Power Shifts and International Law: The Geopolitics of the South China Sea Dispute and Its Implications for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (original) (raw)
Related papers
"The Philippines Confronts China in the South China Sea: Power Politics versus Liberalism-Legalism"
Asian Perspective, 2015
Using the Scarborough Shoal standoff between China and the Philippines as a case study, this paper examines two ways of addressing territorial disputes—the power-politics and liberal/legal approaches. On the one hand, as a big and emergent power, China uses realpolitik to press its expansive claim in the South China Sea. On the other hand, as a small power with the weakest military in Southeast Asia, the Philippines adopts the liberal/legal approach. It applies on China a balancing policy that is predicated on a limited territorial defense build-up and a security guarantee from the U.S., and pursued through the instrumentalities of the ASEAN and other international bodies. During the standoff, China drove the Philippines out of the shoal—a move that stopped short of an armed clash—and effected a de facto occupation of the contested area. As a countermeasure, the Philippines filed a statement of claim with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) not only to confront China’s strategy of power politics head-on but also to test if Thucydides’ age-old aphorism that “the strong do what they have the power to do, and the weak accept what they have to accept” still holds true in the 21st century global society.
UNCLOS and the South China Sea Arbitration: Into Lawfare’s Abyss?
ASIEN – The German Journal on Contemporary Asia, 2017
In July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) announced its highly anticipated award on the Philippines’ case against China’s claims in the South China Sea. However China declared that it would accept neither the tribunal’s proceedings, conducted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), nor the award itself. Even though China remained absent throughout the arbitration process, the issued award has had an impact on the conflict as well as on the future of international law itself. Since the Philippines first invoked the tribunal in late 2013, both states have increasingly accused each other of violating international law. Observers tend to use the term “lawfare” in reference to the current relationship between the two states. I will argue that the use of this neologism — a combination of “law” and “warfare” — appears to be a double-edged sword in the context of this dispute. As an analytical tool, lawfare is useful to understand that by invoking international law, military objectives — for example reclamation of territory, access or denial of access to waters — are achievable. The concept may even have a positive impact on international law, as long as the phenomenon to which it refers unfolds within the rule of law. Nevertheless, one has to reflect in a critical manner on a bourgeoning normative and political instrumentalization of the term. While lawfare as an analytical tool is revealing of today’s power reach of international law, the strategic use of this term is at the same time paradoxically also a burden to the future rule of law.
The Sino-Philippine South China Sea Dispute
American Journal of Chinese Studies, 2016
On January 23, 2013 the Philippines alerted the international communit) that it had initiated a case against China in to help resohe the dispute regarding China's continuing mme into the South China Sea. 'I he body set to hear the case against China is the United '\ations Convention on the Law of the Sea (lJNCLOS). China's re'>pome \\as presented in a scathing 93-point rebuke of the Philippines. China claims that the Philippines has not followed proper channels in ll\ing lo resol\'e territorial disputes, and China remains willing to discuss this al a bilateral level. For their part, Philippine officials claim that China is bullving its \\'a) into hegemonic control of the South China Sea. This paper presents a contexlllal understanding of the current situation with an eye toward history as a way through thb potential geopolitical crisis. Based on precedent in the area and in world history, I argue in this paper that the Philippine government's relia...
The Philippines Confronts China in the South China Sea: Power Politics vs. Liberalism-Legalism
Asian Perspective, 2015
Using the Scarborough Shoal standoff between China and the Philippines as a case study, in this article I examine two approaches to addressing territorial disputes-power politics and liberalismlegalism. China, a major power, uses realpolitik to press its expansive claim in the South China Sea. The Philippines, a small power, adopts the liberal-legal approach that seeks to balance against China. Dur ing the standoff, China drove the Philippines out of the shoal, though stopping short of an armed clash, and effected a de facto oc cupation of the contested area. As a countermeasure, the Philip pines filed a statement of claim with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The confrontation was a test of Thucydides's age-old aphorism that "the strong do what they have the power to do, and the weak accept what they have to accept.
Since 2000, the actions as well as articulations by the stakeholders in the South China Sea (SCS), by those directly involved (claimants) and some with strategic stakes (indirectly), have become particularly assertive. This has led to rising tensions and the serial/frequent occurrences of incidents of confrontationist nature are symbolic of deteriorating regional security environment. The SCS disputes are long-standing with two interesting mixes. Firstly, the combination of history, cartography, and, varying interpretations of doctrines and norms for inter-state delimitation by each claimant. The second mix is the complex web of overlapping, intersecting and intermeshed nature of these claims with varying degrees of sovereignty, territoriality and maritime entitlement implications. This main issues examined are some salient aspects of extant legal framework for deconstructing the sovereignty, territoriality and sovereign rights through the perspective of codified/treaty law and the case law. This paper (pre-publication draft with a few minor typos) forms a chapter of recent;y published edited volume titled "Maritime Dynamics in the Indo-Pacific".
Sovereignty at Sea: The South China Sea Dispute and UNCLOS Implications
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities , 2023
The South China Sea dispute involves overlapping of territorial claims and maritime conflicts among nations like China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. Central to this intricate issue is the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international treaty governing the rights and responsibilities of States concerning global ocean use UNCLOS regulating maritime jurisdictions, defining territorial waters, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and continental shelf. Beyond regional stability, the South China Sea dispute carries global implications due to its impact on trade routes, valuable resources, and strategic alliances. The interplay between the South China Sea dispute and UNCLOS underscores the tension between territorial claims and international legal principles. A nuanced understanding of these complexities is essential for maintaining stability, upholding legal norms, and facilitating peaceful resolutions within the intricate landscape of maritime geopolitics. This article discussed in brief the different concepts under the UNCLOS 1982, and the violation of the provisions of the convention by the China and other states in South China Sea for their own interest in the sea.
South China Sea: International Arbitration Moves Forward
Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC) , 2015
Despite Beijing’s refusal to take part in the proceedings, on 29 October 2015 the Court of Permanent Arbitration (PCA) issued a ruling on jurisdiction and admissibility of the UNCLOS arbitration case launched by the Philippines against China. The Court unanimously decided that it had jurisdiction concerning seven of the fifteen claims put forward by Manila, with a decision on a further seven to be reached when considering their merits. The ruling by the PAC is thus a major victory for Manila and maritime democracies, since China’s view that the Philippines had promised to pursue only negotiations, and her assertion that no decision could be taken on maritime zones until delimitation had taken place, were rejected. While the decision on the merits of the case will have to wait until at least next year, and a ruling in favor of Manila does not guarantee in and by itself that Beijing will comply, this is nevertheless a major step forward for the notion that it is right plus might and not just might in isolation, which will determine the future of this vital sea. The paper looks at the court decision, China's reaction, and Taiwan's position.
The South China Sea Arbitral Award amidst Shifting Philippine Foreign Policy
The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2018
The South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal award was an overwhelming legal and moral victory for the Philippines. The arbitral tribunal categorically declared that China’s nine-dash line claim is incompatible with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, China’s defiance of the ruling and refusal to honor and implement the award pose a serious challenge to Manila’s victory. In addition, the astonishing shift in Philippine foreign policy direction, alongside the change in government, flouts the arbitral award and undermines previous State policies assertive of Philippine maritime and territorial claims in the South China Sea. The current direction of Philippine-China relations under Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has demonstrated positive signs of improvement compared with acrimonious bilateral relations pursued by the previous Aquino administration. The arbitral award has largely been set aside in the government’s effort to restore amicable economic and diplomatic relation...