Mô tả
ZOU KEYUAN, East Asia Institute, National University of Singapore "...As illustrated above, historical claims were made in the form of government statements, declarations, laws, or acts. So China’s historic claim contained in its EEZ law is not unusual. What is new is that China has become the first, and perhaps the only, state to incorporate its historic claims in EEZ and continental shelf laws rather than in separate enactments or government statements. Usually, historic claims applied to a certain sea area are intended to confirm the internal water or territorial sea status of the area. But in China’s case, it is quite different: since the claim is embedded in China’s EEZ law, it is assumed that such a claim could only make the claimed waters, at most, equivalent to the legal status of EEZ or the continental shelf. A historic claim equivalent to EEZ and or the continental shelf is apparently new in state practice, since no similar claim has yet been made by other states. As to historic rights, it is generally recognized that there are two types: one is exclusive with full sovereignty, such as historic waters and historic bays; and the other is nonexclusive without full sovereignty, such as historic fishing rights in the high seas. China’s claim, however, is unique in the sense that it does not fit in either of the above categories. It could not be regarded as a claim of historic waters in the traditional sense. Since it is referable to the EEZ and continental shelf regimes, such a claim involves sovereign rights and jurisdiction, but not full sovereignty. Such sovereign rights are exclusive for the purpose of development of natural resources in the sea areas and juris- diction in respect of marine scientific research, installation of artificial islands, and pro- tection of the marine environment. It is obvious that such a claim to historic rights is not only a right to fisheries, but to other resources and activities as well. China’s historic rights, as claimed, may thus be called “historic rights with tempered sovereignty.” In such a context, China has set a precedent in the state practice relating to historic rights. It is not clear whether China’s practice establishes a rule in international law, but it may already be influencing the development of the concept of historic rights..."
