Old map of South China sea

China claims all of the Spratly Islands and claims its claims date
backs 2000 years to the Han dynasty. Beijing uses a "talk and
take" strategy, simply stating the islands are "indisputably" their
sovereign territory and showing all them with Chinese territorial
waters on Chinese maps. After World War II, the Taiwan
government said they had the Chinese claim to the islands, and
in turn occupied the largest island of Taiping.

China has used arcane issues of international law and ancient

shards of pottery as evidence of its “indisputable sovereignty”
over the South China Sea. Some date the dispute back to 1947,
when the doomed Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek
issued a crude map with 11 dashes marking as Chinese almost
the entire 1.3 million-square-mile waterway. The Communist
Party toppled Chiang but kept his map and his expansive claims,
though it trimmed a couple of dashes.
 In 2002, 10-member association of southeast asian nations and china signed a
nonbinding accord that calls for maintaining the status quo. The declaration on the
conduct of parties (DOC) that was signed seeks to resolve the territorial disputes of
the signers by peaceful means and in accordance with international law, including
the 1982 UN convention on the law of the sea. The agreement however has little
teeth. China wants to engage claimants individually---against the wishes of countries
like the philippines that want to negotiate as a bloc. Diplomats say that china seems
to favor one-on-one talks withe each ASEAN nation, fearing the group could gang
up on it if acting together.
THERE’S MORE !
On what basis does China claim Spratly Islands?

Basically no one really seriously claimed it until the mid

20th century, because maritime laws weren't that
developed and more importantly, all the region were
either colonies or very weak states during the period.

There are basically 2 basis on China's claim.

They claimed it first : pretty strait forward, Nine-dotted

line they announced it in 1947, and since everyone else
were just starting their state at that time, not many
people give it a serious thought until awhile later.
but perhaps more importantly, and difficult to
argue against (in international legal terms
anyway.) was that (somewhat ironically) ...
During WW2, when Japan ran wild in the region, they designated the islands to the
administrative region of Taiwan. which was then given back to China (ROC) at the end
of the war. in all logical theory, this means that the islands attached to the
administrative region Japan put under Taiwan at the times (which included virtually all
the islands in dispute.) are included.

Since PRC officially claims everything ROC owned / was given since 1949 unless otherwise
confirmed in different treaties, then it logically follows that includes all the islands.

in legal terms, the PRC case seems quite strong if we follow the "Japan drew all the
islands to Taiwan -> Taiwan was given back to China -> the whole world in legal terms
acknowledge PRC's claim on basically all ROC sovereign holdings" logic.
Treaty of Taipei

The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, commonly known as the Treaty of Taipei was a peace
treaty between Japan and the Republic of China (ROC) signed in Taipei, Taiwan on 28 April 1952,
and took effect on August 5 the same year, marking the formal end of the Second Sino-Japanese
War (1937–45). This treaty was necessary, because neither the Republic of China nor the People's
Republic of China was invited to sign the Treaty of San Francisco due to disagreements by other
countries as to which government was the legitimate government of China during and after
the Chinese Civil War. Under pressure from the United States, Japan signed a separate peace treaty
with the Republic of China to bring the war between the two states to a formal end with a victory for
the ROC. Although the ROC itself was not a participant in the San Francisco Peace Conference due
to the resumption of the Chinese Civil War after 1945, this treaty largely corresponds to that of San
Francisco. In particular, the ROC waived service compensation to Japan in this treaty with respect to
Article 14(a).1 of the San Francisco Treaty.
ARTICLE II

It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with

Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of
America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San
Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to
Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the
Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.
Well, the North Vietnamese Communists sold these
islands to Chinese Communists.

In 1958, the North Vietnamese Communist Prime

Minister Pham Van Dong signed a diplomatic
document to accept the Chinese ownership on these
island. Pham Van Dong sent this document to
Chinese counterpart Zhouen Lai. Search online for
this document.

According to the article "the 1958 sovereignty over Hoang

Sa and Truong Sa of Vietnam" in the newspaper Dai Doan
Ket , the full text of the bunker on 14 month 9 year 1958 of
Prime Minister North Vietnam Pham Van Dong to the
Prime Minister of the Chinese People's Republic of Zhou
Enlai as follows:
Dear Comrade General,

We would like to inform you to Comrade to clarify:

The Government of Vietnam Democratic Republic recognizes and supports the declaration
dated 4 month 9 year 1958 , the Government of the People's Republic of China , decided
about 12 nautical miles territorial sea of China.

The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects that decision and will instruct
State agencies to take full responsibility to respect China's 12 nautical waters in all relations
with the People's Republic of China. Flowers on the sea.

We would like to thank Comrade General for your very respectful greeting.

Vietnam had agreed to accept archipelagos Hoang Sa and Truong Sa (which China calls
Xisha and Nansha) territory of China. They reasoned that Vietnam only changed its stance
after the reunification in 1975 and thus violated the principle of international estoppel law .
“China is not the Aggressor, Thief,
Colonizer …and whatever bad
label people like to imply”
China’s current ‘claims’ are quite clear, and they do
honestly and sincerely believe that their claims are
valid. In fact rather suspicious about some countries’
intentions, eight of such countries had ganged
together and invaded China and colonized parts of
China - together, not so many years ago during a
period of history Chinese people remember as the
‘century of humiliation’, in fact that had lasted more than
one century.

CENTURY OF HUMILIATION

also known by permutations such as the hundred years

of national humiliation, refers to the period of
intervention and imperialism by Western
powers and Japan in China between 1839 and 1949.
WHAT BASIS?

The claim is based on historical claim which

predated the “international laws” which
cannot take away the sovereignty prior to
those “laws”.

The ‘history’ had dated back more earlier,

(see Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
- Wikipedia)but it was under the background of
the Century of humiliation, when some Chinese
‘patriots’ had started doing some research on the
islands, (1902 see Where in the World is the
Philippines? “China sent a naval expeditions on
the SCS islands planting flags and markers
there” ).
In 1902, and some years later 1907, the RoC (Republic of China) had not
even taken over from the Qing Dynasty. They, the PRC, had just inherited
the claim from the RoC and before that it was just a group of Chinese
patriots, not even in a position of power. These claims were already
there. Of course Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines,
Indonesia were all merely colonies of the imperial power of the ‘gang
of eight’ then.

During the period 1945 - 1970’s when the PRC had made no move, the people from Hong
Kong (perhaps Macau too?) and from Taiwan were taking actions, risking peril waters and
arrests by the Japanese etc, giving up great sums of money doing so in expenses and
properties (boats etc), just to keep the ‘Chinese claims’ alive. During that period, at least Hong
Kong and Macau were just colonies and they were second class citizens with zero military
power, the Taiwanese were also only civilians, not government backed.

That these claims have nothing to do with military or other power, or wealth, or were those
people wanting these island for the oil and other resources underneath the seas.
Now let us talk about Philippines. Why did US not return the island “in dispute” with China
back to the Philippines when it left as the colonial master of the Philippines? The answer is
very simple - US knew that the island never belonged to Philippines.

When US defeated Spain and took over as the colonial master of the Philippines in 1898,
these two countries signed the Paris Treaty of 1898. In it, both countries acknowledged that
the territories of Philippines lied EAST of east meridian 118. The island in dispute? It lies
west of east Meridian 118! It is really that simple. Philippine did not grab these island until
after the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, from a still-militarily-weak China.

Philippine did not declare ownership of the islands “in dispute” until late 1970 by self
proclamation - internal law that say this is mine! After the San Francisco Treaty of 1951,
from which China was intentionally excluded.
It is the same story for all the other island in South China Sea.

The so-called dashed lines were drawn in 1947 after China recovered all the islands.
The United Nation Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) did not come into existence
until 1994, 47 years after the dash-lines were drawn. International laws generally do not
apply retroactively to events that predated its own existence. If it did, then US would be
in great, much greater, trouble than China. People of Haiwaii, Guam, Diego Garcia,
California, its occupied islands in the Pacific, and even the native North Americans will
want their land back!!
In 2014, Singapore Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Hsien Loog, was asked a set-up question by a
VOA report “and as we know that China has declared that international law does not
apply here. So how do you look at the tension”.

His answer: “I don’t think that China has quite said that internal law does not apply to this
(SCS). I think what they have said is they have claims which existed long before
international law came into existence, and these have to be given due weight, because
international law does not go back to things which preceded it”. He conclusion: “ I am not
a lawyer, so I presume there is some plausibility in that argument”.
One thing we can agree on - whom ever
you think the islands “in dispute” with China
belong to, they belong to NEITHER JAPAN
OR PHILIPPINE, by international treaties
already signed.