DX World recently announced that in the first half of 2024, Gil 4F2KWT (previously DX0NE, Spratly) was looking at the possibility of an exploration trip to Bajo de Masinloc, Scarborough Shoal ( https://www.dx-world.net/dx0nes-scarborough-shoal/)

Scarborough Shoal (aka Scarborough Reef) is quite literally a bunch of rocks in the South China Sea.  It has become the most controversial DXCC entity ever created after it was added to the DXCC list in January 1996 ( https://n4gn.com/sr95/arld005.html).

Perhaps with that in mind, it would never make the list today as the rules were subsequently changed to define an island as being at least 100m across at high tide (https://www.qsl.net/yt1dz/newdxcc.htm).

So how is it still on the DXCC list then you may ask?  It gets to stay there because of the grandfather rule i.e. as long as it still complies with the rule it was originally added under, then it can stay.  

And this is where things start to get really interesting with Scarborough Reef.  

Scarborough Reef was orginally added under the “Separation by Water” rule as it was geographically separated by a minimum of 225 miles of open water from its “parent” country (now called an entity). Judging by the fact its prefix is BS7, this was China. 

The important point to note is that to qualify under this rule the “parent” country is considered as a physically separated country into two or more parts (think for example ZL and ZL7).  

China’s territorial claim in the South China Sea (including Scarborough) is based on their “nine dash line”.  However the Philippines took them to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which in 2016 ruled that the nine dash line had no basis at international law.  It did not however make any other decision as to sovereignty (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoal).  This decision has been recognised by a number of countries including the United States, but of course disputed by China. 

So the question becomes: how can China still be considered as the parent entity for Scarborough Reef if it has been found to have no claim to Scarborough at international law?  On top of that, it’s a decision backed by the United States.

Assuming it can’t then that would mean the removal of Scarborough Reef as a DXCC entity as it no longer meets the “Separation by Water” rule it was added under. (Note: parent entity status can’t be transferred to the Philippines as Scarborough is less than 225 miles away).

Now I don’t think for one minute anything is going to change. After all it took 16 years for Kingman Reef to be removed from the DXCC list once it stopped meeting the rule it had been grandfathered under.

But nevertheless it would seem Scarborough Reef’s status is at best highly questionable.