).
26. "China deploys gunboat". Philippine Daily Inquirer. April 20, 2012.
27. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J. (April 22, 2012). "Scarborough Shoal". Philippine Daily Inquirer.
28. PART XV : SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES, UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA : AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PART XI OF THE CONVENTION, The United Nations.
29. Zou 2005, pp. 64–65.
30. In a Troubled Sea: Reed Bank, Kalayaan, Lumbay, Galit, and Panacot - Yahoo! News Philippines
31. ‘Panatag Shoal ours since 1734’ | Top Stories
32. "Scarborough belongs to PH, old maps show". Philippine Daily Inquirer. April 23, 2012.
33. What’s become of the MMDA?, Philippine Star, 2 April 2008
34. COAST GUARD DISTRICT NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION - CENTRAL LUZON LIGHTSTATIONS (archived from the original on 2010-01-16)
35. "Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain; December 10, 1898". Avalon Project.
36. "TREATY BETWEEN SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATE FOR CESSION OF OUTLYING ISLANDS OF THE PHILIPPINES" (PDF). University of the Philippines. November 7, 1900.
37. United States. Dept. of State; Charles Irving Bevans (1968). Treaties and other international agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949. Dept. of State; for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. pp. 473–476.
38. "1935 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES". Chan Robles Law Library.
39. "REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046 (as amended by RA 5446) AN ACT DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES". Chan Robles Law library. June 17, 1961.
40. "PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1599 ESTABLISHING AN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES". Chan Robles Law Library. June 11, 1978.
41. Philippine Baselines Law of 2009 (March 11, 2009), GMA News.
42. "AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES". Chan Robles Law Library. March 10, 2009.

• Zou, Keyuan (2005). Law of the Sea in East Asia: Issues And Prospects. RoutledgeCurzon. ISBN 978-0-415-35074-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Further reading

• Bautista, Lowell B. (2011). "PHILIPPINE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES: INTERNAL TENSIONS, COLONIAL BAGGAGE, AMBIVALENT CONFORMITY" (PDF). JATI - Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 16: 35–53. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Bonnet, Francois-Xavier "Geopolitics of Scarborough Shoal" Irasec's Discussion Papers, No 14, November 2012, Irasec.com
• Tupaz, Edsel. "Sidebar Brief: The Law of the Seas and the Scarborough Shoal Dispute". Jurist.

External links

• Google Map showing relative position of Scarborough Shoal with Philippines and China
• Scarborough Shoal, a new Sino-Philippine conflict
• Chinese marker in Panatag Shoal (archived from the original on 2011-05-19)
• Stone marker "South China Sea Scientific Expedition" by State Bureau of Surveying, National Earthquake Bureau and National Bureau of Oceanography of China

• Territorial disputes of the Philippines
• Disputed islands
• Islands of the South China Sea
• Territorial disputes of China
• Territorial disputes of the Republic of China
• Sansha