South China Sea still a conundrum for the region

South China Sea still a conundrum for the region

China claims almost all of the South China Sea along the nine-dash line dots on its map, while the Philippines argues that the claim made by China is against the international law. (File photo)
China claims almost all of the South China Sea along the nine-dash line dots on its map, while the Philippines argues that the claim made by China is against the international law. (File photo)

The Permanent Court of Arbitration is to rule on the South China Sea disputes today, but there are no easy answers to the long-standing problem.ICA

China is known for its strong opposition to the PCA's role. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said: "I again stress that the arbitration court has no jurisdiction in the case and on the relevant matter, and should not hold hearings or make a ruling."

The case filed by the Philippines at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea at The Hague in 2013 protests the Chinese claims in the South China Sea. Beijing insists that Manila's case is an issue of territorial sovereignty over which the tribunal has no jurisdiction.

China claims almost all of the South China Sea along the nine-dash line. The Philippines argues that the claim made by China is against international law.

The current round of tension between the two countries began in 2008 after a tense but bloodless standoff over the Scarborough Shoal, which led to China gaining de facto control of it in 2012.

In recent years, the attention has shifted to China's construction and installation of military-capable infrastructure on the Spratly Islands. The pace and scale of China's island-building have dwarfed other countries that engage in similar activities and is beginning to take on a more overtly strategic character, which includes the construction of runways and port facilities.

Because of the capital spent on island building by individual countries, the sea's rich natural resources and the yearly revenue generated from the sea routes, none of the disputing parties are likely to sacrifice or surrender their claims easily.

The underlining problem is the claim of overlapping areas by different countries, involving China, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan.

One of the fundamental principles of Asean has been to resolve disputes peacefully and reach agreement by consensus. But over the years, Asean's position on the South China Sea disputes has been weak and at times it has been unable to formulate a consensus.

This is partly due to the fact that not all 10 Asean members are claimants to the South China Sea. Another reason is that members of Asean have overlapping claims among themselves.

One other reason is due to the bilateral relations between China and some smaller Asean members, such as Laos and Cambodia. Because of its economic and military power, China has been able to silence some Asean members or even make them support its position.

China is aware that a united Asean voice will have greater force. Asean's inability to build a united front is a major challenge for the regional bloc.

There is no single country in Asean, which is a party to the South China Sea disputes, capable of challenging China individually. This is an important reason why Asean welcomes the role of the United States to balance power.

While China insists on talks among the parties concerned, claimants in Asean prefer multilateralism or the Court of Arbitration. The existence of two diametrically opposing approaches is a major challenge for bringing a mutually acceptable solution to the South China Sea disputes.

Since China has openly refused to acknowledge or accept the ruling of the arbitration court, despite the court gaining support from several countries, and due to its lack of enforcement power, this channel is likely to be inconclusive.

However, the reactions of the international community in the aftermath of the court's ruling will put pressure on the disputing parties. The ruling may also provide a justification for a coalition action.

For a peaceful resolution, claimants should be willing to abandon their confrontational attitude and agree to find some common ground even if that requires sacrificing certain portions of their claims.

One possible solution would be for all claimants to limit their claim to the areas of 200 nautical miles (370km) of Exclusive Economic Zone in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). By agreeing to such a proposal, the parties can agree to leave international waters for free navigation.

Another possible solution is for concerned parties to establish common ownership of the disputed areas whereby all the revenue from the South China Sea is equitably shared among the littoral countries.

One other possibility is for the disputing countries to specifically lay out their claims and allow a neutral party to adjudicate on the basis of Unclos or any other relevant international laws.


Nehginpao Kipgen, PhD, is assistant professor and executive director of the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Jindal School of International Affairs, OP Jindal Global University.

Nehginpao Kipgen

Political scientist

Nehginpao Kipgen, PhD, is a political scientist and author of 'Democracy Movement in Myanmar: Problems and Challenges'.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT