For the First Time, U.S. Says China’s South China Sea Nine Dash Line is Inconsistent with International Law

by Julian Ku

As Jeffrey Bader of Brookings notes, the U.S. government has, for the first time, publicly rejected the legality of China’s “Nine Dash Line” claim in the South China Sea (for a little background on the unusual Nine Dash Line, see an earlier post here). This is a semi-big deal as it shows how the US is going to use international law as a sword to challenge China’s actions in this region.

During testimony before Congress, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel stated:

Under international law, maritime claims in the South China Sea must be derived from land features. Any use of the ‘nine-dash line’ by China to claim maritime rights not based on claimed land features would be inconsistent with international law. The international community would welcome China to clarify or adjust its nine-dash line claim to bring it in accordance with the international law of the sea.

It is actually surprising that the U.S. government has never actually publicly stated this argument before, since the Russel statement fits comfortably within the U.S. government’s long-standing positions on the nature of maritime territorial claims.  And China could not have been unaware of US views on its 9-dash-line claim. But the U.S. also likes to repeat that it takes no position on any sovereignty disputes, and since the Nine Dash Line is sort of a sovereignty claim, it has always been a little unclear whether the US was neutral on the Nine-Dash Line as well.

Russel’s statement ends this ambiguity, and also offers more explanation on how the US “neutrality” in sovereignty disputes does not mean that it has no view on how those disputes would be resolved.

I think it is imperative that we be clear about what we mean when the United States says that we take no position on competing claims to sovereignty over disputed land features in the East China and South China Seas. First of all, we do take a strong position with regard to behavior in connection with any claims: we firmly oppose the use of intimidation, coercion or force to assert a territorial claim. Second, we do take a strong position that maritime claims must accord with customary international law.

Again, I can’t imagine this is a new US government position, but it is useful to make it clear publicly.

By tying itself to customary international law, the U.S. is challenging China to try to fit its Nine Dash Line into the legal framework created by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.  Even some clarification from China as to the legal basis for its Nine Dash Line would be helpful, since it would shift the burden on China to explain its legal position.

Moreover, the US government is also offering a legal roadmap for other countries that are not claimants in the region. It is hardly a controversial legal position, and should be fairly easy for the EU, Canada, or Australia to adopt (assuming they don’t mind tweaking China).

Having wedded itself to international law, the US will now have to see whether China will start making non-legal claims or even noises about withdrawing from UNCLOS.  The law definitely is not on China’s side here, but that doesn’t mean that China is going to back down in the SCS.

4 Responses

  1. Now we need the State Department to issue a “Limits in the Seas” report on the nine-dash line.

  2. A few comments:
    1. The Nine Dash Line was established and declared in 1948, and the UNCLOS was negotiated in 1970-80s. Those who want use the later rules to fit previous state practices is definitely not consistent with the rule of law. Take a look at how many territories were occupied and incorporate to the US by war before the WWII, it is unlawful according to modern international law.
    2. The UNCLOS is not the only international law regime which should be respected in the SCS, actually the international law also include custom international law which exists long before the adoption of the UNCLOS. In 1940s and the following decades, the Nine Dash Line was there and Chinese governments made the same claims according to the international law at that time without resort to the EEZs or the so-called land features. The sovereignty to the land territories and waters in the nine Dash Line is not based on the UNCLOS which itself is not intend to change but with due regard to the sovereignty of all stares..
    3. If US consider international law is only the UNCLOS, it is understandable since they found the land features is the best term they could use to challenge China’s claim. But unfortunately truth and law is going to the other way.

  3. China should first explain the VALIDITY of the 9-DASH LINE. There is just no legal justification for it. Even historical as they based it on a faulty map created by the British in a century ago. Also, China FORCIBLY took Paracel Island, Mischief Reef and Scarborough Shoal from Vietnam and Philippines. Also, invaded Tibet after WW2. If UN won’t act on this, there’s no guarantee that China will stop their land-grabbing in Asia.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. […] Last week saw a real milestone as the US government has now said, for the first time, that the notion of the nine-dash line long thought to be the centre of China’s claims is inconsistent with international law. While the entire conflict will hopefully remain in the field of strategy, i.e. hypothetical problems and opportunities, for those that are interested in legal insights I recommend Prof Julian Ku’s writing at opiniojuris. […]