Policy of the Republic of China towards the South China Sea: recent developments

Sun, Kuan-Ming

doi:10.1016/0308-597x(95)00016-y

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Usage of "inherent territory" in internationally prominent documents seems to have emerged first in Taiwan, especially during the 1990s, though primarily in Chinese and not official English translations at that point. Statements described the relationship of territories such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao to China, as well as Taiwanese claims to islands in the South China Sea (Sun 1995;Jiang 1999;Hsiao and Lin 2016). The People's Republic of China used a single instance of "inherent territory" in 2000 in discussing Taiwan's relationship to China, after not having used it in a very similar 1993 document ("The One-China Principle" 2000; "The Taiwan Question" 1993).…”

Section: Northeast Asia's Historical Usage Of the Term Inherent Terrimentioning

confidence: 99%

International Political Implications of Language : The Linguistic Puzzle of “Inherent Territory”

Yorgason¹

2018

kjis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term "inherent territory" is commonly used to claim disputed lands within the Korean, Chinese, and Japanese languages. It is not common in English. This paper explores the phrase for the first time as a multilingual phenomenon, focusing especially on its implications for English. The term became internationally prominent after 1950 because of Japan's territorial dispute with the Soviet Union over the Northern Territories/Southern Kuril Islands. Japan gradually applied the term to its territorial conflicts with Korea and China. Over time, it became more prominent in both Korean and Chinese, as well. In addition to the Japan-Russia dispute, it now is used in official language in the Dokdo-Takeshima, Diaoyu-Senkaku, and South China Sea territorial disputes. With its increased usage across Northeast Asia, including in English translation easily available on the Internet, the term has strong potential to become common usage in English with respect to territorial conflicts outside of Northeast Asia. Yet, that potential has not been realized. This paper explores possible reasons why English speakers are reluctant to use "inherent territory" through a close political-discursive-linguistic analysis. This paper also discusses the term's potential power if it becomes more popular in English. The article addresses "inherent territory's" lack of status within international law, translation issues, the multiple meanings of inherent, connections between "inherent" and "inherit," the metaphysics of inherent, and the issue of standards through which to evaluate claims to "inherent territory." The paper explains why the English "inherent territory" is simultaneously vague, potentially powerful, and deeply problematic.

show abstract

Section: Northeast Asia's Historical Usage Of the Term Inherent Terrimentioning

confidence: 99%

International Political Implications of Language : The Linguistic Puzzle of “Inherent Territory”

Yorgason¹

2018

kjis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our country possesses all rights and interests in these waters” (Executive Yuan of the Republic of China, 1993). The “historic waters boundary” referred to the U-shaped line created in 1948, as the chairman of the Research, Development, and Evaluation Commission of the Executive Yuan clarified shortly afterward (Sun, 1995: 403). The Policy Guidelines did not articulate what “all rights and interests” entailed.…”

Section: Conclusion: the Significance Of The History Of The U-shaped Line To The Present Disputementioning

confidence: 99%

Drawing the U-Shaped Line

Chung

2015

Modern China

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the genesis, usage, and meaning of the People’s Republic of China’s and the Republic of China’s U-shaped line claim in the South China Sea territorial dispute from 1946 to 1974. The Republic of China (ROC) officially created the line in 1947, which the People’s Republic of China (PRC) then adopted in 1949. Although the PRC claims sovereignty over all of the disputed islands and features, it remains silent on what specific waters the line claims. Based on ROC national archival files on the line, which remain virtually unused by scholars on the dispute, this article argues that the line was an “islands attribution” boundary until at least 1974. It claimed only the islands, features, and any adjacent waters consistent with contemporary conceptions of international maritime law. The article concludes with the present-day significance of this history and suggestions for future avenues of scholarship.

show abstract

“…5 ''Taiwanese Interior Minister Returns from Inspection Tour to Spratly Islands,'' BBC Monitoring International Reports, August 18, 2003 (LexisNexis on-line search, page not available). 6 The Vietnamese name of the island is Dao Ba Binh. 7 ''Vietnam warns Taiwan over Spratly Islands,'' Channel News Asia, November 1, 2003 (LexisNexis on-line search, page not available).…”

Section: China-asean Relations: From Conflict To Co-operationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Helping to bring about national unification should be the common responsibility of all Chinese people''. 34 In addition, under Taiwan's SCS Policy Guidelines, adopted in April 1993, one of the policy implementing actions to be taken is to support the Guidelines for National Unification by studying and setting up relevant policy and plans, and studying the matters relevant to the SCS issues that involve both sides of the Taiwan Strait [6]. 35 At the 1994 Cross-Strait and Oversea Chinese Academic Symposium, Lin Chin-Tz, a senior researcher from Xiamen University, proposed to consider the possibility of cross-strait co-operation on compiling the historical literature in relation to the SCS, inviting scholars to participate in the joint compilation project, and exchange data or research findings/results [7].…”

Section: Article In Pressmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The basis for this cooperation is ''One Country Two Systems, and Peaceful Unification''. He listed the following possible direction, scope and concrete items for the cross-strait cooperation on the SCS issues: (1) to ensure China's ownership over the islands in the SCS area in accordance with international law; (2) to discuss and prove the status of the SCS in accordance with international law and international law on recognition; (3) to empower China's rights and fulfill its obligations in the SCS in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; (4) to proceed with research and co-operation on the fisheries preservation, protection, development and utilization in the SCS area; (5) to proceed with co-operation on marine scientific research; and (6) to study the possibility of joint exploitation of oil resources in the SCS. The approach taken should include three steps: making the co-operative plan, setting up a co-operative fund, and then establishing a coordination mechanism [19].…”

Section: Article In Pressmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cross–strait interactions on the South China Sea issues: a need for CBMs

Song

2005

Marine Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent developments in the South China Sea (SCS) and the actions expected to be taken by China and member states of ASEAN in accordance with the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the SCS have the potential to further marginalize Taiwan's role in any serious discussion on SCS issues and then deprive Taiwan of its legitimate rights and interest in the area. These developments will also force Taiwan to respond by taking more active actions for the sole purpose of safeguarding its sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction in the SCS. This article discusses a number of possible confidence-building measures that could be considered for adoption by China to help engage Taiwan in the regional security dialogue process and enable Taiwan to participate in the planned joint co-operative activities in the SCS. The co-operative actions taken in the SCS area could enhance mutual trust between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. r

show abstract

Policy of the Republic of China towards the South China Sea: recent developments

Cited by 8 publications

References 15 publications

International Political Implications of Language : The Linguistic Puzzle of “Inherent Territory”

International Political Implications of Language : The Linguistic Puzzle of “Inherent Territory”

Drawing the U-Shaped Line

Cross–strait interactions on the South China Sea issues: a need for CBMs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About