South China Sea Dispute
By Chun Jin Park
Embedded Files
Welcome to "Navigating Through Turbulent Waters," an exhibit dedicated to unraveling the complexities of the South China Sea dispute. This region, marked by its strategic maritime routes, abundant natural resources, and historical significance, sits at the heart of a multifaceted geopolitical conflict involving China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. Each stakeholder lays claim to overlapping parts of this maritime expanse, underpinned by a mix of historical precedents, national sovereignty aspirations, and legal interpretations. The dispute not only affects the involved nations but also poses significant implications for international relations, global trade, and regional security, making it a critical area of study for understanding current geopolitical dynamics and the challenges of diplomatic negotiation and international law.
Navigation Guide
Our exhibit is structured to guide visitors through the intricate layers of the South China Sea dispute, offering insights into its historical roots, the claims of the involved nations, the international legal framework, and the ongoing efforts towards resolution. Here's what you can expect as you navigate through the exhibit:
Section 1: Historical Context - Delve into the origins of the dispute, exploring the early claims and significant events that have shaped the current situation.
Section 2: Key Players and Claims - Meet the countries involved in the dispute, understand their claims, and the legal standings behind these claims.
Section 3: International Response and Legal Battles - Examine the role of international law, including UNCLOS, in the dispute, and review significant court cases and international reactions.
Section 4: Current State and Future Prospects - Explore recent developments, diplomatic efforts, and potential future scenarios that could influence the dispute's resolution and impact on regional stability.
Visitors can expect to gain insights into the complexity of the South China Sea dispute, the interplay of international law and sovereignty claims, and the critical importance of diplomatic efforts in navigating these turbulent waters. Each section combines primary and secondary sources, including maps, treaties, official documents, scholarly articles, and expert analyses, to offer a well-rounded understanding of the dispute.
Also, this exhibit aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the South China Sea dispute, fostering a deeper appreciation for the complexities of international territorial conflicts and the pursuit of peaceful resolution through diplomacy and law.
Background Information
The countries surrounding the South China Sea (six countries, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei) have referred to disputes over claiming ownership of islands in the South China Sea and delimitation of maritime boundaries. The South China Sea issue was essentially a matter between the parties to the dispute, not a matter of direct relations between the two powers of the United States and China. In other words, the fundamental cause of the dispute in the South China Sea can be found in the interests between the parties involved following the rise of China as a great power based on rapid economic growth after the Cold War and the rise in strategic and economic value of the South China Sea area.
However, if we look at China's recent military expansion in the South China Sea area and the actions of Southeast Asian countries that are anxious about it, that is, the joint response to external forces, the nature of the South China Sea dispute is changing. Since countries in Southeast Asia are weak compared to their neighboring countries, they have been taking external steps within the organizational framework of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) early on. come. Based on these regional and political backgrounds, the cause and process of the South China Sea dispute, which was originally a territorial dispute between China and Southeast Asian countries, has changed to a power struggle between China and the United States, and the recent emerging policies of the US and China in the South China Sea
As a result there is an on-going dispute taking place in the South China Sea over the territorial sovereignty of the Spratly Islands. China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei are all involved for different reasons, ranging from historical claims to the mapping of exclusive economic zones. This exhibit aims to analyze each country's claims and the legal framework behind them in hopes that a solution may soon be reached.
Section 1: Historical Context
The origins of the South China Sea dispute trace back to complex historical claims, geopolitical interests, and the strategic significance of the Spratly Islands. This region, rich in natural resources and occupying a crucial position in maritime navigation, has become a focal point of territorial contention among several countries, notably China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei.
The Spratly Islands, described as an archipelago of over 100 islands, islets, and reefs, are situated in a maritime zone that sees a third of the world's shipping passing through, making it a hotbed for international trade and military strategy. The dispute over these islands is not only about sovereignty but also about the control of extensive underwater resources like oil and natural gas. Estimates from the United States Geological Survey suggest that the Spratly archipelago area could contain between 0.8 and 5.4 billion barrels of oil and between 7.6 and 55.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, alongside significant hydrocarbon resources.[1]
China's claims, often visualized through the "nine-dash line," extend thousands of kilometers from its mainland, covering more than half of the South China Sea. This claim, however, is based on historical precedents rather than the contemporary legal framework provided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Documents from China's archives reveal that the "nine-dash" line was never intended as a territorial boundary.[2] In contrast, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei base their claims on geographical proximity and the exclusive economic zones defined by UNCLOS, highlighting a clash between historical claims and international law.
The conflict over the Spratly Islands is not just regional but has drawn global attention, particularly from the United States, which, following its "Pivot to Asia" strategy, has become increasingly involved in ensuring freedom of navigation in the disputed waters. This involvement underscores the dispute's transformation into a broader contestation of power, influence, and access in a strategically vital region.[3]
Given the complex interplay of historical claims, legal arguments, and geopolitical interests, the dispute's resolution remains challenging. The emphasis on military presence by claimant states, notably China's construction of military bases on the islands, further complicates the pursuit of a peaceful, multilateral resolution. The South China Sea dispute, therefore, not only concerns the countries directly involved but also impacts regional security, international maritime law, and global trade routes.
In the complex tapestry of the South China Sea's geopolitical history, the "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea," signed in 2002 by ASEAN member states and the People's Republic of China, stands as a pivotal moment in the diplomatic management of regional disputes. This declaration was not only a collective commitment to adhere to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) but also a proactive measure to ensure that territorial and jurisdictional disputes are resolved peacefully, without resorting to threat or use of force.
The Declaration emphasizes the importance of freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea, areas critical for international trade and security. It also encourages the parties involved to undertake cooperative measures in various domains such as marine environmental protection, marine scientific research, and safety of navigation. These initiatives highlight the early efforts to address not only the immediate disputes but also the broader implications for regional security and environmental sustainability.
[1]. BBC News, “Why Is the South China Sea Contentious?” BBC News, 12 July 2016, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349; Hannah Beech, “Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From?” Time, 19 July 2016, https://time.com/4412191/nine-dash-line-9-south-china-sea.
[2]. Beech, “Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From?” https://time.com/4412191/nine-dash-line-9-south-china-sea.
[3]. BBC News, “Why Is the South China Sea Contentious?” www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349; Teh-Kuang Chang, “China's Claim of Sovereignty over Spratly and Paracel Islands: A Historical and Legal Perspective,” 23 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 399 (1991), https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol23/iss3/1.
"Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea." Vol. 1 (2002): 1-5. http://www.aseansec.org/13163.htm.
Section 2: Key Players and Claims
The South China Sea dispute involves multiple sovereign states, each with unique historical claims and legal arguments rooted in international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This complex web of claims is central to understanding the geopolitical tensions in the region.
China
China asserts extensive territorial claims over the South China Sea, delineated by the "nine-dash line," which encompasses an area stretching far beyond its mainland coast into waters close to other Southeast Asian countries. This claim is grounded in historical narratives, suggesting ancient discovery and usage. However, the legal basis for these claims, especially under UNCLOS, remains contentious. China's stance is further complicated by its construction of artificial islands and military installations in disputed areas, raising concerns over maritime sovereignty and freedom of navigation.
Vietnam
Vietnam holds claims over both the Spratly and Paracel Islands, emphasizing historical evidence of sovereignty dating back to the 17th century. Vietnam's argument also leans on UNCLOS principles, citing geographical proximity and continental shelf rights. The country has engaged in various diplomatic and legal efforts to affirm its claims, despite facing aggressive push back from China.
Philippines
The Philippines' claim to the Spratly Islands is based on the discovery of unoccupied islands by Filipino explorer Tomas Cloma in 1956 and subsequent formal occupation. The Philippines grounds its claims in both historical evidence and UNCLOS, particularly emphasizing effective occupation and administration of the islands as essential criteria for sovereignty. Furthermore the definition of international law has since changed and now states they must take possession of the land and establish an administration over the land, which the Philippines satisfies those conditions as well.
Brunei
Brunei holds the smallest claim of the ‘Spratly Six’. In 1984, Brunei established their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which encompasses a small area in the southwest of the South China Sea. The zone was established by UNCLOS and is based on their continental shelf. It covers mostly open ocean with a naturally submerged formation known as the Louisa Reef. Brunei remains the only claimant without a military or physical presence in the Spratly archipelago. They do not seem to be bothering anybody, but their presence is known.
