A route map, a maritime security alert, a casualty report or even an AIS screenshot may contain the names of islands, reefs, straits and surrounding waters. In the maritime sector, geographical names do more than identify locations. They appear in nautical publications, legal documents, charter parties, insurance notices, navigational warnings and public communications.

The difficulty is that the same maritime feature may carry several different names.

China uses Huangyan Dao, while many English-language reports use Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines also uses Panatag Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc. China uses Ren’ai Jiao, while foreign charts and media reports may refer to the same feature as Second Thomas Shoal or Ayungin Shoal.

When a Chinese media outlet, shipping company, port, shipyard, maritime institution or industry association simply copies a name from a foreign news report or commercial map, it may unintentionally adopt another country’s naming system and political framing.

For maritime communications involving China, the use of geographical names therefore requires more than linguistic accuracy. It requires a clear understanding of standard names, foreign exonyms, navigational practice and the legal character of the geographical feature concerned.

Standard names, English renderings and charted names

China’s Regulations on Geographical Names require geographical names used in public communications and maps to be standardised. Their Roman-letter spelling follows the Chinese phonetic alphabet, or Hanyu Pinyin.

This means that the standard Romanised form of “南沙群岛” is:

Nansha Qundao

In general English-language communication, it may also be rendered as:

the Nansha Islands

Both forms are used in Chinese official English-language materials. The first preserves the full Chinese name in Romanised form. The second retains the Chinese proper name, Nansha, while translating the generic geographical term, Qundao, as Islands.

The same principle applies to other names:

• Xisha Qundao or the Xisha Islands

• Zhongsha Qundao or the Zhongsha Islands

• Dongsha Qundao or the Dongsha Islands

• Huangyan Dao or, in explanatory English, Huangyan Island

• Ren’ai Jiao or, where appropriate, Ren’ai Reef

For legal, diplomatic, cartographic and sovereignty-related texts, forms such as Qundao, Dao and Jiao are often preferable because they preserve the integrity of the Chinese standard name. In general news writing intended for international readers, an English generic term may be added where this improves readability.

A third category consists of foreign traditional names and names used by other governments. Examples include Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal.

These expressions are not necessarily spelling mistakes in English. Some originated in colonial-era hydrographic surveys, foreign charts or the administrative and political terminology of other states. The key point is that they are not China’s standard names and should not replace Chinese names as the primary terms in materials published from a Chinese perspective.

Navigational use requires a further distinction. Ships must use the official charts and nautical publications carried on board and kept up to date in accordance with applicable international and flag-state requirements. Names shown on an ECDIS display or foreign nautical chart should not be altered informally for the sake of consistency with a press release.

The practical principle is therefore clear:

Navigational operations should follow the official charts and publications in use on board, while public communications issued by Chinese organisations should use China’s standard geographical names.

Where different names may affect identification, the first reference can include the Chinese standard name, the name used in the relevant foreign chart or publication, and precise coordinates.

Recommended forms for frequently used maritime names

The following names are commonly encountered in maritime news, route maps, conference materials and official communications.

The labels in the third column may legitimately appear when quoting a foreign government, court filing, nautical publication or news report. Their use should be attributed clearly.

Huangyan Dao

For material published by a Chinese organisation, the principal name should be:

Huangyan Dao

A headline may read:

China Coast Guard Conducts Patrols in Waters Near Huangyan Dao

It is less appropriate for a Chinese publisher to use Scarborough Shoal as the only name in the headline and throughout the article.

Where international readers may need help identifying the location, the first reference could read:

Huangyan Dao, referred to as Scarborough Shoal in many foreign reports, is located in the South China Sea.

After that initial clarification, the article should consistently use Huangyan Dao.

Ren’ai Jiao

The recommended principal form is:

Ren’ai Jiao

A clear first reference for an international audience could be:

Ren’ai Jiao, called Ayungin Shoal by the Philippines and commonly referred to as Second Thomas Shoal in English-language reports.

The remainder of the article should use Ren’ai Jiao, unless it is directly quoting another party.

Diaoyu Dao

China’s standard full expression is:

Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands

The collective short form is:

the Diaoyu Islands

When explaining the Japanese terminology, it is more precise to attribute it directly:

Diaoyu Dao, which Japan refers to as the Senkaku Islands

The expression “also known as the Senkaku Islands” is less suitable because it can imply that the two names carry the same official standing in the text.

Why “Macclesfield Bank” cannot simply replace Zhongsha Qundao

One of the most common geographical inaccuracies involves Zhongsha Qundao.

Foreign maps and reports sometimes use Macclesfield Bank as though it were a direct English translation of Zhongsha Qundao. This creates a conceptual problem.

Zhongsha Qundao is a standard Chinese geographical name covering a broader group of maritime features. Macclesfield Bank generally refers to a particular submerged geographical formation as defined in foreign hydrographic traditions. The two terms do not necessarily have identical geographical scope or naming status.

Using Macclesfield Bank as a complete substitute for Zhongsha Qundao may therefore narrow the geographical concept and alter the meaning of the Chinese standard name.

For Chinese public communication, the proper form is:

Zhongsha Qundao
or
the Zhongsha Islands

Names do not by themselves determine legal status

Maritime reporting must also distinguish between geographical names and legal classification.

The Chinese generic terms Dao, Yu, Jiao, Qundao and Shazhou correspond broadly to island, islet, reef, islands and sand cay or sandbank. Their use in a place name does not, by itself, determine the feature’s legal status under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Similarly, the English words Island, Reef, Shoal and Rock cannot independently establish whether a feature is:

• an island above water at high tide;

• a rock under Article 121 of UNCLOS;

• a low-tide elevation;

• or a permanently submerged feature.

Such determinations depend on objective geographical and legal evidence, including the feature’s natural condition and whether it remains above water at high tide.

A maritime article should therefore avoid drawing legal conclusions solely from the wording of a name.

The example of Suyan Reef

Suyan Reef is particularly useful in demonstrating this distinction.

China has described Suyan Reef as a submerged maritime feature in the northern part of the East China Sea. The issue between China and the Republic of Korea concerns overlapping exclusive economic zone claims and maritime delimitation, rather than a conventional territorial dispute over an island.

Calling it “Suyan Island” or presenting it simply as an “island sovereignty dispute” would therefore create a substantive legal error, even if the place name itself were recognisable.

Professional maritime communication must verify both the correct name and the physical and legal character of the feature.

Four rules for maritime external communication

Use the Chinese standard name as the principal term

In material published from a Chinese perspective, standard names such as Huangyan Dao, Ren’ai Jiao, Nansha Qundao and Diaoyu Dao should appear in headlines, captions, maps and the main body of the text.

This establishes consistency and avoids allowing a foreign naming convention to frame the entire report.

Attribute foreign names to their users

Where another name is necessary for identification, state who uses it.

Suitable wording includes:

referred to as … in many foreign reports

called … by the Philippines

known as … in certain foreign nautical publications

which Japan refers to as …

This is more precise than the neutral phrase “also known as,” which can obscure the political and institutional origin of a name.

Keep terminology consistent after the first reference

Once the relationship between the names has been explained, the article should use one principal term consistently.

Repeatedly switching between Huangyan Dao, Scarborough Shoal, Panatag Shoal and Bajo de Masinloc can confuse readers and weaken the editorial position of the article.

Add coordinates in operational safety reporting

In search and rescue reports, navigational warnings, war-risk alerts, piracy reports and casualty investigations, accurate location identification is essential.

A professional formulation may read:

The incident occurred near Huangyan Dao, shown as Scarborough Shoal in some foreign nautical publications, at approximately 15°08′N, 117°46′E.

This preserves the Chinese standard name while allowing masters, insurers, salvors, security analysts and international authorities to cross-check the position against the charts and databases they use.

In high-risk reporting, a general phrase such as “near the disputed reef” is rarely sufficient. The report should include the standard name, coordinates, time of the incident and, where relevant, the source of the navigational warning or chart reference.

Public maps and nautical charts serve different purposes

Maps used in public communication must comply with the applicable national rules on geographical names and map representation.

Route maps, port network graphics, conference presentations and media illustrations should not simply reproduce unverified online maps. When depicting China’s territory, they should use approved base maps and standard geographical names, while preserving required boundaries, islands, inset maps and other statutory elements.

Nautical charts are different. Their primary purpose is safe navigation. Official chart content is governed by hydrographic, maritime safety and chart-correction requirements. A vessel should follow the names, symbols, depths, warnings and navigational information shown on its approved and updated charting system.

This distinction should be respected:

• public-facing maps must use standard names and comply with national map rules;

• shipboard navigation must follow the official charts and publications carried for the voyage;

• external communications can provide both names where operational identification requires it.

Place names carry history, law and political meaning

Foreign names do not always need to be removed from an article. In many cases they are useful search terms for international audiences and necessary when quoting foreign sources.

The essential issue is the hierarchy of names.

The Chinese standard name should remain the principal term. A foreign name should be used only as an attributed explanatory reference. Navigational publications should be followed in operational settings. Legal status should be examined independently from the wording of the name.

From Diaoyu Dao and Nanhai Zhudao to Huangyan Dao and Ren’ai Jiao, the handling of a geographical name can reveal whether a maritime article understands the boundaries between international communication, navigational practice, cartographic standards and the law of the sea.

For the maritime sector, this is far more than a translation question. It concerns accurate geographical identification, legal precision, consistency of position and the credibility of China’s international communication.