II Origin of the Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea

The core of the relevant disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea lies in the territorial issues caused by the Philippines' invasion and illegal occupation of some islands and reefs of China's Nansha Qundao. In addition, with the development of the international law of the sea, a maritime delimitation dispute also arose between the two states regarding certain maritime areas of the South China Sea.

Starting in the 1970s, the Philippines invaded and illegally occupied by force some islands and reefs of China's Nansha Qundao and raised illegal territorial claims. The Philippines' territorial claim over part of Nansha Qundao is groundless from the perspectives of either history or international law.

First, Nansha Qundao has never been part of the Philippine territory. The territory of the Philippines is defined by a series of international treaties, including the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain (the Treaty of Paris), the 1900 Treaty between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain for Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines (the Treaty of Washington), and the 1930 Convention between His Majesty in Respect of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States regarding the Boundary between the State of North Borneo and the Philippine Archipelago. The Philippines' territory so defined has nothing to do with China's Nanhai Zhudao.

Second, the claim that "Kalayaan Island Group" is "terra nullius" discovered by the Philippines is groundless. In 1978, The Philippines singles out some islands and reefs of China's Nansha Qundao and name them "Kalayaan Island Group". This is an attempt to create confusion over geographical names and concepts, and dismember China's Nansha Qundao.

Third, Nansha Qundao is not "trust territory" either. Nansha Qundao was never included in any relevant international treaties or the documents of the United Nations Trusteeship Council.

Fourth, neither "contiguity or proximity" nor national security is a basis under international law for acquiring territory.

Fifth, the Philippines claims that some islands and reefs of China's Nansha Qundao are located within its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and therefore should fall under its sovereignty or form part of its continental shelf. This is an attempt to use maritime jurisdiction provided for under UNCLOS to deny China's territorial sovereignty. This runs directly counter to the "land dominates the sea" principle, and goes against the purpose of UNCLOS.

Sixth, the Philippines' so-called "effective control" of some islands and reefs of China's Nansha Qundao on the basis of its illegal seizure is null and void, and is unequivocally prohibited by international law. The international community does not recognize "effective control" created through occupation by force.