7/4/2018 Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia

Nine-Dash Line
The Nine-Dash Line—at various times also referred to as the "10-dash line" and the "11-dash line"—refers to the undefined[1], vaguely located, demarcation line used
initially by the Republic of China (1912–1949) and subsequently the governments of the Republic of China (ROC / Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China (PRC), for Nine-Dash Line
their claims of the major part of the South China Sea.[2][3] The contested area in the South China Sea includes the Paracel Islands,[a] the Spratly Islands,[b][4] and various
other areas including the Pratas Islands, the Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. The claim encompasses the area of Chinese land reclamation known as the
"great wall of sand".[5][6][7][8]

An early map showing a U-shaped eleven-dash line was published in the then Republic of China on 1 December 1947.[9] Two of the dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin were
later removed at the behest of Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, reducing the total to nine.[10] Subsequent editions added a dash to the other end of the line, extending it into
the East China Sea.[11]

Despite having made the vague claim public in 1947, China has not (as of 2018) filed a formal and specifically defined claim to the area within the dashes.[12] China added
a tenth-dash line to the east of Taiwan island in 2013 as a part of its official sovereignty claim to the disputed territories in the South China Sea.[11][13][14]

On 12 July 2016, an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea ruled that China has no legal basis to claim
"historic rights" within its nine-dash line in a case brought by the Philippines. The tribunal judged that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised
exclusive control over the waters or resources within the Nine-Dash Line. The ruling was rejected by both Taiwan and China.[15][16]
The Nine-Dash Line (highlighted in
green)
Traditional Chinese 九段線
Simplified Chinese 九段线
Contents Literal meaning Nine-Segment
Line
History
Ongoing disputes Transcriptions
Arbitral tribunal's ruling Standard Mandarin
See also Hanyu Pinyin Jiǔduàn Xiàn
Notes
References
Citations
Sources
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line 1/9
7/4/2018 Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia

History
Following the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II, the Republic of China (Taiwan) reclaimed the entirety of the Paracels, Pratas and Spratly Islands after accepting the
Japanese surrender of the islands based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations.[17] However, under the 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, the Republic of
China's sovereignty over the archipelagos and waters of South China Sea was not stated.[18]

In November 1946, the Republic of China sent naval ships to take control of these islands after the surrender of Japan. When the Peace Treaty with Japan was being signed at the
San Francisco Conference, on 7 September 1951, both China and Vietnam asserted their rights to the islands. Later the Philippine government also laid claim to some islands of
the archipelagoes.[19]

The Nine-Dash Line was originally an eleven-dash line first shown on a map published by the government of the then Republic of China (1912–49) in December 1947 to justify its
claims in the South China Sea.[10] The 1947 map, titled "Map of South China Sea Islands," originated from an earlier one titled "Map of Chinese Islands in the South China Sea"
(Zhongguo nanhai daoyu tu) published by the Republic of China's Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee in 1935.[13] After the Communist Party of China took over
mainland China and formed the People's Republic of China in 1949, the line was adopted and revised to nine as endorsed by Zhou Enlai.[10] After evacuating to Taiwan, the
Republic of China has continued its claims, and the Nine-Dash Line remains as the rationale for Taiwan's claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands.
China's 1947 map depicting
Under President Lee Teng-hui, Republic of China (R.O.C) stated that "legally, historically, geographically, or in reality", all of the South China Sea and Spratly islands were
the "eleven-dash line".
R.O.C's territory and under R.O.C sovereignty, and denounced actions undertaken there by Malaysia and the Philippines, in a statement on 13 July 1999 released by the foreign
ministry of Taiwan.[20] Taiwan and China's claims mirror each other.[21] During international talks involving the Spratly islands, P.R.C and R.O.C have cooperated with each
other since both have the same claims.[21][22]

The Republic of China (Taiwan) rejected all rival claims to the Paracel islands, repeating its position that all of the Paracel, Spratly, Zhongsha (Macclesfield Bank grouped with Scarborough Shoal) and Pratas
Islands Islands belong to the Republic of China along with "their surrounding waters and respective seabed and subsoil", and that Taiwan views other claims as illegitimate, in a statement released by Taiwan's
Ministry of Foreign Affairs which added – "There is no doubt that the Republic of China has sovereignty over the archipelagos and waters."[24]