Malaysia
Malaysia has based their claims regarding the Spratly Islands according to geographic proximity. According to The National Bureau of Asian Research In 1979 the Malaysian government published a map showcasing Malaysia’s continental self along with its Exclusive Economic Zone which is 200 nautical miles in the southern region of the Spratly Island. Malaysia also claims it has control over the islands and features on its continental shelf. Its claims are backed by the UNCLOS provisions along with the 1958 Geneva Convention on territorial waters. Currently, Malaysia claims ten maritime features of the Spratly Islands however they only have control over five along with sovereignty over two unoccupied features.
Taiwan
Taiwan mirrors China's historical claims to the Spratly Islands but has sought to distinguish its stance amid cross-strait tensions. Like China, Taiwan asserts ancient discovery and usage rights, complicating its international legal standing under UNCLOS. Taiwan emphasizes its historical ties and long-term use of the Spratly Islands to support its claims, which it argues are rooted in ancient navigation records and traditional fishing activities. By highlighting these historical connections, Taiwan seeks to assert its sovereignty over the islands independently of China's broader territorial ambitions. However, Taiwan's position is complicated by its ambiguous international status and the broader geopolitical dynamics in the region, making its claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) more complex and contentious.
"Documents on ASEAN and South China Sea." Vol. 1 (2011): 1-200. https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Documents-on-ASEAN-and-South-China-Sea-as-of-June-2011-pdf.pdf.
"Documents on ASEAN and South China Sea." Vol. 1 (2011): 1-200. https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Documents-on-ASEAN-and-South-China-Sea-as-of-June-2011-pdf.pdf.
International Court
In Section 2, which examines the key players and their territorial claims within the South China Sea, it is essential to acknowledge the influential role of ASEAN not only as a regional organization but also as a mediator among its member states and China. The "Documents on ASEAN and the South China Sea" comprise a variety of statements, agreements, and communiqués that underscore ASEAN's commitment to fostering peaceful resolutions through dialogue and adherence to international law, notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
These documents collectively articulate ASEAN's approach to handling the South China Sea disputes. They emphasize the need for all parties involved to resolve their issues peacefully, maintaining stability and promoting maritime safety and freedom of navigation in this crucial global waterway. ASEAN's efforts are geared towards creating a framework within which all claimants can pursue their claims and resolve their differences without escalating to military conflicts.
The intricacies of these claims highlight the dispute's deep-rooted nature, driven by a mix of historical assertions and legal interpretations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and UNCLOS have been pivotal in attempts to mediate and resolve these disputes, although not all involved parties recognize their jurisdiction or rulings uniformly. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)'s ruling in 2016 against China's "nine-dash line" claim marked a significant, albeit contested, moment in the legal battle over the South China Sea.[1]
[1]. Aaron Woods, “Historically Mine: The (Potentially) Legal Basis for China’s Sovereignty Claims to the South China Sea,” Air University (AU), 8 Mar. 2021, www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2528218/historically-mine-the-potentially-legal-basis-for-chinas-sovereignty-claims-to.
Section 3: International Response and Legal Battles
The South China Sea dispute, encompassing territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, has elicited significant international legal scrutiny and responses, especially regarding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The contention primarily revolves around the overlapping claims of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands by multiple nations, including China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. The international community's response, particularly through UNCLOS and the rulings of international courts, underscores the legal complexities and the efforts towards peaceful dispute resolution.
"United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea." Vol. 1 (1982): 1-202. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm.
International Law and UNCLOS
The UNCLOS, established to govern maritime interactions among nations, plays a pivotal role in the South China Sea dispute. According to Furtado, UNCLOS delineates the legal framework for maritime rights and territories, offering a basis for resolving disputes through its provisions on Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelves.[1] The Convention's relevance is underscored by its widespread ratification, though its interpretations and applications have varied among the disputing parties, particularly concerning the Spratly Islands.
