For decades, China has justified its territorial claims using a mix of “historical rights,” selective reading of ancient maps, and nationalist narratives.

These claims extend across the South China Sea, into Japanese-administered territories in the East China Sea, and even into the Himalayas with India.

The result has been a pattern of intimidation, coercive diplomacy, militarized harassment, and revisionist claims. But when examined closely—legally, historically, and morally—China’s justification collapses.

So what gives China moral or legal authority to intimidate its neighbours over territories it never actually controlled in history?

The short answer: nothing.
The long answer requires breaking down the myth of China’s “historical rights,” the legal realities of the modern international system, and the political motives driving Beijing’s aggressive posture.

1. The Myth of “Historical Rights” — A Political Story, Not Evidence

China’s primary argument rests on so-called “historical rights” based on centuries-old maps, imperial-era voyages, or fishermen’s activities. But these claims are not grounded in sovereignty as understood in international law.

Ancient maps do not create modern borders

China often points to old maps showing vast oceans labeled as “Chinese.” But:

• Ancient maps were not scientific or standardized.

• Every major empire drew exaggerated boundaries.

• Maps reflect aspiration, not jurisdiction.

• Most Chinese maps before the 20th century do not even include the South China Sea islands.

If old maps gave rights, then:

• Greece could claim Turkey.

• Iran could claim Iraq.

• Italy could claim the entire Mediterranean.

• Japan could claim Korea.

History would collapse into chaos.

Imperial voyages ≠ Territorial control

Beijing frequently cites Zheng He’s voyages (1405–1433) to justify influence over Southeast Asian waters. But Zheng He:

• Never claimed territory

• Never built outposts

• Never administered islands

• Never established Chinese law, taxation, or governance

By this logic, Britain could claim every coast touched by Captain Cook.

Historical fishing ≠ Sovereignty

Chinese fishermen have long sailed across the region. But so have:

• Vietnamese fishermen

• Malay fishermen

• Filipino fishermen

Fishing activity does not establish national jurisdiction.

Even China knows this—because it rejects similar claims by other nations.

2. China Never Controlled the Territories It Now Claims

A crucial fact often ignored by Beijing’s propaganda machine is this:

China never exercised continuous, effective, or exclusive control over the South China Sea or Senkaku Islands at any point in history.

South China Sea: A region China barely mentioned until the 20th century

Before the 1940s, Chinese government documents, maps, and records:

• Rarely referenced the Spratly or Paracel Islands

• Treated the region as open waters used by anyone

• Never administered the islands as provinces

• Never built military or civilian structures

• Never collected taxes or enforced laws

Vietnam, on the other hand, has clear historical records of state-administered activity on these islands dating back centuries.

Senkaku Islands: Historically Japanese or uninhabited—not Chinese

The Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu in Chinese) were:

• Uninhabited

• Surveyed and incorporated by Japan in 1895

• Administered continuously by Japan (except during U.S. occupation after WWII)

• Recognized by China as Japanese territory until the 1970s

China only began claiming them after oil and gas deposits were discovered.

Scarborough Shoal: No Chinese governance, ever

Scarborough Shoal (near the Philippines), until recently, had:

• No evidence of Chinese governance

• No Chinese settlements

• No Chinese administration

• No Chinese mapping in official documents

Yet China now blockades Filipino fishermen in waters far closer to Manila than to Hainan.

If proximity matters, Scarborough is clearly Philippine territory.

3. International Law Rejects China’s Claims

The modern legal order is crystal clear: history is irrelevant unless backed by continuous, effective governance.

UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)

China is a signatory to UNCLOS, which establishes:

• Territorial seas

• Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)

• Continental shelf rights

• Maritime arbitration

Under UNCLOS:

• Islands generate EEZs

• Rocks generate only 12-nautical-mile territorial seas

• Low-tide elevations generate no sovereignty

Most of China’s artificial islands are legally rocks or reefs, not sovereign land.

2016 Arbitral Tribunal Ruling

In 2016, a UN-backed tribunal ruled:

• China has no historical rights in the South China Sea

• The “Nine-Dash Line” has no legal basis

• China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights

• China’s artificial island building was illegal

• China caused irreparable environmental damage

This was a landmark ruling.

China simply ignored it—because it undermines its expansionist strategy.

4. Morality: China’s Behavior Violates Every Principle of Regional Peace

Even beyond legality, China’s behavior lacks moral legitimacy.

Intimidation is not diplomacy

China uses:

• Water cannons

• Military-grade lasers

• Boat ramming

• Near-collision maneuvers

• Airspace violations

• Cyberattacks

• Economic blackmail

These are not the actions of a peaceful power. They are the tactics of a bully.

A country that claims moral authority does not:

• Blockade another nation’s fishermen

• Sail warships into another country’s EEZ

• Treat neighbors as tributaries

• Rewrite history to justify aggression

• Punish countries with trade sanctions for political disagreement

China’s neighbors are not colonies

China’s foreign ministry often acts as if Southeast Asian and East Asian states should be:

• Silent

• Submissive

• Respectful

• Obedient

This is a revival of the imperial-era “Middle Kingdom” mentality, where surrounding nations were expected to pay tribute.

Modern Asia rejects this worldview entirely.

5. The Real Reason Behind China’s Aggression: Power, Not History

China’s leaders know:

• They never controlled these territories historically.

• Their “historical rights” narrative collapses under scrutiny.

• International law does not support them.

So why push so aggressively?

Because territorial expansion achieves strategic objectives:

1. Control of sea lanes

The South China Sea carries over one-third of global trade.

2. Access to oil, gas, and fish

China has voracious resource needs.

3. Geopolitical dominance

Controlling the region weakens ASEAN, Japan, and U.S. influence.

4. Nationalism as political survival

The Communist Party uses nationalism to distract citizens from:

• Economic slowdown

• Corruption

• Demographic decline

• Youth unemployment

• Social dissatisfaction

5. Strategic depth

By pushing outward, China tries to create buffer zones that give it military advantage.

The issue is power ambition, not historical fact.

6. Why China Has Neither Moral Nor Legal Authority

Legally

• China has no continuous governance over the territories.

• International courts reject its claims.

• UNCLOS contradicts the Nine-Dash Line.

Historically

• China never maintained state administration over the disputed areas.

• Old maps and legends do not equal sovereignty.

• China’s own historical records contradict its current claims.

Morally

• Intimidation is not a moral argument.

• Coercion does not create legitimacy.

• Harassing weaker neighbors is unethical.

• Regional peace cannot be built on fear.

Practically

• China’s actions destabilize Asia.

• They force nations into military camps.

• They increase the risk of war.

A nation cannot demand respect while disdaining the rules that guarantee peace.

China’s Claims Lack All Foundations of Legitimacy

When stripped of propaganda, one truth remains:

China’s intimidation of its neighbors has no legal justification, no historical foundation, and no moral legitimacy.

"The aggressive behavior we see today is not about right or wrong, law or history. It is about a rising power attempting to reshape Asia in its image—through force, fear, and fabricated narratives.

Asia does not reject a strong China.
Asia rejects a China that seeks dominance instead of cooperation.

A peaceful, lawful China would be welcomed.
A coercive China will always be resisted.

And no amount of historical revisionism can change that fundamental reality."