The South China Sea dispute stands as a formidable and enduring challenge in the realm of international law, encompassing a complex web of historical claims, geopolitical interests, and competing territorial assertions. At the heart of the conflict lies the struggle for sovereignty over a myriad of islands, reefs, and shoals, each laden with strategic importance and rich maritime resources. The multifaceted nature of this dispute principally involves China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Brunei, and Malaysia, all competing for control in a region that holds the key to economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance.
Central to the dispute is China’s controversial "Nine-Dash Line," a demarcation that extends over much of the South China Sea, encroaching upon territories historically claimed by neighbouring nations. China's assertive actions, manifested through the construction of artificial islands, military installations, and administrative control, have raised alarms internationally. The strategic significance of the South China Sea, a vital waterway for $5 trillion of global trade, has drawn the attention of major powers, further complicating an already intricate geopolitical landscape. In the past years, Beijing has been bending the rules of international ocean law in the South China Sea by claiming to protect its exclusive economic zone. Before this article delves into the judicial arbitration reached in 2016 by the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration, firstly, it critically analyses the legal concept that China relies on to justify its military assertiveness in the region. At the heart of this complex issue lies the legal concept of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a maritime zone that extends up to 200 nautical miles from a country's coastline. Stipulated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the convention grants coastal states sovereign rights within their EEZs, including the exclusive rights to exploit and manage natural resources. In the South China Sea, these rights come into direct conflict as multiple nations lay claim to overlapping EEZs, especially with the strategic significance of the sea lanes for trade and the abundant natural resources beneath its waters. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled against China’s claims to economic and historic rights and ruled in favour of the Philippines. In the 497-page ruling, the court argued that “there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line”. Despite the legally binding nature of the ruling, China did not accept nor recognise the South China court decision and continues to this day to militarise the area.
The South China Sea dispute has also manifested in naval skirmishes, confrontations between fishing vessels, and the militarisation of contested territories. The United States has expressed concerns over freedom of navigation, conducting freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) to challenge perceived maritime excesses. After two recent collisions that took place between a Chinese coastguard vessel and a Philippine resupply boat at a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, in the past few days new geopolitical tensions began to emerge due to a US naval ship that entered China’s claimed territorial waters. In response, China accused the United States for “seriously violating China’s sovereignty and security … [undermining] regional peace and stability, and … [of violating] international law and basic norms governing international relations.” This has further intensified the geopolitical dimension of the dispute, shaping a narrative of great power competition in the Asia-Pacific region. To conclude, the delicate balance of power, economic interests, and historical claims creates a geopolitical quagmire that perpetually undermine remote possibilities for peace.
Bibliography
Beckman, R. (2013). The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the maritime disputes in the South China Sea. American Journal of International Law, 107(1), 142-163.
Beijing accuses US navy of “illegally” entering South China Sea territory. (n.d.). Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/4/us-navy-ship-illegally-intruded-insouth-china-sea-territory-says-china
Center for Preventive Action. (2023, June 26). Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea. Global Conflict Tracker; Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/globalconflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea
Lee, H. (2023). The Legality of Militarization of the South China Sea and Its Legal Implications. KMI International Journal of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 15(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.54007/ijmaf.2023.15.1.1
Masahiro Miyoshi miyoshim37.19mm@gmail.com (2012) China's “U-Shaped Line” Claim in the South China Sea: Any Validity Under International Law?, Ocean Development & International Law, 43:1, 1-17, DOI:10.1080/00908320.2011.619374
Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2016). The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China). Pca-Cpa.org. https://pca-cpa.org/en/ cases/7/
South China Sea Islands | Peace Palace Library. (n.d.). Peacepalacelibrary.nl. https:// peacepalacelibrary.nl/south-china-sea-islands
Suisheng Zhao (2018) China and the South China Sea Arbitration: Geopolitics Versus International Law, Journal of Contemporary China, 27:109, 1-15, DOI:
Comments