UNCLOS is particularly significant in the context of the South China Sea dispute, where it plays a critical role in defining the limits of national jurisdictions and the entitlements to maritime zones. By specifying the rules for territorial waters, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and continental shelves, UNCLOS provides a legal basis for the claims made by various countries involved in the dispute, such as China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Each of these nations relies on UNCLOS to substantiate their claims to different parts of the South China Sea, which is a crucial international waterway through which a significant portion of global maritime commerce flows.
Moreover, UNCLOS emphasizes the resolution of maritime disputes through peaceful means and lays down the legal framework for arbitration and conciliation processes. This is instrumental in guiding the disputing parties toward resolving their differences without resorting to conflict, promoting regional stability and international peace. The convention’s mechanisms for dispute resolution have been invoked multiple times in attempts to address and mitigate tensions in the South China Sea, showcasing its vital role in international maritime diplomacy.[2]
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Ruling
A landmark in the dispute was the 2016 ruling by the PCA, which addressed the Philippines' claims against China's territorial expansions. The tribunal concluded that China's "nine-dash line" claim had no legal basis under UNCLOS, thereby challenging the historical claims posed by China.[3] This ruling, although legally binding, was rejected by China, highlighting the limitations of international law in enforcing compliance among sovereign states.
ASEAN's Role and Diplomatic Efforts
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been pivotal in diplomatic efforts to mitigate the South China Sea tensions. ASEAN members have collectively sought to engage China in dialogues aimed at establishing a Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea, aiming to prevent the escalation of disputes.[4] Despite these efforts, progress has been slow, reflecting the challenges of consensus-building among countries with divergent interests and claims.
Implications of International Responses
The international response, particularly through legal avenues and diplomatic efforts, has had mixed outcomes. On one hand, it has clarified certain legal standings, such as through the PCA's ruling. On the other hand, it has exposed the limitations of international law in territorial disputes, where national sovereignty and strategic interests often override legal arguments. The ongoing dialogues within ASEAN, despite their slow progress, represent a continued commitment to peaceful dispute resolution, emphasizing the role of diplomacy alongside legal mechanisms.[5]
1]. Xavier Furtado, “International Law and the Dispute over the Spratly Islands: Whither UNCLOS?” Contemporary Southeast Asia 21, no. 3 (1999): 386–404, https://doi.org/10.1355/cs21-3d.
[2]. Xavier Furtado, “International Law and the Dispute over the Spratly Islands: Whither UNCLOS?” Contemporary Southeast Asia 21, no. 3 (1999): 386–404, https://doi.org/10.1355/cs21-3d.
[3]. Aaron Woods, “Historically Mine: The (Potentially) Legal Basis for China’s Sovereignty Claims to the South China Sea,” Air University (AU), 8 Mar. 2021, www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2528218/historically-mine-the-potentially-legal-basis-for-chinas-sovereignty-claims-to.
[4]. Robin Gonzales, “The Spratly Islands Dispute: International Law, Conflicting Claims, and Alternative Frameworks for Dispute Resolution,” Digital Scholarship@UNLV, digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/award/17.
[5]. Robin Gonzales, “The Spratly Islands Dispute: International Law, Conflicting Claims, and Alternative Frameworks for Dispute Resolution,” Digital Scholarship@UNLV, digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/award/17.
Section 4: Current State and Future Prospects
The South China Sea dispute remains one of the most complex and volatile geopolitical issues in Asia. Despite efforts at mediation and conflict resolution through international law and diplomatic engagement, the dispute's core issues—sovereignty claims, access to resources, and strategic control—persist. This section explores recent developments, ongoing diplomatic efforts, and potential future scenarios that could influence the dispute’s resolution and its broader impact on regional stability.
