In recent weeks, the South China Sea has once again become a focal point of geopolitical tensions, particularly between China and the Philippines. A recent skirmish near a disputed shoal has intensified the war of words between the two nations, with both sides accusing each other of provocation and violating sovereignty
The Incident
The confrontation occurred near a shoal claimed by both countries. The Chinese Coast Guard allegedly used water cannons to block a Philippine military supply boat from delivering essential provisions (food, fuel, and water) to troops stationed on a decommissioned warship grounded on the reef in the South China Sea. This incident took place near the disputed Second Thomas Shoal and is the latest flare-up in a long-running territorial conflict involving not only China and the Philippines but also Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Brunei.
Diplomatic Fallout
Branding China’s actions as “excessive” and “dangerous,” the Philippines summoned Beijing’s envoy in Manila to lodge a formal protest. In response, China, which claims sovereignty over the submerged reef (known as Ayungin in the Philippines and Ren’ai in China), urged the Philippine military to remove the grounded ship from the area. However, Manila remains defiant, asserting that it will never abandon its post in Ayungin Shoal. China, in turn, issued a strong warning, vowing to continue taking necessary measures to safeguard its sovereignty1.
The Bigger Picture
The South China Sea holds immense strategic importance as a major shipping route and a potential repository of oil and gas reserves. Territorial disputes in this region involve complex historical and legal claims. Over the years, China has gradually increased its presence in the South China Sea, seizing the Paracel Islands from Vietnam in 1974 and taking control of Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands from the Philippines in 1995.
Legal Rulings
In 2016, a tribunal at The Hague, based on a suit brought by the Philippines, ruled that China had no “historic title” over the waters of the South China Sea. The tribunal further declared that China’s “nine-dash line” – a vague, U-shaped demarcation that cuts into the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of neighboring countries – was not valid under international law. Despite this ruling, tensions persist, and the need for dialogue and diplomatic efforts remains crucial to prevent further escalation and maintain stability in the region.
The South China Sea dispute is multifaceted, requiring a delicate balance of diplomacy, legal strategies, and regional cooperation. As the standoff continues, the international community closely watches developments in this critical maritime area1.
What are the Historical Roots of the South China Sea Dispute?
The South China Sea dispute, a complex and multi-layered conflict, has its roots deeply embedded in the region’s colonial history and the evolving legal regime of international law. The contemporary conflict over this strategic body of water can be traced back to the geopolitical changes following World War II.
The Origins
The historical claims of China to the South China Sea date back to the “11-dash line,” introduced in 1947 by the Nationalists (Kuomintang) under Chiang Kai-shek during the Chinese Civil War. This demarcation, later reduced to the “nine-dash line,” encompasses roughly 90 percent of the sea and is based on a vague legal and geographic basis that conflicts with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)1.
Colonial and Post-Colonial Claims
The territorial features in the South China Sea have been contested since the colonial era. Various European powers, including the British and the French, exerted control over different parts of the region, leaving a legacy of overlapping claims. After the decolonization period, newly independent states like the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia, along with Brunei and Taiwan, asserted their claims based on historical usage and geographical proximity.
The Legal Framework
The disputes intensified with the introduction of UNCLOS, which established guidelines for defining territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs). However, the ambiguity of historical claims versus legal entitlements under UNCLOS has led to a series of standoffs and confrontations among the claimant states.
China’s Ambitions
China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea has been viewed as the primary driver of the conflicts in recent decades. Its claims, represented by the nine-dash line, have led to tensions with neighboring countries. China’s activities, including the construction of artificial islands and military installations, have been perceived as efforts to secure maritime frontiers for strategic and economic advantages2.
The ASEAN Factor
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been involved in the dispute, aiming to mediate and promote a multilateral approach to conflict resolution. However, the varying interests and alliances of ASEAN member states have complicated these efforts.
The International Dimension
The South China Sea dispute has also drawn in external powers, notably the United States, which has expressed its commitment to freedom of navigation and overflight in the region. The involvement of these powers has added another layer to the already complex dispute.
The historical roots of the South China Sea dispute are intricate, involving a mix of colonial legacies, nationalistic aspirations, and legal interpretations. The ongoing tensions underscore the need for a comprehensive and peaceful resolution that respects international law and the sovereignty of all nations involved.
How Has International Law Addressed Territorial Claims in the South China Sea?
The South China Sea, a critical maritime region with significant economic and strategic importance, has been the subject of intense territorial disputes. International law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), has played a pivotal role in addressing these claims.
The Role of UNCLOS
UNCLOS, which came into force in 1994, is the key international treaty that governs maritime rights and responsibilities. It delineates the extent of territorial seas, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and continental shelves. Under UNCLOS, coastal states have sovereign rights over the resources within their EEZs, which extend 200 nautical miles from their shores1.
The Arbitration Case of the Philippines vs. China
A landmark moment in the application of international law to the South China Sea dispute was the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines against China in 2013. The case was brought before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, which in 2016, ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines. The tribunal found that China’s historical claims, encapsulated by the “nine-dash line,” had no legal basis under UNCLOS. It also clarified that none of the disputed features could generate an EEZ of their own, thereby undermining China’s expansive territorial claims2.
China’s Stance and Actions
Despite being a signatory to UNCLOS, China has consistently rejected the tribunal’s ruling, maintaining its claim over the majority of the South China Sea. China has engaged in land reclamation and the construction of artificial islands, some of which have been equipped with military installations. This has raised concerns about China’s interpretation and application of international law, as it appears to be creating facts on the ground to bolster its territorial claims3.
The Response of Other Claimants
Other claimants, including Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan, have also based their claims on UNCLOS provisions. However, the overlapping nature of these claims and the lack of clarity in historical records have made resolution difficult. These nations have sought to reinforce their claims through legal means, diplomatic engagement, and in some cases, by enhancing their military presence in the region1.
The International Community’s Involvement
The international community, particularly Western powers such as the United States and European nations, have emphasized the importance of freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea. They have called for the disputes to be resolved peacefully and in accordance with international law. The U.S. has conducted “freedom of navigation operations” to challenge what it sees as excessive maritime claims by China1.
The ASEAN’s Role
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been involved in efforts to manage the disputes, advocating for a multilateral approach and the drafting of a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. However, the diversity of interests among ASEAN members has complicated these efforts1.
International law, through UNCLOS and other legal frameworks, provides a basis for addressing territorial claims in the South China Sea. However, the effectiveness of these legal instruments is contingent upon the willingness of the involved parties to adhere to the rule of law. The South China Sea dispute remains a test case for the application of international law in resolving complex territorial conflicts.