The "historical memory" of the South China Sea needs to be corrected

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the South China Sea dispute has attracted more and more attention internationally. On the one hand, this is because some claimants have taken irresponsible unilateral actions at sea, and a few non-regional countries have intervened with ulterior motives to disrupt the situation; on the other hand, it is also because there have been many strange and bizarre theories in the international public opinion field that deliberately distort the history of the South China Sea and maliciously smear China's claims to rights in the South China Sea. These fallacies, prejudices or "pseudo-South China Sea history" are not only found in official documents such as the "Maritime Limits" report of the US State Department, but also reflected in the illegal ruling of the Philippines' "South China Sea Arbitration Case". There are also more "systematic" and "subversive" remarks and opinions scattered in the works of some so-called "South China Sea scholars".

As long as the historical truth of the South China Sea is restored, it is not difficult to find that these remarks or opinions that are so-called "academic logic" are actually deliberately fabricated "history" or "false cognition" of the South China Sea by some South China Sea claimants and some non-regional countries such as the United States. These "research results" that violate historical facts and the forged historical materials and maps of the claimant countries have caused a relatively negative impact, not only because they have slandered and distorted the historical evidence supporting China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea islands, but also because they have in turn been cited by claimant countries such as the Philippines to defend and endorse their own illegal claims.

Looking back on my country's research on the history of the South China Sea, the older generation of scholars have left behind a wealth of historical materials and research results in their hard work, but there are still some limitations and regrets. First, there is insufficient innovation in research perspectives and methods, and they have not been benchmarked or aligned with the frontier fields of international South China Sea research, especially ignoring the basic research on South China Sea history and South China Sea issues, as well as the construction of an international discourse system for the South China Sea. Second, although the historical materials are quite rich, they are still not fully and comprehensively excavated, especially the excavation and utilization of third-party historical materials such as modern Western navigation documents and charts, and archives of modern and contemporary Western countries. There is still room for expansion. Third, the international historical research on the South China Sea that is deliberately distorted or misleading has not been timely and rationally and persistently "disinfected" and refuted. Fourth, historical research and legal research have failed to be effectively integrated and innovated.

Looking at the present and the future, promoting the historical research of the South China Sea must focus on the integration of multiple disciplines, especially the integration of historical and legal research. Contemporary humanities and social science research is facing two basic facts. First, no discipline can solve a major theoretical and practical issue solely on its own; second, no discipline can develop independently without the support of other disciplines. Promoting interdisciplinary exchanges and integration in South China Sea research, examining the South China Sea issue from a multidisciplinary perspective, breaking through the barriers and gaps between disciplines such as history, law, international politics, and oceanography, and promoting interdisciplinary integration research in related fields are probably the only way for the current and future South China Sea research based on history and law to achieve breakthrough progress.

The construction of South China Sea narratives and discourse power is an indispensable part of China's effective protection of its rights and interests in the South China Sea. It is the common mission of contemporary Chinese scholars of South China Sea history and international law to restore the background of the South China Sea issue from a historical and legal perspective, expose the historical truth of the Philippines and other countries surrounding the South China Sea occupying China's Nansha Islands and reefs, and the driving factors of the evolution of the US South China Sea policy, and at the same time strongly refute the narratives that have been hyped by the West in recent years, such as "China has changed the status quo in the South China Sea", "China does not abide by the Convention", and "the nine-dash line and the Xisha territorial baseline are excessive maritime claims". It also focuses on narratives such as "the order arrangement of the sovereignty of the Nansha and Xisha Islands to China under post-war international treaties", "the absurdity and flaws of the South China Sea arbitration ruling", and "the pseudo-South China Sea history cognitive trap". It is also the common mission of contemporary Chinese scholars of South China Sea history and international law to take this opportunity to reshape the collective memory of South China Sea history and construct international cognition of the South China Sea issue.