A GROUP of Chinese scholars has claimed that the Philippines’ northernmost province of Batanes belongs to China through Taiwan, asserting that Manila’s administration of the islands has no historical or legal basis in what analysts say is the latest example of Beijing’s “lawfare” campaign to bolster its maritime claims.
The claim was made during a June 30 symposium at Jinan University in Guangzhou, where around a dozen academics from leading Chinese universities and government-linked research institutes concluded that the Batan Islands are a “natural geographical extension” of Taiwan and therefore fall under China’s sovereignty.
The symposium, reported by the state-affiliated NewsGD, also declared that planned negotiations between the Philippines and Japan to delimit their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves in waters east of Taiwan are “illegal and invalid.” The meeting was convened in response to the joint statement issued following the May 28 summit between Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, in which the two countries agreed to begin negotiations on the delimitation of their EEZs and continental shelves.
According to the report, scholars from Nanjing University, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Ocean University of China and other institutions argued that the negotiations violate international law and infringe upon what they described as China’s sovereignty over the waters east of Taiwan.
Ju Hailong, dean of Jinan University’s School of International Studies, argued that Batanes was administered as part of Taiwan Prefecture during the Ming and Qing dynasties. He noted that the northernmost island of the Batanes chain lies about 99 kilometers from Taiwan’s Orchid Island (Lanyu), claiming the islands are not only geographically closer to Taiwan but are also a natural extension of the island.
Wang Yuanyuan, a researcher at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, cited Ming Dynasty navigation records documenting the islands along the Xiamen-Luzon sea route. She also claimed that the more than 10,000 Ivatan residents of Batanes share linguistic and cultural links with the Tao people of Lanyu and that their cultural heritage originated from China.
The scholars argued that the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the 1946 Treaty of Manila established the Philippines’ northern territorial boundary at 20 degrees north latitude, placing Batanes outside the territory transferred to the Philippines. They further contended that post-World War II treaties requiring Japan to return territories seized from China should have included Batanes because they considered the islands appurtenant to Taiwan.
The symposium concluded that the Philippines’ present administration of Batanes is merely a postwar fait accompli that lacks legal basis.
Yu Minna, an associate professor at the Law School of Ocean University of China, argued that under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, maritime delimitation can only be undertaken between states with opposite or adjacent coasts.
Because Taiwan lies between Japan and the Philippines, Yu claimed, the two countries do not meet the geographic conditions necessary to negotiate a maritime boundary.
Wang Kan, a professor at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, said the planned Philippines-Japan maritime delimitation talks “were invalid from the moment they were launched.” The symposium called on the international community to recognize what participants described as China’s historical and legal basis for sovereignty over the Batan Islands and warned against what they characterized as attempts by Japan and the Philippines to use maritime delimitation as a geopolitical tool.
The claims have not been formally adopted by the Chinese government.
However, maritime monitoring group SeaLight said the symposium appeared to be part of Beijing’s broader gray-zone strategy to create legal and historical narratives supporting future territorial claims.
SeaLight said Beijing, through academics and state media, was “clearly” attempting to establish a new territorial baseline to support Chinese patrols east of Taiwan that began last month.
“So far, PRC government officials have not endorsed the symposium’s conclusions, but that’s not unusual in PRC gray-zone narrative warfare,” the group said. “For now, muddying the waters over Batanes’ legal ownership is sufficient to help justify its ‘sovereignty’ patrols.” The Philippines has exercised continuous and effective administration over Batanes since the Spanish colonial era. The province has remained part of Philippine territory under successive colonial administrations, the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, and the country’s domestic laws. Batanes is internationally recognized as Philippine territory, and no state has formally recognized China’s claim over the islands.
As of Thursday, neither the Department of Foreign Affairs nor the National Security Council had issued a statement on the symposium or the scholars’ assertions.
