Ⅳ．Conclusion

Island-building in its essence is not debatable．At the early stage of international practice, it was supported and even encouraged by the basic rules of the international law and the relevant international customs, and was perceived as one of the necessary state rights．Thus, as an exercise of a state's sovereignty and jurisdiction, island-building serves a state's national interests as an effective tool of territory accretion．Therefore, the early island-building, with the extension and expansion of a state's territory, was preferred by states as a sovereign right and was practiced frequently by many states．The artificial islands built by America, Japan, Britain and other countries emerged one after another along the offshore coastlines, which helped the states to boost marine economy, ensure territory security, and facilitate the development of the shipping industry．At that time, every state was obsessed with the principle of territorial effectiveness, and the view that “an approach is justifiable as long as it can help to expand the territory”was pervasive among every island-building state．But none was concerned with the patterns of acts and the legal consequences of island-building itself, and such “domestic law orientation”achieved popularity temporarily.

However, with the development of island-building technology, its geographical locations shifted from the offshore areas to the high seas, beyond the territorial sea．The construction approaches became diversified from sea-filling and island reclamation, including both accretion on natural territory and “artificial islands”under the UNCOLS．But from then on, the practice of island-building is no longer perceived as a pure technological means, but is granted with more political and legal significance．And the new issues generated by it cannot be interpreted only by domestic laws, which are not sufficient to confirm all the factors of sovereignty legitimacy．Against the background of balancing maritime interests, the re-examination of sovereign legitimacy by international law means that separation of applicable laws is inevitable．In light of the logic of the laws, the patterns of acts and legal consequences of island-building have their respective applicable laws．The former presents the characteristics of sovereignty which belongs to the subject of the island-building practice, while the latter exhibits the coordination of the international legal order．Therefore, the parallel operating mechanism of international law and domestic law also imposes more stringent requirements and higher standard of judging the legitimacy of island-building practice.

With the intertwining of the objective factors, subjective factors and the factors of sovereign legitimacy, it is relatively easy to preserve the evidence when it comes to the geographic locations and construction methods of island-building, whose differences will lead to different legal consequences and state liabilities; while it is relatively complicated when it comes to the issues of the declaration of a state's will, which should be comprehensively investigated．Based on the objective factors, a series of forms of declaration of will such as the government's declaration of its positions and diplomatic statements, will affect the purpose and effectiveness of island-building．And all these will be synthesized and integrated to re-construct the factors of sovereignty legitimacy．The methodology of presumption of rights in good faith, combined with new egalitarianism, will generate a brand new philosophy of international law for island-building, with which the tendency of arbitrary interpretation of international law to win maximum state interests will be resisted.

China's island-building in the South China Sea, though questioned and opposed by some states, belongs to the category of sovereign rights and its domestic law should be applied exclusively．And most importantly, such island-building also conforms to the rules, principles and general customary practice of international law．In terms of the available evidence of both objective and subjective factors, China's acts of state have always been based on the full exercise of sovereignty, with no harm to or interference with the international legal order．Due to its legitimacy, no accusations or judicial proceedings can hamper the process of China's island-building.

However, in the exercise of its island-building rights, China should still pay attention to a number of matters as follows: firstly, adhere to the principle of the peaceful use of the sea to conform to its purpose of island-building．Secondly, be prudent to rename the “rocks”as “island”, to avoid the automatic application of Article 121 of the UNCOLS, and a passive legal position．Thirdly, keep an impartial balance between sovereign equality and state interests, uphold the principle of “sovereignty in me”, and do not sacrifice national interests in exchange for other things, in order to gain future room for development．The South China Sea is China's important maritime treasure house and a strategic area, and the island-building there reflects China's new maritime awareness and its resolution to establish itself as a maritime power．This article intends to illustrate that the full employment of legal weapons can serve national interests by establishing a normative, legal and long-time framework for a state's island-building practice; and also to provide useful legal ideas for other types of marine construction and development practice conducted by states.

—Translated by LIU Yan from
Legal Science (《法学》), Vol.7, 2015