-2

the PRC, the pre-division Vietnam and the RVN. Each claimant merely repeated its previous assertions at each occasion. There were also two short-lived claimants, France and Japan. During the 1920's and 1930's, France claimed jurisdiction to the Islands in behalf of Vietnam, then its protectorate. Japan placed them under its jurisdiction from 1939 up to the time of its defeat in the War in 1945. The ROC and the Republic of the Philippines (ROP) are also reported to have been in control of some islets in the Spratlies prior to the recent clash of arms between the PRC and the RVN. As recently as 1956, a private claim was made with respect to part of the Spratlies by a Filipino, whose assertion of its discovery invited a chorus of protests from the above claimants. The only prospective party that has thus far withheld its claim is the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN), which, because of its relations with the PRC, is evading the issue by saying that the parties involved should settle such disputes by negotiation. It is likely that no other islands have ever been claimed by so many for so long and with so much persistence. As general background, it is necessary to note the context of this territorial dispute in East Asia. In this region, there are already three other territorial disputes which have arisen from conflicting claims to the ownership of 'a few fly-specks' on the map. These include: the disputes between the Soviet Union and Japan over the Northern Islands, between Korea and Japan

1

-3

over the Tokdo-Takeshima Island, and between China and Japan

3

over the Tiaoyut'ai-Senkaku Islands. Each of these disputes has flared up into an acrimonious political issue between the parties

at one point, and

remains potentially volatile. This explains

that, for historical reasons, the East Asian countries are particularly sensitive to territorial issues. International disputes within the region are further complicated by the unique fact that three of the four divided nations of the world (China, Germany, Korea and Vietnam) are situated in East Asia. In connection with the present dispute, it is also important not to overlook the fact that the Tiaoyut'ai-Senkaku dispute between the PRC or the ROC and Japan in the East China Sea is strikingly similar in many ways to this Paracel-Spratly dispute between the PRC or the ROC and the RVN in the South China Sea. These two disputes are interlocked not only by the fact that the PRC or the ROC is a common party to both, but also by the substantial economic interest both are thought to involve. For these reasons, neither dispute is likely to be settled independently of or afferently from the other.

Essentially a territorial issue like its companion in the East China Sea, the present dispute has been brought to the fore by two non-territorial factors, one economic and the other strategic. These are reflected in the attitude of the parties. The contribution of the economic factor can be seen from the four developments which took place in the periphery of the South China Sea prior to the PRCRVN clash of January 1974. First, in September 1973, the Interior

4

-4

... was

Ministry of the RVN placed eleven islets of the Spratly group under the jurisdiction of Phuoc Tuy Province. Reportedly this was done at the recommendation of the RVN National Petroleum Board, in order to preempt the continental shelf off the Spratlies as well as the mainland. It was in response to this incorporation that the PRC 5 made a strong protest on January 11, 1974. It followed by a series of statements from both sides and from the ROC until the armed clash in the vicinity of the Paracels one week later. In other words, the controversy began over the Spratlies, although actual conflict occurred over the Paracels. Second, in July 1973, the RVN opened 30 of 40 offshore tracts along its south coasts for bidding. Oil and gas exploration contracts were awarded to four

the

Western oil companies initially with respect to eight tracts.6 Third, from the direction of the Philippines, a consortium of local and foreign oil companies began the biggest oil exploration in the country along the offshore waters of Palawan in September 1973.

The Spratlies are much nearer the Palawan than the territories of 7

the PRC or the RVN. Also in September 1973, it was reported that the Philippines was seeking cooperation with the Soviet Union for

8

the development of its oil resources. Fourth, it was reported

in September 1973 that the DRVN had been discussing the development of oil in the Gulf of Tonkin with Japanese companies. The existence

of oil in that area had reportedly been confirmed with Soviet technical aid.

9

-5

Concurrent with these events, in the southwestern sector

10

of the South China Sea, active exploration and exploitation of oil have been in progress, especially in the coastal waters off Borneo, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Malaysian Peninsula and Thailand. The search for sea-bed oil was thus expanding northeastward at a rapid pace, by gradually encircling the Paracel and Spratly Islands, except on the northeast where the depth does not permit drilling using the available technology. It is inconceivable that this could have escaped the attention of the PRC, or any other country for that matter, toward which this expansion was taking place. In assessing the contribution of oil to the present dispute, however, it should be pointed out that the prospect of sea-bed oil in or around the disputed areas is yet to be substantiated by exploration. What is thought to be really at stake in the dispute, then, is not necessarily the oil to be found in or around the piece of territory in question, but rather the right to the oil to be found in the adjacent continental shelf,/right to which either party to the be entitled dispute may eventually by virtue of sovereignty over the islets and coral reefs. This view of the dispute is substantiated by a description of the geographical features of the area, as given

below.

a

In analyzing a territorial dispute from the standpoint of history and international law, facts of geography should not be allowed, as so often happens, to obscure the historic and legal grounds of the argument. For this reason, discussion of the geography of the Paracel and Spratly Islands is confined to a