MANILA – A group of Chinese academics has asserted that the northernmost Philippine province of Batanes belongs to China through Taiwan, describing the territory as a “natural geographical extension” of Taiwan.
The claims were presented during a June 30 symposium hosted by Jinan University in Guangzhou, where scholars from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Nanjing University, and various other research organizations argued that the Batan Islands fall under Chinese sovereignty.
The assertion challenges the long-standing international recognition of Philippine sovereignty over the province and targets ongoing diplomatic efforts between Manila and Tokyo to define maritime boundaries in the region.
Arguments for Territorial Claims
According to a report by the state-affiliated media outlet NewsGD, symposium participants unanimously declared that the Philippine administration of Batanes lacks a “historical and legal basis.” They framed their position as a corrective to what they characterized as an “unjust” post-World War II settlement in the North Luzon-Taiwan Strait corridor.
The academics based their conclusions on several specific historical and cultural points:
- Dynastic Jurisdiction: Claims that Batanes was under the jurisdiction of Taiwan during the Ming and Qing dynasties, supported by historical navigation records and tribute-era maps that the scholars argue show the islands as part of a broader cross-strait trading sphere.
- Cultural Links: Cited cultural ties between the Ivatan people of Batanes and the Tao community of Taiwan, including shared seafaring traditions and architectural similarities, presented as evidence of a longstanding socio-cultural continuum across the Bashi Channel.
- Treaty Interpretations: A specific interpretation of the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the 1946 Treaty of Manila, under which the academics contend that Batanes was improperly delineated as part of the Philippine archipelago when sovereignty shifted from Spain to the United States and then to an independent Philippines.
- Post-War Status: The argument that the islands should have been returned to China following World War II as territories appurtenant to Taiwan, and that subsequent administrative practice by Manila cannot cure what they describe as an original legal defect.
The symposium’s speakers framed these points as the foundation for prospective legal arguments in international forums, although they acknowledged that no formal case has been filed before any court or tribunal.
Conflict Over Maritime Boundaries
The symposium took place following a May summit between Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. During that meeting, the two leaders announced plans to negotiate the delimitation of their respective exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves in the waters east of Taiwan, an area that has become more strategically significant amid intensified patrols and military exercises by regional powers.
The Chinese scholars argued that these negotiations are “illegal and invalid.” They asserted that under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Japan and the Philippines cannot negotiate a maritime boundary because Taiwan is positioned between the two nations and, in their view, any delimitation must take account of what they claim as Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and its “adjacent islands,” including Batanes.
The group called upon the international community to recognize China’s stated historical and legal basis for sovereignty over the Batan Islands, warning that the maritime delimitation efforts are being used for “geopolitical purposes.” They argued that any bilateral accord between Manila and Tokyo that ignores Beijing’s position could complicate future regional arrangements on fisheries management, seabed resources, and freedom of navigation.
Analysis of “Lawfare” Strategy
While the claims were promoted by academics and state-affiliated media, they have not received an official endorsement from the Chinese government. Beijing’s foreign and defense ministries have so far avoided directly echoing the Batanes-specific assertions, instead reiterating broader positions on Taiwan and the so‑called “one China” principle.
Ray Powell, a maritime security analyst with SeaLight, described the symposium as part of a broader “lawfare” strategy-the use of legal arguments to achieve military or political objectives. Powell suggested the event was orchestrated to provide a retrospective legal justification for Chinese patrols conducted in the waters east of Taiwan in June and to test how Manila, Tokyo, and Washington respond to a narrative that links Batanes more explicitly to cross-strait tensions.
“So far PRC government officials have not endorsed the symposium’s conclusions, but that’s not unusual in PRC gray-zone narrative warfare,” Powell said in an analysis posted on social media.
Diplomats in the region say such unofficial narratives can be used later to underpin policy, shaping domestic and international perceptions even in the absence of formal government statements or court rulings.
Philippine Sovereignty and Administration
The Philippines has maintained continuous administration over Batanes since the Spanish colonial period. The province is explicitly recognized as part of Philippine territory under the national Constitution and is accepted as such by the international community. Batanes also falls squarely within the Philippines’ internationally recorded baselines and archipelagic waters, which underpin Manila’s maritime claims under UNCLOS.
Under Article I of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the national territory includes “all the islands and waters embraced therein,” a formulation successive Philippine governments have cited in asserting sovereignty over Batanes and in issuing domestic laws, permits, and defense plans covering the province.
The Philippine government has yet to issue an official response to the symposium’s claims, but senior officials have in recent months repeatedly stressed that any foreign legal or academic arguments will not alter the country’s internationally recognized borders or its authority to regulate security, fisheries, and resource exploration in and around Batanes.
