[repsilat]

> I have a hard time believing that these cartographic mistakes are the reason for China's posture in the South China Sea.

Sure, these aren't China's motivation, but they are China's argument for the legitimacy of their claims. To the extent this research can be said to argue for a political outcome, it is less about dissuading China from its claims and more about reducing those claims from "legitimate" to simply "effective". (Which is more than enough for the Chinese, even if they accepted the research at face value -- which they won't.)

[forapurpose]

Needless to say, they will find a reason for what they want to do. I'd guess they can find an historical reason because they are not the first Chinese regime to desire to control the territories around them.

No doubt, nearly every piece of real estate in the world has been controlled by multiple governmental parties at some point in history, and can thus be contested. Perhaps Mexico will want Texas back? But what about the Native Americans in the area? Maybe the French will contest that the Louisiana Purchase was illegitimate on a technicality? How about identifying all the potential claimants to the land in Israel - we can add religious claims to the standard legal and geopolitical claims. Claims are noise, omnipresent for everything, not signal of much significance.

On the other hand, we want the debate to stay in the legal realm. I was just reading that rule of law for international disputes dates back only to the early to mid-twentieth century (depending on how you date it). Before then, war was the 'legal' way to resolve it; it wasn't outlawed effectively until the UN was formed right after WWII.