| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
191935
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Ronson Chan is the current Chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association. He previously worked for Stand News, an online Hong Kong news agency with over a million subscribers, and for Factwire, the first investigative reporting agency in the territory. Both organisations were closed following the enactment of Hong Kong’s National Security Law in June 2022. Chan was arrested on 7 September 2022 while covering a meeting at a Hong Kong housing estate. Police alleged that he refused to provide identification and behaved in an ‘uncooperative’ way. He was charged with obstructing police and is currently on bail. He was, however, allowed to leave Hong Kong to take up a six-month fellowship with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford. In January, he spoke to Asian Affairs’ editor, Bill Hayton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
160671
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The overlapping territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea threaten to spark conflict in East Asia. On several occasions in recent years, disputes over the right to extract oil and gas have caused clashes between Chinese and Southeast Asian vessels. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was agreed by almost all countries in 1982 to try to resolve such disagreements. However, the People's Republic of China is currently trying to claim rights that go beyond UNCLOS and infringe on the UNCLOS-based rights of the other claimants. It deploys two arguments in particular: that the archipelagos in the South China Sea collectively generate rights to maritime resources and that China enjoys ‘historic rights’ in the sea. Neither of these arguments is found within UNCLOS, however. This article explores the origin of these Chinese arguments and finds that the ‘historic rights’ claim can be traced to a single Taiwanese academic writing in the 1990s during a period of intense debate in Taiwan over its relationship with the PRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
188678
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
I am very pleased to welcome you to this issue of Asian Affairs, the first that I have overseen since being appointed editor in June. I am very honoured to be taking over from Bijan Omrani, who oversaw a major expansion in the Journal’s reach and impact during his time in the editor’s chair from late 2014 until the middle of this year. Bijan will not be completely walking away, however, since he remains a trustee of the Journal’s “parent”, the Royal Society for Asian Affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
157445
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
143160
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
134568
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Haven, Yale University Press, 2014.
|
| Description |
xviii, 298p.Hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9780300186833
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 057946 | 951.2/HAY 057946 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
149688
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A long-anticipated ruling on the China's activities in the South China sea went strongly against Beijing in july.Bill Hayton examines the implications of the ruling for China and its nrighbouring countries, and the outlook for China's policy in the region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
193621
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article clarifies a mythologized episode in the early development of the South China Sea disputes and shows how it was later ‘forgotten’ by British policymakers for strategic reasons. Using documents from the UK National Archives it confirms, for the first time, that Qing/Chinese officials did deny responsibility for the Paracel Islands in 1898/1899. It then shows how this correspondence was strategically ignored by British officials during the 1930s in the context of renewed disputes between China, France, and Japan over the sovereignty of the islands. It argues that during the 1930s, British officials sought to bolster the Chinese position in the South China Sea because of a concern that France would remain neutral in any forthcoming conflict. This resulted in Britain taking a view on the sovereignty disputes that was at odds with the evidence in its own archives but which provided useful political support for the Republic of China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
152203
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The recent award by an arbitral tribunal in a case brought by the Philippines against China gives lawyers reason to reexamine the historical evidence put forward by claimants in the South China Sea disputes. While the Tribunal was barred from considering territorial or boundary questions, it did cast doubt on the historical narrative rule that China has asserted in support of its claims. Fresh evidence from other sources also suggests that discussions of these matters need to move beyond arguments put forward in a small number of papers published more than thirty years ago. A close examination of the references used in those papers shows that they relied upon highly partisan Chinese sources. Recent historical research has produced new facts about the development of the competing territorial claims in the South China Sea, but international legal discourse has yet to take these findings into account. This article examines some of the key works in the field and calls for them to be reassessed and for future discussion of the disputes to be based upon verifiable and contextualized evidence rather than on nationalist assertions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|