Recent Developments
Recent years have seen continued militarization and strategic posturing in the South China Sea. China's construction of artificial islands and military installations on various reefs has escalated tensions, particularly with the Philippines and Vietnam, both of which have also undertaken construction and reinforcement activities on islands they occupy.[1] The United States, though not a claimant in the dispute, has conducted freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs), challenging China's expansive maritime claims and reinforcing the principle of free passage under international law.[2]
Diplomatic Efforts and Challenges
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has played a central role in attempting to foster dialogue and consensus among the disputing parties. The proposed Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea, aimed at preventing escalations and ensuring freedom of navigation, symbolizes these diplomatic efforts. However, negotiations have been protracted, reflecting the difficulty of reconciling the divergent interests and claims of ASEAN members and China.[3]
Legal Frameworks and International Arbitration
The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which invalidated China's "nine-dash line" claim under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), represents a critical juncture in the legal interpretation of maritime sovereignty and rights in the South China Sea. However, China's rejection of the ruling underscores the challenges of enforcing international legal decisions in disputes involving sovereign states.[4]
Prospects
Looking ahead, several scenarios could unfold in the South China Sea dispute. Continued diplomatic engagement, particularly through ASEAN and with the involvement of external powers like the United States, could lead to incremental progress towards conflict management and potential resolution frameworks. However, the risk of escalation remains, particularly if unilateral actions by any claimant lead to military confrontations.
Conclusion
The South China Sea dispute's resolution remains uncertain, with legal, diplomatic, and strategic dimensions deeply intertwined. While international law offers a framework for peaceful dispute resolution, the sovereign interests and regional power dynamics present significant challenges. Continued diplomatic efforts, alongside respect for international legal principles, represent the most viable path towards mitigating tensions and fostering long-term stability in the region.
[1]. BBC News, “Why Is the South China Sea Contentious?” BBC News, 12 July 2016, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349.
[2]. Steven Lee Myers, “Island or Rock? Taiwan Defends Its Claim in South China Sea,” The New York Times, 20 May 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/world/asia/china-taiwan-island-south-sea.html.
[3]. Robin Gonzales, “The Spratly Islands Dispute: International Law, Conflicting Claims, and Alternative Frameworks for Dispute Resolution,” Digital Scholarship@UNLV, digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/award/17.
[4]. Aaron Woods, “Historically Mine: The (Potentially) Legal Basis for China’s Sovereignty Claims to the South China Sea,” Air University (AU), 8 Mar. 2021, www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2528218/historically-mine-the-potentially-legal-basis-for-chinas-sovereignty-claims-to.
References
BBC News. “Why Is the South China Sea Contentious?” BBC News, 12 July 2016. www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349.
Beech, Hannah. “Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From?” Time, 19 July 2016. time.com/4412191/nine-dash-line-9-
south-china-sea.
Chang, Teh-Kuang. “China's Claim of Sovereignty over Spratly and Paracel Islands: A Historical and Legal Perspective.” 23 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 399 (1991). https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol23/iss3/1.
Furtado, Xavier. “International Law and the Dispute over the Spratly Islands: Whither UNCLOS?” Contemporary Southeast Asia 21, no. 3 (1999): 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs21-3d.
Gonzales, Robin. “The Spratly Islands Dispute: International Law, Conflicting Claims, and Alternative Frameworks For Dispute Resolution.” Digital Scholarship@UNLV. digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/award/17.
ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute. “Malaysia and the South China Sea Dispute: Policy Continuity amid ...” Perspective, 20 Mar. 2020. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ISEAS_Perspective_2020_18.pdf.
Myers, Steven Lee. “Island or Rock? Taiwan Defends Its Claim in South China Sea.” The New York Times, 20 May 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/world/asia/china-taiwan-island-south-sea.html.
National Bureau of Asian Research. “Malaysia.” The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR), 9 July 2020. www.nbr.org/publication/malaysia.
National Bureau of Asian Research. “Philippines.” The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR), 9 July 2020. www.nbr.org/publication/philippines.
National Bureau of Asian Research. “Vietnam.” The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR), 9 July 2020. www.nbr.org/publication/vietnam.
Southgate, Laura, and Nicholas Khoo. “Enter the Vanguard State: Reinterpreting ASEAN’s Response to the South China Sea Issue.” Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs 3, no. 2 (2016): 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797016631360.
Woods, Aaron. “Historically Mine: The (Potentially) Legal Basis for China’s Sovereignty Claims to the South China Sea.” Air University (AU), 8 Mar. 2021. www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/2528218/historically-mine-the-potentially-legal-basis-for-chinas-sovereignty-claims-to.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse