The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, on July 12 ruled in favor of the Philippines in a maritime dispute with China, concluding that China’s claims of historical rights over the bulk of the South China Sea were invalid.
So far commentaries have largely put emphasis on military, strategic and economic concerns. In fact, this arbitration award is not just an issue of geopolitics and sovereignty, but about the sustainability and wellbeing of our international commons.
The South China Sea is one of the most biodiverse areas on the planet — home to nearly 76 percent of the world’s coral species and 37 percent of the world’s reef fish. After consulting numerous experts and examining satellite imagery, the arbitral tribunal found that China’s recent large-scale land reclamation and construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) had caused grave harm to the coral reef environment and fragile ecosystems.
In addition, the final ruling clearly said that Chinese authorities were “fully aware of” and “actively tolerated” Chinese fishermen using propellers to harvest endangered giant clams — a method that damages marine life. These activities violate China’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
University of Miami, Florida, marine biology professor John McManus has called upon China and other nations in the region to end their conflicting views over territory and declare the South China Sea a special protection zone, like the Antarctic Specially Protected Area.
This proposal is morally appreciated and theoretically possible under international law, but it might face practical difficulties in this case. In particular, the disputed area is strategically important for military forces, the transport of international trade and hydrocarbon drilling.
However, we should not overlook the role of environmental peace-building in post-conflict settings. More specifically, internationalized management of natural resources can provide a useful opportunity to build trust between nations. International environmental law could mainstream sustainable considerations into the post-conflict activities of nations and international organizations.
Successful examples include environmental cooperation on water resources as specifically addressed in Annex IV of the October 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan. Peru and Ecuador jointly created and manage “peace parks” — ecological protection zones in the Cordillera del Condor, Ecuador — as part of efforts to end long-standing border disputes.
At the multinational level, the World Bank has established a Post-Conflict Fund to finance projects with environmental sustainability elements, such as the 2012 recovery plan of Mindanao in the Philippines. Furthermore, since 1999, the UN Environment Program’s Post Conflict and Disaster Management Branch has managed several post-crisis environmental assessments in Afghanistan, Nigeria, Congo, Syria and the Balkans. These types of environmental assessments are sometimes explicitly featured in international litigation documents.
Overall, these efforts suggest that environmental considerations are continuously affecting peacemaking activities worldwide. Today, although Beijing has not addressed any environmental issue in its public statements, a multilateral action plan for South China Sea regional assessment and ecological restoration should be included in the post-arbitration negotiation agenda. Ultimately, international lawyers might not only defend the political interests of their nations, but also the beauty of our environment.
Yang Chung-han is a doctoral candidate researching international environmental law at the University of Cambridge and a member of the Taipei Bar Association.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS