On 28th August 2023, the Ministry of Natural Resources of China released the updated version of the standard map of China. This newly released map outraged the international community for encroaching on the international (i.e., an area not under the sovereignty of any nation-state) and domestic territories of several neighboring countries. Encroachments have been observed where the territorial rights were disputed. India, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia released their official statements that the map is wrong or violates several of their domestic as well as international laws.
India has rejected China’s claims over Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin region, stating that the territorial claims have no basis and would only complicate the resolution of their boundary dispute. The Philippines stated that the map has no basis under international law, particularly under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Malaysia declared the map not to be a legally binding document, as it does not recognize China’s claims in the South China Sea. As per Vietnam, the 2023 edition of China’s standard map includes Vietnam’s Paracel and Spratly Islands which the country identified as a direct breach of sovereign rights under UNCLOS, hence null and void. Lastly, Taiwan also rejected the map, emphasizing its non-recognition by the international community and asserting independence from the People’s Republic of China.
The countries subject to China’s illegal intervention in their territory have every right to condemn such actions and to ensure that such acts by China are not promoted while the legality of such territorial claims is being addressed. This article thus analyses China’s new map from a legal standpoint under international law.
A Valid Change in the Map
To answer in brief, for a map to be considered legally valid, it should be consistent with the maps of the years before and after it. If the maps are inconsistent, then it may raise suspicion or lead to some adverse conclusion, which could undermine the State’s claim over a disputed territory. However, when the boundary changes due to the movement of tectonic plates, or when another territory is acquired through legal means it will be considered as a valid change that can be incorporated into maps.
Nation-states can argue that they have the inherent right to determine their borders and create maps that reflect their interpretation of historical claims and sovereignty. Evolving circumstances, and shifts in demographics, governance, or geopolitical realities as reasons to update their territorial claims on maps. China and other countries usually rely on their historical maps to prove their claim over a territory.
Strategic Use of Maps as a Weapon
In the new map, China has made territorial claims on a small region in Russia, the Aksai Chin Region in India’s Arunachal Pradesh, the South China Sea and has also claimed Taiwan by creating a U-shaped ten-dash line on its map claiming around 90% of the South China Sea region whose territorial jurisdiction resides with the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam. The map contains altered names for multiple locations within these regions. Most of the territories mentioned above are either disputed or have been denounced as illegal Chinese intervention by various international tribunals, NGOs, and states.
The Aksai Chin Region has been part of India since 1947. After the Indo-China war in 1962, there has been intervention in the territory by the intrusion of Chinese soldiers, and the setting up of military camps including hangers and runways. India has always retaliated against such intervention by China through the release of maps and other means. Right from the decline of the Qing Dynasty to the 1913 Shimla Treaty and the McMahon Line being the de facto border, the history of territorial claims over Aksai Chin has been full of conflicts. China’s recent claim to this territory through the release of its official map is unjustified.
Other countries, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, are also outraged by the inclusion of the South China Sea under the Chinese domain which has already been deemed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). In the case of Taiwan, the territorial claim is over the island itself, which is a long-standing dispute of its own.
International Law on Maps
A map can only be considered legally binding on other states if it is included as a part of a treaty between or among those states. However, in some circumstances, if a map is not included in a treaty and the state accepts the map, it can still be binding on that state. The acceptance of the altered boundary can be made through the release of an official statement or a map that shows the altered boundaries of the territory. After acceptance, the state becomes legally bound by the new map.
Maps can also play a significant role in the legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which governs the appointment of experts like cartographers who play an important role in assessing the integrity and reliability of presented maps in a proceeding. The outcome of their decision not only proves the legitimacy and accuracy of a map but it also greatly impacts the use of maps as evidence while pronouncing the final judgment. Maps can be deemed a legal fact if they are used as evidence in a proceeding or if they have been created by a commission that is under an obligation of a state or court. It may also become a legal act if two or more States agree to integrate the map into a treaty.
In Burkina Faso v. Mali (‘Frontier Dispute case’), for example, the parties voluntarily bound themselves to the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, which held that the newly independent African countries would respect each other’s boundaries. In the 1970s, conflicts erupted between Mali and Burkina Faso as part of a territorial dispute over the Agacher Strip. When the dispute was taken up to the ICJ, it was determined that maps can serve as corroborative evidence in the proceeding and can prove a state’s assertion of a territory. Nevertheless, the ICJ held that maps could not constitute a binding document or a territorial title by themselves, whatever their accuracy and technical value, unless the parties concerned had expressed their acceptance.
The ICJ took a different stance in the case of sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia v. Malaysia). Both parties produced a series of maps in support of their respective interpretations of the 1891 Convention between the Netherlands and Great Britain, which were the previous colonial owners of the relevant territories. As per the convention, Indonesia, the successor to the Netherlands, had territorial rights over the island. On the other hand, Malaysia claimed that it succeeded the Sultan of Sulu, who was the original title holder of the islands. The Sultan of Sulu transferred the island to Spain, which was then transferred to the United States, and Great Britain on behalf of the State of North Borneo. After considering all the facts and evidence of both parties, the ICJ awarded the ownership title to Malaysia, as the last transfer was made to it.
Although the court did not depart from its traditional view in the Frontier Dispute decision, it still played a pivotal role in this case. The Court accepted the map as conclusive evidence because there was proof that both parties had agreed upon it being true. These decisions reveal that the approach to the evidentiary value of maps has undergone considerable changes. The integration of satellite imagery means that the accuracy of maps is better and more efficient, supplementing the traditional practices.
Neither the map has been acknowledged as legitimate nor there is a treaty in place between China and its neighbors regarding the recently released map. Based on precedents in international law, even if China uses these maps as evidence in legal proceedings before international tribunals, it will not be possible to prove their encroachment is illegal.
***
International law prohibits any form of force being used by states to take over their claimed land. To claim sovereignty over a disputed land, the state must prove that it has some form of authority, which can be received through a treaty or occupancy. Article 33 of the UN Charter suggests the use of dispute resolution methods with international law as its guiding principle.
Neighboring countries have limited recourse available against the newly released Chinese map. China does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ and has refused to accept the authority of international bodies, as concerning territorial disputes. For example, while India recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICJ, the power of the ICJ to resolve international disputes would not apply to cases that concern the status of its territory, the mediation or delimitation of its frontiers, or any other matters concerning its boundaries. The only exceptions have been when the dispute has come in the form of an advisory opinion. Any form of decision would create an avenue, for countries such as Pakistan and Nepal, to bring their territorial claims against India before the ICJ.
Nation-states often wield maps as weapons to assert territorial claims. Due to escalating tensions between China and its neighbors and a surge in their military power, the impact created by the spread of such misinformation is a serious issue and it needs to be addressed by the tribunals or by countries collectively. With the ICJ being out of the picture and no regulation on the usage of maps, the neighboring countries to China will have to keep a check on actions like these through legitimate means or push to introduce a form of regulation that governs the usage of maps and the consequences for not adhering to such regulation at the international level.