Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Managing Vietnam's Maritime Boundary Disputes

2007; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 38; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00908320701530482

1521-0642

Nguyễn Hồng Thảo, Ramses Amer,

Coastal and Marine Management

Abstract This article examines the progress made in managing Vietnam's maritime boundary disputes and analyzes the challenges that lie ahead relating to unsettled disputes. The continuity and change in Vietnam's approach to dispute a settlement and the difficulties in managing the unresolved maritime disputes are assessed. Vietnam has made considerable progress in managing its maritime disputes; however, continued efforts are needed to address the unresolved disputes. Keywords: boundaryGulf of ThailandGulf of Tonkinmaritime disputesSpratly archipelagoVietnam This study draws on earlier and ongoing research carried out by the two authors on an individual basis on Vietnam's maritime disputes as well as the as on other aspects of the developments in the South China Sea. A travel grant from the Swedish School of Advanced Asia-Pacific Studies (SSAAPS) made a working visit by Professor Amer to Vietnam possible in March 2006, during which an earlier version of this manuscript was discussed. The views expressed are the personal views of the two authors. For an earlier study encompassing Vietnam's land border disputes, see Ramses Amer and Nguyen Hong Thao, “The Management of Vietnam's Border Disputes: What Impact on Its Sovereignty and Regional Integration?”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 27(3), (December 2005), pp. 429–452. Notes 1. Studies dealing with the overall situations in the South China Sea, the Gulf of Thailand, and regional maritime boundary issues include: Bob Catley and Malmur Keliat, Spratlys: The Dispute in the South China Sea (Aldershot, Brookfield, Singapore, and Sydney: Ashsgate 1997); K. T. John Chao, “South China Sea: Boundary Problems Relating to the Nansha and Hsisha Islands”, Chinese Yearbook of International Law and Affairs, Vol. 9 (1989–1990), pp. 66–156; Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, La Souveraineté sur les archipels Paracels et Spratleys (Paris: L’Édition Harmattan, 1996); Jorge R. Coquia, “Maritime Boundary Problems in the South China Sea”, University of British Columbia Law Review, Vol. 24, (1990), pp. 117–125; Cooperative Monitoring in the South China Sea: Satellite Imagery, Confidence-Building Measures, and the Spratly Islands Disputes, edited by John C. Baker and David G. Wiencek (Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger, 2002); Éric Denécé, Géostratégie de la Mer de Chine Méridionale et des basins maritimes adjacents (Paris and Montréal: L’Harmattan, 1999); Daniel J. Dzurek, “The Spratly Islands Dispute: Who's On First?”, Maritime Briefing Vol. 2, No. 1 (Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, 1996); Alex G. Oude Elferink, “The Islands in the South China Sea: How Does Their Presence Limit the Extent of the High Seas and the Area and the Maritime Zones of the Mainland Coasts?”, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 32, (2001), pp. 169–190; Fishing in Troubled Waters. Proceedings of an Academic Conference on Territorial Claims in the South China Sea, edited by R. D. Hill, Norman G. Owen, and E. V. Roberts, Centre of Asian Studies Occasional Papers and Monographs, No. 97 (Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 1991); Xavier Furtado, “International Law and the Dispute Over the Spratly Islands: Whither UNCLOS?”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 21, (1999), pp. 386–404; Marius Gjetnes, “The Spratlys: Are They Rocks or Islands?”, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 32, (2001), pp. 191–204; B.A. Hamzah, “Jurisdictional Issues and Conflicting Claims in the Spratlys” Foreign Relations Journal, Vol. V, No. 1 (March 1990), pp. 1–26; Christopher C. Joyner, “The Spratly Islands Dispute: Rethinking the Interplay of Law, Diplomacy and Geo-politics in the South China Sea”, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 13 (1998), pp. 193–236; Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, The Law of the Sea and Maritime Boundary Delimitation in South-East Asia (Singapore, Oxford, and New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Victor Prescott, Limits of National Claims in The South China Sea (London: ASEAN Academic Press 1999); Victor Prescott, The Gulf of Thailand (Kuala Lumpur: Maritime Institute of Malaysia [MIMA], 1998); “Special Issue: The South China Sea Territorial Disputes”, edited by Eric Hyer, American Asian Review, Vol. XII, No. 4 (Winter 1994), pp. 1–209; and War or Peace in the South China Sea?, edited by Timo Kivimäki (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, 2002). 