Peace and stability in the South China Sea are of immense importance to the global system of the 21st century, because this vast oceanic area is home to the world’s busiest economic and energy waterways. The latest ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague over the South China Sea sovereignty disputes has significant legal, diplomatic and geopolitical implications for East Asia.
First, the ruling serves as an institutional template under international law to resolve conflicting claims to maritime territories. The South China Sea disputes result from an ongoing conflict in which China claims to have sovereignty over its maritime frontiers, but Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines also claim to govern some of the islands and “rocks.”
For years, the oceanic sovereignty disputes have exhibited the irreconcilable contradictions between China and its neighbors over the control and use of maritime space — particularly chains of resource-rich islands and rocks — and the enforcement of jurisdiction concerning actions occurring in international waterways.
Late last year, then-Philippine president Benigno Aquino III adopted a tough stance on sovereignty issues and filed a formal complaint against China with an arbitration tribunal under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty signed by both countries.
Subsequently, the court took up the case, reviewing the Philippines’ claim to sovereignty over the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) and Mischief Reef (Meiji Reef, 美濟礁), and urging China to stop further expansion into the maritime zone. Although the court has no authority to enforce its ruling, it has posed a major diplomatic challenge to China.
It remains to be seen whether Beijing will publicly withdraw from the UNCLOS, and whether it will respect international law and take a conciliatory approach toward the Philippines.
Second, the ruling marked the first legal victory that would support the access denial capacity of China’s littoral neighbors. Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea has provoked much concern in Southeast Asia. As China invested in a blue-water navy, it regards maritime Asia as an open frontier and does not recognize any restrictions on projecting its power.
When China proclaimed the whole South China Sea to be its “core concern” in 2010, it flexed its muscles, built garrisons on strategic land formations, and consolidated air and naval strength against US allies.
In 2012, China was prepared for confrontations on several fronts: in the South China Sea with the Philippines near the disputed Scarborough Shoal or Scarborough Reef and with Vietnam over three island groups — the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島), the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島) and Macclesfield Bank (Zhongsha Islands, 中沙群島) — and also in the East China Sea with Japan over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyutai Islands, 釣魚台). Taiwan also claims these formations.
These measures destabilized the situation and undermined the balance of power in the western Pacific.
Nonetheless, the tribunal’s ruling has clarified the status of the South China Sea as being an open transportation corridor for all nations. Freedom of the seas is an international principle that guarantees the freedom of navigation for vessels from any nation. Any nation’s attempt to take over an open-ocean zone contradicts this principle and disrupts the global system. With the court’s ruling, US allies will be in a stronger position to seek external support and expand mutual defense assistance.
While the US and the EU publicly supported the ruling, their overall response seemed moderate. The concern for a stable relationship with China has fortunately taken precedence over the impulse to conflict and confrontation.
It is worth mentioning that Taiwan under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used to claim to have historically exercised absolute control over a huge part of the South China Sea — such as the Spratly Islands, the Pratas Islands (Dongsha Islands, 東沙群島) and the Paracel islands.
When the Philippines said that Itu Aba Island (Taiping Island, 太平島) in the Spratlys was a rock, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) opposed it and invited journalists and diplomats to tour the disputed area. However, The Hague tribunal did not invite Taiwan to join the arbitration.
Unlike China, Taiwan has so far avoided taking any assertive action to enforce its territorial claims. The nation should note that Beijing’s refusal to compromise over maritime disputes reveals the remnants of Han Chinese nationalism and Cold War ideology.
As Taiwan is seriously positioning itself as a new stabilizing force in regional politics, it might need to reconsider its outdated claim over the vast oceanic area and support a multilateral platform to handle these maritime sovereignty conflicts.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York.
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused