Whether ancient territories can determine modern territorial sovereignty is a complex issue involving international law, history, politics and jurisprudence. The attitude of the modern international community towards this issue is usually cautious and diverse, depending mainly on the specific historical background, the application of international law, and real political factors. The following is an analysis of several key angles： --- ### 1. **The principle of territorial sovereignty in international law** The recognition of territorial sovereignty in modern international law is usually based on the following principles： -**The principle of Effective Control (Effective Control)**: A country's long-term, continuous and peaceful exercise of sovereignty over a certain area (such as administrative management, garrison, taxation, etc.) may be recognized by the international community. -**Treaties and agreements**: The delimitation of modern borders is often based on international treaties (such as delimitation agreements during the colonial period, peace treaties after the war, etc.). -**Principle of national self-determination**: The ownership of certain territories may be decided by self-determination referendums of local residents. -**Prohibition of the expansion of force**: Modern international law (such as the Charter of the United Nations) prohibits the acquisition of territory through the conquest of force. **Limitations of ancient territorial claims**： If a country claims sovereignty only on the grounds of “having ruled a certain place in history”, but lacks modern effective control or international recognition, this claim is usually difficult to be accepted by the international community. For example, China's sovereignty claim over the islands in the South China Sea is partly based on historical basis, but the International Arbitration Tribunal held in its 2016 ruling that historical rights cannot negate the validity of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. --- ### 2. **Disputes over Historical Rights** There is a concept of “historic rights” in international law (such as historic bays and historic waters), but the conditions for the application of this concept are strict.： -**Continuous and peaceful exercise of sovereignty**: The claimant country needs to prove long-term and continuous actual control over the disputed area, rather than just claiming historical rule. -**International recognition**: Other countries need to tacitly or explicitly accept this right. For example, China's claim to the “nine-dash line” in the South China Sea has been controversial due to the lack of universal international recognition. **case**： In the 2008 “Nicaragua v. Colombia” case, the International Court of Justice emphasized that historical rights cannot replace the territorial principle in modern international law, and must be combined with actual control and other legal bases. --- ### 3. **Political and realistic considerations** -**The influence of colonial history**: The borders of many modern countries originate from the division of colonial times (such as African countries), not ancient territories. These boundaries are usually accepted by the international community as ”Uti Possidetis Juris" (Uti Possidetis Juris). -**The formation of the nation-state**: The territory of modern sovereign states (such as European countries after the 19th century) is more based on national identity and realistic control, rather than tracing the territory of ancient dynasties. -**Geopolitical game**: Some countries will use historical narratives to strengthen their sovereignty claims (such as Russia's historical traceability of Crimea), but if such claims lack actual control or support from international law, they often cause disputes. --- ### 4. **Special cases in China** China often emphasizes the historical basis of “since ancient times” in its territorial claims, such as： -**Taiwan issue**: It is claimed that Taiwan has belonged to China since the Yuan Dynasty, but modern sovereignty disputes involve more issues left over from the civil war ("Cairo Declaration", "Potsdam Proclamation", etc.) and cross-Strait political games. -**South China Sea Issue**: China has cited documents and maps since the Han Dynasty to support the "nine-dash Line", but the international community is more concerned about the division of exclusive economic zones in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. **Focus of controversy**： The historical basis needs to be compatible with modern international law in law, and it needs to prove the continuity of sovereignty. For example, China's sovereignty claim over Tibet combines historical control (governance in the Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasties) with modern international treaties (such as the 17-Article Agreement of 1951). --- ### Conclusion Ancient territory can be used as a **reference factor** for sovereignty claims, but the legitimacy of modern territorial sovereignty depends more on： -**Effective control and international recognition**； -**In line with the principles of modern international law** (such as prohibiting the expansion of force and national self-determination)； -**Political consultation and compromise** (such as boundary negotiations, international arbitration). In short, **History cannot determine modern sovereignty alone**, but it may become part of a comprehensive claim. The contemporary international community is more inclined to resolve disputes through law, reality control, and multilateral consultation, rather than relying solely on historical narratives.