Talk:South China Sea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Improvement Drive

The article on Brunei is currently listed to be improved on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. You can support the nomination with your vote there. --Fenice 06:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Southwestern limit

What is the geographical coordinate of its southwestern limit with the Indian Ocean at the Strait of Malacca? — Instantnood 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found it's defined in the sections 46 and 49 of the Limits of Oceans and Seas (pdf), an IHO publication. — Instantnood 12:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias Map

Why use a Chinese map with Chinese names for the islands when the area is international waters and its islands are claimed and effectively ruled by different countries? Seems to me like an attempt to legitimize the PRC's bogus claim over the entire maritime region. Also, this is an English language article. The English names for the area and islands are to be used, not Chinese pinyin. The map is removed. We'll use the remaining map instead. Akaloc 16:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Piracy

I know this area is a specifically bad area for modern piracy. Would someone who has a bit more knowledge in the area maybe be able to add a section discussing that? --198.53.112.165 (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Largest or second largest sea

This information appears to be false. According to Wikipedia, at least two seas are considerably larger than the South China Sea, namely the Philippine Sea (seems to be the largest) and the Coral Sea (the second largest). Please confirm or deny this, for I am not entirely sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.220.165.111 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the largest

Changed "largest sea" to "one of the largest". The Arabian Sea, for one, seems larger at 3,862,000 sq km, according to Britannica. Perhaps it is the largest marginal sea? Pfly (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, at least two marginal seas are considerably larger: the Philippine Sea and the Coral Sea. So, the South China Sea is nowhere near the largest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.220.165.111 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mao Zedong quote

Apparently, Mao Zedong once said that "(Chiang Kai-shek) is a true patriot" (the original words might have been "蔣先生是重民族大義的人"), when supposedly, Chiang ordered lighthouses on ROC-controlled islands in the South China Sea (such as Taiping Island) lit in order to guide People's Liberation Army Navy ships to their destination to expel a landing force by the Vietnamese navy due to the South China Sea island disputes, during the naval skirmishes in the 1960s. Is anyone able to verify this story by finding a reliable reference? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Two new articles recently created relevant to this area.

Anyone following this page should also be aware of newly created pages which are directly relevant to this article in the region.

• Territorial disputes in South China Sea
• Nine-dotted line

Surprisingly, these articles have been created from translation from other lang wikis with no Chinese zh wiki articles. Would be nice if someone could vet the articles and check for bias or adherence to NPOV.

--Visik (Chinwag Podium) 08:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll check for inconsistencies right now. Perhaps after final exams, I'll write a ZH article for nine-dotted line (after I've checked that it doesn't already exist under an obscure name). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative names

This edit added ", also known as the West Philippine Sea" to the WP:LEAD (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Alternative names). This edit reverted that addition, saying, "rv, pov to only mention one alternative name". I disagree with this solution, as if flouts WP:DUE. A better solution, if other alternative names exist, would be to mention all alternative names having due weight.

Digging around, I found Amiel Ungar (June 13, 2011), East Sea, West Sea, South Sea or Our Sea, Follow Israel news, an apparent WP:RS which says that the Philippine government has renamed the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea "West Philippine Sea" and that the Vietnamese call it the East Sea. Digging around some more, I found this archived copy of a page copyrighted "APEC Vietnam" (see the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation article) where, apparently, the Vietnamese government has used, in at least this one instance, the name "East Sea" as an alternative name for "South China Sea".

I've added the two alternatives which the aforementioned news article supports to the lead, but not in the lead sentence, and I have not bolded them.

I see some useful guidelines applicable to this situation at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines. Those guidelines suggest that an alternative presentation might be used if there were three or more alternative names. In this regard, I note this earlier discussion which mentioned several alternative names -- unfortunately, without mentioning supporting sources. The guideline on whether or not to bold the alternatives (WP:AT#Emphasis) seems to turn on frequency of use. Feel free to improve on what I've done -- perhaps it would be better to move the mention of alternative names to the Names section of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think both names are already described in Names section and infobox. According to WP:LEAD#Separate section usage, the names are not necessarily in the lead. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've self-reverted. I say "Never mind" in honor of Gilda Radner and her SNL character Emily Litella. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Extra comments "The south china sea isn't china territory, it was actually shared by Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. Chinese government is just claim the sea for their own goods and needs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.26.132 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

could an admin fix the syntax error?

Since people will be reading this while the dispute continues, under "Territorial claims" there is an error..."Generally, China has preferred to resolve competing claims bi-laterally,[8]bi-laterally]" Could an admin please remove that extra bi-laterally]? Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

East Sea ⇒ Sea of Japan redirection

It has been proposed that East Sea should redirect to the Sea of Japan page, instead of the current East Sea (disambiguation) page. As concensus will determine this, please discuss it here in Talk:Sea of Japan#East Sea diambiguation page. Thank you.

Note: Wikipedia:Disambiguation policy mandates that if there is risk of confusion, East Sea should redirect to a disambiguation page first. The Vietnamese government uses East Sea to mean South China Sea as shown here in the Official Website of APEC 2006 in Vietnam.--Endroit 10:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you read Wikipedia on Potsdam Declaration pages and the official web pages, recording these details, and where it becomes clear the intentions of the World based on USA, UK, China and later Russian accords. Japan was to be left with certain islands and territories etc is well explained and may help you decide such views.--Robbygay (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for PRC naval buildup

The claim that the PRC is building up a naval presence in the area could use a source. TheKaplan 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs a better more neutral map. Why use a Chinese map with Chinese names for the islands when the SCS is international waters and its islands are claimed and occupied by various countries? Seems like an attempt by a user to legitimize the PRC's bogus claim over the entire southeast Asian maritime region. Also, this is an English language article. The English names for the area and islands are to used, not Chinese pinyin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.127.13 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely needs more information, particularly in respect to claim details and WW II Potsdam accords relativity to ownership matters and claims.

PRC naval buildup and increased aggressivness of attacking Philippines, Vietnam and Japanese assets, fishermen and seismic vessels etc., are being ignored. I believe, ignored unwisely by Wiki, as this is a War precipitative fact.

Sure I am an Australian living in SRV 23 years, a non-veteran, still perhaps I see the closer happenings with lacking neutrality. Thus I gave up trying to include details in Americas asset Wikipedia. Up to you guys to update this great encyclopaedia resource, we all can't live without it these days. I am a Wiki fan anyhow.--Robbygay (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A little confused

I don't know which is correct, but this page asserts EEZ extends 200nm out from territorial waters. The EEZ page asserts it extends 200nm out from its coast, while the territorial waters extend 12nm from its coast (so the EEZ would extend 188nm from it's territorial waters). A little thing, but if anyone happens to know the fact of the matter clarification might be nice. Coanda-1910 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I guess the whole section removed as I don't find a 200 nm or anything like that on the page?--Robbygay (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Why does the "Chinese" infobox in the article only use the name "South China Sea" and translations thereof? Why can't names with other meanings in other languages be used? DHN (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"South China Sea" and "East Sea" are separate terms referring to the same body of water. Of all the languages listed (English, Filipino, Malay and Portuguese), all refer to a translation of "South China Sea". "Biển Đông" does not translate to South China Sea. Perhaps another infobox could be made below for languages that refer to it as "East Sea" (I recall from somewhere that it's called "Eastern Sea" in Cambodian). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Who decides that it should only mention to "South China Seas" and translations thereof? The infobox in chopstick doesn't only mention words that are translated from the Chinese. DHN (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the Vietnamese term since there doesn't seem to be a consensus on restricting the infobox to only using terms that mean "South China Sea". DHN (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can not agree the logic these China lovers are arguing, this is not a question of how many languages to translate in an English Language encyclopedia. However this is a naming question that has never been settled officially thus was being abused by some to suggest a Chinese ownership of the lot as evidenced in the 9 part dotted line they claim and now fight defendingly with guns even. Variously it is Vietnam East Sea, China's Southern Sea as even Nam Viet translats to the Southern Viets a nomadic people South of the Yangtze River, the Philippines have recently caused a Chinese objection by naming it "West Sea". Naming it "South China Sea" is the commonly recognised wording and hence what English Language readers place in the search box to find this page digitally on the Internet, and as this is a digital internet encyclopedia that name can stand as the most common acceptance, with no connotation of an ownership from the name.

Or does the "Red Sea" indicate it is owned by the "Reds" if so which reds PRC or SRV or other Russia no longer the Reds. Does the Tasman Sea belong to Able Tasman family, Tasmania or whom? The Black sea to the Blacks? Arabian Sea to Saudi?--Robbygay (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This article is about the waterbody, not about the specific name "South China Sea", so if the sea is called something else in a different language then it is still completely relevant. Bazonka (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we add every single imaginable language to the infobox? I can see the case for Chinese, Malay, Indonesian, Filipino, Vietnamese, since these countries border the sea, but why Japanese, Thai, and Portuguese? DHN (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Portugese because it was one of the first languages to coin the term "South China Sea"; Thai because Thailand borders the South China Sea; Japan because it uses a controversial name for the sea (and that it had significant historical control over the sea). That is nowhere near "every imaginable language". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Benlisquare. We need a common sense and consensus. "every imaginable language" does not make sense. However If you add a reasonable language agreeable by many like a Vietnamese name you added, it is a legitimate edit to the name box. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is absolutely no reason to add all fanciful names in every languages here, only the names that are common and used in the countries bordering this Sea such as The Phillipines, Vietnam, Indonesia or China are relevant and should be included here ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love4eveverymuch (talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Thailand borders the South China Sea. The Gulf of Thailand is a shallow arm of the South China Sea, according to its respective article. The Japanese name is used for the same reason Latin names are included for many former Roman Empire settlements - Japan had a significant historical influence over the South China Sea. During World War II, Japan controlled and occupied (or partially controlled, in the case of China (militarily; including most of Guangdong) and Thailand (politically/diplomatically)) every single country that surrounds the South China Sea, and built many Imperial Japanese Navy submarine bases there. Even though today Japan does not control anything around the South China Sea, it has historically had significant control. Portuguese is also used for historical reasons - it was the first language to use the term "China Sea", due to its maritime trade activities. Other than Portuguese, Thai, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog (Philippines), Malay and Indonesian, there is no need to use any other language, as all other languages would be irrelevant to the main topic at hand. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

UNCLOS

China seems to claim huge territorial swaths of this sea (see nine-dotted line). But this seems to go blatantly against the territorial extent specified in the UNCLOS, which China has signed. Are there any sources that talk about this apparent contradiction? Spellcast (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"UNCLOS has no provisions setting out how sovereignty disputes over offshore islands are to be resolved. UNCLOS establishes rules for uses of the oceans adjacent to continental land territory and islands. UNCLOS assumes that there is no dispute over which state has sovereignty over the land territory and islands. If the sovereignty disputes over offshore islands were decided by a court or tribunal according to international law, they would be decided by the rules of customary international law on the acquisition and loss of territory." —Security and international politics in the South China Sea

That's for the island aspect. I don't know how authentic the nine-dotted line is or what China considers the waters within to be. Quigley (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

According to PRC there is no "Dispute" over this Sea they own up to the 9 dotted line, hence they have not submitted a claim to UNCLOS as they have owned this since time immorial in recorded history. USCLOS requested countries to submit their "Claims" where they claim seas beyong 200nm from their mainland coastline. PRC have this as their mainland territories and claim nothing beyond the 9 dash line, to draw a solid overlapping line, over other's solid lines, would be presumptious of a "claim" but if they "own" it is not a "disputable claim".

In taking this approach, PRC ignore the facts of a WW II, whereby Japan took ownershiop of this territory from China, and ALL THE CONTENDERS of today claims. So Japan "owned" by war and when they surendered, the Potsdam Declarations (revised Cairo Declarations) were approved by China, USA, UK and later Communist Russia agreements. Thus the today ownership is there established, the allies did give Japan some Islands and seas to "own" ~ they also gave China Mainland back to China and settled "Ownership" on the other claimants. Wikipedia has details of that declaration and there are official Potsdam records online to review.

PRC having now the money and muscle to "unilaterally" clarify by the dotted line what they "Own" they feel historically. Now comes the catch, PRC has stated clearly "PRC will not use military solutions to extend borders, or to settle disputes" which in their view they have none of. They have also stipulated the 9 dot line as their territorial sovereignty and the oil and fish wealth therein is theirs. They have then stated clearly "PRC will use military force, to defend their borders and Sovereign assets".

As I always warn, do be careful when translating words of cultural significance, that may differ between those languages, as Sun Zhi of Wu said 2,400 years ago "know your advesories as you know yourself". --Robbygay (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mui Ne4.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mui Ne4.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mui Ne4.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

1974 battle of the Paracel Islands

A hyperlink should be added to the wikipedia article on this subject ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands#endnote_be-vuot ), and this article should be updated to be consistent with the minimum 71 deaths referred to in this wikipedia entry. Primary reference in that article is in vietnamese. It could be checked and reused as a reference here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgranulosa (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Map with undefined barrier

The map with file name: File:Schina sea 88.png includes the dotted line inside which China claims its sovereignty. This U-shaped line is legally undetermined. Therefore, this map should not be presented in Wikipedia which is an unbiased source of information. Please make attempt to edit this map. Thanks Neweco (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

However Wikipedia is descriptive, not subjective. Describing someone's POV isn't the same as supporting someone's POV; the article clearly states that the line is of Chinese claim, not Chinese control. Whether or not there are legal considerations, China's claims remain to be adhered to islands within that line, and Wikipedia describes that claim. Wikipedia does not take sides and state whether the claims are true or false, whether they are justified or not, but describes the de facto situation as it stands, from all sides. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned the map named "South China Sea" in the section [1], not the one in the section [2]. The map in "Islands and Seamounts" part is supposed to give an overview on a variety of islands in this sea. Therefore, the map should not include any territorial claims (and why is only China's claim presented in the map?) as it is just a general view of introduction, merely about natural geography. Do you notice the dotted line in the map [3]? This line should be eliminated to ensure the consistency between the sub-title and its content (which is actually about the distribution of islands over this waters, not about political disputes). Kind regards. Neweco (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If you provide a better map then we can switch it no problem. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The map in the Islands and Seamounts section shows the Chinese, Malaysian and Philippine claim lines, which all overlap. Whilst these claims might not be relevant to information about the islands, Wikipedia is not promoting any of them over the others. It is NPOV. Bazonka (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• File:Schina sea 88.png seems to be the best high resolution map of the Sea we have at present, but it does have other issues as well. Some are simply because it's from 1988 -- such as listing Hong Kong as "UK". A better more recent map would certainly be very welcome -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dagat Timog Tsina

Greetings, the term Dagat Timog Tsina is not the proper trasnlation in Filipino. What the earlier books contained was Timog Dagat Tsina. jayzl villfania nebre 17:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangchaud (talk • contribs)

Proposed Code of conduct for the South China Sea

See this thread at ANI. GotR ^Talk 15:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

pov edit

Removed: In July 2012, a Chinese warship ran aground in waters within 200 kilometers off the Philippine coast, which is the country's Exclusive Economic Zone. The chinese naval frigate of the People's Liberation Army Navy, believed to be No. 560, Jianghu-class frigate was stranded in the Hasahasa shoal which is well within the Philippine territory. Commodore Rustom Peña, commander of the Philippine's western naval forces; instructed the Philippine Navy's assets to monitor the situation, offer rescue efforts, and defend the Philippine territory from the possibility of intrusion within the Philippine's coast. The stranded frigate was a security issue, and the Philippine government demanded explanation and its abrupt removal inside the West Philippine Sea.

The lead of the reference describes the waters as "disputed". Nobody Ent 16:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Pls. Read the reference, for this is a verifiable source, it seems that its just contrary to your own POV. Do not remove, or better yet add verifiable information to prove that it ran aground in the disputed waters. Of course, you will say that it's disputed bec. the WHOLE SEA is being claimed by China, based on it's illegal claim of Chinese Nine-dotted line, they even claim all the coastal waters of the countries surrounding the South Sea/West Philippine Sea. hence, the "DISPUTED WATERS" claim.

How can you explain this 1,000+ News about China grounding its ship in the Philippine Waters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Googling with the search term Philippine waters obviously affects the POV of the search results. Contrast that with [4] -- which describes the waters as "disputed." Nobody Ent 17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's perhaps not within the Philippine EEZ (by the standard halfway division) if the shoal(s) in

question are considered Chinese and considered eligible for an EEZ. The incident with the 200km note is probably still worth keeping, as the claimed EEZ or something similar. CMD (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

--

Actually, Nobody Ent, if you could read the article of the BBC and the reference cited here, it was very clear that the chinese warship was found INSIDE the Philippine EEZ. The BBC article [5] cited "The ship struck Half Moon Shoal, 110km (70 miles) from western Palawan province, late on Wednesday".

It was clear that it is 70 miles from the coast of Palawan, Philippines and it is well within the 200 Nautical Miles EEZ given and is assured by the UNCLOS treaty. Meaning it is not in a disputed territory based on the convention of UNCLOS. China is always the one saying that it is in a disputed territory, because they are claiming the WHOLE area of the SOUTH SEA/Western Philippine Sea. In fact, Hasa-hasa shoal (where the chinese frigate ran aground) is not an island, it is a shoal 70 miles from the Philippine coast, and doesn't have it's own population. It is clearly located inside the Philippine (200 miles) EEZ. Hence, this info should not be removed in the South China Sea article, Otherwise you could suggest better choice of words to make it more encyclopedic. --

ישו יברך אותנו

17:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

References

I don't follow the reasoning above. A few points:

• It seems to me that waters can properly be described as "disputed" if there is a dispute --a disagreement-- between nations about jurisdictional issues regarding those waters. The merits of the jurisdictional claims made by parties to the dispute do not bear on the question of whether or not a dispute exists.

• The BBC article says that the Chinese ship ran aground on Half Moon Shoal; the Wikipedia article about which says, "Half Moon Shoal is a shoal in Spratly Islands of South China Sea. China and the Philippines have competing claims over the shoal. [...]."

• I'm not sure about the intended meaning of what is described as "the 200 Nautical Miles EEZ given and is assured by the UNCLOS treaty". If that is intended to imply that those waters are territorial waters of some one particular nation, in a strict legal sense, my understanding is that this implication is incorrect. (see e.g., File:Zonmar-en.svg)
• Regarding the point that, "it was very clear that the chinese warship was found INSIDE the Philippine EEZ", I don't see a problem with that. Territorial waters#Exclusive economic zone seems to sum the legal situation regarding that nicely when it says, "A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea [...]". The WP article United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea says in part re EEZs, "Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables." Article 58(1) in Part V (pertaining to EEZs) of the UNCLOS agreement says, in part "In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention." (article 87 pertains to freedom of the high seas).

If I understand this correctly,

• Jurisdictional issues regarding parts of the South China Sea are currently in dispute between the Philippines and China (and others), in the sense that disagreements exist regarding these issues.
• The Chinese ship which ran aground had a right to be where it was when it did so.

Am I misunderstanding something? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Official English names only two -- South China Sea and West Philippine Sea?

The official English name in the Philippines, where English is an official language, is "West Philippine Sea". "South China Sea" is the government-approved official name in other English-speaking countries. Are there any other names officially used in English-speaking countries? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel insulted by the reversion of my edits

I made several changes to this article to improve its readability and grammar and to increase in prominence the name "West Philippine Sea" which is very common in newspapers and websites here in the Philippines. User:Kwamikagami reverted by *all of* my edits. User:Kwamikagami did not edit my edits. He reverted them. I spent my time to try to make the article better. My effort and time should be respected. If User:Kwamikagami disagreed with my edits, he should NOT have reverted them -- the lazy man's way -- but rather showed me some respect and edited by edits. Maybe the name "West Philippine Sea" does not deserve the prominence that my edits gave it. We can discuss that. But I made more changes then that and my edits deserve the same respect that all Wikipedia's editors' edits deserve. I am insulted and offended by User:Kwamikagami dismissal of my edits. Did User:Kwamikagami even bother to read and understand my edits? There is no indication that he did. I believe that User:Kwamikagami violates the openness and spirit of collaboration of Wikipedia, especially needed on such articles as this that are touchy. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You can restore the rest if you like; I'm not going to take the time. We've had people pushing this agenda for years without consensus, so I suggest you get consensus here before reverting. — kwami (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Map 'Maritime Claims' shows POV demarcation line?

The map 'Maritime Claims' (Maritime claims in the South China Sea), shows the claims of the People's Republic of China in a continuous red line [6]. That is clearly an interpretation since China uses the Nine-dotted line on its maps to indicate the extent of its claimed sovereignty, a line that is deliberately vague. It may be argued that all the creator of this Wikipedia map did was to 'join the dots'; however, the line is especially wrong when it extends between the island of Hainan and Vietnam. At least the red line should not extend between Hainan and Vietnam. I leave the rest to more experienced editors on this topic. Politis (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This image was taken from Voice of America, and indeed it seems to have a few problems. There has even been earlier discussion at File talk:South China Sea claims.jpg regarding a few other concerns regarding that image. If anyone wants to remove the image from articles, I personally wouldn't mind. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Extent

Just deleted a 'dubious' tag that the sea goes north to Formosa, since it was sourced and there was no reason given here for thinking it was wrong. However, the source used there also says that the western extent is to Sumatra. Is that an obsolete convention? — kwami (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan

The South China Sea is not south of Taiwan; the SCS includes the Taiwan Strait, so the SCS is also west of Taiwan. Look at the boundary information in South China Sea#Extent. The northern boundary of the SCS is the north point of Taiwan and travels west toward China.

• "Limits of Oceans and Seas" (PDF) (3rd ed.). Monaco: International Hydrographic Organization. 1953. p. 33. Special Publication No. 23. Retrieved 7 February 2010.

Glrx (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014

Please change the figure "Schina sea 88.png" in "Islands and seamounts" section by other figure. For example change to

The dash lines in the current one can cause confusing with border lines. They show only territorial claims of surrounded countries which is not related to this section.

thanh-long.nguyen (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I oppose this change as I think the existing image is more encyclopedic and easier to read. It is a little more topographical than the suggested replacement. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014

Even Malaysians protested against Chinese rule in the Spratlys. In fact, to do so, some Malays considered the South China Sea be renamed as the "North Borneo Sea (Laut Borneo Utara)". 180.191.132.252 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

earlier commments

Discussion:

I note that the Chinese name for the South China Sea is given (Nan Hai) at this entry. Would it not also be useful to note the Vietnamese name, Dong Bien (diacritics omitted), which means 'Eastern Sea'? Although giving the Chinese name obviously doesn't imply upholding Chinese claims to the sea (after all, Chinese is a major language), giving the Vietnamese (and if relevant any other names) would underline the concept of competing claims and demonstrate that the sea does not historically or notionally only belong to China.

Incidentally, although Nan Hai is the official name, many Chinese here in Hainan, at least, use an unofficial alternative name that is a direct translation from English: Nan Zhongguo Hai.

Greg Pringle Hainan

Excuse me, but in Vietnamese the name of the sea is Bien Dong (diacritics omitted), not Dong Bien. Its Sino-Vietnamese equivalence is Dong Hai 東海 (Eastern Sea).

Besides, many Vietnamese documents also use the name Nam Hai 南海 (Southern Sea), which is equivalent with the Chinese name Nanhai. However, as the name Vietnam means "Southern Yue", or "Far South", Nam Hai can also interpreted as "Vietnamese Sea".

The Portuguese gave the sea the name "South China Sea" because their principal trading partner was the Chinese, and the sea was south of China... It has nothing to do with ownership of the sea, since the high seas is international territory (minus EEZ zones off coasts and islands of course.) However, using the East Sea signifies equality to China, and refusal to be in a subordinate relationship relative to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.253.55.211 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I agree Biển đông is the name for the East Sea (East of Vietnam) also the common usage in Vietnam for the "South China Sea, as they do think this reflects on ownership claims. Now China appears to think the same as they insist Philippines has recently stepped out of line in renaming it the West Philippines Sea. Obviously Philippines Government think it's name also influences the arguement of what belongs to whom. Earlier in January 2009 I tried to point out that there was a serious situation brewing in the region, but the Wikipedia editors and project people desided to do nothing to clarify the debates. Then about July 2010 Hillary Clinton attempted to generate a multi-lateral, or regional settlement with USA offering to arbitrate and help. China responded by demanding the US keep out of the issue. As of June 2011 China repeats this warning to the World.

What the Philippines calls "West Philippine Sea" is not the entire South China Sea. It only refers to the subset of the South China Sea that is within the Philippine EEZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.88.3 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have just finshed reading the Bernard Madoff case current summary article and talk pages and can't help wishing Wikipedia had a simple place for me to complement those writers for such a fantastically clear and concise summary of just where all those matters are heading up till now. Of Course China's accute shortage of Oil, its greatly increased need for oil to feed its fast rising industrial and economic prosperity gains. Besides it buys oil mainly from the Middle East (mostly Saudi), which oil must transition through these waters, meaning they can easily be held to randsom or sabotage risk by anyone angry with them, particularly terrorists and pirates.

I hope here I can inspire someone to do that with the South China/Vietnam East sea/Philippines West Sea, debates and argued ownership reasoning as world news many offered comments do on what is what and what is likely to make more trouble than good.--Robbygay (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC) --Robbygay (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that giving the names used by other country, for example, the recently officialised name West Philippines Sea would greatly add to the neutrality of this article. After all, we are not only talking of the parts that belong to China but to common humanity as well. jayzl villfania nebre 17:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangchaud (talk • contribs)

The body of water is not near China, so it should be named Vietnam Philippines Sea or Philippines Vietnam Sea. Those two names make sense. Either VPS or PVS make the most sense, as again, the body of water is not near China, nor is it policed or protected for the world by China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.217 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should be, but it isn't. So we're not going to rename the article or use those terms here. Bazonka (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a better name would be South East Asian Sea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.88.3 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No country, authoritative body or organisation in the world calls it the "South East Asian Sea". Wikipedia is not intended to invent new neologisms, per policy it uses the common name used within English literature. Until governments and organisations actually start using a new name, calling it by the fictional name (you invented it, therefore it is fiction) "South East Asian Sea" is original research. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

tagalog

Luzon Sea refers to only part of the body of water, so I've removed it. Also as the most current name, per the Phillipine government is Dagat Kanlurang ng Pilipinas, that should be listed first, unless there's sourcing which include the previous name is still more commonly used. Nobody Ent 13:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. What we are sure of is that presently the Philippine Government officially uses the term "West Philippine Sea", and that this change was made quite recent. I'm not sure as to which name is used more frequently though, so that's a good question. I recall reading a talk page post here, which claims that the term for South China Sea is actually used more frequently by the media. I'd have no method of actually proving this though, it's all hearsay for me. Though, I am absolutely certain that "Dagat Timog Tsina" shouldn't be removed from the article like a certain editor is trying to do: They're claiming that the term was never ever used, but these 13,000 google hits show otherwise. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reinserting the terms. As far as I know, the three terms all refer to the same body of water: this is despite the fact that the term "Luzon Sea" only refers to the part of the greater South China Sea, and the term "Dagat Kanlurang Pilipinas" (not Dagat Kanlurang ng Pilipinas) is a neologism which only refers to the parts of the South China Sea within the Philippines' archipelagic baselines according to AO 29.

And yes, Nobody Ent, the previous name is still more commonly used. Maps used by students in the Philippines, for example, still use the term "South China Sea". The terms are interchangeably used in media, similar to the case between the Philippine Sea and the Pacific Ocean. I don't see why we need to assert a particular point of view even if most Filipinos (and I'm one of them) do not use the term "West Philippine Sea" in common parlance unless discussing about the Spratly Islands issue. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The cited source uses "Dagat Kanlurang ng Pilipinas." Why the Luzon Sea name? I don't have any knowledge of the area but if it only refers to part of the body of water that seems analagous to listing "Gulf of Maine" as a name for "Atlantic Ocean." Which would be weird. Nobody Ent 10:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The cited source says "Kanlurang Dagat ng Pilipinas" (Dagat Kanlurang ng Pilipinas is grammatically incorrect), but in fact there is no official translation into Filipino (if we are to use convention, then the name would be Dagat Kanlurang Pilipinas).

On the Luzon Sea: the term West Philippine Sea likewise only refers to a part of the South China Sea. The Gulf of Maine example was not what I had in mind: my example was the Philippine Sea also being analogously called the Pacific Ocean within Philippine territorial waters. Similarly put, the name "Luzon Sea" is also a common name for the South China Sea even if the term only refers to the parts within Philippine territory. (Also, the Tagalog Wikipedia's article on the South China Sea calls it the Luzon Sea.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there sources for "Dagat Kanlurang Pilipinas" and use of "Luzon Sea" for the entire body of water? Nobody Ent 11:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Luzon Sea is the part West of Luzon. West Philippine Sea refers to the part West of the Philippines. Luzon Sea is a subset of the West Philippine Sea, which in turn is a subset of the South China Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.88.122 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please remove last part of the article

I'm Vietnamese and the last part of the article made me wonder for a while.. Not only that I didn't know most of those events but also they were overhyped. Let's say those are true, most of them still got nothing to do with "South China Sea" or whatever name people wanted to call it. Culture conversion, it happened all the time across human history. China, Russia, America, even minor countries did it. Christian people, your demons were gods of old culture that lost the war and got trampled on.. Since when wikipedia would take side in politic matters and add those subjective information to your articles? Call me a brainwashed youth by my country, or Kim Jong-un followers, or whatever you want. I just felt deeply insulted by the last part of this article. Which was written in very suggestive way, misleading and like I said: nothing to do with the sea.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.182.142.168 (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed much of the text from the end of the article, solely because it wasn't really relevant. Bazonka (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South China Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160213112251/http://www.iccwbo.org/ccs/imb_piracy/weekly_piracy_report.asp to http://www.iccwbo.org/ccs/imb_piracy/weekly_piracy_report.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Improper infobox for a geographic article??

This is a geographic article, but the current infobox uses Infobox Chinese, which merely shows name variants of the sea. It should be using the infobox body of water template to display relevant and useful geographic information. Sanglahi86 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia "Handing Over" the West Philippine Sea to China?

What's up with that? I mean, Wikipedia is based in the USA, and the Philippines is a US ally. Not to mention this sea has been called the West Philippine Sea for centuries. I'd never even heard of the South China Sea until at the earliest the 1990s. Is the People's Republic of China a big supporter of Freedom of Information? No, I didn't think so. A big financial supporter of that guy Jimmy? Probably more like that.2601:1C0:8400:9EA:DD80:1845:6E5F:2379 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't invent conspiracy theories when none exist. It's simply the correct application of WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Korean name of South China Sea

I found in Japanese and Mandarin wikipedia that this sea was include Korean name of the sea, this is Nam Jungguk Hae 남중국해. I think, the English wikipedia should include korean name too. (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.178.199.31 (talk)

Korea is completely irrelevant to the topic of the South China Sea. It makes sense to include countries which border the sea (Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, China, etc.), and countries which historically had a strong presence in the region (Japan, Portugal), and that's it. It is pointless to include a Korean name. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Map needs legend

So that I can see how shallow the water actually is. --Ysangkok (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

South China Sea

I think you should keep the name the same. They got it after the war. Why can't they just share it and get along.?

Dollybrock (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't know I was talking to encyclopedia sorry. Dollybrock (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

Since the Philippine government now is using the term "West Philippine Sea" as an official settled doctrine to refer to the waters west of the country where the Philippines has overlapping territorial claims with five other nations, instead of the all-embracing tag of "South China Sea." The redirection should be remove and revive the "West Philippine Sea" Wikipage. Thanks. Webwires (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, see below. China is not a big supporter of free thinking, so going along with their crap can't possibly be in Wikipedia's interest. Of course, most of the supporters below are probably PLA sock puppets, but I digress!2601:1C0:8400:9EA:DD80:1845:6E5F:2379 (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Out of 180 countries, how many countries is the Philippines? "South China Sea" is the WP:COMMONNAME used in English (WP:ENG), and is recognised by the majority of English-speaking nations and many international organizations. "South China Sea" doesn't imply that the sea is owned by China - it was a historical term originally denoting European sea trade with China, as it was the South China Sea where many of the vessels travelled through. Otherwise, under the same logic, all countries that border the Indian Ocean belong to India, as with the Arabian Sea, Persian Sea, Sea of Japan, East China Sea, et cetera. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the language of the Philippines is not English, so it's not actually called "West Philippine Sea" but the Tagalog equivalent. This is English-language Wikipedia, so why would we have an article for a foreign name? Certailnly worth mentioning in the infobox and maybe article lede though. Bazonka (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me just correct you, Bazonka, the official language of the Philippines is English and Tagalog and referring to my entry, I never mentioned that the West Philippine Sea Wikipage should be renamed to as “Dagat Kanluran ng Pilipinas” or use in a way other than in English Wikipedia, in the first place, who mention having an article of a foreign name? Benlisquare has a point that’s way I created this section to clarify it. Thanks. Webwires (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Even in everyday language, Filipinos never refer South China Sea as its equivalent in Tagalog except if it's in school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.247.248 (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. As I understand it though, West Philippine Sea is just an alternative name for South China Sea as used by Filipino institutions - see [7]. Therefore it certainly deserves a mention in this article, but not an article in its own right. South China Sea is still, by far, the commonest English-language name for the waterbody. Bazonka (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not. The West Philippine Sea refers to the subset of the South China Sea within Philippine EEZ. Since it is different, it deserves a separate article. I was redirected here when i was looking for information on the WPS. I am interested to find out which features are within the WPS, not the entire SCS. But this article does NOT provide the information I was looking for, therefore the redirection is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.88.3 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

SCNR, but, when this goes on, the next thing will be "North Malaysian Sea", "East Vietnamese Sea", "Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Sea"... 49.145.70.58 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that being the same water, a separate article is not necessary. However, it has also been a practice in Wikepedia to include alternative names, especially if it is share by people of cross cultures. Also, being an official nomenclature under the Philippine laws, I believe it deserves a mention, in the same way that we give the name of the country if it has 10 official names. Also, it is like giving the scientific name of an animal having many common names. And another thing, the only existing document that renames the Philippine Portion of this sea only exists in English. Therefore, the name Kanlurang Dagat Pilipinas, though a correct translation, has no official status. jayzl villfania nebre 17:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see it repeated over and over in this talk page that the South China Sea was "renamed" to West Philippine Sea. This is NOT true. The West Philippine Sea is a newly defined sea consisting of those waters within the Philippine EEZ to its West. It is a subset of the SCS, but not the entire SCS. The two terms are not synonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.88.3 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

WIKI Please change South China Sea to West Philippine Sea. UNCLOS ruling July 16, 2016 already awarded many islands to the Philippines. Also, by Philippine law, that sea area is supposed to be called West Philippine Sea. Lyv1969 (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Renaming: South China Sea -> West Philippine Sea

Since the Chinese government is not legitimate, but the Philippine is, the water should be renamed into West Philippine Sea. 49.145.70.58 (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What has the status of the Chinese government got to do with anything? The name is purely a geographical term - simply, the sea is south of China. Yes, it is also west of the Phillipines, but in the English-speaking world (remember that this is English-language Wikipedia), the WP:COMMONNAME is South China Sea, and unless common usage changes, this article mustn't be renamed. Bazonka (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

lol -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Benlisquare, you cannot laugh if Philippine and Vietnam become aggressive like Korea to insist to rename South China Sea to West Philippine Sea or East Sea in IHO. :) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even going to make the "internationally recognised name" or "English common name" argument that I have repeated over and over again ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Let's look at it in a logical manner: "East Sea" - east of what? "Sea of Japan" - oh boy, it's obviously the sea enclosed by the Japanese isles. "West Philippine Sea" - do you mean the western part of the Philippine Sea, or something else? "South China Sea" - hey, it's not ambiguous, it's the sea south of China. These disputes are pure yawn material. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. I hope an article South China Sea naming dispute will not be created in near future. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We could preemptively redirect that link to the naming section on this article. Seem appropriate? Also, I wonder how the IP finds the Philippine government any more legitimate than the Chinese one. CMD (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"We could preemptively redirect that link": Currently it is a DAB: West Philippine Sea. There are two things that WPS can potentially refer to. "I wonder how the IP finds the Philippine government any more legitimate": I wonder why. 49.145.70.58: Davao City, Philippines. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant this link: South China Sea naming dispute, to South China Sea#Names. National pride is an amazing thing, many Filipinos have little faith in their government. Perhaps it's just the current (more) popular administration. CMD (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh. In that case, go ahead. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much point in creating a redirect in my opinion, though I don't strongly oppose it. There's a difference of opinion, but is there actually a dispute at all? The South China Sea article doesn't mention one. Bazonka (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"West Philippine Sea" - do you mean the western part of the Philippine Sea, or something else? -- Actually, this would pose no question as the Philippine government has officialised this term for the sea located in the western part of the Philippines. It would be like Virginia and West Virginia. As the name West Virginia is official, then we won't ask if that means the western part of the state of Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangchaud (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"West Philippine Sea" means sea to the West of the Philippines. It is also defined by Philippine law to be the body of water West of the Philippines and WITHIN its 200 nautical mile EEZ. Thus, it is not the same as the South China Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.88.122 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The West Philippine Sea is NOT the same as the South China Sea. It is only the part of the SCS that lies within Philippine EEZ. https://ph.news.yahoo.com/west-philippine-sea-limited-exclusive-economic-zone-120023464.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.88.3 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Per UNCLOS ruling WIKI should respect its decision awarding many islands including Panatag to Philippines. It is disrespectful that South China Sea reflects that area. Lyv1969 (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ASEAN declarations

In view of the current importance of this article, I'd like to add a suggestion. (I've had to create a new Wikipedia account because my old one was through a workplace email and I've changed jobs. This means I'm not able to do editing myself yet.) I'd appreciate it if anyone can pick this up and add it to the article:

In 2002 the following countries signed the ASEAN-China DECLARATION ON THE CONDUCT OF PARTIES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA: Brunei, China (PRC), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Vietnam. <ref>http://asean.org/?static_post=declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-china-sea-2<ref>

There was also a 1992 ASEAN declaration. Both declarations are referred to in a quote from the US State Department in this Washington Post article: <ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/11/heres-how-the-south-china-sea-ruling-affects-u-s-interests/<ref>

Are these the latest international agreements on the South China Sea? Hope this helps. Please excuse newbie behaviour.

Bpalmerau (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)