The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission had a hearing last week on China’s views of its own sovereignty and methods of access control. The agenda included presentations by many familiar names.

From Allen Carlson:

….Indeed, while the virulence with which the Chinese have maintained their right to rule over Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang and Hong Kong has been at times characterized as “antiquarian” and “Victorian,” one is hard pressed to find more than a handful of states that have relinquished their jurisdictional rights when faced with similar challenges. Nonetheless, the depth of resistance to Beijing’s rule, and the extensive resources at the disposal of opposition groups in all of these regions (but especially, Taiwan), coupled with the crucial importance of all four areas to the central government’s basic national security and economic development goals, do set China apart from most other international actors. They make China’s jurisdictional struggles, particularly the conflict over Taiwan, among the most prominent and potentially destabilizing in the international system……

From June Tefel Dreyer:

….Three years later, the Indonesian foreign ministry’s chief maritime law expert, after several fruitless trips to Beijing to try to reach an agreement over the PRC’s EEZ as it related to the Indonesian-administered Natuna Islands, complained
…They tell us this is the national heritage of China…They don’t argue, they just go on talking about Chinese dynasties…We have a great deal of difficulty analyzing what they’re claiming.
When, in 1996, just before signing the UNCLOS treaty, Beijing extended its maritime jurisdiction claim from 370,000 kilometers off its main coastline to three million square kilometers, doing so only for the Paracels, an Indonesian foreign minister commented that this would be valid only it the PRC were an archipelagic state, which it clearly is not….

From Peter Dutton:

…..Concerning their continental shelf claims, a theme that recurs with remarkable consistency in the statements of Chinese scholars and government authorities, is that the continental shelf off the coast of China is actually historical Chinese territory. One discussion of the topic by Chinese oceans scholars refers to the regression of water during the Ice Age thereby extending the Yellow and Yangtze and other rivers out onto the continental shelf, where they deposited silt from the Chinese mainland. On this basis, the scholars claim, “the East Sea continental shelf is a natural extension of Chinese territory.” This helps to put in context the strength of feeling of many Chinese on this issue, who seem to view competing claims on the continental shelf as actual encroachments on their rightful repossession of the continental shelf and its resources. Accordingly, it is the Chinese position on delimitation is that the entire continental shelf under the East China Sea—from the mainland coast to the Okinawa Trough just west of the Ryukyu Island chain—should be Chinese and therefore delimitation of the maritime boundary should occur in that area….

Also presenting were my old prof Bob Sutter, among others. Lots of good information there… the entire agenda with links to all articles in PDF and HTML is online.