In addition, the continental shelf case between Tunisia and Libya, and the Gulf of Fonseca case between Salvador and Honduras, among others, dealt with historical rights.
Abundant judicial precedents have proven that "historical rights" have been a big factor in international judicial practices.
EXAMPLE THREE: ATTEMPTING TO MISLEAD THOSE CONFUSED
In its submission, the Philippines said that China's Nine-Dash line in the South China Sea lacks a link to the history, claiming that China's historical rights were a new proposal it put forward in 2009.
In fact, China was the first country to discover, denominate, develop and control the South China Sea islands. The Chinese people's navigation and trade on the South China Sea and jurisdiction over the area has a history of more than 2,000 years, which provides firm evidence for China's historical rights on the South China Sea.
French scholar Francois Gipouloux said in his book "The Asian Mediterranean" that before Southeast Asia was invaded by Western colonists, trade on the South China Sea was conducted by Chinese oceangoing ships, officials and the ships' crew were Chinese, and China's trade system was guiding the then trade rules on South China Sea.
Since the Tang Dynasty (618-907 AD), China has formed explicit jurisdiction over the South China Sea.
According to Southern Song Dynasty (1127-1279 AD) work Zhu Fan Zhi, the South China Sea was governed by Zhenzhou (of today's Hainan Province) in the Tang Dynasty and by Qiongguan in the Southern Song Dynasty. In the Ming (1368-1644 AD) and Qing (1644-1911 AD) dynasties, South China Sea islands belonged to the Prefecture of Qiongzhou, Guangdong Province.
Through China's governmental and non-governmental promotion, cultivation, defense and maintenance in several dynasties, the South China Sea has become a tunnel, a platform and a network to lead neighboring countries to realize common prosperity in trade and economy.
History cannot be denied and is not allowed to be denied. By whatever legal means or with whatever arguments, China's historical rights are right there. Whether an arbitral award is to be issued or not, history and the rights it offers are indisputable facts.
As an old Chinese saying goes, an unclear mind can never make it clear to others. The Philippines' submission has ignored not only history but also existing judicial cases, which, along with the current arbitration case itself, will become a laughingstock in history.
