Foreign Ministry officials said the broken line with Law of the Sea Convention requires nine impractical
1 月 6 afternoon, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Boundary and Ocean Affairs, Deputy Director BEIJING, easy to be good guest on “adhering to the concept of win-win cooperation, properly handle the controversy surrounding oceans” topic and users interact online. WASHINGTON correspondent Kim Suk photo
BEIJING, Jan. 6 (Xinhua) “intermittent lines confirmed the South China Sea South China Sea islands, China’s territorial sovereignty and the related area of ??interest, not because of this line draw it has the rights and interests, that after the cable has an interest first. “Boundary and Ocean Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Deputy Director BEIJING, easy to be a guest today on good topics surrounding oceans, in response to users on the” line of the South China Sea intermittent “problem time, made the above statements.
there are users online questions that some countries accused the South China Sea intermittent lines do not meet the law of the sea, how do you see this problem?
easy to be good to explain that China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea, rights and related claims in the formation of a long historical process and developed, has been upheld by the Chinese government. After World War II, Xisha and Nansha Islands by the Japanese during World War II had occupied China recovered from the hands of Japanese militarism Xisha and Nansha Islands, and a series of measures reiterated the South China Sea islands and their adjacent waters of the sovereign. December 1947, the Chinese Government Interior rendering of the “South China Sea islands location map” plotted the intermittent line, in-line four marked the South China Sea Islands, that is, Xisha, Dongsha, in the sand, the whole name of the Nansha Islands, the four , and a number of islands, reefs, beaches, sand individual name, and in 1948 officially announced.
easy to be good, first of all, from the time of the order, China has announced the intermittent line in front, 1982 “United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea” in the post, requiring intermittent line in line with “the Convention” in itself does not meet the actual .
Second, the intermittent line in order to reiterate China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests related to not draw this line because it owns the rights. “Convention” is not standardized, do not affect a country’s territorial sovereignty, not the “Convention” as a judge in the South China Sea, China claims legitimacy of the sole or principal basis.
again, “the Convention” does not exclude itself before it has been formed and is continuing right to claim, not to violate any state and undermine China’s territorial sovereignty to create “legitimacy.”share: