From the analysis of the arguments about the "legal evidence" of China for Spratly Islands published on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, the author initially considers that: Evidence to confirm that the Chinese first discovered and named the islands in the Spratlys is not convinced. Therefore, it is unreasonable to direct to the next argument that China, as a State, first discovered the islands as required by international law. Along with the people of other countries, the Chinese people were individually present in the Spratlys, but China has not given evidence about the Chinese government effectively enforce sovereignty in the islands, even the evidence of symbolic possession as a state until 1946. Until in 1939, the evidence of China's sovereign intention over the Spratly Islands was still unclear. The action of occupying Ba Binh island (Itu Aba) on January 12, 1946 is illegal
as a result, from then on, the evidence of sovereignty enforcement is legally unclear. From that point, it can be said that China has not persuasively proven its legal sovereignty in the Spratly Islands, and it is unpromising that China is able to provide more convincing evidence.