The Nine-Dash Line has been used by China to show the maximum extent of its claim without indicating how the dashes would be joined if it was continuous and how that would affect the extent of the area
claimed by China.[10] The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia have all officially protested over the use of such a line.[25] Immediately after China submitted a map to the UN including the Nine-
Dash Line's territorial claim in the South China Sea on 7 May 2009, the Philippines lodged a diplomatic protest against China for claiming the whole of South China Sea illegally. Vietnam and Malaysia filed their
joint protest a day after China submitted its map to the UN. Indonesia also registered its protest, even though it did not have a claim on the South China Sea.[4]

In 2013 the PRC extended their claims with a new ten-dash map. The "new" dash, however, is to the east of Taiwan and not in the South China Sea.[11]

Although China has not provided an official account, the first dashed-line map is widely reported by scholars and commentators to pre-date the existence of the People's Republic of China, having been published
in 1947 by the Nationalist government of the Republic of China. That map, which shows 11 dashes. Scholarly accounts indicate that the 1947 map, titled "Map of South China Sea Islands," originated from an earlier
one titled "Map of Chinese Islands in the South China Sea" (Zhongguo nanhai daoyu tu) published by the Republic of China's Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee in 1935, and that Chinese maps produced

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line 2/9
7/4/2018 Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia

after the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 "appear to follow the old maps." The maps published by the People's Republic of China, however,
removed the two dashes originally depicted inside the Gulf of Tonkin. Although not visible on the 2009 map, modern Chinese maps since at least 1984, including the
vertically oriented maps published by China in 2013 and 2014 also include a tenth dash located to the east of Taiwan.[23]

Ongoing disputes
According to former Philippine President Benigno Aquino III, "China's nine-dash line territorial claim over the entire South China Sea is against international laws,
particularly the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS)".[26] Vietnam also rejected the Chinese claim, citing that it is baseless and against the
UNCLOS.[27] In 2010, at a regional conference in Hanoi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that "The United States has a national interest in freedom of
navigation, open access to Asia's maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea".[28] The United States has also called for unfettered access
to the area that China claims as its own, and accused Beijing of adopting an increasingly aggressive stance on the high seas.[28]
Dash 4 location in Chinese 2009
Parts of China's Nine-Dash Line overlap Indonesia's exclusive economic zone near the Natuna islands. Indonesia believes China's claim over parts of the Natuna islands (solid red) & 1984 maps. Dash 4 is
24 nm from the coast of Malaysia on
has no legal basis. In November 2015, Indonesia's security chief Luhut Panjaitan said Indonesia could take China before an international court if Beijing's claim to the
the island of Borneo and 133 nm
majority of the South China Sea and part of Indonesian territory is not resolved through dialogue.[29] from Louisa Reef.[23] James Shoal
(Zeng-mu Ansha), the "Southernmost
As early as 1958, the Chinese government released a document pertaining to its territorial limits,[31] stating that China's territorial waters cover twelve nautical miles,
point of China", lay 21 meters under
and announcing that this provision applies to "all the territory of People's Republic of China, including the Chinese mainland and offshore islands, Taiwan and its the sea, according to the 1984 map.
surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands, the Dongsha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands, the Nansha Islands and other islands belonging to China".[32][33]

Some parties have questioned the jurisdiction of the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea on the dispute, arguing that the convention does not support claims based on sovereignty or title, and instead
raises the right to continue using the waters for traditional purpose.[34][35]

While China has never used the nine-dash line as an inviolable border to its sovereignty, this strategy together with the fact that China's government has never officially explained the meaning of the line has led
many researchers to try to derive the exact meanings of the Nine-Dash Map in the Chinese strategy in the South China Sea. Some scholars believe that this line cannot be considered as a maritime boundary line
because it violates maritime laws, which states that a national boundary line must be a stable and defined one. The Nine-Dash Line is not stable because it has been reduced from eleven to nine dashes in the Gulf
of Tonkin as endorsed by Zhou Enlai without any reasons given. It is also not a defined line because it does not have any specific geographic coordinates and does not tell how it can be connected if it was a
continuous line.[36]

A study of the Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, US Department of State in 2014 said about a possible interpretation that "the placement of the dashes within open ocean space would suggest a maritime boundary
or limit".[23]

A 2012 Chinese eighth grade geography textbook includes a map of China with the Nine-Dash Line and the text "The southernmost point of our country's territory is Zengmu Ansha (James Shoal) in the Nansha
Islands." Shan Zhiqiang, the executive chief editor of the Chinese National Geography magazine, wrote in 2013: "The nine-dashed line... is now deeply engraved in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people."[37]

In October 2008, the website WikiLeaks published a cable from the US Embassy in Beijing reporting that Yin Wenqiang, a senior Chinese government maritime law expert, had "admitted" he was unaware of the
historical basis for the nine dashes.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line 3/9
7/4/2018 Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia

According to the Kyodo News, in March 2010 PRC officials told US officials that they consider the South China Sea a
"core interest" on par with Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang,[39] but subsequently backed away from that assertion[40][41][42] In
July 2010 the Communist Party-controlled Global Times stated that "China will never waive its right to protect its core
interest with military means"[43] and a Ministry of Defense spokesman said that "China has indisputable sovereignty of
the South Sea and China has sufficient historical and legal backing" to underpin its claims.[44]

At the Conference on Maritime Study organised by the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in
June 2011, Su Hao of the China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing delivered a speech on China's sovereignty and policy
in the South China Sea, using history as the main argument. However, Termsak Chalermpalanupap, Assistant Director
for Program Coordination and External Relations of the ASEAN Secretariat, said: “I don’t think that the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes history as the basis to make sovereignty claims". Peter
Dutton of the US Naval War College agreed, saying, "The jurisdiction over waters does not have connection to history. It
must observe the UNCLOS." Dutton stressed that using history to explain sovereignty erodes the rules of the
UNCLOS.[45] It is understood that China ratified the UNCLOS in 1996.[46]

Maritime researcher Carlyle Thayer, Emeritus Professor of Politics of the University of New South Wales, said that
Chinese scholars using historical heritage to explain its claim of sovereignty shows the lack of legal foundation under the
international law for the claim.[47] Caitlyn Antrim, Executive Director, Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans of the USA,
commented that "The U-shaped line has no ground under the international law because [the] historical basis is very
weak". She added "I don't understand what China claims for in that U-shaped line. If they claim sovereignty over islands
inside that line, the question is whether they are able to prove their sovereignty over these islands. If China claimed
sovereignty over these islands 500 years ago and then they did not perform their sovereignty, their claim of sovereignty
becomes very weak. For uninhabited islands, they can only claim territorial seas, not exclusive economic zones (EEZ)
from the islands".[45]

Arbitral tribunal's ruling South China Sea claims and agreements.

In January 2013, the Philippines formally initiated arbitration proceedings against China's territorial claim on the "nine-
dash line", which it said is unlawful under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention. China however refused to participate in the arbitration.[48][49] An arbitration tribunal was
constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS and it was decided in July 2013 that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) would function as registry in the proceedings.[50]

On 12 July 2016, the five arbitrators of the tribunal agreed unanimously with the Philippines. They concluded in the award that there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the
waters or resources, hence there was "no legal basis for China to claim historic rights" over the Nine-Dash Line.[51][52] The tribunal also judged that China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights and caused
"severe harm to the coral reef environment".[15][53] China however rejected the ruling, calling it "ill-founded"; the Chinese President Xi Jinping said that "China's territorial sovereignty and marine rights in the
South China Sea will not be affected by the so-called Philippines South China Sea ruling in any way", but China was still "committed to resolving disputes" with its neighbours.[15][54] Taiwan, which currently
administers Taiping Island which is the largest of the Spratly Islands, also rejected the ruling.[55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line 4/9
7/4/2018
a. The Paracel Islands are occupied by the PRC, but are also claimed by Vietnam and the ROC.
b. The Spratly Islands are disputed by the Philippines, PRC, ROC, Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam, who each claim either part or
China's map submission to the UN in
2009 heightened the dispute. The
first page addresses China's claim to
the "islands in the South China Sea
and the adjacent waters", the second
page, the Nine-Dash Map, is not
clear as to the meaning of the
map[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line
Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia
See also
Baselines of the Chinese territorial sea
First island chain
List of irredentist claims or disputes
Territorial disputes in the South China Sea
Notes
all the islands, which are believed (hoped) to sit on vast mineral resources, including oil and gas.
References
The map from China's 2009 Note
Verbale submitted to the UN[30]
Citations contains some errors:
1. Raul (Pete) Pedrozo (19 August 2014). "China versus Vietnam: An Analysis of the Competing Claims in the South China The scale at the bottom is wrong;
Sea" (https://seasresearch.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/china-versus-vietnam-an-analysis-of-the-competing-claims-in-the-so 1 km is misrepresented as 635
uth-china-sea-2/). meters yielding 200 nautical
2. Martin Riegl, Jakub Landovský, Irina Valko, eds. (26 November 2014). Strategic Regions in 21st Century Power Politics (ht miles (370 km) versus the actual
tps://books.google.com/books?id=vOumBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 127 NM (235 km)
pp. 66–68. ISBN 9781443871341. Lý Sơn District islands is
3. Michaela del Callar (26 July 2013). "China's new '10-dash line map' eats into Philippine territory" (http://www.gmanetwork.co virtually invisible while similar
m/news/story/319303/news/nation/china-s-new-10-dash-line-map-eats-into-philippine-territory). GMA News. sized islands such Cu Lao Cham
are clearly represented
4. Jamandre, Tessa (14 April 2011). "PH protests China's '9-dash line' Spratlys claim" (https://web.archive.org/web/201104190
50124/http://www.malaya.com.ph/apr14/news4.html). Malaya. Archived from the original (http://www.malaya.com.ph/apr14/ Triton Island in the Paracel
news4.html) on 19 April 2011. Retrieved 2 June 2011. archipelago is not on the map
5. "China building 'great wall of sand' in South China Sea" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32126840). BBC. 1 April
2015. Retrieved 22 May 2015.
6. "US Navy: Beijing creating a 'great wall of sand' in South China Sea" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/31/chin
a-great-wall-sand-spratlys-us-navy). The Guardian. 31 March 2015. Retrieved 22 May 2015.
7. "China building a 'great wall of sand' in South China Sea– US Navy" (http://rt.com/news/245717-china-great-wall-us/). RT.
31 March 2015. Retrieved 22 May 2015.
8. Marcus, Jonathan (29 May 2015). "US-China tensions rise over Beijing's 'Great Wall of Sand' " (https://www.bbc.com/news/
world-asia-32913899). BBC. Retrieved 29 May 2015.
5/9
7/4/2018 Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia

9. Wu 2013.
10. Brown, Peter J. (8 December 2009). "Calculated ambiguity in the South China Sea" (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southe
ast_Asia/KL08Ae01.html). Asia Times. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
11. Euan Graham. "China's New Map: Just Another Dash?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130929225126/http://www.rusi.org/p
ublications/newsbrief/ref%3AA5225D72CD72F8/). RUSI. Archived from the original (http://www.rusi.org/publications/newsbr
ief/ref:A5225D72CD72F8/) on 29 September 2013.
12. Cheney-Peters, Scott (14 December 2014). "China's Nine-Dashed Line faces renewed assault" (http://cimsec.org/chinas-ni
ne-dashed-line-faces-renewed-assault/13943). Retrieved 15 December 2014.
13. "Limits in the Seas" (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf) (PDF). Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs,
U.S. Department of State.
14. "New ten-dashed line map revealed China's ambition" (http://www.thanhniennews.com/commentaries/new-tendashed-line-m
ap-revealed-chinas-ambition-28816.html).
15. "South China Sea: Tribunal backs case against China brought by Philippines" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-chin
a-36771749). BBC News. 12 July 2016.
16. Jun Mai, Shi Jiangtao (12 July 2016). "Taiwan-controlled Taiping Island is a rock, says international court in South China
Sea ruling" (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1988990/taiwan-controlled-taiping-island-rock-say
s). South China Morning Post.
17. Gao, Zhiguo; Jia, Bing Bing (January 2013). "The nine-dash line in the South China Sea: history, status, and implications".
American Journal of International Law: 98.
18. Florian, Dupuy; Pierre, Marie (January 2013). "A Legal Analysis of China's Historic Rights Claim in the South China Sea":
124.
19. Chen, King C. (1979). China's War with Vietnam, 1979: Issues, Decisions, and Implications (https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=vY4tBfqGvZ4C&pg=PA43). Hoover Press. p. 43. ISBN 0817985719.
20. STRATFOR's Global Intelligence Update (14 July 1999). "Taiwan sticks to its guns, to U.S. chagrin" (http://www.atimes.co
m/china/AG15Ad01.html). Asia Times. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
21. Sisci, Francesco (29 June 2010). "US toe-dipping muddies South China Sea" (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LG29A
d01.html). Asia Times. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
22. Pak 2000 (https://books.google.com/books?id=szcywfgKySAC&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=false), p. 91.
23. Baumert, Kevin; Melchior, Brian (5 December 2014). "Limits in the seas No. 143. China. Maritime claims in the South
China sea" (https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf) (PDF). Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, United States Department of State. This article
incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
24. "Taiwan reiterates Paracel Islands sovereignty claim" (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/05/11/20035
90086). Taipei Times. 11 May 2014, p. 3
25. Esplanada, Jerry E. (15 April 2011). "PH runs to UN to protest China's '9-dash line' Spratlys claim" (http://newsinfo.inquirer.
net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110415-331204/PH-runs-to-UN-to-protest-Chinas-9-dash-line-Spratlys-claim).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line 6/9
7/4/2018 Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia

26. Bengco, Regina (2 June 2011). "Aquino mulls UN protest on Spratlys" (http://maritimesecurity.asia/south-china-sea-2/aquin
o-mulls-un-protest-on-spratlys/). Maritime Security Asia.
27. Hoang Viet (19 May 2009). "Is the Ox's tongue line legal?" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/forum/2009/05/090515_china
_sea_dispute.shtml). BBC.
28. "Beijing hits out at US comments on South China Sea" (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Beijing_hits_out_at_US_commen
ts_on_South_China_Sea_999.html). Agence-France Presse. 25 July 2010.
29. "Indonesia says could also take China to court over South China Sea" (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-c
hina-indonesia-idUSKCN0T00VC20151111#eGL6G8XkzH3bbmXw.97). Reuters. 11 November 2015.
30. "CML/17/2009 – Submission by the PRC to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental shelf" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20090529204756/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/chn_2009re_mys_vnm
_e.pdf) (PDF). United Nations. 7 May 2009. Archived from the original (https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions
_files/mysvnm33_09/chn_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf) (PDF) on 29 May 2009. Retrieved 20 February 2015.
31. "Annex 2/5: Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea" (http://www.fmprc.
gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjb_663304/zzjg_663340/yzs_663350/xwlb_663352/W020140608617876545470.jpg). fmprc.gov.cn.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (FMPRC). 4 September 1958. Retrieved 8 July 2015.
32. "The Operation of the HYSY 981 Drilling Rig: Vietnam's Provocation and China's Position" (http://vn.china-embassy.org/ch
n/zgyw/t1163582.htm). 16 July 2014.
33. "1958 'The People's Republic of China government's statement on the Territorial Sea' study" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0100118145029/http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-01/24/content_705061.htm). 24 January 2003. Archived from the
original (http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-01/24/content_705061.htm) on 18 January 2010.
34. Sourabh Gupta, Samuels International (11 January 2015). "Why US analysis of China's nine-dash line is flawed" (http://ww
w.eastasiaforum.org/2015/01/11/why-us-analysis-of-chinas-nine-dash-line-is-flawed/).
35. Sourabh Gupta (15 December 2014). "Testing China's – and the State Department's -nine-dash line claims" (http://csis.org/f
iles/publication/141215_Pac1488.pdf) (PDF).
36. Foreign Press Center of Vietnam (25 July 2010). "The "9-dashed line" – an irrational claim" (http://www.presscenter.org.vn/
en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=5290&Itemid=30).
37. Zheng Wang. "The Nine-Dashed Line: 'Engraved in Our Hearts' " (http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-nine-dashed-line-engra
ved-in-our-hearts/). The Diplomat.
38. "Analysis: China's nine-dashed line in [the] South China Sea" (https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/us-china-sea-bou
ndary-idUSBRE84O07520120525). Reuters. 25 May 2012. Retrieved 3 February 2014.
39. Clinton Signals US Role in China Territorial Disputes After Asean Talks (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-23/u-s-s
ays-settling-south-china-sea-disputes-leading-diplomatic-priority-.html), Bloomberg, 23 July 2010
40. Wong, Edward (30 March 2011). "China Hedges Over Whether South China Sea Is a 'Core Interest' Worth War" (https://ww
w.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/asia/31beijing.html). The New York Times.
41. "Armed Clash in the South China Sea – Council on Foreign Relations" (http://www.cfr.org/east-asia/armed-clash-south-chin
a-sea/p27883). Cfr.org. Retrieved 15 April 2014.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line 7/9
7/4/2018 Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia

42. "U.S. sees crisis fears easing over South China Sea" (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69A0XJ20101012).
Reuters. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
43. "American shadow over South China Sea" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100729150618/http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/edito
rial/2010-07/555723.html), Global Times, 26 July 2010, archived from the original (http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/201
0-07/555723.html) on 29 July 2010
44. China Says Its South Sea Claims Are 'Indisputable' (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-30/china-has-indisputable-s
overeignty-in-south-china-sea-defense-aide-says.html), Bloomberg, 29 July 2010
45. "International scholars discuss maritime security in the East Sea" (http://m.english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/government/9405/int
ernational-scholars-discuss-maritime-security-in-the-east-sea.html). vietnamne. 22 June 2011. Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20141013140925/http://m.english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/government/9405/international-scholars-discuss-maritime-s
ecurity-in-the-east-sea.html) from the original on 13 October 2014.
46. "Declarations or Statements upon UNCLOS Ratification" (https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention
_declarations.htm#China%20Upon%20ratification). Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United Nations
Office of Legal Affairs. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
47. Thayer, Carlyle A. (14 July 2011). "South China Sea disputes: ASEAN and China" (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/07/1
4/south-china-sea-disputes-asean-and-china/). Retrieved 22 February 2013.
48. "Timeline: South China Sea dispute" (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aa32a224-480e-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab.html). Financial
Times. 12 July 2016.
49. Beech, Hannah (11 July 2016). "China's Global Reputation Hinges on Upcoming South China Sea Court Decision" (http://ti
me.com/4400671/philippines-south-china-sea-arbitration-case/?xid=homepage). Time.
50. "Press Release: Arbitration between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China: Arbitral Tribunal
Establishes Rules of Procedure and Initial Timetable" (https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/227). PCA. 27 August
2013. Retrieved 13 July 2016.
51. "Press Release: The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China)" (http
s://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-English.pdf) (PDF). PCA. 12
July 2016. Retrieved 13 July 2016.
52. "A UN-appointed tribunal dismisses China's claims in the South China Sea" (https://www.economist.com/news/china/21702
069-region-and-america-will-now-anxiously-await-chinas-response-un-appointed-tribunal). The Economist. 12 July 2016.
53. Perez, Jane (12 July 2016). "Beijing's South China Sea Claims Rejected by Hague Tribunal" (https://www.nytimes.com/201
6/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html). The New York Times.
54. Tom Phillips, Oliver Holmes, Owen Bowcott (12 July 2016). "Beijing rejects tribunal's ruling in South China Sea case" (http
s://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china). The Guardian.
55. Jun Mai, Shi Jiangtao (12 July 2016). "Taiwan-controlled Taiping Island is a rock, says international court in South China
Sea ruling" (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1988990/taiwan-controlled-taiping-island-rock-say
s). South China Morning Post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line 8/9
7/4/2018 Nine-Dash Line - Wikipedia

Sources
Wu, Shicun (2013). Solving Disputes for Regional Cooperation and Development in the South China Sea: A Chinese Perspective (https://books.google.com/?id=zc5ZAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage
&q&f=false). Chandos Asian Studies Series. Elsevier Reed. ISBN 1780633556.

External links
China's 2009 two-page document submission to the U.N. introducing the nine-dash line map (https://web.archive.org/web/20090529204756/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/
chn_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf) (archived here (https://web.archive.org/web/20090529204756/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/chn_2009re_mys_vnm_e.pdf))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nine-Dash_Line&oldid=846962518"

This page was last edited on 22 June 2018, at 00:10 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark
of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line 9/9