Central Idea

• China’s recent move to rename 11 places in Arunachal Pradesh and standardise those names on the basis of a map is an exercise of the Chinese perspective of international law, which goes against the international law widely adhered to by most members of the United Nations.

Historical Basis of China’s Claims

• China’s claims over disputed territories, such as the South China Sea, are often based on historical records, maps, and cultural relics.
• China argues that these territories had been its territory since the Song Dynasty and, therefore, should be considered part of its sovereign territory. However, this approach is not recognized under international law and undermines the basis of the international legal system.

Chinese perspective of international law

• Jurisdiction rights: The Chinese perspective of international law is based on its strong stress on the principle of sovereignty. According to this view, sovereign states have an inalienable right to exercise jurisdiction over their territories and their people without interference from other states.
• Historic rights: China combines its vision of sovereignty with the historic right to exercise jurisdiction over those territories or maritime areas as well, which were once ruled by a Chinese dynasty in the mediaeval or ancient era.
• Undermines international legal system: The historic right approach makes China undermine the basis of the international legal system grounded in the sovereign equality of states and the general rules of international law.

Contravention of international courts and tribunals

• Contravenes the decisions of international courts and tribunals: China’s attempt to rename 11 disputed locations on historical and administrative bases contravenes the decisions of international courts and tribunals.
• No convincing proofs: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) considers direct evidence of possession and the actual exercise of sovereignty as more convincing proof of title to a territory than indirect presumption from events in history.
• Against the principle of uti possidetis juris: China’s renaming exercise goes against the principle of uti possidetis juris, which is the principle that the boundaries of newly independent states should follow those of the previous colonies.
• Help of cartographic materials: China tries to buttress its territorial and maritime claims with the support of maps, but cartographic materials do not have any legal value by themselves. They constitute extrinsic evidence of varying reliability that might, depending on the circumstances, be used together with other evidence to establish a fact.

What is the principle of uti possidetis juris?

• The principle of uti possidetis juris is a Latin phrase that means as you possess under law.
• It is a principle of international law that was developed in the context of decolonization. The principle holds that newly independent states should inherit the territorial boundaries that existed at the time of their independence.
• The idea is that the territorial integrity of a new state should be protected and that the boundaries of the state should not be subject to change without the consent of the state.
• The principle of uti possidetis juris is meant to prevent disputes over territorial boundaries that could lead to instability or conflict.

Implications of China’s actions

• China’s actions in Arunachal Pradesh undermine the international legal system based on the sovereign equality of states and the general rules of international law.
• China’s historic right approach to sovereignty over territories and maritime areas is a cause for concern for other countries with territorial disputes with China.
• China’s use of maps to support its territorial and maritime claims is not a legally valid argument and undermines the legal basis for resolving territorial disputes.

Conclusion

• China’s attempt to rename disputed territories in Arunachal Pradesh goes against established principles of international law and undermines the sovereign equality of states. The use of historical claims and maps to support territorial and maritime claims is not recognized in international law. This renaming exercise is likely to further strain India-China relations and impact regional stability. It is essential to uphold the principles of international law to ensure the independence and stability of new states and prevent challenges to territorial boundaries.

Mains Question

Q. What is the principle of uti possidetis juris? How does China’s attempt to rename territories in Arunachal Pradesh contravene the decisions of international courts and tribunals?

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now