Search

This article clarifies a mythologized episode in the early development of the South China Sea disputes and shows how it was later 'forgotten' by British policymakers for strategic reasons. Using documents from the UK National Archives it confirms, for the first time, that Qing/Chinese officials did deny responsibility for the Paracel Islands in 1898/1899. It then shows how this correspondence was strategically ignored by British officials during the 1930s in the context of renewed disputes between China, France, and Japan over the sovereignty of the islands. It argues that during the 1930s, British officials sought to bolster the Chinese position in the South China Sea because of a concern that France would remain neutral in any forthcoming conflict. This resulted in Britain taking a view on the sovereignty disputes that was at odds with the evidence in its own archives but which provided useful political support for the Republic of China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including trade relations between South Korea and Southeast Asia, Thailand's participation in the Belt and Road Initiative of China and the surge of Chinese electric vehicles imported into Israel.

An introduction to the journal is presented which discusses various reports within the issue on topics including activities of Chinese embassies in Southeast Asia during the Covid-19 pandemic, diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Jordan's cultural heritage infrastructure.

In the article, the author presents his plans as new editor of the journal as of November 2022, including the modernization of the process of article submission, review, and editing.

The overlapping territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea threaten to spark conflict in East Asia. On several occasions in recent years, disputes over the right to extract oil and gas have caused clashes between Chinese and Southeast Asian vessels. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was agreed by almost all countries in 1982 to try to resolve such disagreements. However, the People's Republic of China is currently trying to claim rights that go beyond UNCLOS and infringe on the UNCLOS-based rights of the other claimants. It deploys two arguments in particular: that the archipelagos in the South China Sea collectively generate rights to maritime resources and that China enjoys ‘historic rights’ in the sea. Neither of these arguments is found within UNCLOS, however. This article explores the origin of these Chinese arguments and finds that the ‘historic rights’ claim can be traced to a single Taiwanese academic writing in the 1990s during a period of intense debate in Taiwan over its relationship with the PRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent award by an arbitral tribunal in a case brought by the Philippines against China gives lawyers reason to reexamine the historical evidence put forward by claimants in the South China Sea disputes. While the Tribunal was barred from considering territorial or boundary questions, it did cast doubt on the historical narrative rule that China has asserted in support of its claims. Fresh evidence from other sources also suggests that discussions of these matters need to move beyond arguments put forward in a small number of papers published more than thirty years ago. A close examination of the references used in those papers shows that they relied upon highly partisan Chinese sources. Recent historical research has produced new facts about the development of the competing territorial claims in the South China Sea, but international legal discourse has yet to take these findings into account. This article examines some of the key works in the field and calls for them to be reassessed and for future discussion of the disputes to be based upon verifiable and contextualized evidence rather than on nationalist assertions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]