2. See: Le Vietnam et la mer, ouvrage coordonné par Monique Chemillier-Gendreau (Travaux du colloque organisé les 16 et 17 juin 2000 par l’Association d’Amitié Franco-Vietnamienne) (Paris: Les Indes Savantes, 2002); Luu Van Loi The Sino-Vietnamese Difference on the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagoes (Hanoi: The Gioi Publisher, 1996); Nguyen Hong Thao, Le Vietnam et ses différends maritimes dans la mer de Bien Dong (Mer de Chine méridionale) (Paris: Edition A. Pédone, 2004); The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagoes and International Law (Hanoi: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, April 1988); The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagoes (Paracels and Spratly), Dossier II, (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Hanoi, 1985); The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagoes (Paracels and Spratly), Dossier I, published by Vietnam Courier (Hanoi, 1981); and The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagoes Vietnamese Territories (Hanoi: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 1981). 3. The Geneva Agreements that ended to so-called first Indochina conflict in 1954 stipulated that Vietnam was to be temporarily divided into two zones, north and south of the 17th parallel. The two archipelagoes, located south of the 17th parallel, would be under the administration of the Republic of Vietnam. One of the key studies on the historical documentation used to sustain Vietnam's claims to the Paracel and Spratly archipelagoes is Vo Long Te, Les archipels de Hoang-Sa et de Truong-Sa selon les anciens ouvrages vietnamiens d’histoire et de géographie (Saigon: Ministère de la culture, de l’éducation et de la jeunesse, 1974). 4. 1833 U.N.T.S. 397. 5. See supra note 1. 6. See supra note 1. 7. The reason given as to why Cambodia is not a party to the 1982 UNCLOS is that Cambodia does not have the capacity to translate the text of the 1982 UNCLOS, which is a requirement for submission to the National Assembly (Interview by Nguyen Hong Thao with Mr. Var Kimhong, Superior Minister, President of the Cambodia Border Commission in Hanoi in February 2006). 8. See: Lee Lai To, China and the South China Sea Dialogues (Westport and London: Praeger, 1999); Li Jinming and Li Dexia, “The Dotted Line on the Chinese Map of the South China Sea: A Note”, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 34, (2003), pp. 287–295; Lo Chi-kin, China's Policy Towards Territorial Disputes: The Case of the South China Sea Islands (London and New York: Routledge, 1989); Sheng Lijun; China's Policy Towards the Spratly Islands in the 1990s, Working Paper, No. 287 (Canberra: Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, The Australian National University, June 1995); Shen Jianming; “International Law Rule and Historical Evidence Supporting China's Title to the South China Sea Islands”, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 2, (1997), pp. 1–75; Mark J. Valencia, China and the South China Sea Disputes, Adelphi Paper, No. 298 (Oxford: Oxford University Press and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), 1995); Peter Kien-Hong Yu, “The Chinese (Broken) U-Shaped Line in the South China Sea: Points, Lines, Zones”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 25, (2005), pp. 405–430; and Zou Keyuan, “Chinese Traditional Maritime Boundary Line in the South China Sea: Legal Implications for the Spratly Islands Dispute”, EAI Background Brief, No. 14 (7 May 1998) (Singapore: East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore). For a broader study on China's maritime law, see Zou Keyuan, China's Marine Legal System and the Law of the Sea, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005). 9. In the context of this article, China is used as synonymous to the Peoples Republic of China. 10. See: Vivian L. Forbes, Indonesia's Maritime Boundaries, Malaysian Institute of Maritime Affairs Monograph (Kuala Lumpur: MIMA, 1995); and Dino Patti Djalal, The Geopolitics of Indonesia's Maritime Territorial Policy (Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International Studies, 1996). See also supra note 1. 11. In addition to the material in supra note 1, see Mark J. Valencia, Malaysia and the Law of the Sea: The Foreign Policy Issues, the Options and their Implications (Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Strategic and International Studies [ISIS Malaysia], 1991). 12. In addition to the material in supra note 1, see: Hermogenes C. Fernandez, The Philippine 200-Mile Economic Zone: Sources of Possible Cooperation or Disputes with Other Countries, Series One Monograph, No. 3 (October 1982) (Makati, Metro Manila: Development Academy of the Philippine Press, for the Secretariat to the Cabinet Committee on the Law of the Sea Treaty); Noel M. Novicio, The South China Sea Dispute in Philippine Foreign Policy: Problems, Challenges and Prospects, IDSS Monograph No. 5 (Singapore: Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological Institute, 2003); Primer on the South China Sea (Pasay City, Metro Manila: Foreign Service Institute, 1999); The Kalayaan Islands, Series 1, Monograph No. 4, (Manila: The Development Academy of the Philippine Press, Prepared by the Ministry of Defence, for the Secretariat to the Committee on the Law of the Sea Treaty, October 1982); The Philippines and the South China Sea Islands: Overview and Documents, CIRSS Papers, No. 1 (December 1993) (Pasay City, Metro Manila: Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies, Foreign Service Institute); and The South China Sea Disputes Philippine Perspectives, edited by Aileen San Pablo-Baviera, (Quezon City: The Philippine-China Development Resource Center and the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies, 1992). 13. See: Sun Kuan-Ming, “Policy of the Republic of China towards the South China Sea: Recent Developments”, Marine Policy, Vol. 19 (1995), pp. 401–409; Song Yann-huei, “Codes of Conduct in the South China Sea and Taiwan's Stand”, Marine Policy, Vol. 24 (2000), pp. 449–459; and Song Yann-huei, Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea: Taiwan's Perspective (Singapore: World Scientific and Singapore University Press, 1999). 14. For a detailed comparison between China's and Taiwan's claims and policies, see Chen Hurng-yu, “A Comparison Between Taipei and Peking in their Policies and Concepts Regarding the South China Sea”, Issues and Studies, Vol. 29 (1993), pp. 22–58. 15. See supra note 1. 16. 499 U.N.T.S. 311. 17. For the text of the Agreement of 7 July 1982, see: British Broadcasting Corporation, Summary of World Broadcasts, Part Three, Far East 7074 A3/7-8 (10 July 1982) (hereafter BBC/FE). The text of the Agreement has also been reproduced in an English language version as “Appendix 2” in Kittichaisaree, supra note 1, pp. 180–181, and in T. L. McDorman, “Cambodia-Vietnam” in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. III, edited by J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1998), pp. 2364–2365. 18. BBC/FE/7393 A3/1 (23 July 1983). See also Quang Nghia, “Vietnam-Kampuchea Border Issue Settled”, Vietnam Courier, No. 4 (1986), pp. 8–9. 19. For reports from Vietnam and the PRK announcing the signing of the Treaty and details, see BBC/FE/8143 A3/1–3 (30 December 1985). See also Nghia, supra note 18, pp. 8–9. 20. “PM Khai holds talks with Cambodian counterpart”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, available at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/nr040807104143/nr040807105001/ns05101140825 (accessed on 26 July 2005). 21. Text of the Agreement is available in T. L. McDorman, “Malaysia-Vietnam”, Charney and Alexander, supra note 17, pp. 2341–2344. See the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia at www.kln.gov.my. See also: Ramses Amer, “Vietnam and Its Neighbours: The Border Dispute Dimension”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 17 (1995), p. 306; Nguyen Hong Thao, “Joint Development in the Gulf of Thailand”, Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Autumn 1999), pp. 79–88; and Nguyen Hong Thao, “Les délimitations maritimes concernant le Vietnam: accords conclus et négociations en cours”, Chemillier-Gendreau, supra note 2, pp. 53–56. 22. Text of the Agreement is available in T. L. McDorman, “Thailand-Vietnam”, International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. IV, edited by J. I. Charney and R. W. Smith, (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2002), pp. 2692–2694. See also: Nguyen Hong Thao, “Vietnam's First Maritime Boundary Agreement”, Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Autumn 1997), pp. 74–79; Nguyen Hong Thao, “Vietnam and Thailand Settle Maritime Disputes in the Gulf of Thailand”, The MIMA Bulletin, Vol. 2/98 (1998), pp. 7–10; and Nguyen, Les délimitations, supra note 21, p. 51–53. 23. The Agreement on the Demarcation of Waters, Exclusive Economic Zones, and Continental Shelves in the Bac Bo (Tonkin) Gulf (name used in Vietnamese sources at the time of signing) was officially signed on 25 December 2000 in Beijing. See “Viet Nam, China sign joint statement for comprehensive cooperation” (25 December 2000), from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn:8080/…/6279f8d7fcf98966c7269c10028184c? (accessed on 28 December 2000). See also “China, Viet Nam Sign Agreements”, Beijing Review, Vol. 44, No. 2 (11 January 2001), pp. 9–10. This Chinese source refers the two Agreements as relating to the “Beibu Bay”, i.e., the Gulf of Tonkin. The full text of the agreement has been reproduced in three recent studies: Zou Keyuan, “The Sino-Vietnamese Agreement on Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Gulf of Tonkin”, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 34 (2005), pp. 22–24; Nguyen Hong Thao, “Maritime Delimitation and Fishery Cooperation in the Tonkin Gulf”, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 34 (2005), pp. 41–44; and T. L. McDorman, “People's Republic of China-Vietnam”, in International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. V, edited by D. A. Colson and R. W. Smith, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), pp. 3755–3758. 24. For details on the fishery agreement, see text reproduced in Thao, supra note 23, pp. 35–41. For an earlier study, see Zou Keyuan, “Sino-Vietnamese Fishery Agreement for the Gulf of Tonkin”, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 17 (2002), pp. 127–148. For broader studies on both agreements, see: Thao, Les délimitations, supra note 21, pp. 67–74; Nguyen Hong Thao, “The Gulf of Tonkin: A Case Study of Dispute Settlement”, in Management and Resolution of Inter-State Conflicts in Southeast Asia, edited by Kamarulzaman Askandar (Penang: Southeast Asian Conflict Studies Network, 2003), pp. 207–214; Thao, supra note 23, pp. 25–44; and Zou, supra note 23, pp. 13–24. 25. “Viet Nam, China ink deal on fisheries in Tonkin Gulf” (1 May 2004), from the website of the Vietnam News Agency, at vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004–04/30/Stories/07.htm (accessed on 1 May 2004). See also “Protocol on China-Vietnam agreement on fishery cooperation in Beibu bay signed”, from the website of the People's Daily Online (English version), at http://www.english.people.com.cn/2004004/30/eng20040424_142001.html (accessed on 4 October 2004). 26. For information about the recent Vietnam-Indonesia agreement, see: “Vietnam-Indonesia boundary agreement benefits regional stability”, in News Bulletin, No. 1306 (27 June 2003) (English language bulletin), from the website of Nhan Dan, at www.nhandan.org.vn/english/20030627/index.html, and www.nhandan.org.vn/english/20030627/bai-news3.html (accessed on 22 December 2003). 27. During the 1990s, there were periods of deep tension relating to the border issues between Cambodia and Vietnam. For details on the on-going talks and the periods of tension, see Ramses Amer, “The Border Conflicts Between Cambodia and Vietnam”, Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Summer 1997), pp. 80–91; and Ramses Amer, “Expanding ASEAN's Conflict Management Framework in Southeast Asia: The Border Dispute Dimension”, Asian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 6 (1998), pp. 47–48. 28. Nguyen Hong Thao and Hoang Hai Oanh, “Legal Aspects of the Supplementary Treaty to the 1985 Treaty on Boundary Delimitation between Vietnam and Cambodia”, Vietnam Law & Legal Forum, Vol. 12, No. 137 (January 2006), pp. 17–20. 29. Cambodia-Vietnam Historic Waters Agreement, supra note 17, Article 2. 30. It is noted that the “full text” of the 1982 Historic Waters Agreement, supra note 17, transmitted by the official Cambodian News Agency (SPK) on 8 July 1982 omitted the sentence: “Patrolling and surveillance in these historical waters will be jointly conducted by the two sides”, which is in Article 3 of the version published by Vietnam News Agency and reproduced in Kittichaisaree, supra note 1, pp. 180–181 and T. L. McDorman, supra note 17. See BBC/FE/7074 A3/8, 7076/A3/7 (13 July 1982). 31. See supra note 24. 32. See the Thailand-Vietnam Maritime Boundary Agreement, supra note 22. 33. See the Malaysian-Vietnam Joint Development Agreement, supra note 21, and the 1979 Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Agreement, reprinted in Kittichaisaree, supra note 1, pp. 189–192. 34. See Amer, “Expanding ASEAN”, supra note 27, p. 46. 35. For a more detailed analysis, see Thao, supra note 2, pp. 99–108 and Thao, “Joint Development”, supra note 21, p. 79–88. 36. For more detailed analyses, see: Thao, supra note 2, and 107–108; Nguyen Hong Thao, “Le premier accord de délimitation des frontières maritimes du Vietnam”, Annuaire du droit de la mer, Tome I (Paris: Edition A. Pédone et Institut du droit économique de la mer Monaco, 1996), pp. 259–273, and Thao, Vietnam's First, supra note 22, pp. 74–78. 37. See Ramses Amer, “Conflict Management within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Assessing the Adoption of the ‘Rules of Procedure of the High Council of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia’”, in Askandar, supra note 24, pp. 117–118. 38. Vietnam officially expressed its displeasure with Taiwanese activities in the Spratly archipelago on “Banthan” reef in both 2003 and 2004. On 31 October 2003, in response to a question by the Vietnamese radio, Voice of Vietnam, the spokesperson of Vietnam's Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized Taiwan, demanded that they stop all activities, and reiterated Vietnam's sovereignty claims to both the Spratly and Paracel archipelagos. “Answer by MOFA's Spokesperson, Mr. Le Dzung, to correspondents on October 31st, 2003”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn:8080/Web%server/Press.nsf/3d74812854f020948025688 (accessed 19 July 2004). On 30 March 2004, Vietnam once again criticized Taiwan, demanded that they stop all activities, and reiterated Vietnam's sovereignty claims to both the Spratly and Paracel archipelagos. “Vietnam objects to Taiwan's construction in Truong Sa archipelago”, from the website of Nhan Dan, at www.nhandan.org.vn/english/20040331/index.html and www.nhandan.org.vn/english/20040331/bai-news1.html (accessed on 7 April 2004). See also “Vietnam expresses its strong protest to violation of Vietnam's territorial sovereignty over Truong Sa, Answer to Correspondent by Mr. Le Dzung, The Spokesman of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 1st April 2004”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns041116144203 (accessed on 3 August 2006). 39. Vietnam officially expressed its displeasure with Taiwanese activities on Itu Aban Island in late December 2005. On 29 December 2005, in response to a question, the spokesperson of Vietnam's Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized Taiwan and stated that Taiwan's plans to construct a runway on Itu Aban constitutes a violation of Vietnam's sovereignty claims to both the Spratly and Paracel archipelagos. “Taiwan's construction of a runway on Ba Binh Island (Itu-Aban) constitutes a severe violation of Vietnam's sovereignty, Answer to Correspondents by Mr. Le Dzung, The Spokesman of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 29th December 2005”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns051229163816 (accessed on 3 August 2006). 40. For more detailed analyses of the normalization process and the way in which the territorial disputes were addressed during this process, see: Ramses Amer, The Sino-Vietnamese Approach to Managing Boundary Disputes, Maritime Briefing, Vol. 3, No. 5 (Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, 2002); and Ramses Amer, “Assessing Sino-Vietnamese Relations through the Management of Contentious Issues”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 26 (2004), pp. 327–328. For a broader analysis of the normalization process, see: Ramses Amer, “Sino-Vietnamese Normalization in the Light of the Crisis of the Late 1970s”, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 67 (1994), pp. 365–366, 376–382; and Ramses Amer, “Sino-Vietnamese Relations: Past, Present and Future” in Vietnamese Foreign Policy in Transition, edited by Carlyle A. Thayer and Ramses Amer (Singapore: Institute for Southeast Asian Studies and New York: St Martin's Press, 1999), pp. 73–74, 105–108. 41. For details about the actions causing the periods of tension, see Amer, The Sino-Vietnamese Approach, supra note 40, pp. 8–26. 42. The twelfth round of talks was held in Hanoi on 8–10 December 2005. See “Viet Nam, China to complete landmark demarcation in 2008”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/nr040807104143/nr040807105001/ns051212154021 (accessed on 9 January 2006). 43. Thao, supra note 36, at p. 111. 44. For details about the talks and the context in which they took place, see Amer, The Sino-Vietnamese Approach, supra note 40, pp. 11–34, 50–58. See also Amer, “Assessing Sino-Vietnamese”, supra note 40, pp. 331–333. 45. The tenth round of talks on “sea issues” was held in Beijing on 21 and 23 June 2005. “Vietnam and Chinese experts hold talks on sea issues”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/nr04087104143/nr040807105001/ns050627151155 (accessed on 24 July 2005). 46. Gulf of Tonkin Maritime Boundary Agreement, supra note 23. 47. “Vietnam, China exchange documents ratifying Tonkin Gulf demarcation agreement”, from the website of Nhan Dan, at www.nhandan.org.vn/english/news/010704/domestic_vietnamchina.htm (accessed on 19 July 2004). See also: “Two China-Vietnam Beibu Gulf agreements take effect”, from the website of the People's Daily Online (English version), at english.people.com.cn/200407/01/eng20040701_148157.html (accessed on 3 October 2004). 48. Supplementary Protocol to the Fisheries Agreement, supra note 25. 49. The tenth round of government-level talks were held in Hanoi on 9 January 2004. See: “Vietnam, China hold border talks and political exchanges”, News Bulletin, No. 1500–1501 (10–11 January 2004) (English language bulletin), from the website of Nhan Dan, at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/nr04087104143/nr040807105001/ns050627151155 (accessed on 24 July 2005). 50. “Vietnam. China continue fishing co-operation talks”, News Bulletin, No. 1546 (25 February 2004) (Section on Economy) (English language bulletin), from the website of Nhan Dan, at www.nhandan.org.vn/english/20040225/economy.html (accessed on 15 September 2004). 51. See supra note 30. 52. For details, see: “Two China-Vietnam”, supra note 47. See also “VN—China Gulf Pact to Enhance Relations”, Vietnam Law & Legal Forum, Vol. 10, No. 118 (June 2004), pp. 8–10. For an early analysis of the implications of the entry into force of the two agreements, see Nguyen Hong Thao, “The New Legal Order in the Tonkin Gulf”, Vietnam Law & Legal Forum, Vol. 10, No. 119 (July 2004), pp. 9–15, 19. 53. The legal terminology used in this context is derived from Zou Keyuan, “Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Gulf of Tonkin”, Ocean Development and International Law, Vol. 30 (1999), p. 246. Information pertaining to possible impact of Bach Long Vi Island on boundary delimitation is also derived from Keyuan, pp. 245–247. 54. Ibid., pp. 245–246, 253. 55. Thao, “The Gulf of Tonkin”, supra note 24, pp. 210–213. 56. For an argument along similar lines with a parallel being drawn to the Brévié Line drawn in 1939 in the Gulf of Thailand, see Keyuan, supra note 53, pp. 238–240. 57. For more detailed analyses, see: Thao, “The Gulf of Tonkin”, supra note 24, pp. 207–214; Thao, supra note 23, pp. 25–44; and Zou, supra note 23, pp. 13–24. 58. For more details, see Thao, supra note 23, pp. 28–30. 59. For more details, see ibid., pp. 30–32. 60. In January 2005, Vietnam's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued official statements in reaction to the shooting and killing of Vietnamese fishermen in the Gulf of Tonkin. The first statement was made in response to a question by a journalist on 13 January 2005, Mr. Le Dzung, spokesperson of the Ministry stated that Chinese vessels had shot dead nine Vietnamese fishermen, injured “many” others, and damaged their equipment. Furthermore, Vietnam had requested China to take “active measures” to prevent and put an end to such activities, as well as to carry out an investigation and “severely punish the killers.” “Concerning the fact that the Chinese vessels shot to dead Vietnamese Fishermen”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns050120164827 (accessed on 22 March 2005). In another statement by Le Dzung on 20 January, he specified that the incident had occurred on 8 January and that apart from the nine deaths and the injured, China had captured “a number” of Vietnamese fishermen. He reiterated earlier Vietnamese demands. He also demanded that the Vietnamese who were being held be allowed to return to Vietnam, that Vietnamese officials be allowed to visit the injured and detained fishermen, and that a meeting be held by the Sino-Vietnamese Joint Fishery Committee to discuss measures to stabilize the situation. “Chinese coast guards’ killing of innocent Vietnamese fishermen violates international law”, 20 January 2005, from the website of Nhan Dan, at www.nhandan.com.vn/englisg/news/200105/china.htm (accessed on 11 March 2005). China had a diametrically different view on the course of events. On 18 January, in response to a question relating to the events of 8 January, the spokesperson of China's Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Kong Quan, stated that several Chinese fishing boats had been “robbed and shot at by three unidentified armed ships.” This occurred on the Chinese side in the Gulf of Tonkin. When China dispatched “police ships”, they were shot at and this compelled the Chinese maritime police to “take necessary actions”, which resulted in the death of “several armed robbers”—one “pirating” ship and eight “robbers” were captured and their weapons confiscated. During interrogations, the captured “robbers” had disclosed that they were Vietnamese and confessed to carrying out the robberies. Finally, he stated that China was ready to collaborate with Vietnam to both take “concretely effective measures” and strengthen cooperation in “combating the maritime crimes” to jointly safeguard security and stability in the Gulf of Tonkin. “Foreign Ministry Spokesman Kong Quan's Comment on the Case of Armed Robbery in the Beibu Gulf” (18 January 2005), from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/2535/t180157.htm (accessed on 22 March 2005). 61. “Vietnam and China issue joint statement”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/nr040807104143/nr040807105001/ns050726144049 (accessed on 26 July 2005). 62. “Vietnam, China make first joint navy patrol”, from the website of the Communist Party of Vietnam, at http://www.cpv.org.vn/details_e.asp?topic=68&subtopic=167&leader_topic=282&id=BT3040634973 (accessed on 4 August 2006). See also “Vietnam, China make first joint navy patrol”, Shanghai Daily (29 April 2006); reproduced on the website of the China Internet Information Center, at www.china.org.cn/english/2006/Apr/167254.htm (accessed on 4 August 2006). 63. “Vietnam and China hold talks on sea delineation”, from the website of Nhan Dan, at http://www.nhandan.com.vn/engligs/news/200106/domestic_vnandchin.htm (accessed on 23 January 2006) and, “Viet Nam, China meet for talks on shared sea border”, from the website of Vietnam News Agency, at (accessed on 22 January 2006). 64. The most detailed study on the management on the territorial disputes between China and Vietnam is Amer, The Sino-Vietnamese Approach, supra note 40. 65. See: the Joint Declaration of 27 February 1999, issued in the connection with the visit to China by the then Secretary General of the Communist Party, Le Kha Phieu, reproduced in Vietnam Law & Legal Forum, Vol. 5, No. 54 (February 1999), p. 13; the Joint Statement for comprehensive cooperation signed on 25 December 2000 by the two Foreign Ministers of the two countries, “Joint Viet Nam-China Statement for Comprehensive Cooperation (take two)”, Vietnam News Agency (VNA) (26 December 2000), from the website of the Vietnam News Agency, at www.vnagency.com.vn/Asp/Redanewse4.asp?FileN=frac2612.004 (accessed on 27 December 2000); and the Joint Communiqué of 8 October 2004, issued in connection with the visit of China's Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to Vietnam, “China and Vietnam Issues a Joint Communiqué, 8 October 2004”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg/yzs/gjlb/2792/2793/t163759.htm (accessed on 22 March 2005). 66. The Declaration on Conduct is reproduced in Nguyen Hong Thao, “The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea: A Note”, Ocean Development and International Law Vol. 34 (2003), pp. 282–285. 67. Nguyen Hong Thao, “Declaration on Parties’ Conduct in South China Sea (the East Sea)—A Step towards the Establishment of the Code of Conduct for the Region”, Vietnam Law & Legal Forum, Vol. 9, No. 99 (November 2002), pp. 19–21. 68. The official announcement of the agreement was made by the Philippines on 6 September 2004. “RP-China Agreement on Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Sea Constitutional—Rumulo/DFA hails PGMA's Successful State Visit to China; Signed Agreements to boost Trade and Investment between RP and China”, SAF-AGR-524–04 (September 2004), Press Release, Department of Foreign Affairs, from the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, at www.dfagov.ph/news/pr/pr2004/sep/pr524.htm (accessed on 29 April 2004). 69. Vietnam's reaction to the agreement between China and the Philippines came on 9 September 2004 in response to a question raised by a correspondent of Agence France Press to the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam. “Answer to Correspondent by Mr. Le Dzung, The Spokesman of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 9th September 2004”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns041028222202 (accessed on 29 September 2004). 70. Information derived from “DFA-MOAC to host Third Joint Scientific Research Expedition in the South China Sea”, SAF-AGR-133–05 (07 March 2005), Press Release, Department for Foreign Affairs, from the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, at www.dfa.gov.ph/news/pr/pr2005/mar/pr133.htm (accessed on 17 March 2005). The Vietnamese counterpart was the Academy of Science and Technology of Vietnam, see “Information on Vietnam-Philippines joint scientific expedition in April 2005 in the East Sea. Answer to Correspondent By Mr. Le Dzung, the Spokesman of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 15th March 2005”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns050315170200/ (accessed on 17 March 2005). 71. Information derived from “Foreign Ministry Spokesman Kong Quan's Comment on Philippines-Vietnamese Joint Marine Research in the South China Sea, 2005/03/11”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t186844.htm (accessed on 11 March 2005). 72. Information derived from: “Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea. Answer to Correspondent By Mr. Le Dzung, the Spokesman of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 14th March 2005”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns050314164241/ (accessed on 22 March 2005). 73. For details on the nature of the disputes and talks up to 2000, see Thao, “Les delimitations”, supra note 21, pp. 56–58. 74. See supra note 26. 75. “Vietnam, Cambodia meet on border issues”, News Bulletin, No. 344 (1 November 2000) (English language bulletin), from the website of Nhan Dan, at www.nhandan.org.vn/english/20001101/index.html and www.nhandan.org.vn/english/20001101/bai-news1.html (accessed on 15 December 2000); and “Viet Nam, Cambodia to solve border issue this year, affirms Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister” (3 November 2000), from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn:8080/…/302e3aad9ebfd3c7c725698c000552b2? (accessed on 20 December 2000). 76. For more detailed analyses of the normalization process and the way in which the maritime disputes were addressed during this process, see the references listed in supra note 40. 77. Amer, The Sino-Vietnamese Approach, supra note 40, pp. 45–46. 78. The most recent source of tension has been the activities carried out by China in areas of the South China Sea that Vietnam considers to be part of its continental shelf. According to Vietnam, China dispatched the “KANTAN3” and an oil drilling platform to start operation on 19 November 2004. Vietnam officially requested China not to dispatch the oil-drilling platform. “Nanhai 215 Vessel has hauled oil drilling platform KANTAN 3 of China to the continental shelf of Vietnam”, from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, at www.mofa.gov.vn/tt_baochi/pbnfn/ns041119160109 (accessed on 22 March 2005). China refuted the Vietnamese request, stating that the oil exploration was taking place within China's “territorial waters.” “China rejects Vietnam's request to cease oil exploration”, from the website of the China Daily, at www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/12004–11/23/content_394139.htm (accessed on 10 January 2005). For the few incidents between 1999 and 2003, see: Amer, “Assessing Sino-Vietnamese”, supra note 40, pp. 333–335; and Amer, The Sino-Vietnamese Approach, supra note 40, pp 26–36.